• 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."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Discussion Are you voting 3rd party for president in 2020

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,297
4,604
136
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).
Capital-L Libertarians are Republicans who want to smoke weed and don't want to pay taxes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

PlanetJosh

Golden Member
May 6, 2013
1,454
55
91
Republicans thinking about going for a 3rd party conservative for this election come on in let's talk.
 

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
5,474
534
126
Who's more selfish, the muh freedum anti mask people or these 3rd party voters? Here's hoping most here live in solid blue states
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,652
3,202
126
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.
You are confusing and conflating a sudden loss of people with conservation efforts.

A population increase to 400+ million sure as hell isn't going to raise our standard of living.
What do you think increasing our resource demands by 25% will do?
We'll need 25% more cows. More energy. More wood. More rare earth metals.
How anyone thinks they can defend this is beyond my understanding.

Take a bloody look at it it means to increase our population as we have been doing:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/23/they-are-taking-out-a-generation-of-tuna-overfishing-causes-crisis-in-philippines

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/10/did-we-save-the-whales-19/overfishing-threatens-whales


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/world/asia/chinas-appetite-pushes-fisheries-to-the-brink.html

Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970, report finds

That gravy train isn't stopping. Our population is growing, so it is accelerating all these issues with consumption of resources.

Try doing some basic math on it. More people, more consumption. More restrictions.... less consumption PER PERSON. The first response will be to limit our standard of living. And while that is actually inevitable and cannot be avoided, the amount of pain we endure is based on our population. Fewer people, less pain, higher standard of living.

This isn't an 1800s farm where you need more labor to function. Automation is killing off labor in mass.
This isn't even the 1900s anymore. Again, automation with industry.
Nothing good can come from spreading ourselves thinner than we already have. Or by killing off the planet while doing it. Stop filling the balloon before it pops.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,710
20,070
136
You are confusing and conflating a sudden loss of people with conservation efforts.

A population increase to 400+ million sure as hell isn't going to raise our standard of living.
What do you think increasing our resource demands by 25% will do?
We'll need 25% more cows. More energy. More wood. More rare earth metals.
How anyone thinks they can defend this is beyond my understanding.

Take a bloody look at it it means to increase our population as we have been doing:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/23/they-are-taking-out-a-generation-of-tuna-overfishing-causes-crisis-in-philippines

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/10/did-we-save-the-whales-19/overfishing-threatens-whales

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/world/asia/chinas-appetite-pushes-fisheries-to-the-brink.html

Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970, report finds

That gravy train isn't stopping. Our population is growing, so it is accelerating all these issues with consumption of resources.

Try doing some basic math on it. More people, more consumption. More restrictions.... less consumption PER PERSON. The first response will be to limit our standard of living. And while that is actually inevitable and cannot be avoided, the amount of pain we endure is based on our population. Fewer people, less pain, higher standard of living.

This isn't an 1800s farm where you need more labor to function. Automation is killing off labor in mass.
This isn't even the 1900s anymore. Again, automation with industry.
Nothing good can come from spreading ourselves thinner than we already have. Or by killing off the planet while doing it. Stop filling the balloon before it pops.
Oh to be clear I’m not talking about a sudden loss in population, I’m talking generally.

The US could support and sustain a much larger population than it has now and we should do this.

Anyways, a discussion for another time.
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
I voted 3rd party. Green Party, Howie Hawkins. I wasn’t going to vote at all but someone reminded me that legal weed was on the ballot in NJ, so I took an extra moment to fill in the bubbles for the green candidates as well.

I haven’t followed the race too closely for the last few months, but I did see Kamala Harris’s fracking comments at the VP debate, it was a nice reminder of why I didn’t vote for her.
Weed really should be legalized nationwide now and treated just like smoking cigs in public & given a DUI if driving while high. We have the laws for it already to do so.
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
You are confusing and conflating a sudden loss of people with conservation efforts.

A population increase to 400+ million sure as hell isn't going to raise our standard of living.
What do you think increasing our resource demands by 25% will do?
We'll need 25% more cows. More energy. More wood. More rare earth metals.
How anyone thinks they can defend this is beyond my understanding.

Take a bloody look at it it means to increase our population as we have been doing:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/23/they-are-taking-out-a-generation-of-tuna-overfishing-causes-crisis-in-philippines

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/10/did-we-save-the-whales-19/overfishing-threatens-whales

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/world/asia/chinas-appetite-pushes-fisheries-to-the-brink.html

Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970, report finds

That gravy train isn't stopping. Our population is growing, so it is accelerating all these issues with consumption of resources.

Try doing some basic math on it. More people, more consumption. More restrictions.... less consumption PER PERSON. The first response will be to limit our standard of living. And while that is actually inevitable and cannot be avoided, the amount of pain we endure is based on our population. Fewer people, less pain, higher standard of living.

This isn't an 1800s farm where you need more labor to function. Automation is killing off labor in mass.
This isn't even the 1900s anymore. Again, automation with industry.
Nothing good can come from spreading ourselves thinner than we already have. Or by killing off the planet while doing it. Stop filling the balloon before it pops.
The population growth is in the third world though. Due to politically correct reasons, the powers that be [celebrities / politicians / and some others] are afraid to go there. Africa i have read, had 140 million total in 1900, today it is 1.2 billion. And by 2050 it is expected to double to 2.4 billion...Asia has slowed it's growth down, same with Latin America, but both regions are still above replacement rate.

Pretty much the only reason why the US / Canada / Europe has a growing population is due to immigration from third world countries where their populations are growing like crazy. A education drive for the third world along with condoms would do wonders for the planet in the long run.
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
In theory I like some of the Libertarian ideas but when pen comes to paper I've seen little in the way of realistic plans. Jo seems like a prime example of that.
Their candidates don't ever seem to be genuine Libertarians either, i don't know why that is, but most tend to be former Republicans and keep those views when pressed. Or more rarely Democrats who also keep their views when pressed. Ron Paul was pretty spot on generally but does lean more Republican which i didn't mind.

The third parties we have seem like they are not taken seriously by any of their leaders, that's the impression i get.
 

Majes

Golden Member
Apr 8, 2008
1,134
112
106
Well, first off you are wrong. There is many ways you can speak out about things that bother you. A (physical) letter to your representative is way more effective than voting for a third party (or honestly just about anything else you can do short of showing up in person or writing a really large check), which brings me to my next point.
They simply don't care that you vote 3rd party. By doing so you have effectively removed yourself from their constituency, they can safely ignore what you want because you will not be helping or hurting their reelection. It literally makes their job easier, because they have one less person to have to please. As far as political capital goes your vote has no value.
But, on the other hand, if you declare a party, if you vote in the primaries, If then you change affiliations if they don't do right, then they have to pay attention to you. Now you are one of the magical swing vote unicorns that every politician is hunting.
My response was limited to the scope of this election. I am registered to vote in the primaries, I have sent letters and made phone calls.

Everyone here has excellent points, but I really think that our system would be much better if we had a genuine third party, so I'll be voting to support that.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,453
7,406
146
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.
Jasklas you aren’t reducing anything by opposing immigration. These people already exist. Adding them to our population reduces the population of another country.

If your argument is to make sure poor potential immigrants stay poor potential immigrants so only our resource consumption stays low, that’s highly unethical and counter productive. You’ve failed to convert another person who could eventually care about climate change. They also will continue using whatever resources they can in their home country which tend to be dirtier in the 3rd world and climate change doesn’t respect national boundaries.

I see no benefit and in fact substantial harm to individuals and humanity as a whole in your position.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
4,763
4,082
136
I normally really don't care if people throw away their vote and vote 3rd party, BUT in this election it's really hard to not find it inexcusable. Anyone who SAY they oppose Trump or are simply not happy with his antics say they are voting 3rd party. They are really saying that if Trump wins, so be it - and are really ok with him getting a second term. If you REALLY want Trump out, feel he is unfit to serve, the only logical conclusion is to vote for Biden.

9 times out of 10, when someone says “Both sides are equally bad”, what they actually mean is, “I can no longer deny that my side is bad, but I can’t yet admit that the other side is better.”

A lot of people who vote for third parties are “outliers”, people who have a really hard, emotional problem accepting the concept of a big tent party where they may have to break bread with people who have different political opinions from them. It’s an odd mindset, because in countries that use proportional representation, which tends to undercut a “two party” duopoly, the only way to form a governing bloc is to form a coalition of parties on the same “spectrum” of the political divide but who have some specific disagreements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thilanliyan

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,120
2,703
136
My response was limited to the scope of this election. I am registered to vote in the primaries, I have sent letters and made phone calls.

Everyone here has excellent points, but I really think that our system would be much better if we had a genuine third party, so I'll be voting to support that.
I think most of us would agree with your point here, but with our current system it is mathematically impossible to have a viable 3rd party. No matter how many people vote for them all they can do is supplant the old 2nd party. You would still only have 2 viable parties, just the names would change. This has actually happened several times in the past.

If you really want a viable 3rd party you have to get involved in one of the existing parties and work to get ranked choice voting as a major party platform. Until that happens voting 3rd party actually helps the two main parties maintain their power.
 

Majes

Golden Member
Apr 8, 2008
1,134
112
106
I think most of us would agree with your point here, but with our current system it is mathematically impossible to have a viable 3rd party. No matter how many people vote for them all they can do is supplant the old 2nd party. You would still only have 2 viable parties, just the names would change. This has actually happened several times in the past.

If you really want a viable 3rd party you have to get involved in one of the existing parties and work to get ranked choice voting as a major party platform. Until that happens voting 3rd party actually helps the two main parties maintain their power.
I think you're probably right on a national level... There will always be two frontrunning candidates and those will represent the largest parties. You'd think in today's wired age that an independent candidate could have a large viral campaign though... I actually think that's what happened with Trump to an extent. He definitely wasn't a traditional Republican candidate and the GoP fought against him for quite a while before giving up.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,120
2,703
136
I actually think that's what happened with Trump to an extent. He definitely wasn't a traditional Republican candidate and the GoP fought against him for quite a while before giving up.
Right, and to some extent I would say that Trump might actually represent a coup of the Republican party. Time will tell, but it might just be that the Republican party of the future is not the Republican party of the last few decades. The name stayed the same, but it is a new party. This is certainly what happened to the Democrats in the late 30's when they effectively reversed every one of their party platforms.

The thing about political parties in the United States is that is not about exposure or even the ability to get votes, it is about how the election system works. There simply can not be a viable third party in a first past the post voting system. Any powerful 3rd party is directly competing not against the party opposite them but the party most closely resembling them. Making it so that if one of them loses the other party that most resembles them loses as well. What this amounts to is a string of victories for the party that both of the other parties like the least. Eventually the two similar parties make the decision to work together to actually win a few elections, and start telling their voters to vote for the candidate between them that that looks like they can win. This is called caucusing, where different groups with different goals come together under one banner to improve their odds of getting their goal accomplished. Each of the parties are already made up of numerous different caucuses that work together. These can be seen as the different '3rd' parties that could form under a different political system, but under ours has to work together to hold power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Majes

ASK THE COMMUNITY