Jill Stein wants to be "Plan B" for Sanders supporters; Gary Johnson won't fight her for them - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50795548]I forgot, what is the point of the Electoral College again? It seems to run so counter to democratically voting for a President,[HR]considering that Nader got zero electoral college votes despite getting 15% nationally.[/HR] I'm wrong, I'm thinking of Perot. I think my point still stands though that it's not a great system.[/QUOTE] Think back to the 1780s. There are no political parties yet. Information is carried by hand and always out of date by the time you read it. Ordinary voters have no idea who the candidates are or what they stand for, and can't make an educated decision on their own. On top of that, there's no national system to collect votes from everyone and decide a winner. So you have an intermediate step, the electoral college. These are people who are from your state, so information on them is quicker and more thorough, and they probably have a local reputation. You vote for the person who you feel best represents you, and trust them to go and decide the president on your behalf. Fast forward to 2016, and the existence of political parties and instant communications have drastically changed the presidential race. People aren't any smarter, but they have access to information about the candidates, and ultimately there are only two viable candidates at any given time. In the 18th century, the electoral college made perfect sense. In the 21st century, it's archaic and outdated.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50795896]Think back to the 1780s. There are no political parties yet. Information is carried by hand and always out of date by the time you read it. Ordinary voters have no idea who the candidates are or what they stand for, and can't make an educated decision on their own. On top of that, there's no national system to collect votes from everyone and decide a winner. So you have an intermediate step, the electoral college. These are people who are from your state, so information on them is quicker and more thorough, and they probably have a local reputation. You vote for the person who you feel best represents you, and trust them to go and decide the president on your behalf. Fast forward to 2016, and the existence of political parties and instant communications have drastically changed the presidential race. People aren't any smarter, but they have access to information about the candidates, and ultimately there are only two viable candidates at any given time. In the 18th century, the electoral college made perfect sense. In the 21st century, it's archaic and outdated.[/QUOTE] And anti 'what it was supposed to do'

[QUOTE=Govna;50795679]FTFY Like Mage said, Gore won the popular vote nationally ([url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000]50,999,897 to Bush's 50,456,002[/url]) but lost the electoral college's support. So somehow, according to the way things are rigged, that translates into Bush being the victor lol-- despite the American people voting for Gore. Not the first time this has happened to us in our country's history either. So the 2000 election is actually a perfect historical indictment of how shitty our current system is and a terrific reason why we need to destroy the electoral college-- not a reason why people should not support alternative parties/the Green Party. No more of that "throwing your vote away" rhetoric. It distracts from the actual issues and just helps reinforce this garbage two-party red/blue order of things.[/QUOTE] What are you even talking about? The lack of third parties, the spoiler effect and the electoral college system are all issues which cannot be considered on their own. The above graphic is showing only votes in Florida, so isn't even particularly relevant to your popular vote discussion. What it is relevant to is splitting the vote by voting for a third party, making your ideologically closer party lose, which happened in 2000 and by the looks of it many people are planning to do the same thing in 2016. Sorry, but even if the Green Party miraculously got 15%, nothing would happen, the electoral college and FPtP would remain in place, and all that would result would be a Trump victory.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50795964]What are you even talking about? The lack of third parties, the spoiler effect and the electoral college system are all issues which cannot be considered on their own. The above graphic is showing only votes in Florida, so isn't even particularly relevant to your popular vote discussion. What it is relevant to is splitting the vote by voting for a third party, making your ideologically closer party lose, which happened in 2000 and by the looks of it many people are planning to do the same thing in 2016. Sorry, but even if the Green Party miraculously got 15%, nothing would happen, the electoral college and FPtP would remain in place, and all that would result would be a Trump victory.[/QUOTE] Unless the LP equally draws from the GOP as the Greens draw from the Dems

[QUOTE=Govna;50795679]FTFY Like Mage said, Gore won the popular vote nationally ([URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000"]50,999,897 to Bush's 50,456,002[/URL]) but lost the electoral college's support. So somehow, according to the way things are rigged, that translates into Bush being the victor lol-- despite the American people voting for Gore. Not the first time this has happened to us in our country's history either. So the 2000 election is actually a perfect historical indictment of how shitty our current system is and a terrific reason why we need to destroy the electoral college-- not a reason why people should not support alternative parties/the Green Party. No more of that "throwing your vote away" rhetoric. It distracts from the actual issues and just helps reinforce this garbage two-party red/blue order of things.[/QUOTE] 2000 election is also a reason to support a numbered list type voting system.

[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;50796032]2000 election is also a reason to support a numbered list type voting system.[/QUOTE] There's actually a more-practical alternative that I'm surprised I don't see mentioned as often. It's called approval voting and it's pretty much FPTP except you can vote for as few or as many candidates as you like (by ticking the boxes, filling in the squares, writing Xs or whatever). Candidate with the most votes, wins. The idea is that supporters of minor party candidates wouldn't have to choose between supporting their sincere choice, or compromising for a more-electable candidate; they could vote for both simultaneously. The system is very easy for voters to understand too; ranked voting systems are difficult for the average person to fully comprehend, and consider that half of the population is dumber than the average person. Finally, such a voting system is already compatible with the vote counting machines used in many US states, so it's cheaper to implement. Consider an example: 40% of people support Clinton. 5% support Stein. 35% support Trump. 20% support Johnson. Clinton supporters would be expected to vote for only Clinton, same goes with Trump supporters for Trump. Stein supporters will vote for their sincere choice, Stein, as well as a compromise candidate, Hillary. Same goes with Johnson supporters, who would vote for Johnson and Trump, the vote count is: - Hillary: 45% approval - Stein: 5% approval - Trump: 55% approval - Johnson: 20% approval Trump wins, which would be the same result as under the instant-runoff/alternative vote. If the vote was done by FPTP, Hillary would have won. This is all ignoring the electoral college by the way. But the point is that the candidate who has the highest approval in the electorate will always win - forcing candidates to actually be appealing to as many voters as possible. In fact, approval voting is more-likely to select a Condorcet winner than even the instant-runoff vote method.

Jill Stein is a fucking antivax loon. Do any of you really want to waste your vote on her because of Schrödinger's Corruption?

[QUOTE=certified;50796225]Jill Stein is a fucking antivax loon.[/QUOTE] Wrong wrong [b]wrong wrong [i][u]wrong wrong[/u][/i][/b] [highlight][u]WRONG.[/u][/highlight] That's another lie set up by Clinton after the "you're voting for Trump!" emotional abuse strategy backfired. Do you really think someone with a doctorate from Harvard really believes in a study that was thrown out for falsifying evidence?

Jill's crazy. It makes no sense to switch your vote from the most popular third candidate to a 5th or 6th most popular candidate. Sanders supporters should continue to vote Sanders if they choose because he will have the third-most impact on the election. Bringing Stein or Johnson into this only splitters support further. Most of the people who are voting Johnson have been wanting to vote Johnson since last election ended. He could have more support next election if he stays in the political game. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=lavacano;50796247]Wrong wrong [b]wrong wrong [i][u]wrong wrong[/u][/i][/b] [highlight][u]WRONG.[/u][/highlight] That's another lie set up by Clinton after the "you're voting for Trump!" emotional abuse strategy backfired. Do you really think someone with a doctorate from Harvard really believes in a study that was thrown out for falsifying evidence?[/QUOTE] Never forget Ben Carson.

[QUOTE=certified;50796225]Jill Stein is a fucking antivax loon. Do any of you really want to waste your vote on her because of Schrödinger's Corruption?[/QUOTE] She isnt, some of her party is, but she specifically isnt.

[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;50796249]Never forget Ben Carson.[/QUOTE] I'm still convinced Carson tried to perform brain surgery on himself and fucked up. That's not him anymore, that's a brain damaged version of him.

Who to vote for if I believe homeopathy is bs?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50796638]Who to vote for if I believe homeopathy is bs?[/QUOTE] Anybody but Trump. This includes Jill Stein, because if you actually read that AMA instead of just half-ass skimming it, the worst interpretation you can get about her homeopathy position is "well it's not like I can reasonably stop you, but lets make sure it's safe first". Same with her stance on GMOs.

[QUOTE=lavacano;50796655]Anybody but Trump. This includes Jill Stein, because if you actually read that AMA instead of just half-ass skimming it, the worst interpretation you can get about her homeopathy position is "well it's not like I can reasonably stop you, but lets make sure it's safe first". Same with her stance on GMOs.[/QUOTE] Right but when you vote for a candidate you're voting for their party. So even if Stein is reasonable, their party is still anti GMO and anti nuclear power, which are two things that can do a LOT of good for the environment and humanitt

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50796670]Right but when you vote for a candidate you're voting for their party.[/quote] As an Independent who was only voting Democrat these past couple of elections because their particular candidate suited me, and was continuing to only support the Democrats because I liked Bernie, this argument isn't really going to get you any traction. [quote] So even if Stein is reasonable, their party is still anti GMO[/quote] Even supposing I believed the above, isn't it the party leader that ultimately shapes the platform? Jill Stein is the de facto leader of the Greens at the moment. So even if that's technically in their platform language now, with Stein at the helm, I fully expect the platform to remove that language, or at least become far more reasonable about it. [quote]and anti nuclear power[/QUOTE] Yeah, this one's true, and I still don't get that, but at the moment, solar, hydro, and geothermal are more than enough. If we need nuclear later, we can unban it with a later President.

The only 'Plan B' for Bernie Supports is Hillary, anything else will just give Trump more of a chance at victory.

[QUOTE=dvc;50796803]The only 'Plan B' for Bernie Supports is Hillary, anything else will just give Trump more of a chance at victory.[/QUOTE] look, if you want to vote Hillary, I won't stop you, because despite what I hate about her, she at least won't screw us over as bad as Trump would but what is it going to take to get this guilt trip bullshit to stop?

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50793868]Ever see Rocky? Bernie Sanders is basically Rocky Balboa. He just wamted to go the distance and prove a point, and he succeeded.[/QUOTE] so when does Rocky IV happen?

The Revolution will still be there on November 9. Instead of voting against Clinton, which sadly will inadvertently benefit Trump, we should commit to continuing the fight through the next four years under Clinton, not just walk away from the fight because we've suffered a temporary defeat. I'd much rather be a thorn in Clinton's side for the next four to eight years than fight a hopeless battle with an orange maniac.

because that sort of thing counts as "emotional abuse" and I refuse to vote for a candidate or join a group of people who emotionally abuse me like that this was going to be a merge but oh well

If you're so thick skinned to consider what mcharest said as emotional abuse, perhaps political discussions are not for you. EDIT: No, seriously, what was abusive about what he said? He didn't even mention you specifically, it was just a general thing. And yet you take instant offense to it, saying 'a group of people are abusing me!!' or that somehow Clinton herself is leading this zealous charge against you. For the record you can vote whoever you want, and you can partake in any political conversation you want to. Don't let me stop you. But to call what he said as 'emotional abuse' is way too reactionary and sensitive.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50796845]If you're so thick skinned to consider what mcharest said as emotional abuse, perhaps political discussions are not for you.[/QUOTE] and now we've moved onto gatekeeping fuck it, i'm just going to shower and go to work, have fun voting for evils

[QUOTE=lavacano;50796705]As an Independent who was only voting Democrat these past couple of elections because their particular candidate suited me, and was continuing to only support the Democrats because I liked Bernie, this argument isn't really going to get you any traction. Even supposing I believed the above, isn't it the party leader that ultimately shapes the platform? Jill Stein is the de facto leader of the Greens at the moment. So even if that's technically in their platform language now, with Stein at the helm, I fully expect the platform to remove that language, or at least become far more reasonable about it. Yeah, this one's true, and I still don't get that, but at the moment, solar, hydro, and geothermal are more than enough. If we need nuclear later, we can unban it with a later President.[/QUOTE] Nuclear is in a much better option than any renewable since it can produce power at any time, rather than relying on wind and solar patterns.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50795548]It's pertty awful to think that Gore won the popular vote overall but lost because of the whole Supreme Court thing and the Electoral College. Unless I'm missing something. I forgot, what is the point of the Electoral College again? It seems to run so counter to democratically voting for a President,[HR]considering that Nader got zero electoral college votes despite getting 15% nationally.[/HR] I'm wrong, I'm thinking of Perot. I think my point still stands though that it's not a great system.[/QUOTE] The electoral college was created by our founding fathers because they thought poor people were stupid and shouldn't have the right to choose their leaders. The middle class and all the values we hold nowadays and all the modern logic that we aspire to in our modern world were created by FDR, before then there was no middle class and America was a rich man vs poor man's country. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] The electoral college should be abolished if we want to really make this country more of a democracy rather than a republic.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50796887]Nuclear is in a much better option than any renewable since it can produce power at any time, rather than relying on wind and solar patterns.[/QUOTE] Too bad every candidate is against it. Except Gary Johnson, but Libertarianism is awful. I respect his attitude though.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;50796950]The electoral college should be abolished if we want to really make this country more of a democracy rather than a republic.[/QUOTE] I would take this republic which offers protections of the minority over a democracy with tyranny of the majority.

[QUOTE=lavacano;50796247] That's another lie set up by Clinton after the "you're voting for Trump!" emotional abuse strategy backfired. [/QUOTE] Was it? I haven't seen Clinton comment on Stein. Also "emotional abuse strategy" lmao what.

[QUOTE=lavacano;50796850]and now we've moved onto gatekeeping fuck it, i'm just going to shower and go to work, have fun voting for evils[/QUOTE] Just to make sure we're on the same page, are you aware that the Democratic platform now includes an expansion of the Affordable Care Act to include a public option? Other additions include a $15 minimum wage, social security expansion, and tuition-free public college for families with incomes under $120K. These are policies worth voting for in my opinion, and it's all thanks to Bernie. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton has publicly committed to appointing supreme court justices who will overturn Citizens United. As her constituents, we can hold her accountable to this promise in 2020. Conversely, Trump favors a minimum wage [I]reduction[/I], social security cuts, and repealing the ACA entirely. He has no interest in overturning Citizens United, nor does he give a shit about housings costs, student debt, or other issues that matter especially to young voters. As a Bernie supporter, I've been thoroughly disappointed by the DNC's conduct during the primary. I will never been enthusiastic about a corporatist candidate. This does not mean, however, that I want a repeat of the 2000 election. Whatever my personal view of Hillary Clinton, I ultimately prefer to cast my vote in favor of policies I support.

[QUOTE=lavacano;50796705]As an Independent who was only voting Democrat these past couple of elections because their particular candidate suited me, and was continuing to only support the Democrats because I liked Bernie, this argument isn't really going to get you any traction.[/QUOTE] It will gain traction with people who understand how the government works. [QUOTE=lavacano;50796827] but what is it going to take to get this guilt trip bullshit to stop?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=lavacano;50796835]because that sort of thing counts as "emotional abuse" and I refuse to vote for a candidate or join a group of people who emotionally abuse me like that [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=lavacano;50796850]and now we've moved onto gatekeeping [/QUOTE] What even is this.

[QUOTE=lavacano;50796835]because that sort of thing counts as "emotional abuse" and I refuse to vote for a candidate or join a group of people who emotionally abuse me like that this was going to be a merge but oh well[/QUOTE] Sorry but I care more about the economic abuse of society than your "emotional abuse" when people try to explain the necessary and unavoidable third party spoiler effect in any first past the post system. It's not guilt tripping. It's an unintended side effect of our electoral system. Vote Stein if you want to, just know that the vote is literally useless. Vote for whoever you want - just don't expect anything to come of it. Because nothing will. Because the US has always been a two party system. Hillary's got the best chance of winning compared to Stein or Bernie write-ins, so I'll vote for her because I don't want her to lose out on my vote when I spend it on someone who can't possibly win and spoil the election. This isn't "emotional abuse," it's how our electoral system works.