2016 Election

[ShadowNotice (OP)]

Many people complain about the current candidates in the election. Why don't you vote third party? Pick one.

1) I'm fine with the candidates.

2) If I vote third party my vote will be wasted because nobody else will.

3) They are just as bad.

4) I don't know enough about them.

[Airbongo]

I'm not American but i'm gonna pick number two.

[Akomine]

I'm Canadian, but for our elections I choose 5) I do vote third party.

Wanting to vote third party then deciding "no I have to vote X big party so that Y big party doesn't win", you're just falling into their anti-democratic plan. Vote third party. Grow them. Get them to 5% so they can get funding. The more people who vote for them, the more it will encourage others to.

[luisc99]

I'm Canadian, but for our elections I choose 5) I do vote third party.

Wanting to vote third party then deciding "no I have to vote X big party so that Y big party doesn't win", you're just falling into their anti-democratic plan. Vote third party. Grow them. Get them to 5% so they can get funding. The more people who vote for them, the more it will encourage others to.

I may be wrong, but I think Canada uses some weird variant of FPTP, in which voting for third parties can get them seats in parliament. While it's not as effective as other, better ways of voting, it's still a good idea, in general. Growing third parties in this way works, kinda.

The only problem is the US has a terrible way of voting, but it's very unlikely that congress will change it. Voting third party in the US just means the candidate you like the least has a higher chance of winning by a minority, unless you somehow manage to have one third party win over an entire state. The problem lies with the electoral college, and how the public vote is represented in the final vote. Also the lack of "seats" of some description, and the need for a single winner, kinda makes voting for a party other than the main two a bad idea.

Don't get me wrong Ako, I think voting for smaller parties is great, if the voting system in the nation is suitable for it. Sadly that is not the case in the US. So to answer the initial question, 2.

[Lividup64]

1.

[Hogz]

Im not american, But 2.

I dislike both Hillary and Trump probably Equally, Scratch that I respect Trump more, he may have racist ideas and he says some stupid shit, Atleast he is honest about his ideas. And doesnt change his views like Hillary.

[Akomine]

I'm Canadian, but for our elections I choose 5) I do vote third party.

Wanting to vote third party then deciding "no I have to vote X big party so that Y big party doesn't win", you're just falling into their anti-democratic plan. Vote third party. Grow them. Get them to 5% so they can get funding. The more people who vote for them, the more it will encourage others to.

I may be wrong, but I think Canada uses some weird variant of FPTP, in which voting for third parties can get them seats in parliament. While it's not as effective as other, better ways of voting, it's still a good idea, in general. Growing third parties in this way works, kinda.

The only problem is the US has a terrible way of voting, but it's very unlikely that congress will change it. Voting third party in the US just means the candidate you like the least has a higher chance of winning by a minority, unless you somehow manage to have one third party win over an entire state. The problem lies with the electoral college, and how the public vote is represented in the final vote. Also the lack of "seats" of some description, and the need for a single winner, kinda makes voting for a party other than the main two a bad idea.

Don't get me wrong Ako, I think voting for smaller parties is great, if the voting system in the nation is suitable for it. Sadly that is not the case in the US. So to answer the initial question, 2.

Canada doesn't use a weird variant of FPTP, it just uses FPTP, the exact same as inherited from the UK. Voting for a third party can only get them into parliament if they can win an electoral riding. It's still incredibly hard to do, and it's amazing the New Democratic Party and Greens have been able to do it.

The US indeed has a terrible way of voting, which is a convoluted system of FPTP. In the case of this election, where both major party candidates are completely compromised pathological liar corrupt idiots, I'd say there's not really much "voting third party means the candidate you hate will win" thing going on for a huge number of people. Trump and Clinton are the two most hated candidates ever. Just don't vote for either of them. Also: Support third party candidates for senate and house seats.

[EnderEssence]

2. and, in a sense, 4. America's always been a two-party system and I don't think that's changing any time soon. The fact that almost all of the media's attention is focused on Trump and Clinton ties into 4., as a lot of people tend to rely on the news only as their source of knowledge on the two candidates. The fact that major media outlets almost never talk about third-party candidates (unless they have a major blunder, take Gary Johnson for instance) means that they get little publicity, which hurts their chances of being elected because they're barely recognized to begin with.

Just my two cents.

I'm Canadian, but for our elections I choose 5) I do vote third party.

Wanting to vote third party then deciding "no I have to vote X big party so that Y big party doesn't win", you're just falling into their anti-democratic plan. Vote third party. Grow them. Get them to 5% so they can get funding. The more people who vote for them, the more it will encourage others to.

I may be wrong, but I think Canada uses some weird variant of FPTP, in which voting for third parties can get them seats in parliament. While it's not as effective as other, better ways of voting, it's still a good idea, in general. Growing third parties in this way works, kinda.

The only problem is the US has a terrible way of voting, but it's very unlikely that congress will change it. Voting third party in the US just means the candidate you like the least has a higher chance of winning by a minority, unless you somehow manage to have one third party win over an entire state. The problem lies with the electoral college, and how the public vote is represented in the final vote. Also the lack of "seats" of some description, and the need for a single winner, kinda makes voting for a party other than the main two a bad idea.

Don't get me wrong Ako, I think voting for smaller parties is great, if the voting system in the nation is suitable for it. Sadly that is not the case in the US. So to answer the initial question, 2.

Canada doesn't use a weird variant of FPTP, it just uses FPTP, the exact same as inherited from the UK. Voting for a third party can only get them into parliament if they can win an electoral riding. It's still incredibly hard to do, and it's amazing the New Democratic Party and Greens have been able to do it.

The US indeed has a terrible way of voting, which is a convoluted system of FPTP. In the case of this election, where both major party candidates are completely compromised pathological liar corrupt idiots, I'd say there's not really much "voting third party means the candidate you hate will win" thing going on for a huge number of people. Trump and Clinton are the two most hated candidates ever. Just don't vote for either of them. Also: Support third party candidates for senate and house seats.

Our system's more or less rigged against third party candidates, I highly doubt we'll be seeing a major shift in Senate seats anytime soon. I'll elaborate further if you want me to.

[Akomine]

2. and, in a sense, 4. America's always been a two-party system and I don't think that's changing any time soon. The fact that almost all of the media's attention is focused on Trump and Clinton ties into 4., as a lot of people tend to rely on the news only as their source of knowledge on the two candidates. The fact that major media outlets almost never talk about third-party candidates (unless they have a major blunder, take Gary Johnson for instance) means that they get little publicity, which hurts their chances of being elected because they're barely recognized to begin with.

Just my two cents.

Worth noting that the media's focus on Clinton and trump has been intentionally organized, as has been proven in the Wikileaks email leaks. Also worth noting that most of the major news stations are Clinton donors. Completely corrupt.

Clinton is in bed with them, so they've agreed to scratch eachother's backs. This included rigging the primaries against Sanders (included but not limited to slandering him, and doing things like give her the list of debate questions to allow her to prepare beforehand, but not give them to Sanders, slanting the debates - funny that he did so well considering). It was decided early on that promoting Trump in the media was needed because Trump is the only Republican candidate that Clinton can maybe beat. Insane.

Stop relying on the mainstream media. They are not trying to inform you or educate you. They are compromised.

Our system's more or less rigged against third party candidates, I highly doubt we'll be seeing a major shift in Senate seats anytime soon. I'll elaborate further if you want me to.

The system is rigged, yes. All the more reason to vote third party. It's rigged anyways, right? At least vote your conscious.

You don't need to elaborate to me, I understand the system well. Feel free to anyone else if you want though I guess.

[luisc99]

@Akomine Huh, I was under the impression Canada did something different to FPTP to make it better than the terrible thing we use. Maybe your constituency lines are drawn better to allow third parties to thrive more. I agree though, it's hard to get a good third party position with it.

[Akomine]

@Akomine Huh, I was under the impression Canada did something different to FPTP to make it better than the terrible thing we use. Maybe your constituency lines are drawn better to allow third parties to thrive more. I agree though, it's hard to get a good third party position with it.

We use shitty old FPTP, and it's unpopular, so the government is currently doing consultations on what to change it to.

Our ridings (constituency lines) are determined by an independent non-partisan citizens panel to try to eliminate gerrymandering, which is excellent. I'm so glad Canada does that particular thing right.



PS: oops modified your post instead of replied

[luisc99]

Hillary lost some states by a very small margin, which was often smaller than the number of people voting third party. And look what that achieved.

Well done America. I hope you're proud

[Lividup64]

Hillary lost some states by a very small margin, which was often smaller than the number of people voting third party. And look what that achieved.

Well done America. I hope you're proud

She also won the popular vote. Sidenote, third parties are a stain on the American democracy. Don't vote for them, you're giving your vote to Trump. Ako is wrong, you won't help them grow, you'll give the election to a racist orangutang.

[RagsDeeboo]

I chose none of them. In my opinion, the electoral college system is FUCKING RETARDED. Clinton would've won if it weren't there. But if i had to choose one, i would choose 2. This is because the electoral college fucked up it wouldn't make a difference whatsoever.

[Akomine]

Hillary lost some states by a very small margin, which was often smaller than the number of people voting third party. And look what that achieved.

Well done America. I hope you're proud

Clinton lost because she is a shit corrupt candidate, not because of people voting for third parties, their democratic right.

She also won the popular vote. Sidenote, third parties are a stain on the American democracy. Don't vote for them, you're giving your vote to Trump. Ako is wrong, you won't help them grow, you'll give the election to a racist orangutang.

No, third parties are not a stain on democracy. What!?

A duopoly system where only two parties are allowed to be viable is a stain on democracy.

[Lividup64]

Hillary lost some states by a very small margin, which was often smaller than the number of people voting third party. And look what that achieved.

Well done America. I hope you're proud

Clinton lost because she is a shit corrupt candidate, not because of people voting for third parties, their democratic right.

She also won the popular vote. Sidenote, third parties are a stain on the American democracy. Don't vote for them, you're giving your vote to Trump. Ako is wrong, you won't help them grow, you'll give the election to a racist orangutang.

No, third parties are not a stain on democracy. What!?

A duopoly system where only two parties are allowed to be viable is a stain on democracy.

They don't work in a two party system like the US.

[EnderEssence]

Hillary lost some states by a very small margin, which was often smaller than the number of people voting third party. And look what that achieved.

Well done America. I hope you're proud

Clinton lost because she is a shit corrupt candidate, not because of people voting for third parties, their democratic right.

She also won the popular vote. Sidenote, third parties are a stain on the American democracy. Don't vote for them, you're giving your vote to Trump. Ako is wrong, you won't help them grow, you'll give the election to a racist orangutang.

No, third parties are not a stain on democracy. What!?

A duopoly system where only two parties are allowed to be viable is a stain on democracy.

They don't work in a two party system like the US.

^^^
If you vote third party in America you're essentially throwing away your vote. It's been a two-party system for centuries and I don't see it changing any time soon.

In any case, Gary Johnson voters are more closely aligned with Clinton than Trump. He got three million votes in Florida, and look what happened as a result.

There's a reason Canada's immigration website crashed.

[luisc99]

I actually made a spreadsheet for this. (I know, the image isn't the best quality).

Using the results from Politico, at around 10PM GMT last night, I calculated the difference in votes between Hillary and Trump, and also the number of votes for third party candidates in that state, just out of interest. Turns out, there are 13 states in which there were more third party votes, than the winning party won by. I'll reference this as XX (Difference / Third Party Votes). I've also rounded them, so you can't complain I'm being too accurate with exact numbers.

Trump won the following states by a smaller number of votes than third party voters: AZ (83,000 / 99,000);  FL (120,000 / 295,000);  MI (12,000 / 243,000);  NM (7,000 / 92000);  PA (68,000 / 212,000);  UT (152,000 / 203,000);  WI (27,000 / 153,000).

Clinton won the following states by a smaller number of votes than third party voters: CO (51,000 / 199,999);  ME (20,000 / 50,000);  MN (43,000 / 227,000);  NV (26,000 / 74,000);  NH (1,000 / 37,000);  VA (186,000 / 197,000).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for smaller parties. For the fun of it, I worked out what would happen if every state gave out its votes based on what percentage each party got in that state. Turns out, none of them would reach a majority, but Clinton would get 265, Trump 255, Johnson 14, Stein 1 and McMullin 1. Due to some rounding errors, a couple of states ended up with one more / less vote than they actually get in this calculation, but they add up to 536, so the entire thing is only 2 short. If you take the results on a national scale and divide up the 538 votes between everyone, you end up with Clinton 258, Trump 254, Johnson 17, Stein 5, McMullin 2, and the rest combined would get 2. That last one was because I only really recorded the main 3 third parties, and just combined the rest. Sorry.

I do think smaller parties are a great idea. I really want them to do well, and clearly many (~6,000,000) other people do too. They encourage more competition for votes and political diversity in the nation. However, they're only really effective in some situations. If you live in a country that uses a good, modern voting system like STV or something equally representative, then go ahead and vote third party. If you're somewhere that uses FPTP, it's probably not in your best interest, but it still works if you live in the right area. However, if you live in somewhere that uses an electoral college, (which by the way, is horrendously unrepresentative and in my opinion should be replaced by a single, nation-wide raw vote, but that's my opinion), then voting third party doesn't really do much. The highest third party percentage in any state was Utah with 25%, followed by Alaska, Idaho and New Mexico with 13%, Oklahoma on 11%, and the rest all below 10%. The chances of a state winning third party is next to none. Even Utah would need to double the number of people voting third party to give its measly 6 votes to someone other than Trump or Clinton.

The inclusion of, and voting of, third parties in an election set up in the way it is in the US just causes situations like this, where someone who didn't even win a majority of raw votes gets to become president. Less than half of the population wanted Trump as a president. I know Hillary isn't much better, but she's the better of the two evils. Trump literally has multiple court cases in the next few months, he is openly racist, sexist and homophobic, and has no political experience. He won on the same principal as Farage did in Brexit.

Ako, I'm not disagreeing with you. People voting third party is their democratic right, and I agree they should have that. I agree Clinton isn't a good candidate. Neither of them are. The best one there was was good old Sanders, who ended up being voted out. Whether that was via rigging or not, I don't know. All I know is, for third parties to be beneficial, America needs to change how it votes.

[Akomine]

Guys, essentially what stops third parties from success is the idea that third parties can never achieve success. (Also the systematic slanting in favour of the two major parties).

Of course the idea that a third party can never win just isn't true, and there are examples from within the United States (using a FPTP system) that disprove your logic. Bernie Sanders in Vermont, Jesse Ventura in Minnesota, and a bunch of other examples.

If enough people vote for them, they can win, that's it. Naysaying only holds this goal back. Furthermore, voting for them is worth it because if they achieve just 5% of the vote, they can get public funding. People should not be told to vote strategically at all times, because all it does is uphold the two party system, thus a viscous circle occurs forever. In fact, all it does is make people not vote at all, an apparent result of this election cycle.

Just because the Libertarian Party got more votes than the difference in votes between the Democrats and Republicans in some states DOES NOT make them spoilers. Who's to say they would have been more aligned with Clinton? They were probably more likely to not vote than vote for her. The 1.7% Libertarian voters are not worthy of your shaming. You could maybe make an argument about the 46% or so who didn't vote, but even then, you have to understand why they didn't vote. Choosing between the lesser of two evils when you've having problems determining just who is the lesser of two evils, is causing chronically low voter turnout. If people want to vote for a third party, do not treat them with contempt. Do not call them spoilers. Do not act like it is their fault for not falling in line. If Clinton wanted their votes she should have gone after them.


Obviously FPTP naturally forces a two-party system, and the people of the country ultimately have to change the system, because the two major parties never will. Democracy is not about voting every 4 years and hoping for the best. Democracy is affecting change whenever possible in your life. Taking a stand, standing up for what is right, discussing, arguing, and choosing to do something meaningful to make the future better. Making the world a more democratic place is a core part of that.

[EnderEssence]

Guys, essentially what stops third parties from success is the idea that third parties can never achieve success. (Also the systematic slanting in favour of the two major parties).

Of course the idea that a third party can never win just isn't true, and there are examples from within the United States (using a FPTP system) that disprove your logic. Bernie Sanders in Vermont, Jesse Ventura in Minnesota, and a bunch of other examples.

If enough people vote for them, they can win, that's it. Naysaying only holds this goal back. Furthermore, voting for them is worth it because if they achieve just 5% of the vote, they can get public funding. People should not be told to vote strategically at all times, because all it does is uphold the two party system, thus a viscous circle occurs forever. In fact, all it does is make people not vote at all, an apparent result of this election cycle.

Just because the Libertarian Party got more votes than the difference in votes between the Democrats and Republicans in some states DOES NOT make them spoilers. Who's to say they would have been more aligned with Clinton? They were probably more likely to not vote than vote for her. The 1.7% Libertarian voters are not worthy of your shaming. You could maybe make an argument about the 46% or so who didn't vote, but even then, you have to understand why they didn't vote. Choosing between the lesser of two evils when you've having problems determining just who is the lesser of two evils, is causing chronically low voter turnout. If people want to vote for a third party, do not treat them with contempt. Do not call them spoilers. Do not act like it is their fault for not falling in line. If Clinton wanted their votes she should have gone after them.


Obviously FPTP naturally forces a two-party system, and the people of the country ultimately have to change the system, because the two major parties never will. Democracy is not about voting every 4 years and hoping for the best. Democracy is affecting change whenever possible in your life. Taking a stand, standing up for what is right, discussing, arguing, and choosing to do something meaningful to make the future better. Making the world a more democratic place is a core part of that.

I mean, Gary Johnson did praise Clinton.

FPTP is trash and our voting system is highly unlikely to change within our lifetimes, it's been that way since America was founded.

I wonder how different the election's outcome would be if we used STP instead, lmao

[Akomine]

I mean, Gary Johnson did praise Clinton.

It's my understanding that Johnson's stance on small government, deregulation of the economy, dismantling of government programs, and lack of interest on environmental progress means his voterbase tends to cross over with the Republican voterbase more. Jill Stein and the Green Party would be more likely to cross over with the Democrats. Both the Libertarian and Green party tend to draw from independent voters anyways, and don't necessarily steal much from the two major parties.

FPTP is trash and our voting system is highly unlikely to change within our lifetimes, it's been that way since America was founded.

FPTP is anti-democratic trash. The bolded part is your choice.