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

I almost wouldn't worry about a jill stein vote, yet. She has only 20 state with her on the ballot, in reality there is not much "true" Bernie or bust people that aren't just pissed off Bernie isn't winning. Trump isn't going to get the majority of them, only the Republican ones.

[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;50483294]still baffles me that america is so adamant in their two party system.[/QUOTE] Does America do [b]anything[/b] better than other first world countries? Besides imprisonment per capita

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;50483572]No? Giving strength to a third party gives it more voice in future elections instead of supporting the status quo Also you're saying like if a vote away from Hillary is a bad thing[/QUOTE] The only reason Bernie did so well this election cycle is because he ran democrat even though he's always been independent. If he ran independent this cycle most people wouldn't even know his name. If you can't beat the two party system, join it, unfortunately that just how it works. There is virtually no way that a third party will have enough power or voice to do anything but split parties, which is unfortunate but I can toxx myself in saying that an independent will never be president in the US. The system is so embedded in American politics that it would take a very radical change to break away from it, more than just a shitty president or "political revolution" ala Bernie. A vote away from Hillary is a bad thing if it lessens her chance of beating Trump. Gotta play the hand you're dealt and I'd rather have her than Trump if those are my options. We're definitely electing the shiniest turd this year. Idealistic bullshit like "just vote for who you like the most" doesn't fly in the US like it should because there are too many diehard dems and republicans who will vote for their party just to see the other party fail.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50483460]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] I very much so disagree with both Trump and Hillary, so I'm not going to waste my vote by voting for them and by voting for Sanders instead. Letting the two parties dictate who I vote for just makes me seem hypocritical and is distasteful for the entire country.

[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;50483294]still baffles me that america is so adamant in their two party system.[/QUOTE] I think it's just an issue that is hard to get people riled up about - they've lived with it all their lives. Even the UK that faces not the same but related issues ended up voting against a voting reform.

I may end up voting for Stein since my options are limited this election. Still feel like a better use of my time is staying in and getting shitfaced on Election Day.

Here's hoping republican electoral college decides not to vote for trump anyways. Hijack the vote :v:

If the vote is hijacked urban better hope his toxx doesn't hold up in a court of garry.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50483841]I think it's just an issue that is hard to get people riled up about - they've lived with it all their lives. Even the UK that faces not the same but related issues ended up voting against a voting reform.[/QUOTE] It's not that we're use to it, it's just that it seems we're the only ones who realize it'll never change.

[QUOTE=Megadave;50483949]If the vote is hijacked urban better hope his toxx doesn't hold up in a court of garry.[/QUOTE] I would absolutely love to be proved wrong but then you have a situation where the popular vote is ignored by the electoral college where the point of voting in the first place is null. I would even be mad if trump won the popular vote but wasn't elected

[video=youtube;s7tWHJfhiyo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/video] But nah people should vote for who might win rather than who they want to True democracy right there

[QUOTE=Viper_;50484071] But nah people should vote for who might win rather than who they want to True democracy right there[/QUOTE] It's not a matter of actually hoping they would win. It's a matter of voting with a clear conscious, something which the majority of FP seem either incapable of or unable to conceptualize.

I really hope Bernie supporters who can't stomach voting for Hillary end up voting for Jill Stein, if at all. Gary Johnson is literally the anti-Bernie, and Trump is /pol/ personified. Jill Stein is the most ideologically consistent way for Bernie supporters to hand Trump the presidency on a silver platter.

[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;50482979]A vote for Stein is a vote away from Hillary which is virtually a vote for Trump[/QUOTE] It's still a vote away from both corrupt establishments. Also fear-mongering over trump isn't a reason to vote for the criminal opponent. If the green party can manage 15% then they've become a force in their own right.

[QUOTE=Reshy;50484623]It's still a vote away from both corrupt establishments. Also fear-mongering over trump isn't a reason to vote for the criminal opponent. If the green party can manage 15% then they've become a force in their own right.[/QUOTE] No they won't. All you'll get is a repeat of 2000 when Bush stole the election from Gore.

I'm sorry but how is pointing out the spoiler effect bullshit or invalid in this election? If a bunch of people vote third party, Trump WILL win the election. Yes, Hillary is a witch and a crook, but we're dealing with fucking Donald Trump here. Is there really any sense in voting for the most principled candidate, knowing full well that it will put the election in the hands of the least principled one, fucking the country over in the process? Yes, we need to end the bullshit two-party system, but [B][I]now is not the fucking time.[/I][/B]

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50483460]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] So, instead of trying to get to the point where we can get out of this vicious cycle, you advocate playing to people's fears of Trump instead. I hope you realize that the Democrat party has stopped working for the people because they can [B]rely[/B] on people like you propelling them into the presidency because of spooky scary republicans. Both parties are now fiscally conservative, the only difference is the democrats puts on a front of being socially progressive and the republicans put on a show of being socially conservative. But the parties are becoming so much alike (heck, both engage in voter suppression and fraud) that there needs to be another party. [QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50484657]I'm sorry but how is pointing out the spoiler effect bullshit or invalid in this election? If a bunch of people vote third party, Trump WILL win the election, and that counts because it's fucking Donald Trump. Is there really any sense in voting for the most principled candidate, knowing full well that it will put the election in the hands of the least principled one, fucking the country over in the process?[/QUOTE] Because it just reinforces the stranglehold that the parties have over the electorate. We're suffering, and we only have our selves to blame because like an abused spouse we keep going back. [QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50484654]No they won't. All you'll get is a repeat of 2000 when Bush stole the election from Gore.[/QUOTE] Fairly certain that had something to do with the Florida recount being denied by the supreme court.

It's easy to just go "they're the same party! Your vote means nothing" when you get all your news from conspiracy sites. Seriously how can you say the Republicans only put on a show of social conservatism?

[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50484669]It's easy to just go "they're the same party! Your vote means nothing" when you get all your news from conspiracy sites. Seriously how can you say the Republicans only put on a show of social conservatism?[/QUOTE] Because when their donors tell them to cut something out they're all suddenly on the level.

[QUOTE=Reshy;50484660]Because it just reinforces the stranglehold that the parties have over the electorate. We're suffering, and we only have our selves to blame because like an abused spouse we keep going back. [/QUOTE] I totally understand that, too. The two-party system does need to end. But with this particular election, what you're suggesting is to the metaphorical abusive spouse for a metaphorical cannibalistic spouse on PCP. We need to get ourselves out of this cycle, but in this particular election, now is not the time.

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50484657]I'm sorry but how is pointing out the spoiler effect bullshit or invalid in this election? If a bunch of people vote third party, Trump WILL win the election. Yes, Hillary is a witch and a crook, but we're dealing with [I][B]fucking Donald Trump [/B][/I]here. Is there really any sense in voting for the most principled candidate, knowing full well that it will put the election in the hands of the least principled one, fucking the country over in the process? Yes, we need to end the bullshit two-party system, but [B][I]now is not the fucking time.[/I][/B][/QUOTE] It's never "the fucking time". Every fucking election the opposition is evil personified, right hand of Satan. I won't give my vote for the "lesser of two evils", for fear of some 'evil' opposition to not win. I'll vote for who aligns with me personally regardless of party. Don't pretend you're for ending the two party system "but later". Because you'll say that in 4 years and in 8 years.

The two party system will never end without a big fat crisis.

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50484693]I totally understand that, too. The two-party system does need to end. But with this particular election, what you're suggesting is to the metaphorical abusive spouse for a metaphorical cannibalistic spouse on PCP. We need to get ourselves out of this cycle, but in this particular election, now is not the time.[/QUOTE] "Oh I see that there's a problem, there's just no point in doing anything about it." This will keep getting worse and worse because the democratic and republican parties are becoming more polarized over time. [IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-COZOtXj2jHc/T1pHnnkvUBI/AAAAAAAAAbk/UDjHUWOJO70/s1600/Senate+Polarization+Chart.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Reshy;50484660] Fairly curtain that had something to do with the Florida recount being denied by the supreme court.[/QUOTE] There's 12,000 votes Nader took from Gore there gave bush the breathing room he needed to press the case and when. And if you want to ignore that, then look at all the other times third party candidates did nothing other than split votes and get somebody across the spectrum elected: 1992: Ross Pert takes votes from bush, letting Clinton take the lead 1968: George Wallace splits the Democratic vote letting Nixon get into the white house. 1912: Theodore Roosevelt and the bull moose party spoil the vote for William Howard Taft, leading to 2 terms of Woodrow Wilson. Is there a single reason to vote third party other than "making a statement"?

[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50484749]There's 12,000 votes Nader took from Gore there gave bush the breathing room he needed to press the case and when. And if you want to ignore that, then look at all the other times third party candidates did nothing other than split votes and get somebody across the spectrum elected: 1992: Ross Pert takes votes from bush, letting Clinton take the lead 1968: George Wallace splits the Democratic vote letting Nixon get into the white house. 1912: Theodore Roosevelt and the bull moose party spoil the vote for William Howard Taft, leading to 2 terms of Woodrow Wilson. Is there a single reason to vote third party other than "making a statement"?[/QUOTE] Yes, it's called changing the game. Because right now neither players feel any reason to listen to any of us, because they just fear-monger about the other-side and everyone falls lock and step along party lines like an abused spouse.

Its hard for me to be taking a vote away from Clinton when I wasn't ever going to vote for her.

[QUOTE=bdd458;50484813]Its hard for me to be taking a vote away from Clinton when I wasn't ever going to vote for her.[/QUOTE] They feel entitled to your vote because they're [B]ever so slightly[/B] better than republicans.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50483979]It's not that we're use to it, it's just that it seems we're the only ones who realize it'll never change.[/QUOTE] Nah I realise it won't change (as I just wrote). It's something that doesn't directly impact people's lives most of the time, and it's a system that is pretty solidly in place as well as promoted by both parties. Of course some people are aware/think that it's a problem, but I'd imagine many either don't know about it or don't care.

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50484657]I'm sorry but how is pointing out the spoiler effect bullshit or invalid in this election? If a bunch of people vote third party, Trump WILL win the election. Yes, Hillary is a witch and a crook, but we're dealing with fucking Donald Trump here. Is there really any sense in voting for the most principled candidate, knowing full well that it will put the election in the hands of the least principled one, fucking the country over in the process? Yes, we need to end the bullshit two-party system, but [B][I]now is not the fucking time.[/I][/B][/QUOTE] We have 2 unpopular candidates with a good mass of each party hating them, if this isn't the time it will never be the time.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50483130]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] the two party system won't change just because a third party wins, and i'd argue it's exactly this overemphasis on the general election that leads to voters consistently failing to give a shit past November. the American people need to support dedicated, top-down electoral reform for the whole four years, not just a single candidate in a single election. not that i'm saying you shouldn't vote third party, just that the awfulness of the FPTP system is too multifaceted to [I][B]ever[/B][/I] kill in one shot