• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion Are you voting 3rd party for president in 2020

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,722
20,095
136
Not much of a Biden fan but I would have crawled over broken glass to choose him versus Trump. Though voting Biden and Democrats down the entire ballot proved much easier yesterday. Not expecting Biden to win Texas but our huge early turnout in Texas will hopefully convince Trump to keep having to blow money in this supremely expensive race he has no business losing here so he doesn't have money for the true battlegrounds like Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.
Yes, Biden wasn’t my first, second, or third choice but I am overjoyed to vote for him because Trump is the greatest threat to the United States since the 1940’s in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chocu1a

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,005
281
126
Of those on the ballot, yes.
Why does that matter? There's a space for write ins, someone doesn't need to be on the ballot for you to vote for them. Remember chance of winning doesn't matter, it's all about who would serve the country best.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,408
685
126
Why does that matter? There's a space for write ins, someone doesn't need to be on the ballot for you to vote for them. Remember chance of winning doesn't matter, it's all about who would serve the country best.
Because I dont wan to? Why do I have to justify why I vote the way I do to you? Or anyone else for that matter?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,722
20,095
136
Because I dont wan to? Why do I have to justify why I vote the way I do to you? Or anyone else for that matter?
He’s pointing out how your logic isn’t internally consistent. If odds of winning don’t matter then someone’s presence on the ballot doesn’t matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JD50

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
10,405
1,068
126
I voted for... ME! :)

Why? Because my mom said that I'd make a good president! :D
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,303
18,920
136
Again. A third party vote is not a vote for anyone but the candidate voted for. It takes a vote away from the gop and the dem equally.
Yeah, because Jill Stein voters were totally Trump voters, lol.


wtf is this nonsense?
 

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
7,382
397
126
quotes from this thread
its never the right time @blackangst1

How could you this time? surely there will be a better time but not next time either

you are throwing away your vote!

why don't you just vote for my candidate, they are obv. the bestest!

a vote for anyone but my candidate is a vote for their sworn evil baby eating challenger!

i'm just going to cry if you don't agree and vote the same as me! WAAAAAA
I am voting for Jo as well.

Her plans may not seem all that solid, but I have yet to see any president that actually follows much of their campaign rhetoric. Plus, the President does not do the legislating, congress does that. They can certainly influence, and that's where ideas come into play. I love seeing things like decriminalization, ending qualified immunity and ending civil asset forfeiture, long held beliefs of libertarians be co-opted by the major parties like they had just thought of them.

actually, Trump has followed more of it than most! that wall is going up after all.

we will never end the merry go round of bad candidates if we keep voting for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackangst1

zzyzxroad

Platinum Member
Jan 29, 2017
2,688
1,755
106
Wow I thought Jo was bad based on her website but after watching interviews she is an actual idiot. At one point she said instead of spending money on military aircraft to fly soldiers overseas would you rather have that money to send on a vacation somewhere. She really has no idea how the economy works.


I don't mind her though because she isn't going to get normal people voting for her. She will get morons who fell of the trump train and who never in a million years would vote for a Dem.
 

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
7,382
397
126
Wow I thought Jo was bad based on her website but after watching interviews she is an actual idiot. At one point she said instead of spending money on military aircraft to fly soldiers overseas would you rather have that money to send on a vacation somewhere. She really has no idea how the economy works.


I don't mind her though because she isn't going to get normal people voting for her. She will get morons who fell of the trump train and who never in a million years would vote for a Dem.

difference between R, D and L... R and D believe all the money belongs to the government and L believes the the money belongs to the people who added the value.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,123
2,707
136
difference between R, D and L... R and D believe all the money belongs to the government and L believes the the money belongs to the people who added the value.
By that I am guessing you mean tax monies.
Well, she is wrong.
Governments are needed. Governments need money to operate. Therefore taxes are needed.
In the United States the Government is the people, the people are the government.
Government money is the peoples money, and we spend it on things that the people want to spend it on.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,674
3,229
126
We have one of the least dense populations in the developed world though. Why does it need to end?
Being in a less damaging position is no excuse for us to rush forward into a more damaging position.

Why? The words stability and sustainability should be fairly self explanatory.
If not, here is just one simple idea behind it: https://www.overshootday.org/

Now here is a breakdown by country for resource consumption.

At some point we pay the piper. One way or another. For every person we add - we add to our resource debt. We make the repercussions that much more severe and or more difficult to avoid altogether. This planet, and our country, needs fewer people. Not more. Unless you favor strip mining, fracking, CO2 emissions, etc. Each person means more demand for resources, and ultimately fewer resources available for the rest of us.

For example, anyone who favors eating meat - will want our population to stop growing immediately.

We are currently living beyond our means. At some point our standard of living will be reduced to meet reality. Our population will determine how steep that reduction is.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,722
20,095
136
Being in a less damaging position is no excuse for us to rush forward into a more damaging position.

Why? The words stability and sustainability should be fairly self explanatory.
If not, here is just one simple idea behind it: https://www.overshootday.org/

Now here is a breakdown by country for resource consumption.

At some point we pay the piper. One way or another. For every person we add - we add to our resource debt. We make the repercussions that much more severe and or more difficult to avoid altogether. This planet, and our country, needs fewer people. Not more. Unless you favor strip mining, fracking, CO2 emissions, etc. Each person means more demand for resources, and ultimately fewer resources available for the rest of us.

For example, anyone who favors eating meat - will want our population to stop growing immediately.

We are currently living beyond our means. At some point our standard of living will be reduced to meet reality. Our population will determine how steep that reduction is.
If we had Thanos come by and snap half the world population out of existence so you think living standards would go up or down? My very strong bet is down - way down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uclaLabrat

zzyzxroad

Platinum Member
Jan 29, 2017
2,688
1,755
106
difference between R, D and L... R and D believe all the money belongs to the government and L believes the the money belongs to the people who added the value.
At a base lever sure but things ae more complex in real life. I'm for a drastic reduction of military spending but that spending creates a lot of jobs. They have ideas with no realistic plan of how to actually implement any of them.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,300
4,620
136
Voting for a third party candidate in a first-past-the-post voting system is the same as:

1. Voting for Zombie Washington/Space Jesus
2. Voting for the best candidate who can possibly win, and setting your ballot on fire.
3. Staying at home.

What a waste of citizenship.

If you want to vote for a third party candidate, work on getting Ranked Choice Voting enacted so you aren't just wasting your citizenship. Might as well vote for Julius Caesar using a rock instead of a ballot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uclaLabrat

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,123
2,707
136
I'm for a drastic reduction of military spending but that spending creates a lot of jobs.
I am too, and there are ways to make up for those jobs. You simply spend that money elsewhere. Big infrastructure upgrades are way overdue. I'm personally for community owned fiber to every house. Think data as a public utility. That is just one way we could be putting that money to better use than creating new ways to blow things up.
 
Dec 10, 2005
20,640
2,017
126
Voting for a third party candidate in a first-past-the-post voting system is the same as:

1. Voting for Zombie Washington/Space Jesus
2. Voting for the best candidate who can possibly win, and setting your ballot on fire.
3. Staying at home.

What a waste of citizenship.

If you want to vote for a third party candidate, work on getting Ranked Choice Voting enacted so you aren't just wasting your citizenship. Might as well vote for Julius Caesar using a rock instead of a ballot.
Doesn't help that most 3rd parties don't give a shit about building any sort of local constituencies. They just come around every 4 years to try and throw a wrench in the system by getting stupid people to vote for them instead of those people voting for the one of two candidates that has a realistic chance of winning and aligning with at least some of the voter's interests.

I bet the 3rd party voters in 1912 were thrilled with Wilson winning when Roosevelt split the vote with Taft. Or all those Nader voters in FL on 2000... Those choices were literally throwing their vote in the garbage and effectively leading to a situation diametrically opposed to the third party ideals they were trying to support
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,300
4,620
136
Doesn't help that most 3rd parties don't give a shit about building any sort of local constituencies. They just come around every 4 years to try and throw a wrench in the system by getting stupid people to vote for them instead of those people voting for the one of two candidates that has a realistic chance of winning and aligning with at least some of the voter's interests.

I bet the 3rd party voters in 1912 were thrilled with Wilson winning when Roosevelt split the vote with Taft. Or all those Nader voters in FL on 2000... Those choices were literally throwing their vote in the garbage and effectively leading to a situation diametrically opposed to the third party ideals they were trying to support
Here's the thing. I don't care if you're a liberatarian, Liberatarian™, communist, Green Party-ist, etc.

There are exactly 2 fucking people who can win the Presidential election, the (D) or the (R).

If you have an IQ higher than the average room temperature in winter, pick the one that is clearly LESS EVIL. Then vote for that candidate.

It doesn't matter how much you philosophize about ethics, principles and morals when voting for a candidate who cannot ever win, because voting for a third party candidate that cannot win is the same as not voting, voting for a horse, or marking your ballot for someone who can win and then setting it on fire.

And ultimately, if you're not voting for the obviously LESS EVIL candidate, then your non-vote/third-party vote/burned ballot is essentially the same as a marked ballot for the MOST EVIL candidate. You CHOSE to not cancel out someone voting for the MOST EVIL candidate, so their vote adds a vote for the MOST EVIL candidate, by not acting as a subtraction of that additional vote by someone else.

People who don't understand addition are helping to destroy this country.

The obvious solution is RANKED CHOICE VOTING.

ALL citizens should support Ranked Choice Voting.

Otherwise, all third party votes for candidates who cannot win the general election are a waste of your citizenship, and you would have accomplished more by binge watching Storage Wars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thilanliyan

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,300
4,620
136
You're formatting has mangled whatever you're trying to say. Want to try that again?

If you're saying that I'm telling people they have to vote for the candidate I say, then your reading comprehension is bad.
 

zzyzxroad

Platinum Member
Jan 29, 2017
2,688
1,755
106
I am too, and there are ways to make up for those jobs. You simply spend that money elsewhere. Big infrastructure upgrades are way overdue. I'm personally for community owned fiber to every house. Think data as a public utility. That is just one way we could be putting that money to better use than creating new ways to blow things up.
Oh for sure, my point was really this is not what libertarians like Jo are talking about. They have the concept of cutting spending without a plan to deal with real world consequences or just hairbrained half-baked ideas (see her education ideas).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY