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

This is going to be the first election I will not vote in

The problem with a third party push is convincing people to give up an election or two or five for someone who mostly agrees with their positions and handing it over to the person or party that vehemently stands in opposition of almost everything they believe in. Most people aren't going to take that exchange, they will do a cost-benefit analysis and realize that while they might not get everything they want out of Clinton, they will certainly get more of what they want out of her than Trump for 4 years, or 8 years, or his Republican successor and another 4 to 8 years of eroding progressive policy in the US. Look at the Libertarians. They haven't made very many inroads at all, though Gary Johnson is polling decently well for a third-party, and their platform is fairly distinct from both major policies. Obviously they fall more in line with the GOP than the Democrats but there are still a number of stark differences between the two parties. What Jill Stein is asking Sanders supporters to do is essentially abandon Clinton, a candidate who mostly agrees but for a handful of policies with Sanders and has held most of those positions her entire career for a candidate that has no possible chance of winning this election and very likely the next several elections. That's why it doesn't work. It's genuinely a problem of FPTP but it's also basic human nature to compromise and do these sorts of analytical calculations in their head of what they see as possible gains or losses, and both added together creates a vicious cycle where, as an earlier poster noted, "No one votes third party" specifically because "No one votes third party", but even if all these people who would vote third party voted I still don't think it could defeat Trump. Progressives either need to start seriously backing the green party, or pushing the Democrats towards a more progressive position by electing representatives and senators, and not doing what Sanders supporters are currently advocating: Giving up after their first election because their guy lost. [QUOTE=Reshy;50484660]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. [/QUOTE] "Playing on peoples fears of Trump" while listing Trumps actual stated platform is like saying the weatherman is "playing on peoples fear of getting wet" by forecasting a 90% chance of rain. Motherfucker, you do what you want with the information you got, but I'm bringing my umbrella. [QUOTE=Reshy;50484660]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.[/QUOTE] Define "working for the people" because if what hte people want is civil rights, womens rights, and social welfare than they are absolutely working for the people while the Republicans aren't. [QUOTE=Reshy;50484660]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] I was going to ask you to seriously back up your accusations that they are essentially the same policy and just "putting on a show" with their platform but then you do my job for me and prove this entire statement wrong with your own post later so thanks I guess. [QUOTE=Reshy;50484744]"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] [QUOTE=Reshy;50484744]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] You're right, instead of voting Democrat I'm going to vote Libertarian. Wait... [QUOTE=Reshy;50484744]Fairly certain that had something to do with the Florida recount being denied by the supreme court.[/QUOTE] It never would have gotten that far had they just voted Gore, is the point. As a matter of public record, Nader supporters absolutely cost Gore the presidency, and instead of a fairly liberal technocrat we got Bush, all because people wanted 100% when 90% had the only possibility of winning. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50484695]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.[/QUOTE] From January 2017 until whenever the 2020 cycle starts is the time. 5 months before the general is "never the fucking time" because that's just not enough time to mobilize enough voters to see things your way. The FPTP system basically ensures a two party, two candidate system unless enough critical mass is achieved to flip the table as it were and you aren't going to achieve that this late in the election cycle.

[QUOTE=Reshy;50484783]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.[/QUOTE] They haven't listened to us since the 19th century, and they're not going to. Look at the polling numbers for Democrats and republicans. Voters who are going to stay home are still amkinkrity compared to those who are biting the bullet and voting for the 2 main candidates. Your revolution isn't happening. Accept it.

why do people suddenly believe that after a hundred years of third parties from theodore roosevelt (a former fucking PRESIDENT) to ross perot (a billionaire) that an extreme candidate like Jill Stein (by American standards) with no experience or respect will be able to take down the entire two party system? do people not get that it isn't just some weird thing where people are somehow brainwashed into supporting the major parties, but that it goes much deeper, and that the entire electoral system supports this? you are achieving NOTHING by voting third party NOTHING. you aren't sticking it to anyone but the people who badly need a democratic presidency and not fucking trump. politics is about compromise, suck it up.

"Both sides are corrupt and the same! Vote third party to express how you really feel!" - a Ralph Nader supporter, 2000.

[QUOTE=Viper_;50484071][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] If you guys had a system whereby you could vote for multiple people in order of preference, with the party with the lowest vote being eliminated, and their votes transferred to their voters' second choice, and so on, this would not be a problem. There's literally no downside to this sort of voting, which is why I don't understand why it hasn't been changed to this method. Canada needs such reform as well.

d

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50486599] you are achieving NOTHING by voting third party NOTHING. you aren't sticking it to anyone but the people who badly need a democratic presidency and not fucking trump. politics is about compromise, suck it up.[/QUOTE] Yeah I guess sticking to my ideals is nothing lol

[QUOTE=Octavius;50486650]Actually it does achieve something: It builds an independent party that isn't the Democrats or the Republicans and is capable of representing people's interests. But no, shit, let's forget that cause that's nothing.[/QUOTE] Never happened and never happening. Ross Perot won nineteen-fucking-percent of the vote in 1992. You concerned about the power of the Reform Party right now? Ever heard of Theo Roosevelt's Progressive Party? No? What about Wallace's American Independent Party? People quickly cotton on to the fact they are voting for nothing and go for compromise candidates, even after very successful third-party runs. How do you 'represent people's interests' if you don't have any political power? I hear all this bullshit about 'building a movement' over hear relating to Corbyn in the UK. Doesn't matter if you build a movement if you can't exercise political power to actually get what the people you are representing want, and because of the fundamental structure of the US system, that is never happening. [editline]9th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Gray Altoid;50486664]Yeah I guess sticking to my ideals is nothing lol[/QUOTE] It is nothing. If you aren't looking to exercise political power to get what you want done, then you should give up on politics because you're wasting your time. I don't like a lot of what the UK Conservative Party is doing at the moment. They go against my 'ideals'. But believe it or not, I'm not a fucking idiot who is going to go around to form some kind of fiscally moderate neoconservative party to vote for am I because that's stupid. Instead, I compromise, and realise I get more of what I want in policy from the Conservative Party than the Labour Party. This is how politics works.

[QUOTE=false prophet;50486224]This is going to be the first election I will not vote in[/QUOTE] you sure showed them

The only way third parties can grow is if both Democrats and Republicans have a split in their parties. If only one party has third party growing in them, it's makes for an easy victory for the other. Think of it like this: suppose each party got 50% of the total votes. If 25% of Democrats support Bernie and 25% Democrats support Hilary, that still leaves Trump 50% of the total votes and therefore wins. If Republicans had a split in their party at the same time, then it would be 25% vs 25% vs 25% vs 25%, and then things can start changing. But until the planets align on a leap day during a solar eclipse, it'll never happen. Voting third party will give Trump this election. [editline]9th June 2016[/editline] If the Tea Party was a thing now instead of last election, then voting third party might work. But that's not the case.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50486340]The problem with a third party push is convincing people to give up an election or two or five for someone who mostly agrees with their positions and handing it over to the person or party that vehemently stands in opposition of almost everything they believe in. Most people aren't going to take that exchange, they will do a cost-benefit analysis and realize that while they might not get everything they want out of Clinton, they will certainly get more of what they want out of her than Trump for 4 years, or 8 years, or his Republican successor and another 4 to 8 years of eroding progressive policy in the US. Look at the Libertarians. They haven't made very many inroads at all, though Gary Johnson is polling decently well for a third-party, and their platform is fairly distinct from both major policies. Obviously they fall more in line with the GOP than the Democrats but there are still a number of stark differences between the two parties. What Jill Stein is asking Sanders supporters to do is essentially abandon Clinton, a candidate who mostly agrees but for a handful of policies with Sanders and has held most of those positions her entire career for a candidate that has no possible chance of winning this election and very likely the next several elections. That's why it doesn't work. [B]It's genuinely a problem of FPTP[/B] but it's also basic human nature to compromise and do these sorts of analytical calculations in their head of what they see as possible gains or losses, and both added together creates a vicious cycle where, as an earlier poster noted, "No one votes third party" specifically because "No one votes third party", but even if all these people who would vote third party voted I still don't think it could defeat Trump.[/quote] And here you are advocating for continuing the cycle despite knowing that it's detrimental long-term in exchange for a short-term feel-good effect of having "your" party win, even though it's blatantly obvious that they don't give a damn about their constituents unless they have millions of dollars. Why don't you get out there and try to get election reform? Instead of pissing and moaning about how useless it all is and to just take it up the rear. [QUOTE=Raidyr;50486340]Progressives either need to start seriously backing the green party, or pushing the Democrats towards a more progressive position by electing representatives and senators, and not doing what Sanders supporters are currently advocating: Giving up after their first election because their guy lost. [/quote] That's what I'm going to do, if the Democrats don't put up a progressive I'll vote green, assuming they have a progressive. [QUOTE=Raidyr;50486340]"Playing on peoples fears of Trump" while listing Trumps actual stated platform is like saying the weatherman is "playing on peoples fear of getting wet" by forecasting a 90% chance of rain. Motherfucker, you do what you want with the information you got, but I'm bringing my umbrella. [/quote] Every damn election the other party is demonized as the coming Apocalypse. [QUOTE=Raidyr;50486340]Define "working for the people" because if what hte people want is civil rights, womens rights, and social welfare than they are absolutely working for the people while the Republicans aren't. [/quote] They say those things, but it's rare to see them deliver. Why? Because unless their donors sign off on it they're afraid to lose their funding. Their job is less about legislation than getting elected/reelected. [QUOTE=Raidyr;50486340]I was going to ask you to seriously back up your accusations that they are essentially the same policy and just "putting on a show" with their platform but then you do my job for me and prove this entire statement wrong with your own post later so thanks I guess. [/quote] Have you looked at their fiscal policies? Have you looked at what they actually do rather than what they say? Obama said he wanted transparency, but he was working to kill transparency. [QUOTE=Raidyr;50486340]You're right, instead of voting Democrat I'm going to vote Libertarian. Wait...[/quote] I don't get your point with this post. [QUOTE=Raidyr;50486340]It never would have gotten that far had they just voted Gore, is the point. As a matter of public record, Nader supporters absolutely cost Gore the presidency, and instead of a fairly liberal technocrat we got Bush, all because people wanted 100% when 90% had the only possibility of winning. [/quote] Then perhaps we should go for election reform? But wait, who wants election form when it would threaten the main parties? It'll [B]never ever[/B] come from the democrats or republicans, they are heavily invested in the status quo. You want to remove the spoiler effect? Then we need to actually get that legislation through, and that will involve electing people that aren't from the status quo. Get it? [QUOTE=Raidyr;50486340]From January 2017 until whenever the 2020 cycle starts is the time. 5 months before the general is "never the fucking time" because that's just not enough time to mobilize enough voters to see things your way. The FPTP system basically ensures a two party, two candidate system unless enough critical mass is achieved to flip the table as it were and you aren't going to achieve that this late in the election cycle.[/QUOTE] And this shitty attitude of yours just ensures that it will never ever happen, because you advocate giving up. [QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50486541]They haven't listened to us since the 19th century, and they're not going to. Look at the polling numbers for Democrats and republicans. Voters who are going to stay home are still amkinkrity compared to those who are biting the bullet and voting for the 2 main candidates. Your revolution isn't happening. Accept it.[/QUOTE] Then we may as well be a dictatorship because our votes don't count for anything but the color of the candidate's jersey, according to your logic. Why are you so damn cynical? Do you just have Stockholm syndrome?

[QUOTE=Megadave;50485029]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] So let's say the Green party pulls an unprecedented 15% of the General Election vote, and the Libertarians manage to pull 15% as well. They make zero difference. Neither of them get into the presidency. Neither of them get any representatives elected. Neither of them get [i]anything[/i]. Let's say they pull an even higher, even more unprecedented [i]25% each[/i], leading to a very close four-way race. The United States' voting system requires [i]an absolute majority[/i] to win. Not a plurality, as it is in many other more proportional voting systems. An absolute majority. This means that [i]unless you win 50% or more of the electoral base[/i], Congress will decide who the president will be for you. So if we had a four-way tie between Libertarians, Greens, Democrats, and Republicans, [i]none of them would be actually capable of winning[/i]. Congress would have [i]their own vote[/i] on who to elect as president. How is this more democratic? The US electoral system [i]mandates[/i] a two-party system. It was an enormous oversight on the creation of our electoral system. The candidate who wins a supermajority of the electoral college - 50% or more - wins. That's it. That's the only criteria. It is literally impossible to have the Green party win a presidential election without having it [i]replace[/i] the Democratic party. This is how our electoral system works. Does it need to change? Absofuckinglutely, that's why I was a strong campaigner for Sanders. Will it change by spoiling the election and splitting the vote? Nope, you'll just get Trump. Smart.

d

[QUOTE=Octavius;50487408]Will voting for a third party change something? Absofuckinglutely. It will build an independent party that can fight for this change, since that is what seems to be necessary. Remaining loyal to a party that takes every chance it can to kill the movement for change is not [b]how[/b] you make change. Stay loyal to the Democrats and give up the fight and all you will do is ensure that politics continues down the course it is currently going down. The Democratic Party hasn't become known as a graveyard of movements for no reason. They have earned it with their track record of coopting and killing movements for change. You won't change anything by falling in line, you'll just show that they can keep this bullshit going since they're able to whip you into falling behind them when the time comes. If the Democratic Party offers change, they'll get my support. If they don't, then they won't.[/QUOTE] That process might involve Trump possibly winning presidency now. You can think about the future, but also think of the path getting there.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50487459]That process might involve Trump possibly winning presidency now. You can think about the future, but also think of the path getting there.[/QUOTE] This is just more fear mongering.

[QUOTE=Reshy;50487495]This is just more fear mongering.[/QUOTE] You'll see the results in November. The spoiler effect is a well documented phenomena. You're just naive if you think this time will be any different. Like I said, the only way third parties can rise is if both Democrats and Republicans have a split base, which as far as I'm aware, isn't the case.

[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] If people vote Green instead of Killary "B-but you're splitting the vote! You're voting for Trump!" If people vote for Green or Libertarian instead of Trump "Well, at least you didn't vote Trump!" People need to live up to their own principles.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50486599]why do people suddenly believe that after a hundred years of third parties from theodore roosevelt (a former fucking PRESIDENT) to ross perot (a billionaire) that an extreme candidate like Jill Stein (by American standards) with no experience or respect will be able to take down the entire two party system? do people not get that it isn't just some weird thing where people are somehow brainwashed into supporting the major parties, but that it goes much deeper, and that the entire electoral system supports this? you are achieving NOTHING by voting third party NOTHING. you aren't sticking it to anyone but the people who badly need a democratic presidency and not fucking trump. politics is about compromise, suck it up.[/QUOTE] You assume that someone voting for Stein gives a shit about either Trump or Hillary. One of the two is going to win, and either result is just one flavor of a shitty future. Neither side is better than the other, so why contribute to a win for either when you can use your vote to show support for something that [I]isn't[/I] a part of the shit-show?

[QUOTE=Reshy;50487495]This is just more fear mongering.[/QUOTE] It's not fear mongering if it'S completely iustified, think about something other than your naive ideological crusade for one second and fry to realize the big picture.

[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;50482979]A vote for Stein is a vote away from Hillary which is virtually a vote for Trump[/QUOTE] That's not how it works.

d

Australian FPers with instant runoff voting, are your politics as fucked as ours?

As a Trump supporter I strongly advise you to vote for who you want! You want green party over Hillary? Go for it! I applaud your morality and stand-up character!

[QUOTE=Ott;50487727]Australian FPers with instant runoff voting, are your politics as fucked as ours?[/QUOTE] IRV doesn't make any difference. We have a two-party system here as well between the Labor party and the Liberal/National coalition (the Liberals and Nationals don't contest each others' seats, and the two parties even merged in Queensland). When you have districts where only a single person or group can win, it's bound to become a two-party system. Third parties (often) don't get elected to the houses that use IRV because the very first candidates that are eliminated in the vote counting process are the third parties. There are obviously some exceptions, for example in Melbourne the two-party system is Labor and the Greens, and the federal member for Melbourne is a Greens MP. Are our politics fucked? No, not really. A lot of people like to whinge that they are, but they don't know how good we have it.

I thought Jill Stein was an antivaxxer, doing some more research it still seems a little unclear to me. I know she's anti nuclear which is also lame though.

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;50488170]I thought Jill Stein was an antivaxxer, doing some more research it still seems a little unclear to me. I know she's anti nuclear which is also lame though.[/QUOTE] Why the hell would someone who is part of a Green party support nuclear energy? Being against nuclear energy is one of the largest platforms of green parties all around the world.

Trump is the only one with enough support. I'll take him any day over clinton

[QUOTE=sb27;50488192]Why the hell would someone who is part of a Green party support nuclear energy? Being against nuclear energy is one of the largest platforms of green parties all around the world.[/QUOTE] It is? Well fuck that then.

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;50488170]I know she's anti nuclear which is also lame though.[/QUOTE] so was bernie sanders