2020 Presidential Primaries

That aphorism isn’t remotely applicable here. For me it’s about making my vote as effective as possible, and not denying reality about how effective it actually is, and what those effects are. Also no, if Jeffery Dahmer was running against Trump and winning or in second, I’d tell people in swing states to vote for Trump.

I “keep going on about that” because it’s not fair that I’m right and you’re wrong. In a more just world, mine is the argument of a partisan hack (and I’d hope I’d be on your side against it). I’d love it if your protest vote meant anything close to what you intend it to mean. But under the game-theoretic framework set up by FPTP voting and public polling (the “game”), it doesn’t. That’s probably by design, but the game can change if we change something about it; the design too, if enough voters decide they want to. Our options are voting reform (IRV, approval, score voting, multi-type voting; literally almost anything is better than FPTP for single-winner elections), electoral reform (multi-member district legislatures), or convincing polling companies to change the wording of the question they’ve been asking for decades (not sure this one would actually be enough, but it’s a start).

I wrote a city charter amendment I’m trying to get on the ballot (a little difficult to get petition signatures right now), and wrote to my Congresscritters in support of Ro Khanna’s bill to implement IRV. What are you doing? Besides pretending the game is something other than what it is?

You’re voting for both. Accept it.

But that's the Libertarian philosophy. So, it's not really surprising that she got the nomination.

Normally, I'd be inclined to agree with you that it'd be safe for someone in a solid red or blue state to vote third party, but given that it's highly likely this election is going to be a clusterfuck, it's not something that I'd be willing to risk. If Trump loses, he's going to be challenging every vote in every state, while screaming "voter fraud!" The more votes for Biden, the harder it will be for him to be successful in throwing out enough votes to shift the election.

I’ll worry about that closer to the election. It’s hard to imagine Biden’s margin in CA being under 20%

It's hard to imagine America electing a drug-addled reality show performer as President, yet here we are.

You can smell the arrogance from that statement.

It's not a protest vote. How many times do I have to say this? Should I draw you a picture? Say it in a different language?

Now you are contradicting yourself. You say that people should vote Biden because that's the only way to get rid of Trump, but then you campaign hard for people to pick Biden because he is the lesser of two evils and ignore everyone else. That's not the act of someone trying to change the system. That's the act of someone trying to keep the system the way it is. Need I remind you that this country didn't start with Democrats and Republicans as the two major parties. That happened over a long period of time when various factions split off and formed new parties. We've had Federalists, Democrat-Republicans(the anti-federalists), Whigs, and the current Democrats and Republicans. It has happened many times before in america and it can certainly happen again.

That's an entirely different subject. Who I vote for isn't going to change the system no matter whom I choose whether it's Trump, Biden or neither. The system isn't perfect, and if I had my way the presidency would be by popular vote. But that's not how it works and it's not going to change.And you are certainly not going to be able to force polling firms to change how they do business.

I'm still not voting for your guy. Accept it.

PS: Just saw your recent post.Griping at me for not voting Biden while you admit to doing the same exact thing means you lose all right to lecture anyone about their voting habits. You have no convictions and only vote based on popularity. Hypocrite.

The problem with the "I want to change the game" argument is that voting third party or not voting DOESN'T change the game. Unless the third party in question has a chance of winning, and has the support of enough Congresscritters and Senators to back them if they do. Not voting does fuck all, because the winner is based on whoever got the most votes cast. As written, 98% of the US could sit the election out in a strop and the POTUS would be whoever got 1.1% of the remainder.

Forcing political change will require a system that shifts the power from big parties or requires that they win an election based on a minimum proportion of the population. If the GOP and the DNC had to ensure that they would win among a minimum turnout, they might care more about not pissing off sections of society.

Well it's not my philosophy.

Not undeserved though.

Okay, that’s my bad. Not a protest. Ineffective to your purpose.

The two existing parties are too ideologically flexible for that to happen again, though I concede that could change (not much chance of that in the short-term future, as evidenced by Trumpism within the Republican Party). The federalists were inflexible. The Whigs were inflexible. More to the point, there’s never more than two of any note. There can’t be.

It’s not remotely different. It’s deeply, deeply tied to what voting is effective and what isn’t.

The math says otherwise.

Different circumstances, not hypocrisy. If it was a popular vote, I’d have no choice but to vote for Biden. If I lived in a swing state, I’d have no choice but to vote for Biden. If you lived in CA or WY, I wouldn’t be objecting to voting third party. We vote in the system we have, not the one we wish we had.

Hey, I'm black and a woman! Can I say he's a racist and rapist?

I live in California, same as O2C. The last 4 years have been bonkers, but blue curbstomps red in every election I can remember in my lifetime and we have the loudest and largest number of idealogue progressives in the country.

5000 votes for Harambe aren't gonna move the needle here. Besides, Trump is gonna accuse our state of voting suppression either way, so fuck it.

And my vote wouldn't change regardless.

You can object all you want. It's not your decision nor your vote. It's also very arrogant of you to assume otherwise and tell people they are wrong for how they vote because it's not how you vote.

Which is what I'm doing. Deal with it.

Muthafucka, I'll tell people they vote shittily all day and all night!!
Trump has committed 100 thousand acts of negligent homicide.
Anyone who voted for that douche nozzle was objectively wrong.
Does that hurt your feelings?
Suck it up, snowflake.
There's gonna be more.
For the rest of your life.
A great big portion of it from me.

I was reluctantly forced to this conclusion after the 2016 election.

Never in the history of America has there been an election between two such unpopular candidates. Hillary Clinton was one of the least-liked Democrats, and Donald Trump was known as a sleazy con-man with no talent for anything except cheating people. If ever there was a chance for a third-party candidate to actually make it clear that it is time for a serious new party, it was 2016.

94.3% voted for Clinton or Trump. 94.3%!

It still makes sense to vote third-party, as a protest vote, if you think there is no serious difference between the candidates, or if you think that in your state, your vote won't make any difference because someone is going to carry it in a landslide. But anyone who still thinks any party other than the Democrats or the Republicans is going to win the White House is hopelessly naive. So unless you don't care (you think they are about equally bad) or don't think you can make a difference (your state is a sure win for one or the other), the only logical choice is to vote for whichever one you think is less bad.

To come back to the illustration I used earlier, come November 4, the USA will either be heading into the ditch at high speed (Biden), or about to get smashed (again) head-on by a semi. Anyone who pretends there are any other options isn't worth debating with; we'll just talk about it again on November 4th, when they realize that reality has once again crushed their fantasies.

I disagree with those who think Biden is as bad as Trump, and I disagree even more strongly with those who think Trump is better than Biden, but those are at least rational opinions (in a manner of speaking). I can respect them. But I cannot understand someone who thinks that Trump is far worse than Biden, and who lives in a state where the projected margin of victory is less than 15% or so for one or the other, and refuses to take a stand.

Only a 100,000?

This is an outrage.

That's it.

I'm voting in protest for Hillary after she replaces Joe.

She's far better at killing people and from what I've heard from the other right-wing nuts she was planning on starting World War III as president.

That'll show Trump the slacker!!

Ah....you're responding to little dicky. I see the fascist is still ranting and raving from his parent's basement. Guy needs to move out and get a job. His parents aren't going to be able to foot the bill forever.

ISWYDT.....That's racist!

Glad to see that the people's voice won't once again be ignored because of the Florida legislature.

Oh, so I'm nationalist, authoritarian, racist, and xenophobic?

Umm..nope, not nationalist, America makes me puke lately, so...red X next to the first one.

Authoritarian? Nope. That's the assholes going to Subway with a bazooka.
I neither own a bazooka, nor want to go to Subway even if there were no plague going on.
'Nother red X there.

Racist?
Nope, racism is pseudo-science, and I listen to evidence.
'Nother red X there.

Xenophobic?
See nationalism.
'Nother red X there.

Why, it's almost like you're a moron that just throws words around like a parrot.
Trump is your guy all right.

Don't play dumb, man. You're not a Republican, so you're a leftist. And leftists are socialists, right? Just like the National Socialists, who were actually fascists! Which makes you an evil fascist! But not a neo-Nazi, because those guys are harmless and also they have first amendment rights. And Hitler liked dogs and was a vegan, just like George Soros and Barak Hussein Obama!

Good, a blatant attempt at disenfranchisement to help themselves.

It's funny that you think that to be a fascist that you need to be all those things.

Being a fascist is just about power.

Which fits you and a whole wide swath of leftists to a T.

If you were given power over the nation we'd see plenty of gulags, reeducation camps, and mass graves under your "benevolent" rule.

After all fascists always think they are doing whats right for the people.

Then Communists were fascists, and Hitler was killing other fascists when he wiped out 20 million Russians, and the word doesn't mean anything.

OR, you're as much a moron as TR.

Occam's Razor, guess which one it is.

Fascism, communism, dictatorship......

Don't you get it?

It's only about one or a small handful of people having absolute power over a country.

It doesn't matter what they call themselves.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Hussein, Putin, and any other dictator you can think of are all the same when you peel off the layers of propaganda and look behind the curtain.

It's about power.

Good to know "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't matter anymore to you, @Tererun and @Amaris ...

Careful, she's a tattletale. You might get banned if you piss her off.

fascism
noun
(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascism
That would include the USSR. Communists.

What's even more hilarious is that they haven't changed. Innocent until proven guilty didn't matter to them in the past. Just look at their commentary on Kavanaugh.

What has changed now is how all you other lefties who were with Tererun and Amaris in not caring about innocent until proven guilty are now champions of "Innocent until proven guilty" because the person accused is a Democrat.

They are being consistent. You and the others are not.