Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Socialist

17 (33.3%)

Green

8 (15.7%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (3.9%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (21.6%)

Libertarian

8 (15.7%)

Republican

2 (3.9%)

Constitution

2 (3.9%)

Total Members Voted: 50

[Helgoland]

Fun fact: In the CPSU, those guys were referred to as 'useful idiots'.

[Knit tie]

Solid liberal - no surprise here.

[Greiger]

The problem with voting for a third party is that even if they somehow manage to win a popular vote, and not just be a spoiler vote that increases the chances of the guy you LEAST want to get into office, even for a few states, I don't see any reason why the electoral college wouldn't vote republican or democrat anyway.  They have absolutely nothing that requires them to vote the way the people want them to, except for maybe some bad public opinion after the fact that they just changed your vote for you as surely as if you chose another bubble to fill in.  And there's nothing you can do about it for 4 years neener neener.

When the system was designed there was no form of near instant communication, and they are permitted to vote how they wish when they actually get to the place where the actual official EC members votes are tallied.  It was some kind of system to allow for them to adapt to sudden changes in situation during travel time.   In the modern era, that's just absurd and needs abolished.

[Culise]

The problem with voting for a third party is that even if they somehow manage to win a popular vote, and not just be a spoiler vote that increases the chances of the guy you LEAST want to get into office, even for a few states, I don't see any reason why the electoral college wouldn't vote republican or democrat anyway.  They have absolutely nothing that requires them to vote the way the people want them to, except for maybe some bad public opinion after the fact that they just changed your vote for you as surely as if you chose another bubble to fill in.  And there's nothing you can do about it for 4 years neener neener.

When the system was designed there was no form of near instant communication, and they are permitted to vote how they wish when they actually get to the place where the actual official EC members votes are tallied.  It was some kind of system to allow for them to adapt to sudden changes in situation during travel time.   In the modern era, that's just absurd and needs abolished.

Yes, faithless electors are theoretically a thing.  That said, 29 states already have laws that punish them after the fact, and some of these also invalidate a faithless elector's vote (which renders it largely ceremonial).  Moreover, they're more a theory than a reality, and have been such since the 19th century.  Since the year 1900, there have been precisely nine such faithless electors (ten, if you count Illinois' brief snafu in 1984): of these, three were actually for third-party candidates (States' Rights, Libertarian, and American Independent) in total, two were likely errors (including accidentally voting the vice-president candidate for president and vice versa), and still others were likely protest votes (a no-vote to protest D.C.'s lack of representation; a vote for a judge and senator not even in the presidential race).  Also, the last time a third party successfully took a state (multiple states, actually) in 1968, the only faithless elector broke in favour of the third-party candidate even when they were supposed to be voting Republican.  In 1984, when the Democratic results were pretty close to a third-party status, the only state Mondale took didn't break faith for the sake of popularity, either. 

I suppose that essentially, the question isn't so much why wouldn't an elector break faith, but rather why would they break faith?  It costs them nothing to keep faith and vote for a third party, and in many states, it would cost them quite a bit to do otherwise.  There are plenty of issues with the voting system that block third parties and need to be addressed; Electoral College reform, though significant in its own right, is not one of these. 

[Cheeetar]

I'm a boring, solid liberal.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yeah, a mass incidence of faithless electors to alter the outcome of an election would be the kind of thing that would result in instant and sustained revolt that would make Occupy look like a Labor Day protest.

[Duuvian]

Solid liberal but had voted next generation left before I realized there was an actual poll.

That poll was kind of limited too.

[Eagle_eye]

Or that.  Just don't allow your choices to be constrained.  It's all a mind game.  It only works because we allow it.

The problem is that it only works because we allow it. Protest voting on an individual level is actively harmful, in that it increases the odds of the Republicans winning, and isn't going to get anyone else to make a protest vote. It's like playing Prisoner's dilemma with a bunch of people who don't know that this isn't the optimal outcome.

[SalmonGod]

Or that.  Just don't allow your choices to be constrained.  It's all a mind game.  It only works because we allow it.

The problem is that it only works because we allow it. Protest voting on an individual level is actively harmful, in that it increases the odds of the Republicans winning, and isn't going to get anyone else to make a protest vote. It's like playing Prisoner's dilemma with a bunch of people who don't know that this isn't the optimal outcome.

It may be most harmful in the short term, but I believe that continuing as we are is most harmful in the long term.

The Republicans are worse, but both are still horrible.  And it's not just about enduring a steady level of horribleness under the Democrats.  Things continue getting worse no matter which side is dominant.  Democrats and Republicans alike continue to support rising economic inequality, environmental destruction, and the expansion the prison-industrial militarized police surveillance state.  Our rights continue to be chipped away.  The end result we're looking at is the same, except one side just pushes for it a little more aggressively. 

I know that social causes are important and the Republican stances on them are really scary, but Democrats hurt our ability to be activists for those causes too.  Police in the U.S. are notorious for aggression towards any left-wing activism (and I'm NOT only referencing Occupy here), so Democrats are hurting social causes too when they grant law enforcement greater surveillance and impunity.  And the evils of bigotry will pale in comparison to the crushing poverty and ecosystem collapse we face in our lifetimes.  For fucks sake, there are projections that the oceans will be nearly devoid of life before my kids are middle-aged.

And I've only witnessed a handful of people actually voice support for either of the two parties in the last few years.  Almost everybody hates them both and is fed up, but believes that they have no choice but to hold on to tactical voting.  I think it's an awareness problem.  Everyone's too paranoid that there aren't enough people ready to abandon this facade, so they don't make significant gestures to display their readiness.  I think any noticeable drop in support for them will have a cascading effect.  But somebody has to take the first step.

And people on the right are fed up with Republicans, too.  I never saw evidence of a single person who actually liked Romney outside of footage of his own support rallys.  Every single person I spoke with or heard of who was voting for him was for the sole reason of opposing Obama, and were prepared to fight Romney on most of the stuff he wanted to do after electing him.  It may not be to the same extent, but I believe they're acting on the same dilemma as the left.

[WealthyRadish]

I agree with Salmon pretty much entirely there. I know barely anyone that actually agrees with the party they vote for, it's more just that they hate the other party. My mother voted Republican in every election for decades before I pointed out that she disagrees completely with almost every conservative viewpoint. Now I think she votes Green.

[Angle]

Voting for a third party is still rather foolish, though. It won't have much effect. What we need to do is put additional effort into circumventing the current status quo. I'm not entirely sure how best to do that, though I have a number of ideas.

[Orange Wizard]

A mixed-member preferential system (IIRC) is a fairly common method of avoiding a stagnant two-party system.

[SalmonGod]

Voting for a third party is still rather foolish, though. It won't have much effect. What we need to do is put additional effort into circumventing the current status quo. I'm not entirely sure how best to do that, though I have a number of ideas.

I agree, if you mean what I think you do about circumventing the status quo.  I absolutely promote measures to operate outside of existing establishments, and plant the seeds of new ones that can grow to replace them.  But if voting in third parties is unrealistic, then convincing people to abandon the establishment entirely is a fairytale.  Might as well do both.  We still have to cope with the present while building the future, anyway.

[Angle]

Eh, if you wish to promote third parties, do it at the local level, no the national level. Those are some races you might actually win.

[SalmonGod]

I wish I had the time to get involved in local politics...  Being decently informed on the national level is hard enough.