I don't get people who want to waste their vote on Stein or Johnson

I've been doing a lot of arguing on Facebook this week with Bernie or Bust friends who feel that the white-haired disheveled one sold out to Hillary by endorsing her. They would have backed him to the end in a third party run, but now that he's endorsed Clinton, they will be voting for Jill Stein (Green) or Gary Johnson (Libertarian).

Few of them actually believe that Stein or Johnson have any hope at all of winning, but for them it's important for them to vote their "conscience."

I argue that if you have a vote, you should do whatever is best with it. If you can no longer assure that the best person in your judgment will win, then you need to help make sure that the worst person (Donald Trump) doesn't win.

In a college Poli Sci course, a professor explained that "The word radical comes from the Greek word for 'root,' so political radicals are 'back to the roots' people, the political equivalent of a religious fundamentalist. For them, purity is the most important thing. A radical would rather lose with clean hands than win and have to wash his hands afterward." In other words, Radicals aren't practical. 

These people who are switching their vote from Sanders to Stein or Johnson seem to me to be political babies who if they can't get what they want, pitch a fit. 

Part of the problem can be traced to Sanders himself, who painted a false equivalence between Trump and Clinton, ignoring the fact that Trump is an unqualified narcissistic racist idiot, whereas whatever you can say against Clinton (e.g., that she's too prone to military solutions, maintained an insecure personal server, is a political animal, etc.), she has the qualifications, isn't a narcissist or racist, and certainly is no idiot. In fact, she has a great record on civil rights and making life better and safer for children. Trump just builds things with his name on them and then stiffs his contractors, driving many of them out of business.

Here is a person who remembers when she wasted her vote on Ralph Nader, helping to put George Bush into office, which is when she discovered that Bush and Gore actually WERE different. She writes...

I jumped on the Nader bandwagon and bought into a set of beliefs that seemed right to me at the time but were proven very wrong over the eight years that followed.

Chief among them, I thought that Gore and Bush were essentially indistinguishable. Carbon copies of each other. Both corporate insider candidates, beholden to big-money interests and out of touch with people struggling at the margins of the economy. I’m from the Rust Belt—I grew up near Cleveland—and I had seen factory closures turn a once-vibrant part of the country into a series of ghost towns. I blamed NAFTA and the Clinton administration’s failure to defend unions and stem the tide of outsourcing. In this and on other issues—welfare reform, prison sentencing—I thought the Clinton administration had bent so far backward to win over the right that it had lost its progressive conscience. The economy boomed during the Clinton years, but the gulf between the rich and poor, the haves and have-nots, only widened.

Nader voiced the discontent I was feeling. I was young and idealistic and wanted political revolution. It felt good to back a rabble-rouser, not the stiff, robotic Al Gore. I was annoyed with the Democrats for picking a predictable, incremental candidate who played not to the left, but to the mushy middle. I went to a Nader rally in NYC: Bill Murray, Michael Moore, and Susan Sarandon spoke. Eddie Vedder sang. I felt inspired, part of a movement to bring about real change, ready to cast my protest vote.

But here’s the thing: In the eight years that followed, I was reminded again and again that George Bush and Al Gore were not carbon copies of each other. Bush was a disastrous president.

Views: 807

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Voting is simply the casting of a ballot to say who YOU want.

If you consider that in of itself, sure, everyone would simply vote for who they wanted, and who ever got the most votes, would then be the one they all got.

Where the practical side of this comes into play, mirrors the nomination process in the first place.

Essentially, the ENTIRE process, soup to nut cases, involved picking A WINNER.

A nominator may feel strongly that his brother would be the PERFECT candidate, but, also knows too few are likely to agree, and, he nominates whoever his party says to.

The end result are a bunch of nominees who "won" their nominations based upon their ABILITY TO GET NOMINATED.

Once nominated, they then typically have to be voted for by the people who nominated someone ELSE, too, to "win".

So, some people who KNOW their vote is for someone who is not going to win (Because they assume not enough people agree with their viewpoint strongly enough to take a chance), either vote for them anyway to "send a message"...and make sure the country sees that a lot of people feel this way, possibly encouraging others to join in who didn't, so as "not to waste their vote on a loser"...next time around...

or

Vote for the next most viable candidate who shares their viewpoint/is less damaging to their agenda.

MOST people go for the next most viable/lesser of the evils.

Some DO use their vote to send a message.

Think about the two party system right now in the US.  The two candidates they will offer as POTUS are BOTH hated by more of the population in their OWN party, as  well as the opposition's party than in any other election.

The time for an independent ticket to have some traction is about due....especially if things are not "better" after Hillary's first term.

All the disenfranchised voters who felt they wasted their vote on someone they really didn't like, the ones who wanted "an outsider" and a maverick etc, will start to think about (GASP) considering a third party ticket.

If the 3rd party ticket is really a 3-4 party, say the tea party and sanders affectionados splitting off and forming a left and right wing version of the parent parties...a lot of voters will seize the opportunity to express their messages.

It MIGHT mean the mainstream repubs and dems will have sheared off the annoying appendages they previously had to court, strengthening their moderate bases...and allowing the fringe parties to shear off their opponent's far winged voters.

Or maybe Trump will execute a political coup and declare himself king of america and we can drop the whole silly vote nonsense.

:D

The repubs nominations especially are hurt by their need to go to the evangelical right wing side to get NOMINATED, and then finding that the right wing nominations are difficult to get ELECTED...and they lose the election.

While there are things to dislike about Clinton, a lot of the hatred comes from the same Fox TV watchers who have been spoonfed lies and exaggerations for decades, to the point where they actually believe things like that Obama isn't really eligible to be President and is a Muslim, that the Democrats want to repeal the Second Amendment, and a whole host of ridiculous notions.

Sanders also now must regret some of the over-the-top things he said about Clinton, because I'm sure he's become aware that he's viewed as a sellout by those he convinced that voting for Clinton would be tantamount to voting for Satan himself.

Yeah - I think the nomination process in which the party does character assassinations of its own members needs to be rethought.

Currently, it reminds me of divorces where the father or mother is accused of child abuse in custody battles...

...and later has to explain to the kids who were not abused as to why they said they were.

"And mommy loved you SO much that she told the judge daddy abused you, so he would give you all to me instead"

And, no, we can't visit him in prison, that's no place for children.  We can wait for him to get out.

:D

Political radicals mistake the fact that politics has been rightly described as "the art of compromise," for selling out. 

They blithely set aside the fact that people who disagree with them also have a vote equal to theirs. I've heard some radicals (and not a few liberals) complain that Tim Kaine's views on abortion has a strong pro-life tinge to it. Well, a lot of Democrats are Catholic (Hispanics in particular) and a win can't be had without their vote. At least he says that as an administrator, his philosophy is to respect the law. That SHOULD be good enough, but for some (a few, I imagine) his views on abortion will have them either not voting, voting GOP, or finding a conservative third party to waste their vote on.

Radicals view themselves as saviors, which is dangerous. Why? Because they can justify to themselves imposing their position on everyone else. Why? Because they are morally right and that alone justifies whatever they do, they tell themselves. 

Some actually believe that maybe it'd be better to let Trump win because it would radicalize the public. Well, dream on. I doubt if it'd radicalize enough people to make a difference and the changes he'd make to the Supreme Court would turn America into a far more oppressive place.

I will most likely vote for either Jill or Gary, I haven't decided yet, except my vote will NOT go to either Hillary or Donald.

My vote in all these years has never been wasted, because I don't listen to people who have already counted votes not yet cast.  As a person with the right to vote, I will always vote for the person that most aligns with my views.  I would never vote for the often stated "lesser of two evils". 

In my opinion a vote cast for the lesser of two evils is most emphatically a wasted vote.  You just end up with EVIL.

I'd like to see you defend your view logically.

I don't like either nominee. I didn't even like Bernie that much, either. He was too pie-in-the-sky, making promises he'd never be able to keep.

That said, Trump will do damage to millions of people if he wins. First, he will repeal Obamacare, taking healthcare away from children and single moms, people with pre-existing conditions, the poor, freelancers, and small business people involved in startups that haven't become profitable yet. He will also conserva-tize the Supreme Court for generations to come, handing over the vaginas of American females to a court with a fundamentalist Christian POV.

What logic justifies allowing that to happen.

Someone once said: "Stupid is defined as doing the same thing expecting a different outcome.

Logically there are more then two choices, to change the status quo (R&D) who have brought us to the brink of collapse, a logical person does not vote to keep them in power.

Neither Trump nor Clinton will protect the future of this nation to benefit the lives of my children and grandchildren,  I will not support such evil individuals.

Do you know why a Canada Billionaire is mining uranium from American soil and selling it to Russia who in turn sells it to Iran?  Ask Hillary, that bitch is a traitor.

"Stupid is defined as doing the same thing expecting a different outcome.

Actually, that's been used as an offhand definition of "neurosis," not "stupidity."

Okay, well I'm waiting for your recounting of the glorious history of third party candidates. Most recently, that'd be Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader. How is repeating those mistakes not evidence neurosis (or stupidity)?

Neither Trump nor Clinton would be anywhere near my first choice, but Clinton actually does have a history of working on behalf of children and the poor whereas Trump's history is one of working on behalf of Trump and effectively exploiting children and the poor by outsourcing all of his consumer products to poor countries where child labor is often used. 

This notion that they're equally bad is just factually false.

Do you know why a Canada Billionaire is mining uranium from American soil and selling it to Russia who in turn sells it to Iran?  Ask Hillary, that bitch is a traitor.

No, I don't know that and while it's interesting if true, you failed to explain the Clinton connection.

Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, allowed the deal to go through.  In return, the billionaire made seven or eight figure donations to the Clinton Foundation.  Now the Russians have commercial control over most of our uranium reserves.

That's the claim. at any rate.

Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, allowed the deal to go through.  In return, the billionaire made seven or eight figure donations to the Clinton Foundation.

That's the claim. at any rate.

Well, the claim, taken literally, is false. In fact, it's unclear she had any direct role at all in the deal. What is perfectly clear is that, even if she did, she didn't have the power to veto the deal, so the implied tit-for-tat is insupportable. (read this factcheck.org story)

So this particular story is a red herring, which is not to say there aren't other more factual accusations.

@Dear Unseen:

"...Trump will do damage to millions of people if he wins. First, he will repeal Obamacare...

How is a President going to repeal an Act which is already an established Law without the support of the House and Senate? 

The President of the USA doesn't have that power.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, your reference to the American Female is especially crude and sexist.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service