Drumpf?

[Minimalist]

I'm still waiting for some libertarian to show me where the libertarian philosophy of government has ever been used in a modern state.  I stopped holding my breath long ago.

Their vision is roughly akin to the US in about 1830.

[Aroura]

2% away from getting into the debates, 97% away from being elected.  

Look, the whole point of the lesser of 2 evils is to make sure the LESSER evil happens.  

In this case, if you don't help the lesser evil, you are helping the greater one by default.  It's a shitty situation for many, but there it is.

An eight point brief on lesser evil voting

The broader lesson to be drawn is not to shy away from confronting the dominance of the political system under the management of the two major parties. Rather, challenges to it need to be issued with a full awareness of their possible consequences. This includes the recognition that far right victories not only impose terrible suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society but also function as a powerful weapon in the hands of the establishment center, which, now in opposition can posture as the “reasonable” alternative. A Trump presidency, should it materialize, will undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the Sanders campaign, particularly if it is perceived as having minimized the dangers posed by the far right.

A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition is that this sort of cost/benefit strategic accounting is fundamental to any politics which is serious about radical change. Those on the left who ignore it, or dismiss it as irrelevant are engaging in political fantasy and are an obstacle to, rather than ally of, the movement which now seems to be materializing.

You want to change the 2 party system.  I agree.  Allowing Trump to become prez by not voting for Hillary isn't going to help you accomplish that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Please refrain from arguing for a third party, I voted for Perot in 92, unlikely I could be swayed into going down that road again.

Please refrain from inhibiting the change that obviously needs to happen.

I may not sway you, but I'll sure as hell try to sway those reading this thread.

The two parties have run this country for 150+ years, and have settled into a symbiotic relationship whereby the distractions of partisanship have been captured and deployed by business interests which we all know run this country. Voting for either of the two parties is in essence voting for the status quo.

I often hear that voting for a third-party, I'm "throwing my vote away". Not so. I argue that it is those who vote Dem or Rep who are throwing their votes away. These two parties, especially in the last forty years, have settled into a complacent relationship with donors that permits them to ignore the needs and wants of the citizenry. Voting for them is voting for more of them same. Voting for them is voting for the boot that steps on you -- unless you're KUSA or some other online rich guy.

No, I won't refrain from urging a third-party vote. Such is the only possibility of climbing out of the bullshit the two majors have foisted upon us. If I can't change your mind, that's fine -- just make sure the next time you want to complain about how things are, you remember that you bought into it.

You bought into it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

2% away from getting into the debates, 97% away from being elected.  

Look, the whole point of the lesser of 2 evils is to make sure the LESSER evil happens.  

[...]

You want to change the 2 party system.  I agree.  Allowing Trump to become prez by not voting for Hillary isn't going to help you accomplish that.

Nonsense. The value of a third-party vote right now depends on the leaning of one's state of residence. In a state where the race is close, the lesser-of-two-evils voting is understandable, and an approach I myself will use if it comes to that point here in Texas, if for no other reason that of SCOTUS nominations.

But if your home state is already settled to one candidate or another, and if you're unhappy with the system as it currently is, restricting your vote to the parties which have brought you to your unhappy state of affairs is silly, the internet definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

We need more options. Furthermore, we need to grow them -- they ain't gonna pop up like mushrooms after an overnight rain.

You aren't going to win a jackpot for picking the winner. You're not going to change a thing if you "choose" between two parties. You won't win a prize, you won't get a better job, you won't get anything but more screwing. A vote for someone who cannot win will still register -- it will help a third-party gain breathing space and funding, and it will register on the pollsters who feed the machine data, and perhaps at the least convince the two majors to tack more with the wind rather than into the breeze.

[mlmooney89]

Exactly. How are we supposed to change things if we just keep going along with how they already are? I admit we won't win this election but with the whole country at both Clinton and Trumps' throats it is opening a wonderful gap that shows there are other options. Maybe in time if we keep spreading the info, keep showing the good side, and keep fighting we will win. Plant the seed now and watch it grow through patience and nurturing.

[mlmooney89]

[Alex K]

Can I interest you in the magical German representative system, where coalitions of parties form the government? The Americans were involved in its establishment, too bad they can't use the same wisdom at home...

[Chad32]

The only thing Clinton has going for her is that she's not as bad as Trump. She's still plenty bad, but her competition would probably be worse for the country than GW Bush.

[Faith No More]

I see several people here are vitriolic and more than a little prolific in their posts that portrayTrump in a negative light.  It is not hard to find common ground as to why he may be a poor candidate for President.  

Would anyone care to articulate why we should cast our vote for Mrs Clinton, as she is the only viable option remaining with a real chance of winning?

Please refrain from arguing for a third party, I voted for Perot in 92, unlikely I could be swayed into going down that road again.

The only reason to consider voting for Hillary is that Trump is such an incompetent madman that he is dangerous.

If you're in a state guaranteed to go one way or the other, however, I would encourage you to vote third party in order to send the two major parties the message that you're tired of picking the lesser of two evils. Thank the FSM I'm in a state like that, because having to vote for Clinton would probably make me suicidal.

Still, the reason we're stuck voting for the lesser of two evils each election is that people have convinced themselves that they have to vote for one of the two major parties. Both parties can continue to put up terrible candidates because they know their base will vote for them anyway out of fear of the other guy. A Trump presidency would be terrible, but I'm not entirely convinced that it wouldn't be worth it to send the Democrats the message that they need to get their shit together. If there weren't Supreme Court nominations on the line, I would say it would definitely be worth it.

[Aroura]

2% away from getting into the debates, 97% away from being elected.  

Look, the whole point of the lesser of 2 evils is to make sure the LESSER evil happens.  

[...]

You want to change the 2 party system.  I agree.  Allowing Trump to become prez by not voting for Hillary isn't going to help you accomplish that.

Nonsense. The value of a third-party vote right now depends on the leaning of one's state of residence. In a state where the race is close, the lesser-of-two-evils voting is understandable, and an approach I myself will use if it comes to that point here in Texas, if for no other reason that of SCOTUS nominations.

But if your home state is already settled to one candidate or another, and if you're unhappy with the system as it currently is, restricting your vote to the parties which have brought you to your unhappy state of affairs is silly, the internet definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

We need more options. Furthermore, we need to grow them -- they ain't gonna pop up like mushrooms after an overnight rain.

You aren't going to win a jackpot for picking the winner. You're not going to change a thing if you "choose" between two parties. You won't win a prize, you won't get a better job, you won't get anything but more screwing. A vote for someone who cannot win will still register -- it will help a third-party gain breathing space and funding, and it will register on the pollsters who feed the machine data, and perhaps at the least convince the two majors to tack more with the wind rather than into the breeze.

Well, if you read the article, it is about states where the race is close.  Guess I should have specified that.

I'm independant and often vote that way, here in Oregon.

You know the huge problem with that?  I don't even get to vote in the primaries.  So I didn't even get to vote for Bernie!