• H3H3 - Who I'm Voting for President re: Casey Neistat
    47 replies, posted
[video=youtube;PjTc-EiwHqc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjTc-EiwHqc[/video] Ethan hits the nail on the head. I feel like some of the SH regulars need to listen to this one too.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51216383] I feel like some of the SH regulars need to listen to this one too.[/QUOTE] SH posters and logic? It'd be easier to prank the pope.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51216480]You contribute -0- when you "write in" and voting 3rd party is requesting a new set of 2 parties. You can ~protest~ but whats the point of a protest if nobody will give a fuck. If you want more options, convince the Democrats or whoever replaces GOP to remove first past the post and winner takes all. You cant do this in 20 days. So vote Hillary, because Trump is pure bad, Hillar is Obama--, and 3rd party / write in is basically abstaining and saying "I dont care".[/QUOTE] -snipped this because the guy below me said what I wanted to say much better and with less antagonizing-
If you wanna vote Hillary because you don't want Trump, go for it. Heck, campaign for Clinton - you are right that voting for a 3rd party is pointless in practice as it won't affect the outcome of this election. But if someone wants to vote for a 3rd party candidate, then by all means do that aswell and don't antagonize people for doing it. If you wanna vote Trump, that's fine aswell.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51216480]You contribute -0- when you "write in" and voting 3rd party is requesting a new set of 2 parties. You can ~protest~ but whats the point of a protest if nobody will give a fuck.[/quote] This is an infinite loop; no one protests because "nobody will give a fuck" because no one protests. [quote]If you want more options, convince the Democrats or whoever replaces GOP to remove first past the post and winner takes all. You cant do this in 20 days.[/quote] You can't, but you can start the process by not just falling in line like a good little Republican/Democrat because the other candidate is worse. Edit: To be clear on this point, I agree with the above poster in so much as "vote for whoever you want to". My point was the mindset of I hate this system, I hate the status quo, but I'm going to continue with it anyway because the other candidate is a scary boogeyman is--in the long run, maybe this election isn't the best example--going to just further entrench the status quo and make the situation even worse, as we have seen with the middle ground becoming more and more empty in terms of electected officials who occupy it. [quote] So vote Hillary, because Trump is pure bad, Hillar is Obama--, and 3rd party / write in is basically abstaining and saying "I dont care".[/QUOTE] No, only not voting truly is an "I don't care" vote (or rather "I'm irrelevant because I don't vote thus no party is going to give a shit about me 'vote'"), voting for a third party is saying "I like this party's policies and/or this candidate, be more like them", writing in some random thing is more a "fuck the system" or "all of these are bad options" vote.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51216589]This is an infinite loop; no one protests because "nobody will give a fuck" because no one protests.[/QUOTE] no it aint he's talking about one specific type of protest, not the logic behind protesting in general
If people think that "Voting for X is a wasted vote" then it's a self fulfilling prophecy. It's that kind of mindset which only aids the establishment.
If I was an american citizen I'd personally vote for Hillary because I don't want Trump, and I also think the other 3rd party candidates are worse than Hillary, but if Trump came to power the only people I'd antagonize would be the trump voters.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51216592]no it aint he's talking about one specific type of protest, not the logic behind protesting in general[/QUOTE] I believe they were referring to protest votes, yes? If the 41% of Americans who "say it is difficult to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton because neither would make a good president" all voted for anyone but the two major candidates, the 2 major parties would take notice because that's a massive chunk of voters. ([url=http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2016-campaign-strong-interest-widespread-dissatisfaction/]Source[/url]) The problem is the mindset of a vote for anyone but the two main candidates is a "wasted vote" has been embedded into the American public successfully, and so there's no pressure on the two main parties to change because they just have to be less worse than the other main party candidate and they're good.
im writing in my president vote because my national vote doesnt matter. i dont want trump and i dont want hillary. go fuck em all. my state/local vote on the other hand, does matter. research your local state peeps and amendments and vote on those cuz you have actual pull there. [url]https://www.ballotready.org/[/url] [url]https://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page[/url]
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51216648]I believe they were referring to protest votes, yes? If the 41% of Americans who "say it is difficult to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton because neither would make a good president" all voted for anyone but the two major candidates, the 2 major parties would take notice because that's a massive chunk of voters. ([url=http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2016-campaign-strong-interest-widespread-dissatisfaction/]Source[/url]) The problem is the mindset of a vote for anyone but the two main candidates is a "wasted vote" has been embedded into the American public successfully, and so there's no pressure on the two main parties to change because they just have to be less worse than the other main party candidate and they're good.[/QUOTE] i think it's hard for it to gain traction as a form of protest, though, and not just because of the stigma over how it's a wasted vote. there's also the fact that it's not a very visible demonstration until [I]after[/I] the results come out - and the entire point of protesting is to give as much visibility as you can to your cause
This video put what I've been thinking in to so much better words Personally I'm not voting andnI'm fucking sick of all the shaming and bullshit people throw my way because it's my ~civic duty~ and shit like that (read: because they want me to vote for their candidate of choice)
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51216736]This video put what I've been thinking in to so much better words Personally I'm not voting andnI'm fucking sick of all the shaming and bullshit people throw my way because it's my ~civic duty~ and shit like that (read: because they want me to vote for their candidate of choice)[/QUOTE] The problem is you're not voting for state and local candidates and issues. You don't have to vote for the president but go vote for your local representatives. They are far more important than the president.
Its actually rather surprising how many people I talk to in person who haven't heard of [URL="http://www.ontheissues.org/"]OnTheIssues[/URL]. That's where I typically double check the policies of each candidate.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51216736]This video put what I've been thinking in to so much better words Personally I'm not voting andnI'm fucking sick of all the shaming and bullshit people throw my way because it's my ~civic duty~ and shit like that (read: because they want me to vote for their candidate of choice)[/QUOTE] Incorrect use of read, but if you don't vote that's your decision. Just don't go complaining about the outcome.
If somehow there was a perfect tie, and it was up to me to cast the last vote, I still wouldn't because I would not want to be responsible for 2 very different and terrible outcomes
[QUOTE=BAZ;51216600]If people think that "Voting for X is a wasted vote" then it's a self fulfilling prophecy. It's that kind of mindset which only aids the establishment.[/QUOTE] its not a mindset, its math... our voting system (first past the post) means voting for a third party makes you less represented, mathematically. i think the best way forward is a bernie style takeover of one of the two existing parties, after which the time in power is used to reform the voting system to give third parties a valid chance through an ordered voting system. At this point in the election i suppose it doesnt matter whoever you write in since we've already missed our chance, but saying the only reason we dont vote for a third party is because a of a bogus self fufilling prophecy is just blatently wrong. If you have no idea what im talking about try [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo"]this video[/URL] for information on our election system.
[QUOTE=patq911;51216744]The problem is you're not voting for state and local candidates and issues. You don't have to vote for the president but go vote for your local representatives. They are far more important than the president.[/QUOTE] Also, figuring out who to vote for regarding state and local elections is easy. Just google <state> 2016 ballot and google will ask your registered address and tell you the options on your ballot, and even include clickable name links for candidates. Then read their shit and find out who represents you best.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51216480]You contribute -0- when you "write in" and voting 3rd party is requesting a new set of 2 parties. You can ~protest~ but whats the point of a protest if nobody will give a fuck. If you want more options, convince the Democrats or whoever replaces GOP to remove first past the post and winner takes all. You cant do this in 20 days. So vote Hillary, because Trump is pure bad, Hillar is Obama--, and 3rd party / write in is basically abstaining and saying "I dont care".[/QUOTE] it's this mind set why you politically parties are garbage
H3H3 is right on everything except when he pretends both candidates are equally as bad and that theres no difference either way cause were fucked. No offense, but those types people are usually the ones who don't bother really researching positions or whatnot, and he even confesses that because of how loud both sides gets he doesn't know who to believe. Believe neither, and stop giving in to the easy option of saying both sides are equally bad.
If you care about third party support you should protest for a voting system like ranked choice/alternative vote. The best way to change the system to work for you is to work within it. In the currently broken system, voting for a third party is like not voting at all.
Hey, for you guys not voting, can I vote for you? You don't care who wins so what does it matter?
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51220447]Third parties are garbage because novody sane forms a third party in USA. Everybody in the game recognizes how the system is rigged against thirds. Bernie knew this and ran an a Democrat. There wont be a valid third party until Americans change the constituition they worship. [editline]18th October 2016[/editline] Until you change the constituition and fix gerrymandering/ FPTP/ winner takes all, you are stuck with Democrats and either GOP or some other party in 2020, but never an equal three or more way race.[/QUOTE] then, what amercians so focus on is not voting for the next president but instead everyone agreeing to focus on these issues maybe Dems and Reps do a truce and fix these issues.
Because I have to hop in every time someone says "but if everyone just nutted up and voted third party we wouldn't have a two party system and life would be perfect it's a self-fulfilling prophecy," I'll explain this shit again like I do in SH three times a month. [B]Our electoral system [I]mandates[/I] a two-party system.[/B] This wasn't intentional, but was a design oversight. Our presidential elections [I]require[/I] a candidate to get over 50% of the electoral college vote to become president. If they fail to get over 50%, the decision is handed over to the current sitting Congress, who vote on who they'd like to see be President based on a list of candidates who got [I]any[/I] electoral college votes. What this means that, even if major third parties became a threat, they'd be rapidly absorbed into a two-party system. If the Libertarians started regularly getting 20% of the electoral vote in the presidential elections, the Republicans - their closest ideological neighbors - would be permanently unable to win any election, because that 20% of votes would be taken from the voter base of the Republicans, leading to an election that is 20I/30R/50D. Democrats would win every single time - unless they got 49% of the electoral vote instead of 50%, in which case it'd be shunted off to Congress and your vote wouldn't matter [I]at all[/I]. There's also this thing called the spoiler effect. Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party in the 1912 election is a fantastic example - he disagreed so much with the Republicans, that he split away and made a Progressive Party. Effectively every vote he got was taken from Taft. This split the vote, guaranteeing that Wilson won the election with 42% of the popular vote and the [i]vast[/i] majority of the electoral vote. This happens all the time - Maine's elections had a stubborn left-wing independent candidate split the vote for governor from the Democratic candidate, allowing the Republican Paul LePage to become governor despite receiving less votes than the independent and the democrat combined (both of whom shared a voter base). Voting third-party is literally pointless at best and actively damaging at worst. Especially if you live in a swing state, where your vote genuinely matters more than if you live in a stronghold state. We need [I]enormous[/I] reform to allow third parties to succeed at presidential elections. Until then, under the current system, it is literally impossible for them to win except in very, very extreme cases - like the Civil War. Third parties show up, split the vote, or maybe replace an existing party (like the Whigs), and then we're back at square one with a two-party system. It is an unavoidable side effect of our electoral process, and no amount of wishful thinking will fix it. We need actual legislative reform, not "but Evan McMullin could win guyszz!"
[QUOTE=shadow_oap;51220391]H3H3 is right on everything except when he pretends both candidates are equally as bad and that theres no difference either way cause were fucked. No offense, but those types people are usually the ones who don't bother really researching positions or whatnot, and he even confesses that because of how loud both sides gets he doesn't know who to believe. Believe neither, and stop giving in to the easy option of saying both sides are equally bad.[/QUOTE] Do realize if he picks one side or other, he alienates half his audience. Or worse, provokes them into getting violent against him.
I cannot in good concience vote for either of the two candidates. In voting for a third party, I know they will not make it to the presidency, but maybe having 5%, 10% or 15% of the vote to a third party candidate is a step towards a more than two party system. I am hoping for more options on the table in future elections.
[QUOTE=defy;51223148]I cannot in good concience vote for either of the two candidates. In voting for a third party, I know they will not make it to the presidency, but maybe having 5%, 10% or 15% of the vote to a third party candidate is a step towards a more than two party system. I am hoping for more options on the table in future elections.[/QUOTE] I voted for Green party.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51222863]Because I have to hop in every time someone says "but if everyone just nutted up and voted third party we wouldn't have a two party system and life would be perfect it's a self-fulfilling prophecy," I'll explain this shit again like I do in SH three times a month. [B]Our electoral system [I]mandates[/I] a two-party system.[/B] This wasn't intentional, but was a design oversight. Our presidential elections [I]require[/I] a candidate to get over 50% of the electoral college vote to become president. If they fail to get over 50%, the decision is handed over to the current sitting Congress, who vote on who they'd like to see be President based on a list of candidates who got [I]any[/I] electoral college votes. What this means that, even if major third parties became a threat, they'd be rapidly absorbed into a two-party system. If the Libertarians started regularly getting 20% of the electoral vote in the presidential elections, the Republicans - their closest ideological neighbors - would be permanently unable to win any election, because that 20% of votes would be taken from the voter base of the Republicans, leading to an election that is 20I/30R/50D. Democrats would win every single time - unless they got 49% of the electoral vote instead of 50%, in which case it'd be shunted off to Congress and your vote wouldn't matter [I]at all[/I]. There's also this thing called the spoiler effect. Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party in the 1912 election is a fantastic example - he disagreed so much with the Republicans, that he split away and made a Progressive Party. Effectively every vote he got was taken from Taft. This split the vote, guaranteeing that Wilson won the election with 42% of the popular vote and the [i]vast[/i] majority of the electoral vote. This happens all the time - Maine's elections had a stubborn left-wing independent candidate split the vote for governor from the Democratic candidate, allowing the Republican Paul LePage to become governor despite receiving less votes than the independent and the democrat combined (both of whom shared a voter base). Voting third-party is literally pointless at best and actively damaging at worst. Especially if you live in a swing state, where your vote genuinely matters more than if you live in a stronghold state. We need [I]enormous[/I] reform to allow third parties to succeed at presidential elections. Until then, under the current system, it is literally impossible for them to win except in very, very extreme cases - like the Civil War. Third parties show up, split the vote, or maybe replace an existing party (like the Whigs), and then we're back at square one with a two-party system. It is an unavoidable side effect of our electoral process, and no amount of wishful thinking will fix it. We need actual legislative reform, not "but Evan McMullin could win guyszz!"[/QUOTE] Yeah this. I feel like Ethan is being at best misinformed and at worst intentionally dishonest when he talks about third party votes being "a vote against the system". That's just flat out not how it works. Look up "Duvergers Law". Voting third party [B]IN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM[/B] [I]is[/I] a waste of a vote. It is far more productive to your interests to vote for the major candidate that agrees with your positions [U]most[/U] rather than voting for a third party candidate that agrees with all of your positions.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51223402]Yeah this. I feel like Ethan is being at best misinformed and at worst intentionally dishonest when he talks about third party votes being "a vote against the system". That's just flat out not how it works. Look up "Duvergers Law". Voting third party [B]IN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM[/B] [I]is[/I] a waste of a vote. It is far more productive to your interests to vote for the major candidate that agrees with your positions [U]most[/U] rather than voting for a third party candidate that agrees with all of your positions.[/QUOTE] He's not misinformed or dishonest, he's saying that he as guy who makes fucking stupid comedy videos on the internet shouldn't have any say in who you're voting for and adressing the issue that people who are voting the opposite of you aren't scum of the earth, they're human, and that those voting 3rd party get shit on by both sides - not because it's practically pointless, but because they're seen as essentially voting for the other side because they didn't vote for your side.
If I had a vote I'd probably abstain or go for third party, at least in my mind I didn't vote for Miss Corruption or Mr Grab-by-the-pussy. Say what you want about Trump, but Hillary and her meddling from the email leaks makes her just as bad - albeit for different reasons; two sides to the same coin. I mean, didn't CNN say Hillarys recent scandal has been referred to as 'barroom talk' compared to Trumps 'lockerroom' rhetoric?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.