Vote for third party?

But I mean any logical reasons aside from it giving people's choice to vote away from the major parties for people they truly believe in without "wasting" their vote?

 

The only time I would have considered voting third party is if it was Sanders vs. Trump. I'm not sure if I could bring myself to vote for the left-wing equivalent to Donald Trump if he was the nominee, but given the alternative, I probably would hold my nose and do so.

 

Well, the status quo is a very logical choice--for the two major parties!

But, for the greater good, yes, I'd say ranked voting would be a good idea.

 

I would vote for Hillary. Donald Trump kind of scares me (a lot), and I would most likely do anything possible to keep someone like him from becoming the president.

 

Not Another Politics Thread. *eye roll*

 

If you're in a state where it will undoubtedly go one way or another, it can't hurt to vote for a third party (e.g Texas). If you're in a state that is a swing state or has any possibility of not being reliable for either party, your vote is much more important and you should vote carefully. In this situation I am using voting for a third-party as a form of "vote of no confidence" that also does not tip the scale in any way and also acknowledges that there will be either a Republican or Democrat president; it would be the equivalent of a neutered shot across the establishment bow.

 

Again, this damn "you need to vote for 'X' party so the other party doesn't win" needs to die. Go straight to hell. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Because of it, the Party Platforms are based on not improving or changing anything, but on maintaining the status quo. Preservation is the only thing they care about - they do just enough to maintain the illusion that they actually stand for something other than themselves.

 

I'm hoping Jill Stein gets on the ballot in Illinois so I can vote Green!

 

This is exactly the kind of mentality that has ruined American politics. If Bernie supporters vote third party and it ends up costing Clinton the election, they are not in the least bit to blame for a Trump presidency. When people vote their conscience and try to elect the person who they think is most qualified to be president, we should never place blame on those people. Those people are doing what they should be doing. That's how a democracy is supposed to work. Imagine if we all voted our conscience instead of trying to game the system by voting for the lesser of two evils.

No, if Hillary Clinton loses the election to Trump it is because of one reason - she wasn't a good candidate. And if she's not a good candidate, blame rests with the people who voted in the primaries to make her the Democratic nominee in the first place.

 

Courtesy of one of my longer-known online friends:

 

Tom will build a wall to keep those muggles out and make Hogwarts great again.~

 

You are being idealistic, not realistic.

Yes, I agree, the people who voted for Clinton in the primaries are to "blame" for making her the nominee, of course. But if Bernie supporters cost Clinton the election, then yes, they are to "blame" for a Trump presidency, because they cost Clinton the election and thus caused Trump to become president. That is, assuming that a Trump presidency is "bad" and a Clinton presidency is "bad" and the word "blame" even applies in this circumstance, disregarding the fact that I never used the word "blame" in my original statement. But yes, if you cause a Trump presidency, you are to "blame" for it if you must use that word. And thus people who vote for Trump and people who don't vote for not-Trump (in this case, that means Clinton) are "causing" a Trump presidency.

I voted for Bernie, I wanted Bernie to be the Democratic nominee and I wanted other people to vote for him in the primary. It didn't work--he's not the nominee and based on 170 years of precedent, the president will be either Trump or Clinton. This is not "blame", this is reality. The change must come in the primaries--this is where we can nominate someone outside the two parties or someone who was outside the two parties (i.e. Bernie). We came close this time, but it didn't work. The American people chose Clinton. Once the nominees have been chosen, the idealism fades.

If you truly believe Trump would be a better president than Clinton, by all means, vote for him.

If voting for Clinton or Trump is a sacrifice of your principles, then don't vote for either one. But realize that one of them is going to become president. And if you're a Bernie supporter who doesn't vote for the Democratic nominee in the general, you should be okay with a Trump presidency, because unless disaffected Republicans flock to Clinton, his presidency becomes more likely the more would-be Democratic supporters don't vote for the Democratic nominee. Is it bad? That's not for me to say.

---------- Post added 10th Jun 2016 at 01:29 PM ----------

By the way, this rant of mine was not directed at people who truly believe Clinton and Trump are equally bad. If you believe that, then sure, it's a crapshoot. Vote by the flip of a coin or vote for a third party. This was more directed at those who do believe Trump is worse, but won't vote for Clinton. In that case, letting the worse candidate win doesn't seem rational to me. Unless he's only worse by such a small margin that it's really irrelevant to you.

 

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw​

You're defending the "voting for the lesser evil" strategy as if it's the best option for Bernie Sanders supporters at this stage. But Jill Stein did a pretty good job of explaining exactly why that logic is flawed in one of her interviews. So, I'll just post that video in lieu of my own response:

[youtube]fr09AFDPTpA[/youtube]

"If you can't put your values into your vote, we don't have a democracy" - Jill Stein

 

*Sips juice* Ahhhhh. Agree with these.

People should vote for who they feel the most aligned with. If both leading candidates go against ones principles then they have a choice of going third party. Stein suits me best from what I've heard from her but she has no chance sadly. Makes people like me cynical and feel left out really.

 

Don't vote for any one you don't believe in. Period.Vote third party if you believe the candidates are better. Imagine how colossal it would be if in the first time in (recent?) American history we would have a large number of people voting for third parties? It might open the flood gates to the future; the flood gates being the surge of more *options* and more *opinions* that go beyond the democratic and republican spectrum. Wouldn't it be nice to have more options than just two people to vote for?