Voting the "lesser of two evils" vs. voting third party (conscience vote/wasted vote?)

[annabenedetti]

Carrying this to a new thread:

Translation: "The lesser of two evils is still evil but I will still support the Republican Party because it is the lesser of two evils."

This really should be its own topic, because I can see both sides. Personal note, I left the GOP in 2012 and have been politically unaffiliated ever since. But - this country has a two-party system for all intents and purposes, and while understanding the idea of a conscience vote, I won't use my vote for a candidate that has no possibility of winning. I vote Democratic according to the principle of double effect, which deflates the argument used for decades to ensure the religious Republican vote.

Feel free to start a thread on that topic. I will tell you here that ultimately, both parties have essentially the same corporate owners. Follow the money. We live in a political duopoly and both sides are being played by this dichotomy and neither side realizes it. Both sides are convinced that they have to give away their votes to either one of two parties without demanding much in return--and all out of fear that the other side will win an election.

I'd agree the two main parties are beholden to corporate money, Citizens United cemented that. I'd add that third parties can have an effect on a presidential election (Jill Stein being a recent example) but a third party candidate has never won a presidential election.

So voting third party in a presidential election may be an act of conscience or conviction in some way best described by the voter who makes that choice, because I don't understand voting for someone who cannot win, thus possibly allowing the person you don't want to win, to do just that. A third party vote is a wasted vote, because either a Democratic or Republican candidate is going to win. It's possible that some percentage of those who vote third party don't care who wins, because to them either main party is equally bad, in which case their complaints about who's in office ring hollow.

Rather than seeing a vote for either of the main parties as voting the lesser of two evils, what about seeing it as voting for the candidate who will do the least harm?

 

[User Name]

I don't understand voting for someone who cannot win, thus possibly allowing the person you don't want to win, to do just that. A third party vote is a wasted vote, because either a Democratic or Republican candidate is going to win.

By refusing to vote 3rd party, you are perpetuating the 2-party corporate-owned duopoly we now have that is getting worse, not better.

The only solution to this dilemma is to find a party/politician who's views most align with your own and support/vote for them regardless of what may be their actual chances of winning.

Stay true to yourself, rather than betray your own convictions because you think you have to settle for the lesser of two evils.

 

[ok doser]

Unless Jesus is running as the third candidate, you're still choosing between the lesser of evils

 

[annabenedetti]

By refusing to vote 3rd party, you are perpetuating the 2-party corporate-owned duopoly we now have that is getting worse, not better.

The only solution to this dilemma is to find a party/politician who's views most align with your own and support/vote for them regardless of what may be their actual chances of winning.

Stay true to yourself, rather than betray your own convictions because you think you have to settle for the lesser of two evils.

If a third party grew large enough to stand with the two main parties, there's little doubt that the third party would also be beholden to corporate donors.

As to staying true to yourself, would you mind saying which party you belong to? And if you agree 100% with its platform?

 

[ok doser]

My strategy is to vote FOR the BEST candidate in the primaries and AGAINST the WORST candidate in the general.

 

[User Name]

As to staying true to yourself, would you mind saying which party you belong to? And if you agree 100% with its platform?

None currently. I was Republican in my ignorant, deluded youth, Libertarian during my Ron Paul phase, Bernie in 2016. My views have changed a lot over the decades with new perspectives and new understandings of problems and solutions.

A third party vote is a wasted vote, because either a Democratic or Republican candidate is going to win.

The only wasted vote is the vote that perpetuates the current duopoly, which is owned by corporate interests, Wall Street, major donors, etc. You come last, if at all, in that system. The owners of the duopoly will get what they want regardless of who is elected.

 

[annabenedetti]

None currently. I was Republican in my ignorant, deluded youth, Libertarian during my Ron Paul phase, Bernie in 2016. My views have changed a lot over the decades with new perspectives and new understandings of problems and solutions.

Thanks, that helps me understand a little better where you're coming from. When you voted for Bernie, did you agree 100% with his platform?

The only wasted vote is the vote that perpetuates the current duopoly, which is owned by corporate interests, Wall Street, major donors, etc. You come last, if at all, in that system. The owners of the duopoly will get what they want regardless of who is elected.

The limitations of humans means we probably will never achieve a perfect system.

So how do you keep from making the perfect the enemy of the good?

 

[User Name]

Thanks, that helps me understand a little better where you're coming from. When you voted for Bernie, did you agree 100% with his platform?

I'd say so. Can't think of anything I disagreed with him on.

The limitations of humans means we probably will never achieve a perfect system.


So how do you keep from making the perfect the enemy of the good?

If you think what we have now is good, go for it. But keep in mind that as things currently stand, your Democratic Party would be considered far right in many European countries if it existed there. Is that really what you want to support, or do you prefer to have what they have?

 

[annabenedetti]

I'd say so. Can't think of anything I disagreed with him on.

Okay, here's his 2016 platform. Would you mind giving it a quick skim to see? Not asking you to jump through hoops at all. I'm just thinking there are things like his strong support for affirmative action, free college or medicare for all that you may not have been completely on board with.

If you think what we have now is good, go for it. But keep in mind that as things currently stand, your Democratic Party would be considered far right in many European countries if it existed there. Is that really what you want to support, or do you prefer to have what they have?

It's good enough to fight to make better. I know to the right wing of the GOP the Democratic Party looks left-wing but I have to work with what's available to us here in this country right now. A vote for Bernie in the general was a vote for Trump.

 

[User Name]

Okay, here's his 2016 platform. Would you mind giving it a quick skim to see? Not asking you to jump through hoops at all. I'm just thinking there are thinks like his strong support for affirmative action, free college or medicare for all that you may not have been completely on board with.

I think affirmative action should apply to the economically disadvantaged regardless of race. Other than that,

A vote for Bernie in the general was a vote for Trump.

A vote for Bernie in the general was a vote for Bernie.

 

[annabenedetti]

I think affirmative action should apply to the economically disadvantaged regardless of race. Other than that,

Thanks. Just noting that nothing's ever going to be perfect, but we get as close as we can, working with what we have. I voted for Bernie in the primary, but not in the general.

No, a vote for Bernie was a vote for Bernie.

The effect was a vote for Trump. The vote was so close in three states that had Jill Stein and Bernie voters voted for Hillary, Trump would've lost. That doesn't mean Hillary was the ideal candidate, but history will show that she was a better candidate than Trump. I know what you think about Hillary, and I understand a less polarizing candidate would have had a better chance.

 

[User Name]

Thanks. Just noting that nothing's ever going to be perfect, but we get as close as we can

I can get much, much closer with Bernie rather than with Hillary.

The effect was a vote for Trump. The vote was so close in three states that had Jill Stein and Bernie voters voted for Hillary, Trump would've lost.

Black voters and Bernie bros who sat on their hands rather than vote for Hillary in 2016 don't regret their decision from what I've seen.

 

[annabenedetti]

I can get much, much closer with Bernie rather than with Hillary.

I chose Bernie over Hillary in the 2016 primary. I voted for Kamala in the 2020 primary. I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren if she ran again. Hillary wasn't my first choice, but at the same time I found that so much of what was said about her wasn't true.

Black voters and Bernie bros who sat on their hands rather than vote for Hillary in 2016 don't regret their decision from what I've seen.

Probably regarding Bernie bros, but regarding the Black vote:

August polling averages from FiveThirtyEight showed that Clinton had support from 86 percent of likely black voters — with Trump all the way in fourth place behind Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

 

[Gary K]

I think affirmative action should apply to the economically disadvantaged regardless of race. Other than that,


A vote for Bernie in the general was a vote for Bernie.

So after all the denials you finally admit that you're a socialist.

 

[User Name]

So after all the denials you finally admit that you're a socialist.

Nordic model =/= socialism.

Read about the Nordic model here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

 

[Right Divider]

By refusing to vote 3rd party, you are perpetuating the 2-party corporate-owned duopoly we now have that is getting worse, not better.

Voting at all "validates" the 2-party corporate-owned duopoly we now have that is getting worse, not better.

The only real solution is for everyone to stop being a part of the corrupt system altogether.

The only solution to this dilemma is to find a party/politician who's views most align with your own and support/vote for them regardless of what may be their actual chances of winning.

Then you are simply perpetuating the 2-party corporate-owned duopoly we now have that is getting worse, not better.

Stay true to yourself, rather than betray your own convictions because you think you have to settle for the lesser of two evils.

 

[User Name]

Voting at all "validates" the 2-party corporate-owned duopoly we now have

Umm no. @JudgeRightly has mentioned Tom Hoefling of America's Party.

 

[Rusha]

I chose Bernie over Hillary in the 2016 primary. I voted for Kamala in the 2020 primary. I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren if she ran again. Hillary wasn't my first choice, but at the same time I found that so much of what was said about her wasn't true.



Probably regarding Bernie bros, but regarding the Black vote:

August polling averages from FiveThirtyEight showed that Clinton had support from 86 percent of likely black voters — with Trump all the way in fourth place behind Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Those who stayed home share blame for the ruination of America by virtue of Former Guy. Even though I don’t care for Bernie, I would have voted for him in order to safeguard America.

 

[User Name]

Those who stayed home share blame for the ruination of America by virtue of Former Guy.

The polls leading up to the 2016 election also suggested Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee that year, was broadly popular with Black voters. But her support ended up being lower than expected. Black turnout dropped from 66.6 percent in 2012 to 59.6 percent in 2016 — the largest decline in voting among Black Americans from one presidential election to the next in decades, according to a report by the Pew Research Center.

Overall, 4.4 million people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 did not vote in 2016. Of those, 1.6 million were Black, according to an authoritative study on the election.

The drop in Black turnout, especially among younger voters, contributed to Clinton’s losses in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, said Bernard Fraga, a political science professor at Emory University and one of the study’s authors.

Those three battleground states, which Obama won in 2008 and 2012, are widely believed to have cost Clinton the election. She lost the states by a combined total of just 77,744 votes, though she won the national popular vote with nearly 3 million more votes than Trump.

Can Biden win over Black voters who Clinton lost in 2016?

The Biden campaign’s recent slate of events around race and policing — equal parts listening tour and call to action — is part of a targeted effort to win over Black voters, one that started last year but now comes at a critical moment in the 2020 presidential election.

www.pbs.org

 

[annabenedetti]

The polls leading up to the 2016 election also suggested Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee that year, was broadly popular with Black voters. But her support ended up being lower than expected. Black turnout dropped from 66.6 percent in 2012 to 59.6 percent in 2016 — the largest decline in voting among Black Americans from one presidential election to the next in decades, according to a report by the Pew Research Center.

That's not surprising though, is it? That numbers would drop after the first Black president left office? As link link I gave you earlier showed, Hillary had strong support among Black voters, they just didn't carry the momentum of the Obama years into 2016, and then there's the ongoing problem with vote suppression by Republicans.

Overall, 4.4 million people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 did not vote in 2016. Of those, 1.6 million were Black, according to an authoritative study on the election.

The drop in Black turnout, especially among younger voters, contributed to Clinton’s losses in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, said Bernard Fraga, a political science professor at Emory University and one of the study’s authors.

Those three battleground states, which Obama won in 2008 and 2012, are widely believed to have cost Clinton the election. She lost the states by a combined total of just 77,744 votes, though she won the national popular vote with nearly 3 million more votes than Trump.

Can Biden win over Black voters who Clinton lost in 2016?

The Biden campaign’s recent slate of events around race and policing — equal parts listening tour and call to action — is part of a targeted effort to win over Black voters, one that started last year but now comes at a critical moment in the 2020 presidential election.

www.pbs.org

What I mentioned earlier about the three states being so close - if those voting for Bernie or Jill Stein had voted against Trump instead, we wouldn't have had four years of the worse president in U.S. history.