If we are bound to vote for the lesser evil. Shouldn't we all vote for the American Solidarity Party?

[JSRG]

To use the Green Party as an example (since it was the third party that got the most votes in the last election), if it gets a significant amount of votes but doesn’t win then a Republican victory will be guaranteed since those Green votes didn’t go to the Democratic party whom they were ideologically closer to.

Are you talking about the 2016 presidential election? Because the Green Party absolutely did not get the most votes of the third parties… that was the Libertarian Party, which got about three times as many votes as the Green Party.

But keeping the focus on the Green Party, you also make the major, and unwarranted, assumption that the Green Party votes would have gone to the Democrats. A lot (probably most) of them wouldn’t have voted for the Democrat (or Republican) and would’ve either not voted at all or voted for another third party candidate.

 

[upant]

Well I don’t trust you. I don’t trust anyone on the internet. You don’t have sources, I think you’re lying. Always.

so who are they sending their money to? or do you deny that also?

Undocumented immigrants,

you don’t believe it is illegal to avoid the legal immigration policies of our country? to come and go as one pleases?

They get Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) from the IRS to pay taxes.

how does the IRS know why an individual has an ITIN? you can have one for reasons other than being here illegally. it is just a guess, an estimate

They’re generally hardworking people who want to make a living and be good members of American society.

you don’t trust people on the internet but expect them to trust your generalizations?

not happening, you really don’t know. it is all propaganda to promote a position.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Voting 3rd party in the US:

It’s a bit like a guy who says “Betty is a terrific girl and would make a wonderful wife, but she’s 2 inches shorter than I would like. Pass.” And then “Susie is also terrific, but she doesn’t play tennis. Pass.”

So you ask the guy, “So if Betty and Susie are both out of the picture, who are you going to marry?” And the guy says, “Miss Universe, of course! She’s perfect!” And the odds of Miss Universe becoming that guy’s wife are nil.

Or, of course, he could simply not get married and live his lonely little life until he died…

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

or do you deny that also?

I do, because I have no evidence to the contrary.

you don’t believe it is illegal to avoid the legal immigration policies of our country? to come and go as one pleases?

I believe the term “illegals” is offensive and non-constructive in dialogue.

how does the IRS know why an individual has an ITIN?

They’re…the ones that give you them.

you don’t trust people on the internet but expect them to trust your generalizations?

I mean, I’ve seen evidence that they work in large numbers and pay taxes without getting benefits from them. I can provide evidence if needed. That’s a fair conclusion to make, no?

it is all propaganda

If truth is propoganda, then I don’t know what else to say.

 

[BornInMarch]

We can talk about results, sure, but you did place the blame on third party voters, saying that they carry the “burden.” I don’t think that’s the right place to put the blame.

What I meant by that was to say that third party voters are still negatively affected by election results even if it isn’t their fault.

That certainly used to be the thinking, yes. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241583809_Did_Ralph_Nader_Spoil_Al_Gore’s_Presidential_Bid_A_Ballot-Level_Study_of_Green_and_Reform_Party_Voters_in_the_2000_Presidential_Election

Hmm, that’s an interesting article. I can certainly see the points it’s arguing; since not every third party is explicitly “left” or “right” it’s not always easy to say who the supporters of said party would support as their second choice. For example, in the 2016 election I heard that some Bernie Sanders supporters voted for Donald Trump after Sanders dropped out of the election.

Personally I think the country switching to instant-runoff voting would be for the best in the long-term.

 

[JSRG]

One might think that reality should have some bearing on the choices one makes when voting.

If one wants to insist on “reality” then one shouldn’t bother voting at all, at least not in a presidential election, given the astoundingly low odds your vote would actually decide anything. Spend the time you would’ve spent voting getting a lottery ticket instead; better odds there.

 

[upant]

I have no evidence to the contrary.

We have no real evidence for any of it. There are no exacts when people break the law, they don’t come forward with the details for a reason. All info is speculation or agenda driven

They’re…the ones that give you them.

You think people are going to tell the IRS they are here illegally on the form? With their address attached

I’ve seen evidence

This is the internet, you may have an agenda for saying this, remember you don’t trust people and I don’t trust people who don’t trust people

If truth is propoganda

We have established there is no trust but you think I will buy your claim of truth.

I don’t know what else to say.

I would not trust what you say anyway

Good night

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

We have no real evidence for any of it.

Cool. That’s all I needed to hear.

 

[HarryStotle]

otjm:

One might think that reality should have some bearing on the choices one makes when voting.

If one wants to insist on “reality” then one shouldn’t bother voting at all, at least not in a presidential election, given the astoundingly low odds your vote would actually decide anything. Spend the time you would’ve spent voting getting a lottery ticket instead; better odds there.

The problem with your over generalization is that it might be true in some places but not in all. It might also be generally true but that doesn’t mean it should be followed everywhere.

In the swing states a few votes could make a huge difference, and in a tight election one swing state could decide the outcome.

If you live in Cali or NY you can safely assume what you advise, but if in states like Fla, Mich, Minn, Nev, Wyo, Tex, NMex, Ariz, Penn, Maine and a number of others, I think people ought to ignore your advice and assume the opposite.

Oh, and in this election voting early in some jurisdictions like Minn is a very good idea because there are high expectations of goons intimidating voters or taking out polling places on election night where the margins are going to be slim.

 

[pnewton]

Voting 3rd party in the US:

That is an interesting analogy. I would like to take two spins with it.
(1) If the two options are bad enough, one is better off living single.
(2) There is always another election in four years. I guess this works for permanent third party voters though.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

There is always another election in four years.

Not necessarily. That’s what voters in Germany thought in 1933.

 

[pnewton]

If we abandon the Constitution, through military defeat or civil coup, then elections would be irrelevant anyway. The United States is nothing like Nazi Germany, so that particular path is not possible.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well as an example, I live in California, and currently there is no penalty for vagrants sleeping on and dirtying public property (such as the sidewalk outside my place). I would very much be in favor of putting more of these people in prison.

It would be cheaper to just give them an apartment. (As StudentMI already pointed out a while ago.) Better yet, give them an apartment and a job. Then they can pay for the apartment themselves. But prisons are very expensive when used as hotels.

 

[StudentMI]

Or, of course, he could simply not get married and live his lonely little life until he died…

Wow, what a terrible statement to make, both regarding voting third party, and on a Catholic message board where chastity is valued.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You also have to factor in expenses caused by the damage the homeless do. Factor in cleanup for human waste, drug paraphernalia, and leftover trash, as well as tents that practically block every sidewalk in parts of the city.

Then you have to worry about business lost because people don’t want a vagrant yelling in your face when you’re trying to sit down at a starbucks (happened to me several times). And also medical costs in case someone decides to jab at a passerby with a boxcutter.

Prisons primarily serve a purpose to keep dangerous and noncompliant individuals outside of polite society. If you gave such people an apartment, how would you compensate the surrounding tenants? And what evidence is there that they would agree to work–so far, they don’t seem too willing to try as it is.

Then arrest people for those crimes - harassment, violence - but not for mere vagrancy.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

And what evidence is there that they would agree to work–so far, they don’t seem too willing to try as it is.

Have you ever even met a homeless person? Not walked by them and gave them the stink eye, actually sat down and talked with them? I have, numerous times. I went to college in Washington DC and part of the Catholic ministry there is service for the homeless. Homelessness isn’t a choice people do because they want to piss off society. They do it because they have no job or family and can’t afford anything. They want to be normal human people and just get back to living their lives but they can’t because nobody has mercy and helps them out. Throwing them away from your precious “polite society” doesn’t help them, it just makes you feel better. And that kind of selfish collective punishment is absolutely abhorrent to Christ.

 

[JSRG]

JSRG:

otjm:

One might think that reality should have some bearing on the choices one makes when voting.

If one wants to insist on “reality” then one shouldn’t bother voting at all, at least not in a presidential election, given the astoundingly low odds your vote would actually decide anything. Spend the time you would’ve spent voting getting a lottery ticket instead; better odds there.

The problem with your over generalization is that it might be true in some places but not in all. It might also be generally true but that doesn’t mean it should be followed everywhere.

In the swing states a few votes could make a huge difference, and in a tight election one swing state could decide the outcome.

No, it’s true everywhere, not just swing states.

Now, the electoral college essentially makes the presidential election a state election rather than a federal one insofar as your vote making a difference. And for your vote to matter in a swing state, the election has to be decided by only 1 vote in your state. Want to know how many times in US history a statewide election has been decided by a single vote? Once, in the Massachusetts governor election in 1839. But that election had far fewer people voting in it than would vote now–obviously, fewer people voting means a higher chance of an election decided by 1 vote. But the smallest swing state, I believe, is New Hampshire, which in 2016 had about 14 times as many people vote as in that Massachusetts election. In other words, the only time it ever happened in US history was once, and in substantially more favorable circumstances.

So the odds of your state’s election being decided by 1 vote, as is required for your vote to make a difference, is essentially zero. In 200+ years of US history it’s only happened once and, again, under far more favorable circumstances.

Now all of that is bad enough and a warrant to not vote at all if the goal is to affect the actual outcome of the election. But it actually gets worse. Not only does the above have to happen with the state election being decided by 1 vote, but then the election has to also be so close in the electoral college that your state flipping could make a difference. For example, you could flip any single state from Trump to Hillary in 2016 and the result would be the same; even if any state was decided by 1 vote, it wouldn’t have affected the outcome. So not only does the virtually impossible have to happen by the state election being decided by 1 vote, it also has to be an electoral college victory on a margin smaller than that of your state’s electors.

So if the argument is “don’t vote third party, it won’t affect the election outcome” then you logically shouldn’t bother voting at all given how obviously and astoundingly low the odds that any vote of yours will decide the presidential election.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

JSRG:

otjm:

One might think that reality should have some bearing on the choices one makes when voting.

If one wants to insist on “reality” then one shouldn’t bother voting at all, at least not in a presidential election, given the astoundingly low odds your vote would actually decide anything. Spend the time you would’ve spent voting getting a lottery ticket instead; better odds there.

The problem with your over generalization is that it might be true in some places but not in all. It might also be generally true but that doesn’t mean it should be followed everywhere.

In the swing states a few votes could make a huge difference, and in a tight election one swing state could decide the outcome.

No, it’s true everywhere, not just swing states.

No, actually. For your argument to work there would need to be only one person, i.e., only one vote, in a swing state that is in the predicament of deciding to vote third party.

The problem is that there isn’t only one person possibly taking your advice. There could be tens of thousands in a significant number of swing states who do, which means there would be sufficient votes to change an election.

 

[CTBcin]

Mostly foreign influence or despotic leaders who claimed power after collapsing regimes from the Cold War. We actually have an active Lebanese poster on the forums. Why don’t you ask him to his face why his home country sucks right now?

Not to mention western involvement in political coups, especially in Central and South America.

 

[CTBcin]

Homelessness isn’t a choice people do because they want to piss off society. They do it because they have no job or family and can’t afford anything. They want to be normal human people and just get back to living their lives but they can’t because nobody has mercy and helps them out.

Agreed. As someone who worked with the homeless, most of the people I met were normal people who fell on hard times or got unlucky and simply didn’t have family or a support structure to help them out.