If we want better options we can vote for third party candidates. I have no faith in the system, and a third party candidate will almost never win. But if enough people vote for them it gets them more recognition, which could eventually shift the narrative. Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote in 2016, and Ross Perot got as high as 19% in the 90s.
Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help?
I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don't win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others.
But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that's 9%.
Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.
So I'm asking: how does it help. If it helps, I'll try. But from where I'm sitting, it's all hopeless. I don't want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me.
But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way.
I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot's (or more relevant, Gary Johnson's since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it's hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities.
Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.
Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation.
Which brings me back to my point. If:
My vote isn't going to help further discourse, and …
Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn't going to be remembered all that well, and…
If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then…
what's my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn't have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too.
And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change.
So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn't specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn't a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one.
That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that's not on me.
So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I'll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit.
But that's what I was already doing.
Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition.
If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that's respectable. Since we can't do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It's a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve.
The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn't give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn't follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative.
Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process.
Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy?
I don't think it's at all unrelated.
Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed.
It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me.
Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process
I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation.
If we want better options we can vote for third party candidates. I have no faith in the system, and a third party candidate will almost never win. But if enough people vote for them it gets them more recognition, which could eventually shift the narrative. Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote in 2016, and Ross Perot got as high as 19% in the 90s.
Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help?
I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don't win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others.
But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that's 9%.
Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.
So I'm asking: how does it help. If it helps, I'll try. But from where I'm sitting, it's all hopeless. I don't want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me.
I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot's (or more relevant, Gary Johnson's since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it's hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities.
I'll guess ending the Vietnam war...
Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation.
Which brings me back to my point. If:
what's my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn't have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too.
And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change.
So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn't specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn't a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one.
That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that's not on me.
So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I'll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit.
But that's what I was already doing.
Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition.
If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that's respectable. Since we can't do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It's a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve.
The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn't give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn't follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative.
Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process.
I don't think it's at all unrelated.
It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me.
I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation.