Here ya go, Leo. A little voter info.
- Thread starter Tennesseahawk
- Start date
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
The lost causes populate the (R) and (D), keep hoping for something better from them, and keep voting for them, yet have no idea who owns them. Keep going "baa", Leo... the Republican establishment counts on your undying support.
You are unapologetic in your thirst for justice, yet you don't blink an eye when you pull the trigger for your party. It's kinda like loving the Constitution, but only part of it. Hope that spoonful of hypocrisy helps raise your standards; cause they're awfully low.
Last edited:
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you always... always, end up with more evil. You have to. No matter who you vote for, you are voting for evil.
When more than two candidates are running in an election, people who vote for the lesser of two evils of the two major parties, instead of a third party candidate, think it's an intelligent and logical decision. But it's not, it's an emotional decision (tactical voting).
The problem isn't who you vote for, or why, it's the system itself, which ends up being Minority Rule, as we have now. Here's an excellent explanation of why we have a two party system, and why it's so bad. If you've never looked at it in this way, it's a real eye opener.
When more than two candidates are running in an election, people who vote for the lesser of two evils of the two major parties, instead of a third party candidate, think it's an intelligent and logical decision. But it's not, it's an emotional decision (tactical voting).
The problem isn't who you vote for, or why, it's the system itself, which ends up being Minority Rule, as we have now. Here's an excellent explanation of why we have a two party system, and why it's so bad. If you've never looked at it in this way, it's a real eye opener.
If you watch this video, you'll see that the candidate doesn't even have to be all that viable.
I just voted for a number of 3rd party candidates in the primaries. If any of them make the fall ballot and have a chance of winning I will be voting for them again. You can be as wrong as you want to be, and obviously you want to be wrong, and I'll continue doing the correct and sensible thing. Give me a candidate who can win and they will have my vote. Until then there is someone to blame for the degree of evil we endure and it is someone other than me. It's fine if you disagree. I can't force you to be correct.
It isn't a case of right or wrong, correct or incorrect. There isn't a right or wrong way to vote. Thinking there is, on the other hand, is. Stating there is a right or wrong way to vote is an emotional argument, not a logical one. Tactical voting is an actual thing, classified and codified in the Theory of Voting. It's when a voter supports a candidate other than his or her sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome. Most of the time when people do it here in presidential elections, they are using the Compromising Method of tactical voting. In some cases, and in other situations, the Burying, Push-Over and Bullet Voting methods are used. Even when you go about it logically so as to justify it, you're still doing it based on emotion, not logic.
We do not have a genuine conservative party competing for votes in the United States. Our firmly entrenched two-party system consists of liberals (Democrats) and moderates (Republicans). The GOP, in another era, approached something close to conservatism, but the Establishment has successfully kept conservatives at bay. So, the GOP nominates one moderate after another. The last US presidents who showed glimmers of conservatism would be Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan. Each demonstrated conservative leanings on issues that mattered such as foreign policy, strong on military defense, tax policy. Maybe, these four should be called Traditionalists rather than conservative.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Our course we do - it was founded by a friend and former client of mine's father, Howard Phillips:
Constitution Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They seem like they would be right up your alley Ari ...
That individuals are either unaware, or simply choose not to support it ... and instead choose to sit back and whine "Oh woe is me" is the individual voter's responsibility (or lack thereof)
People should get up off their duffs and do something ... or just keep mindlessly following along (baa ... baaa), supporting their party of choice ... which repeatedly fails to deliver on their core issues, all while incessantly whining about how bad it is that menu that they voluntarily elect to choose from only has two choices ...
Yeah ... so to handle the "firmly entrenched" aspect the solution is ... wait for it ... to continue to support and vote for one of the two that are "firmly entrenched" ?
Boy ... that right there would be just pure genius, I'm tellin' ya ...
Taking a leisurely stroll down memory lane, while reminiscing about "the good ol' days" ain't gonna solve the problem either I'm afraid ...
Last edited:
Just my opinion based on observation, the theory makes sense until you plug the American electorate in to it. It only works if you have enough people thinking that way. I am all in favor of a third party. But it has to stand a chance. If it was anything close to a viable option, you would have to have an area somewhere, anywhere, where they would poll higher. If any of these parties are in the one to five percent range, that isn't a viable option regardless of where the votes come from. While a logical vote can be construed as a emotional vote, it is a reality of voting against what is to be perceived as the vote for greater evil. Still might end up with "evil", just a matter to what degree.
Almost forgot. For any of the above theories to work, you would have to have say, three candidates that are somewhat known. It is taking that in to account with the above. Anyone watching late night entertainment quickly finds many Americans don't even know who Biden is. Maybe a poor example as that one is understandable.
Many candidates just simply don't have the resources to even get their name out there let alone garner any kind of support. Most won't vote on a name they know nothing about.
Again, just an observation.
Many candidates just simply don't have the resources to even get their name out there let alone garner any kind of support. Most won't vote on a name they know nothing about.
Again, just an observation.
You just don't get it, that's all. Go outside and stand about 30 yards from your garage, with the door down. Run as hard and fast as you can, with your head lowered toward the garage door. Close your eyes as that will help you do it correctly. Once you regain consciousness your brain may be adjusted properly for you to understand and even believe throwing away your vote is the right thing and the proper thing to do. Until then, you're stuck with the sensible and logical thing like the rest of us.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
If I'm voting for someone whom I genuinely like, and who I think will do a great job, then he/she isn't evil, right?
True. The problem is, most voters don't know three candidates. Probably one of the reasons that many don't vote at all.
Tennesseehawk wrote
Very true. But it likely wouldn't matter either if no one knows who they are.
Last edited:
Same here. I have never voted for someone I found unacceptable or thought was evil. Yet, those of us who work within the two-party system are told we are choosing the lesser of two evils. I genuinely liked every presidential nominee I have voted for, beginning with Reagan in 1980. Granted, GWB disappointed on several fronts, but I viewed him as being much more palatable than what the Dems were offering. Casting a presidential vote, as I see it, is 90% idealogically driven.
When an informed voter follows his or her convictions, the best choice becomes pretty clear.
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
Why does it matter....when they're not running the country? The Lobby, Corporate, and Intelligence Service are higher on the pyramid, than any current clown on foggy bottom.
The upside down pyramid of old has been flipped to right side up. Used to be the people at the top, (the broad base) followed by the representatives, corporate, with intelligence service and bankers on the bottom point.
Now we have the pointed side up, with YOU on the bottom. Elect anyone you want, no matter what the process, you lose because the shots are being called well above that candidate.
The upside down pyramid of old has been flipped to right side up. Used to be the people at the top, (the broad base) followed by the representatives, corporate, with intelligence service and bankers on the bottom point.
Now we have the pointed side up, with YOU on the bottom. Elect anyone you want, no matter what the process, you lose because the shots are being called well above that candidate.
According to Game Theory, it'll work regardless. The Prisoner's Dilemma is the simplest illustration of Game Theory and how it works. As you say, it only works if you have enough people thinking that way, but it works one way or the other precisely because you have a certain number of people thinking a certain way. All you have to do is convince enough people that enough people are thinking a little differently.
As the first video that I posted shows, it's not as much about how people think as it is the voting method. The current two-party system ends up being minority rule. Instead of first-past-the-post voting like we have, where it always ends up with two choices, and thus the winner usually not being the first choice of the majority, another voting method is probably called for. The winner of an election needs to have a pure majority in order to be truly representative of the people. Jesse Ventura's 37% win won him the election, but 63% of the people didn't want him to represent them. In 2012 Obama won with 50.9% of the popular vote, and as that first video shows, his true conscience vote was probably about one-third, because of the same tactical voting that many people espouse, and the reality is that the-thirds of the country don't want him in office. There are a lot of people who voted for Obama who would have voted for someone else, if they thought someone else could win. End result, he wins the majority, but it's a minority who want him in office, thus minority rule.
No voting system is perfect, but there are plenty of others, or combinations thereof, which may work better. Single transferable vote, like NCAA brackets, until you finally get down to two is one way. As is the Borda count method where you cast a vote that ranks all of the choices in order of preference, with each voting rank is assigned a point value (with 4 candidates, 1st place would be 4 points, 2nd place 3, 3rd place 2, 4th place 1, and whoever ends up with the most points wins). Another is the Instant-runoff voting where you rank by preference each candidate and then you follow that up with a single-transferable vote if a particular candidate doesn't get the required number of votes. I think a Borda Count followed up with one or the other would word best overall. Not that this country is going to change the voting system any time soon, because every alternative method won't favor those parties already in power. But these are all voting system that are in use around the world.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Not my point.