2016 Elections

[AFTT47]

It's good that Sanders will be adding his voice to the mix but his age makes him unviable IMO.

[c172]

I thought they were both kind of on the old side (though Bernie looks it a bit more).

[AFTT47]

I just looked it up and Bernie is 73. I actually thought he was older. Maybe he could handle a single term.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I will repeat what I say in every election cycle: vote third-party. I don't care which one. Get off the two-party treadmill.

Me, it depends on who the Libertarians put up. If he's one of the classical Libertarians, I may not vote at all, or I may vote for Hillary and repent at leisure. If the Libertarians put up a neo-Lib, then he or she might well get my vote.

Entry cost of national electoral competitiveness is very steep and much more expensive than any third party can afford.  So third party will assuredly lose.

Furthermore,  any third party will likely take most of its votes from one of the other two parties that is closer to the third party in position.    By playing, the third party weakens not its worst ideological opponent, but it's closet ideological kindred, such as they are amongst the two main parties.   So in playing at all the third party will have but handed election advantage, and probably victory, to that major party from the two that is ideologically furthest from the third party.

So vote for the third party promising to bring the country closest to the path you wish it to traverse, and you have have contributed materially to ensuring the country will steer a course further from the path you would wish it to traverse.

The Republican Party could not possible do more to assure its own continued electoral advantage than to subsidize a progressive third party that would draw votes away from the democrats.

It will certainly take time to effect a change, but following your logic puts the nation in the position of hostage to the two big parties.

I would rather endure a shitty Presidency or Congress for a few years knowing that the groundswell is building, than endure a shitty Presidency or Congress with no hope for change because everyone insists on voting for parties which have a track record of corrupt self-interest taking precedence over good governance.

Nothing can guarantee change in our system. But doing nothing guarantees the stranglehold of the status quo.

[Minimalist]

It will certainly take time to effect a change,

We don't have time.  The republicunts and their libertard leash holders are threatening to destroy the country NOW.

[Anomalocaris]

Entry cost of national electoral competitiveness is very steep and much more expensive than any third party can afford.  So third party will assuredly lose.

Furthermore,  any third party will likely take most of its votes from one of the other two parties that is closer to the third party in position.    By playing, the third party weakens not its worst ideological opponent, but it's closet ideological kindred, such as they are amongst the two main parties.   So in playing at all the third party will have but handed election advantage, and probably victory, to that major party from the two that is ideologically furthest from the third party.

So vote for the third party promising to bring the country closest to the path you wish it to traverse, and you have have contributed materially to ensuring the country will steer a course further from the path you would wish it to traverse.

The Republican Party could not possible do more to assure its own continued electoral advantage than to subsidize a progressive third party that would draw votes away from the democrats.

It will certainly take time to effect a change, but following your logic puts the nation in the position of hostage to the two big parties.

I would rather endure a shitty Presidency or Congress for a few years knowing that the groundswell is building, than endure a shitty Presidency or Congress with no hope for change because everyone insists on voting for parties which have a track record of corrupt self-interest taking precedence over good governance.

Nothing can guarantee change in our system. But doing nothing guarantees the stranglehold of the status quo.

Risk killing the hostage is not justifiable if the hostage is the world you live.

[Hatshepsut]

Elizabeth Drew in New York Review of Books notes that Republicans are using voting restrictions (valid photo ID, etc.) to pare the opposition's margins, as Demo voters among minority groups and the elderly are more likely to be excluded by the provisions. The number of voters affected, while relatively small, can nonetheless turn close elections and may have done so in North Carolina's 2014 Senate race.

This is in addition to the usual gerrymandering. Utah carved its sole Democratic enclave in Salt Lake City into three pieces so that every Democrat now votes in a House district that is overwhelmingly of the Cowboy Caucus. Reapportionment got rid of the pesky former District 2 that occasionally went blue, ensuring a solid red Congressional delegation for eternity to come.

[Mudhammam]

It will certainly take time to effect a change, but following your logic puts the nation in the position of hostage to the two big parties.

I would rather endure a shitty Presidency or Congress for a few years knowing that the groundswell is building, than endure a shitty Presidency or Congress with no hope for change because everyone insists on voting for parties which have a track record of corrupt self-interest taking precedence over good governance.

Nothing can guarantee change in our system. But doing nothing guarantees the stranglehold of the status quo.

Risk killing the hostage is not justifiable if the hostage is the world you live.

In other words, go with the hostage taker that is more likely to fail in pulling the trigger.

[Hatshepsut]

I would rather endure a shitty Presidency or Congress for a few years knowing that the groundswell is building, than endure a shitty Presidency or Congress with no hope for change because everyone insists on voting for parties which have a track record of corrupt self-interest taking precedence over good governance.

Nothing can guarantee change in our system. But doing nothing guarantees the stranglehold of the status quo.

Why would a third party be above all the corruption you complain about above? The Green Party has 63 seats of 630 in the German Bundestag and Green Party members do all the horse trading and log rolling that members of the other parties do. There's maybe less of it in Germany because parliamentary systems go by bloc voting, where all legislators of the same party vote the same way on each issue. That means the governing coalition can ignore the Greens if it wants. But it may not do so and instead humor the Greens, realizing Green help may be needed if a coalition partner backs out.

The problem here is that politics is all about self-interest. Or, more accurately, the narrow interests of whatever pressure group you happen to belong to.

The liberals who squall the loudest about our "corrupt" system are actually quite satisfied with it. It rewards them well: They hold professional jobs, drive nice cars, live in nice houses with nice families in nice neighborhoods where Politically Correct bicycle rides down quiet streets are an easy pastime. They don 't really want the system to change too much. Nonetheless, they do favor some limits being put on its excesses and a certain amount of social assistance for the less well off.

Since I don't expect the system to change, I'll go on voting Democrat even though they dump in my face, simply because elephant turds are much bigger.

[Anomalocaris]

Risk killing the hostage is not justifiable if the hostage is the world you live.

In other words, go with the hostage taker that is more likely to fail in pulling the trigger.

No, go with the hostage taker whose goal is just the ransom money, not the one who really wants to kill you, but wants to extort some money out of you first.