2nd Presidential Debate thread: Shut the fuck up about 3rd party voters

[kefkaownsall]

FPTP stopping progressing since 1783

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Well, those two candidates weren't the only ones involved.

Police arrested Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein and her running mate, Cheri Honkala, after they tried to enter the site of tonight’s presidential debate at Hofstra University.
The two were protesting against the exclusion of all but the two major political parties from taking part in the debate.

http://rt.com/usa/news/police-jill-stein-debate-589/

Pathetic. Extra incentive for me to vote for her.

[Witchyjoshy]

I would if I wasn't more afraid of Romney taking office.

As it stands though, I'm actually happy with what Obama has accomplished despite overwhelming resistance from the Republicans, so I'm not even voting against Romney, I'm voting for Obama.

[Random Gal]

Not to mention that voting for Jill Stein is effectively the same as voting for Mitt Romney. Remember what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Not to mention that voting for Jill Stein is effectively the same as voting for Mitt Romney. Remember what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000.

Well first of all there were plenty of Democrats in Florida who voted Bush in that election--some 250,000 if I recall correctly. Whereas Bush won Florida by just over 500 votes. So I suppose you can blame Nader but I think the blame is higher on the Bush-Democrats in FL.

Second of all, since I'm personally in a dyed-in-the-wool Blue state, I doubt my casting a vote for Jill Stein will harm anyone.

[Veras]

Not to mention that voting for Jill Stein is effectively the same as voting for Mitt Romney. Remember what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000.

Well first of all there were plenty of Democrats in Florida who voted Bush in that election--some 250,000 if I recall correctly. Whereas Bush won Florida by just over 500 votes. So I suppose you can blame Nader but I think the blame is higher on the Bush-Democrats in FL.

Second of all, since I'm personally in a dyed-in-the-wool Blue state, I doubt my casting a vote for Jill Stein will harm anyone.

And don't forget the steps that Katherine Harris took to illegally disenfranchise likely Gore voters in the run up to the election.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Not to mention that voting for Jill Stein is effectively the same as voting for Mitt Romney. Remember what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000.

Well first of all there were plenty of Democrats in Florida who voted Bush in that election--some 250,000 if I recall correctly. Whereas Bush won Florida by just over 500 votes. So I suppose you can blame Nader but I think the blame is higher on the Bush-Democrats in FL.

Second of all, since I'm personally in a dyed-in-the-wool Blue state, I doubt my casting a vote for Jill Stein will harm anyone.

And don't forget the steps that Katherine Harris took to illegally disenfranchise likely Gore voters in the run up to the election.

That too--I fully expect voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, especially in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

[TigerHunter]

Not to mention that voting for Jill Stein is effectively the same as voting for Mitt Romney. Remember what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000.

Well first of all there were plenty of Democrats in Florida who voted Bush in that election--some 250,000 if I recall correctly. Whereas Bush won Florida by just over 500 votes. So I suppose you can blame Nader but I think the blame is higher on the Bush-Democrats in FL.

Second of all, since I'm personally in a dyed-in-the-wool Blue state, I doubt my casting a vote for Jill Stein will harm anyone.

If 500 people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if he (Nader) wasn't on the ticket, then blaming Nader is fair and square.

I'm in the same boat as you. Obama's got Illinois locked up, so I'm voting for Stein. I just hope the people in battleground states are pragmatic enough to cast their vote for the guy who's actually got a chance of winning.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Not to mention that voting for Jill Stein is effectively the same as voting for Mitt Romney. Remember what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000.

Well first of all there were plenty of Democrats in Florida who voted Bush in that election--some 250,000 if I recall correctly. Whereas Bush won Florida by just over 500 votes. So I suppose you can blame Nader but I think the blame is higher on the Bush-Democrats in FL.

Second of all, since I'm personally in a dyed-in-the-wool Blue state, I doubt my casting a vote for Jill Stein will harm anyone.

If 500 people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if he (Nader) wasn't on the ticket, then blaming Nader is fair and square.

It's fair but what I was saying is that the blame is shared by more than just the Nader voters.

Also good to see a fellow Green Party voter 

[VirtualStranger]

The claim that Nader spoiled the election for Gore is not true. In the year 2000, exit polls reported that the majority of Nader's voters would not have voted at all had he not been in the race.

If you want to blame somebody for the 2000 election, blame the quarter of a million Democrats who voted for Bush. The number of Florida Dems who voted for Bush is several times larger than the total number of people who voted for Nader.


Also, in my opinion, Nader was the only candidate in 2000 that deserved to be president.

[Witchyjoshy]

Exit polls are generally not a reliable source of accurate voting information.

[Undecided]

The claim that Nader spoiled the election for Gore is not true. In the year 2000, exit polls reported that the majority of Nader's voters would not have voted at all had he not been in the race.

If you want to blame somebody for the 2000 election, blame the quarter of a million Democrats who voted for Bush. The number of Florida Dems who voted for Bush is several times larger than the total number of people who voted for Nader.


Also, in my opinion, Nader was the only candidate in 2000 that deserved to be president.

There is no doubt that Nader was a spoiler in that election. The number of people who voted for Nader in Florida in 2000 was 97,421, and the margin between Bush and Gore in Florida was 537. No matter how many who might have abstained of people who voted for Nader had he not been on the ballot, only 537 more people had to vote for Gore than for Bush. Since Gore was favored over Bush by about 66% among Nader voters in Florida, only about 900 or so of the people who voted for Nader would have had to vote otherwise for Gore to win the election. That is, if Nader had not run, more than 99% of his supporters could have abstained from voting and Gore would nevertheless have won Florida and the election. Voting across major party lines and losses in other states are irrelevant to the determination of Nader's status as a spoiler as those votes would have been cast whether Nader was running or not and other states did not have enough Nader votes for him to have influenced the outcome.

What's more, by choosing to campaign in swing states like Florida (where votes are rare) instead of safely blue states like California (where liberals could reasonably vote for Nader without worrying about supporting Bush), Nader sabotaged his self-professed goal of achieving 5% of the popular vote (the threshold for earning matching federal funds).

[largeham]

Yep, it sure is a problem when more left-wing tickets try to pose a real alternative to the Democrats.

[nickiknack]

Oh goodie, it's 3rd party beat up time, and this is why we can't have anything nice in this country...because the status quo must be retained at all costs.

[Witchyjoshy]

Yep, it sure is a problem when more left-wing tickets try to pose a real alternative to the Democrats.

Oh goodie, it's 3rd party beat up time, and this is why we can't have anything nice in this country...because the status quo must be retained at all costs.

Okay, enough of this, let's be realistic here.

This country is not set up to support third party tickets in a serious manner.  This is very unfortunate.

However, it doesn't change the fact that it is not set up for it.  Voting for a third party really is throwing away your vote right now.  No amount of whining on the internet that people aren't voting third party will change this simple fact.

If the liberal vote being split was what caused Bush to get elected, then guess what, that's the facts.  There is no conspiracy to bash third parties to "maintain the status quo".

If people here were interested in maintaining the status quo, guess what, they would always vote the same party as whatever was last in office.  But no.  We aren't.

You're both being awfully silly about this whole thing.  Yes, it would be awesome if Jill Stein stood even a remote chance in today's election.  But she doesn't.

Also, I'm quite frankly getting tired of this idea that democrats are as bad as republicans when the evidence doesn't point to that.  Obama stopped the defense of DOMA, ended DADT, improved the economy, reduced the deficit, is pulling us out of that stupid war as soon as he can, and so forth.  His ideas are actually doing good.  Granted, he's a politician and has also done some bad things, like the drone strikes.  No one is saying he's perfect or a messiah.

On the other hand, Romney is most certainly bad for this country, economically and socially speaking.

I'd rather take the man who has actually given me more rights and passed a law that allowed me to actually stay insured, as well as started a process that would give us an approximation of UHC, than take the man who wants to take those away.

So, please, stop this passive aggressive silliness :-/