• H3H3 - Who I'm Voting for President re: Casey Neistat
    47 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51223597]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.[/QUOTE] That wasn't the part of the video I was talking about. I was talking about the part around the latter half or so where hes talking about voting third party being "basically fighting the system".
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51223635]Neistat isnt an idiot, he voices his opinion, and he provides reasoning while doing so.[/QUOTE] But Neistat says that we should pressure all our favorite youtubers to get politically engaged and essentially accuses those who don't of "lacking a spine". If he himself wants to talk about political stuff on his channel all power to him, but to say that every other youtuber should do the same when most of them don't produce political content and aren't particularly versed in the subject isn't really sensible.
vote for whoever you want but if you're voting third party as "protest" you have my contempt the point of a protest is to get people to listen to you. when gary johnson or jill stein or whoever - when they manage to get 0.3% of the popular vote, do you think anyone will pay attention to that when the results come out? do you think people will be talking about anyone but trump or clinton? the greens and libertarians will be [I]forgotten [/I]the very second the winner is announced - they will instantly, permanently backslide into irrelevancy. voting for a third party as protest is an asinine idea. be fucking serious about exercising your right to vote. the actual protest vote is the one that has a chance of winning, and that is trump
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51223841]That wasn't the part of the video I was talking about. I was talking about the part around the latter half or so where hes talking about voting third party being "basically fighting the system".[/QUOTE] It sorta is though, it's not an effective way of doing it, but you're making a statement. Though I would argue that this is not the time and that it is not worth it in this case, when you have the chance of ending up with trump.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51223999]It sorta is though, it's not an effective way of doing it, but you're making a statement. Though I would argue that this is not the time and that it is not worth it in this case, when you have the chance of ending up with trump.[/QUOTE] I understand it yeah, but it just seems really misleading to me to tell people that a third party vote is a significant protest against the system. I agree with not wanting the two party system anymore but voting third party within that system is not the way to do it.
[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] Well fuck, I can sincerely say I too thought a vote for one of the third partiers would contribute only to something better, and hopefully, eventually breakdown the very ingrained-into-the-culture two parties. I hate to think of them as wasted votes though, because to me that is a bit of a psychological trick to promote the better of two evils thinking rather than the fuck em both mentality, which is what many people want. I guess it's hard to see it straightforward and simple, there is no one thing that improves everything drastically. I keep telling people the Electorial College fucks us, and that they should stop thinking there always will only be 2 choices. I like to philosophize that the system stays established partly because people essentially believe it should stay established. Elections aren't a direct representation of the countries overall preferences, but I still argue that the main factor is simply what people believe, along with how we agree to change things. Hypothetically, people [I]could[/I] be convinced, in a large enough majority, to support neither candidate, and to change the two party system so that the alternatives could have real potential. But because it is inevitable that people tend to resist big and complicated changes like that, we basically say it won't happen. A waste of time. Don't be stupid. I like to think that no vote is worse than a vote for the other - from a candidate's viewpoint. A person can potentially be swayed if they listen enough, but if they don't want to listen at all, their voter base starts to shrink. So that's why it is promoted to vote no matter what, because it your civic duty, and you have no right to complain if you do otherwise! I think that is part of what keeps this shitty system going. Anyway, enough of my optimistic third party rambling, what is your opinion on [url=http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/14/stupid-simple-way-trump-vs-hillary-2016/]this?[/url] In short, they claim only 13 states are needed to vote third party and put the vote to congress. I take it with a grain of salt, but it's interesting to think about, and sort of supports my initial hopes and line of thinking in trying to avoid both Trump and Hillary.
I was originally going to be writing in Bernie Sanders, because I honestly believe that he would be the best candidate for the job. However, that's not the whole reason I thought that way. I made the decision because I live in a state that is firmly blue. I don't live in a battleground state so the idea that my vote could tip any scales or was of any real importance mattered little to me. What made me change my mind was 20 minutes into [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEvuQl650FU"]Michelle Obama's speech in North Carolina[/URL], where she broke down the numbers in a way that I had never considered before. A state could be won by thousands of votes yet if you spread the numbers out it could come down to less than a dozen votes per precinct. She was able to get this point across not by beating third party voters over the head with "You're throwing away your vote" but by stressing the point that maybe, just maybe, each individual vote is more important than we think it is. It highlights the sheer importance of get-out-the-vote campaigns and how a dedicated, active few, with the right attitude and arguments, can sway an election, through getting a few people to change their minds, to think differently about their vote, and what it means. Fueling my newfound confirmation bias is [URL="http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/"]a look at the results of previous elections over the years[/URL] where I make two observations. The first is that potentially nothing can be taken for granted, under the right circumstances any state can go to any party, and the second observation is that North and South Dakota have been complete bros since 1920. [B]tl;dr[/B] Insulting the people you're trying to convince is retarded and only incites them to become more contrarian against you. You catch more with honey than vinegar. I do not believe in a "wasted vote" or "throwing your vote away." What I do now believe in is making people appreciate their vote as one of the many bricks that make up the foundation on which our democratic republic thrives upon and that they are free to do what they wish with it.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51225496]Not only is it almost impossible, who is to say GOP congress will take McMullin or Johnson? Okay, maybe theyll pick Johnson, but how is he so much better than Clinton that tou root for his 0.01% chance and risk a Trump presidency? In fact, he is worse than Clinton.[/QUOTE] If it's really a 0.01% chance does this really risk a Trump presidency? It's a negligible portion of the voterbase.
[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] We've had third parties get that somewhat often before. E.g. perot. And even longer back there have been parties like the populists, but what happens is usually they either die (populists only had regional success for the most part) or become one of the big two. I think rather than expending energy supporting a third party, people need to create a unified movement to change the electoral system. That'll create the change and honestly a lot of Republican and Democrat voters would even side with you because they'll complain too. Think of Trump voters, they feel he's getting fucked over by the republican party, and Bernie voters as well feel the same. Though even if such a movement were to form don't expect it to be easy, this will require changing the literal constitution with an amendment, requiring 2/3rds and state ratification. Hell, it might even require multiple amendments (I'd have to check the constitution to be sure.) It's a really ingrained problem.
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;51224376]wonder how many of these third party voters are gonna throw shitstorms[/QUOTE] Some will throw a tantrum because third parties attract quite a few of those, others won't give a shit because they made their discontent with both candidates heard, others will work on making third parties stronger by running for local offices on third party tickets. Trumpets will most likely be throwing the biggest shitstorm. There are a lot of Libertarians who hate Gary Johnson for not following the ideology all the way, but if he did the party would be no where near as popular as it is right now. If Austin Petersen had won he'd be saying shit like 'I would not have signed the Civil Rights Act' and their poll numbers would become nonexistent. Philip DeFranco made a video like Ethan did, covered the same points and overall delivers the same message but he also tells people how to register and to educate themselves on the candidate, learn why they should and why they shouldn't vote third party and then make their decision. More in depth then Ethan I think and his message of 'Educate yourself and decide for yourself' is much better than getting on a high horse and sending mobs of people to harass people online to vote Clinton.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.