Jill Stein: There is a Plan B for Sanders' Supporters looking to waste their vote - Polidicks

[QUOTE]As the Democratic primary winds down to a close, Green Party likely nominee Dr. Jill Stein said she wanted Bernie Sanders supporters to "know that there's a plan B here to continue to fight that revolution." Sanders went from a long-shot candidate to the head of a national progressive movement in months, and Stein said she believed many of his supporters, turned off by presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's record and a bruising primary season, might go Stein's way. Stein offered condolences to Sanders supporters and praised Sanders for running a "revolutionary" movement that spoke to the issues she also cares about in an interview with CNN Tuesday evening.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/08/politics/jill-stein-bernie-sanders-supporters/index.html[/url] Remember people to vote who you want to, don't let the naysayers guilt you with the spoiler effect bullshit.

A vote for Stein is a vote away from Hillary which is virtually a vote for Trump

If there's even a minuscule chance of having neither Trump or Hillary in power, Id certainty take it

Yes, go tell people to vote for the Green party, splitting the vote for the Democrats and giving Trump exactly the same advantage that already allowed him to win the Republican primaries. Brilliant.

I once asked a group of online people (like 50 or so, on that recent hivemind UNU thing. Mostly young college redditors) whether, in the case of bernie not winning the primary, they would vote for hillary, or vote for trump/abstain. It was about split 50/50 between the two. So I don't have much hope for the democratic nominee this time around. Then again, trump himself isn't the most widely reputable individual, so I'm hoping his reputation as a demagogue will take away some of the popular vote. More likely his controversialness will simply empower him; unfortunately.

I mean, I guess it's a given that they're gonna want to collect support for themselves and spread their message, but I have to wonder sometimes if these third-party candidates understand what the spoiler effect is and if it means anything to them.

How about people vote for who they want to vote for instead of trying to guilt people into playing ball? I thought we were against this 2 party system? Hillary Clinton needs to earn the votes of Sanders' supporters by making policy concessions. It shouldn't be taken for granted that people will support her just to stop Trump.

[QUOTE=Katska;50483096]I mean, I guess it's a given that they're gonna want to collect support for themselves and spread their message, but I have to wonder sometimes if these third-party candidates understand what the spoiler effect is and if it means anything to them.[/QUOTE] Well I mean, what's the point of their party at all if they are always going to be afraid of taking votes away from somebody?

At this point, I just want the Democrats to lose, so they get the fucking message that they need to fuck off.

[QUOTE=Hanso;50483148]Well I mean, what's the point of their party at all if they are always going to be afraid of taking votes away from somebody?[/QUOTE] Yeah, I don't feel like it would be healthy for them not to exist or run at all. I like to tell people not to give them votes unless they really, really feel like they have to, but I can see it possibly being a bad thing for the two main parties to only have to compete with each other for votes. It's just that I wonder how they feel about knowing that their campaign is drawing votes away from their closest ideological relatives and possibly helping their common enemy win, or if they even understand that they're doing that in the first place.

[QUOTE=nikomo;50483171]At this point, I just want the Democrats to lose, so they get the fucking message that they need to fuck off.[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=Katska;50483177]Yeah, I don't feel like it would be healthy for them not to exist or run at all. I like to tell people not to give them votes unless they really, really feel like they have to, but I can see it possibly being a bad thing for the two main parties to only have to compete with each other for votes. It's just that I wonder how they feel about knowing that their campaign is drawing votes away from their closest ideological relatives and possibly helping their common enemy win, or if they even understand that they're doing that in the first place.[/QUOTE] but third party candidates should be using the spoiler effect as a weapon if people just voted democrats, then the party would never change, and there would never be any need for them to appeal to others other than their current voter base however, if it suddenly comes out that a sizable chunk of democrats are immensely dissatisfied with the current party and are going independent, they have to start making changes. You're looking at a time where the republican party has a candidate that they fucking hate, so their party is in an extremely fragile position as well this is how you escape a two party system, you don't escape it by going "you need to vote hillary because otherwise trump wins", that's how you doom a country to it

[QUOTE=nikomo;50483171]At this point, I just want the Democrats to lose, so they get the fucking message that they need to fuck off.[/QUOTE] Honestly this. It's mesmorizing seeing all the people who in that past cried about a lack of "real" progressives/not liberal enough progressives, and then go on to support Hillary thus contributing to the problem. The Democrats have no incentive to be true progressives if all the whiners will give in and vote for them anyways lol.

[QUOTE=nikomo;50483171]At this point, I just want the Democrats to lose, so they get the fucking message that they need to fuck off.[/QUOTE] this is so caustic it doesn't even make sense to say

'You need to vote Hillary to stop Trump' is really rich considering Sanders consistently polled better against Trump by a substantial margin. What the Democrats are really saying is 'Now that we've eliminated the strong candidate, please vote for our weak candidate because she might not win otherwise'. No, fuck off, scare tactics don't work when you're the one who created the situation in the first place. If she loses because disaffected Bernie voters go Green, it's not their fault for failing to kowtow to the party line, it's the Democratic Party's fault for ramming through an unlikable and unelectable candidate.

The vultures circle the Corpse. [QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50483130] Hillary Clinton needs to earn the votes of Sanders' supporters by making policy concessions. It shouldn't be taken for granted that people will support her just to stop Trump.[/QUOTE] The ball is in Hillary's court. She knows most Bernie supporters will vote for her so policy concessions would just be a slap in the face to the moderates who voted for her. But lets roll with your logic, since Bernie is taking this all the way should he make any concessions to Hillary voters? Surely if Hillary is expected to kowtow to the minority of Bernie supporters then Bernie should do the same to the majority of Hillary's. Remember to consider that Bernie's plan is to overturn the will of the Democratic voters.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50483226]but third party candidates should be using the spoiler effect as a weapon if people just voted democrats, then the party would never change, and there would never be any need for them to appeal to others other than their current voter base however, if it suddenly comes out that a sizable chunk of democrats are immensely dissatisfied with the current party and are going independent, they have to start making changes. You're looking at a time where the republican party has a candidate that they fucking hate, so their party is in an extremely fragile position as well this is how you escape a two party system, you don't escape it by going "you need to vote hillary because otherwise trump wins", that's how you doom a country to it[/QUOTE] This is basically what I was thinking about, but it doesn't really have anything to do with escaping a two-party system, it just helps to keep the big ones in check a bit. It's odd because I feel that "you need to vote hillary because otherwise trump wins" is actually sort of a true statement because it's basically impossible to convince enough voters to vote for one alternative party in order to actually win. But I also feel like it's true that Clinton having to compete with people like Jill Stein could also be a good thing. It's just that that requires a lot of people who reject the above statement to exist in order to work. Which could actually threaten Clinton's chances at winning. Which could mean 4-8 years of President Trump. I don't like this system. [editline]aaaaaaaaaa[/editline] If Jill Stein is consciously using the spoiler effect as a weapon, then how would she feel knowing that she could possibly blow it by gaining too much support and be partially responsible for a Trump presidency?

still baffles me that america is so adamant in their two party system.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50483085]Yes, go tell people to vote for the Green party, splitting the vote for the Democrats and giving Trump exactly the same advantage that already allowed him to win the Republican primaries. Brilliant.[/QUOTE] With that logic might as well just forget Democracy and let congress vote for the next president. If we can't vote for who we want to then what's the fucking point? Fuck voting only 2 parties, even if it might mean letting a total dumbass get elected we gotta draw the line somewhere. I will never vote for a lying scumbag, I will suggest to as many people as I can to vote third party, and no amount of name calling is going to stop that.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50483243]'You need to vote Hillary to stop Trump' is really rich considering Sanders consistently polled better against Trump by a substantial margin.[/QUOTE] How? Do you people forget that Hillary already won the primary vote? More people voted Hillary, than Bernie. That is the [I]reason[/I] she is going to be running in the general.

If Trump wins, it will do irreversible damage to Sander's cause. It will outweigh any sort of change you're hoping to achieve by not voting Hillary this year.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50483351]If Trump wins, it will do irreversible damage to Sander's cause. It will outweigh any sort of change you're hoping to achieve by not voting Hillary this year.[/QUOTE] You can bet on it. Name a bill the democrats have passed in the last 8 years, that the republicans dislike; It's going to be repealed with how much control the republicans will have.

[QUOTE=Katska;50483275]If Jill Stein is consciously using the spoiler effect as a weapon, then how would she feel knowing that she could possibly blow it by gaining too much support and be partially responsible for a Trump presidency?[/QUOTE] Nobody but Trump voters are responsible for anything. The democratic process is based on the fact that you should only vote for whoever you want to vote, without any other influence. If americans didn't get guilted in the "if you don't vote use you're voting for the enemy" mentality it would not be a problem in the first place, because it is quite literally a dog biting its tail. Nobody votes for the smaller parties, because nobody votes for the smaller parties. If everybody voted who they wanted to vote, there would be no problem. Lose this election cycle to win the next. This fixation with having to be on the winning team is 100% detrimental.

[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;50483379]Nobody but Trump voters are responsible for anything. The democratic process is based on the fact that you should only vote for whoever you want to vote, without any other influence. If americans didn't get guilted in the "if you don't vote use you're voting for the enemy" mentality it would not be a problem in the first place, because it is quite literally a dog biting its tail. Nobody votes for the smaller parties, because nobody votes for the smaller parties. If everybody voted who they wanted to vote, there would be no problem. Lose this election cycle to win the next. This fixation with having to be on the winning team is 100% detrimental.[/QUOTE] Exactly, with these people it's a "either you're for me or against me" type of thing.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50483351]If Trump wins, it will do irreversible damage to Sander's cause. It will outweigh any sort of change you're hoping to achieve by not voting Hillary this year.[/QUOTE] Frankly if you ask me it's the democrats own damn fault, they wanted to all in on Hillary and if it shoots them selves in the foot they got no one to blame but them selves, how dare the people take a chance at not having two candidates no one likes but one has to win because REASONS. This entire election is a complete joke.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50483085]Yes, go tell people to vote for the Green party, splitting the vote for the Democrats and giving Trump exactly the same advantage that already allowed him to win the Republican primaries. Brilliant.[/QUOTE] You might not have noticed but many conservatives and or republicans are also turning away from Trump(Ryan, Corker,Graham)

[QUOTE=Killuah;50483407]You might not have noticed but many conservatives and or republicans are also turning away from Trump(Ryan, Corker,Graham)[/QUOTE] True. It remains to be seen where the bigger split will occur.

[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;50483379]Nobody but Trump voters are responsible for anything. The democratic process is based on the fact that you should only vote for whoever you want to vote, without any other influence. If americans didn't get guilted in the "if you don't vote use you're voting for the enemy" mentality it would not be a problem in the first place, because it is quite literally a dog biting its tail. Nobody votes for the smaller parties, because nobody votes for the smaller parties. If everybody voted who they wanted to vote, there would be no problem. Lose this election cycle to win the next. This fixation with having to be on the winning team is 100% detrimental.[/QUOTE] Sorry, but in the US election system, voting for your most-liked candidate if they have no chance to win is preventing them from winning [i]anything[/i] and making it more likely that the candidate you most disagree with will win. This isn't something about Americans picking the lesser of two evils. It can't magically be cured if everyone just actually voted for the candidate they liked the most. It's a documented, very real spoiler effect that has occurred time and time again in US history and in the histories of other FPTP election systems. It isn't about "being on the winning team." It's about not letting the winning team be the person you would [i]least[/i] like to have as your representative. The second place winner gets [i]nothing[/i]. The third place gets [i]nothing[/i]. We do not have proportional representation - if you don't get the most votes, you get absolutely nothing. This system not only [i]encourages[/i] a polarized two-party system, it [i]mandates[/i] it. Voting third party has one purpose: pressuring the major party to adopt some of the policies of the smaller party in order to assuage concerns and regain their voter base's trust. The third party themselves will not win until a primary party manages to simultaneously shoot itself in the foot with a shotgun and knock their teeth out with the stock at the same time. And that isn't happening this election cycle, no matter what people say.

[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;50483379]Nobody but Trump voters are responsible for anything. The democratic process is based on the fact that you should only vote for whoever you want to vote, without any other influence. If americans didn't get guilted in the "if you don't vote use you're voting for the enemy" mentality it would not be a problem in the first place, because it is quite literally a dog biting its tail. Nobody votes for the smaller parties, because nobody votes for the smaller parties. If everybody voted who they wanted to vote, there would be no problem. Lose this election cycle to win the next. This fixation with having to be on the winning team is 100% detrimental.[/QUOTE] It's not really a problem of mentality so much as it is a problem of being almost inevitable with the system the United States uses for elections. If it's a problem of mentality, then you would basically need the power of mind control on an utterly massive scale in order to curb it. I've spent a lot of time trying to explain this before, and I honestly don't want to do that again right now, so I'm just going to recommend that everyone here do some quick reading on [I]the spoiler effect[/I], [I]Duverger's law[/I], [I]First Past The Post[/I], and the [I]12th Amendment[/I]. I don't want to be condescending or anything right now, and I'm really sorry if that's how I come across. It's just that I really don't feel up to doing this again right now, sorry. [editline]9th June 2016[/editline] Thank you, .Isak.

Its like watching the end of the world in slow motion at this point.