> You'll be literally voting for the person who sent _thousands_ of people to prison for relatively minor offenses and kept them there for slave labor, and the guy who wrote the laws under which she had done so.
Actually I wont, as I'm not a US citizen / don't live in the US. But I certainly think it's a valid criticism that the two party system leaves little choice in elections. I live in the UK where it's not quite so bad, but a proportional electoral system is still #1 on my list of political desires.
> votes for people who represent the majority of your beliefs
This is currently very close to impossible in the US. We have a two-party system, solidified by our First Past the Post voting system. I am forced to cast one vote for the candidate who represents my views the most, which ends up being about 10-20% of my views.
On top of this, once someone does get elected, our political system is such that politicians listen to the highest payers first, constituents at a distant second.
Going out and voting does very little. Yes, we should still do it, and not give up, but until we fix our broken voting system such that citizens can vote for people who actually represent them without the spoiler effect and until we fix our political system so politicians are accountable to their constituents again, internet activism, public shaming, and what comes down to basically pestering the hell out of these people is a perfectly good line of defense.
>You can care about your countries politics and not support either primary candidate, or the political structures they represent.
Did I say or even imply you couldn't? No, I didnt. I was simply disagreeing that these candidates are the same.
I'll be voting for my interpretation of the "lesser evil" unapologetically.
I'm not 'wasting my life in the trenches', I'm an American citizen with an opinion. I respect your decision to vote third party or not at all, but please stop trying to shame me for "being evil" and voting how I see fit.
> I so wish the U.S. moved to a proportional representation/multi-party system sooner rather than later. I'm so sick and tired of their extremely partisan crap. It seems to make everything worse off. The partisan reality-distortion fields are getting bigger and more powerful than Apple's in the Steve Jobs era.
True. I don't advertise this, but I really have a difficult time respecting anyone who would vote for a major party presidential candidate (unless they live in a swing state). It's either a misunderstanding of the longer-term game theory involved or a lack of willingness to risk being on the losing side.
> You really only have a choice between two identical assholes. There's no point in voting unless America drastically changes its voting system to something more democratic.
Some people insist that the entire point of democracy is to restrain power. In that sense, voting for the lesser of two evils is a perfect representation of democracy: you're voting for which set of restraints to put on, not what kind of future you want.
>I can't understand how anyone in the US accepts the status quo of their terrible and flawed election system.
Your next paragraph shows you understood all too well. People support things like long voting lines because it suppresses the votes of other people they don't think should be voting at all.
> If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the next set of assholes.
Really?
I'm not sure how the UK system works, but in the US it's based on the state. (this is only re: presidential election) I live in NY, and democrats always taken NY state in presidential election just because they're democrats. Same with California. And in Texas, Republican candidate always wins because he's a Republican. There may be some exceptions to the rule, but very few.
So my vote didn't really count in the last election, because no matter how I voted, Obama would still win NY.
This is a product of a broken two party system that doesn't allow any non-asshole candidate to get elected. It's always a choice between a giant douche and turd sandwich.
Having said that, I still voted - for the third party, even though they had no chance. Maybe if one day a third party candidate gets enough voted something will change.
>>I’ve heard this take before and it makes no sense to me.
I’m assuming that’s because you’re not trying to vote in candidates who consistently support a small group of loudly aggrieved people to inflict their will on the vast majority of the country.
>> our government is elected by the people and so regardless of what we allow them to do, as long as it doesn't affect the ability of people to fairly vote for their representation
It is though? I make the case that is not. A large amount of the population is disenfranchised either legally or by virtue of not having any person they feel represents them due to the nature of the 2 party system
The vast majority of people that do vote today are voting AGAINST someone, i.e "I don't like Trump but I really do not like Clinton" or "I do not like Clinton but I really do not like Trump"
The way our elections are held is a farce and more people every year are simply opting at believing it is a waste of time, and a few studies show it is a waste of time as the politicians do not really listen to the will of the people anyway
There are multiple ways to improve the system. Doing away with First Past the post voting would go along way. I also support removing party affiliation from the ballot. People need to vote for individuals not parties
I have other but none of them will ever be enacted
> That's a really low bar for a political candidate to win your vote.
Actually, I think it's a fairly high bar. At least in my interpretation:
>> That's all they would have to do to get my vote....nothing else.
I interpret this as the candidate in question should not make any other promises.
> I'm sure I will get downvoted by some / many HNers, but seriously... Do you honestly think that this is the right approach to use your right to vote, considering that many people in the past gave their life to give it to you?
Eh, voting is a waste of time, if you goal is to change anything. (It's a good use of your time, if voting makes you feel good, or helps you with your tribe.)
The problem is that candidates are becoming more extreme to cater to the more extreme parts of the electorate. That doesn't really moderates a real choice when deciding on whom to vote for.
> Vote for a candidate you do support, even if you know they won't win.
I respect people who do this tremendously.
However, my position is different. I say - the system is not legitimate, and I do not acquiesce to it. It would be hypocritical of me to try to take a share of power that I think is immoral, wrong, and shouldn't exist. In the meantime, I obey mandates that I don't believe in from a mix of fear and cowardice. I'm not proud of that, though, and it makes me sad to think about and acknowledge.
But I do respect the people trying to change the system from the inside.
> (Disclaimer: do not support Trump, but not Democrat / Republican, both parties are dirty in their own way).
With current winner take all voting structures in the US, this isn't exactly an option. Winner-take-all voting systems end up with only two parties, because that is the only viable way to win.
What we need is ranked choice voting so that voters are not penalized for supporting third and fourth options.
> If one day voters are given a secure voting application they can vote on all issues, it will be great.
I'm not sure I share your confidence in that. A representative government has it's positives, such-as people who are dedicated to govern while we all work, etc. And with only 50% turn out, or less, you'd get a skewed populous actually voting on these things.
> If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home.
Oh, certainly. But very few people dislike both candidates equally. I didn't think Clinton was a particularly good candidate, but I was extremely concerned about the prospect of Trump being President. In that situation, my most sensible path is to vote for Clinton, despite my reservations. A vote for a third party would be a waste unless the system was changed in a way that would make it meaningful. All that said, I live in New York, so my vote doesn't make a damn difference anyway.
> It's the fault of the American people for voting these morons into office.
Eh, not so much. Americans are forced to express their complex ideas and preferences through a system that consists of a handful of essentially binary choices. And most voters probably don't even strongly approve of any of the choices they're given.
>There is a fallacy there - you believe, that if voting Republican does not improve situation, but can likely be detrimental, its better to stick with alternative.
No, I don't believe in the two-party system. If someone voted Green, Libertarian, or otherwise because they believed a third-party vote (especially down-ballot) would actually help address their problems, more power to them.
Actually I wont, as I'm not a US citizen / don't live in the US. But I certainly think it's a valid criticism that the two party system leaves little choice in elections. I live in the UK where it's not quite so bad, but a proportional electoral system is still #1 on my list of political desires.
reply