This is not a troll post. I’m seriously wondering what to do.
It’s no secret that I’m a Libertarian at heart. I believe that they have a superior platform to either of the major parties. However, I’m debating on voting for Trump.
Reason–if Trump actually gets elected, I think there’s a good chance that he’ll actually abandon the Republican party and either start his own party, or simply remain party-free. Although I detest Trump and disagree with almost everything in his platform, I think I’d rather have a third party in power to try and end the generations-old gang war that is the Democrats vs. Republicans.
On the same token, I’m 99% sure that Trump will win Texas, so I think I should vote for GJ simply to send the message to the established politicians, and try to get them to change their values.
Vote GJ. If he gets 3-5% that sends a message…even if it’s a weak one. Not sure what the largest 3rd party % has been, but I have a feeling that 5% would be much larger than usual. My state is going to Hillary so I don’t need to worry about my vote mattering.
If your state is pretty much guaranteed going to someone you don’t like, and you don’t like the opposition either, then the third party vote as “sending a message” seems like a reasonable approach.
Even voting 3rd party seems to be a case of “lesser of evils” kind of thing these days.
The problem with 3rd parties is that they are unable to build any momentum from one election to another. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992 and then fell to 8% in 1996. Ralph Nader went from 2.74% in 2000 to 0.38% in 2004. A 3rd party will need several elections to be competitive and most voters are more fearful of splitting the vote.
Let’s be honest. The main reason GJ and JS have 10% of the vote has very little to do with people being sick of the establishment. It’s mostly because both Trump and Hillary are viewed unfavorably. If it was a Biden vs Rubio matchup, GJ and JS wouldn’t have more than 3% combined.
They cannot build momentum because the US political system’s equilibrium is 2-party. Which results in paradoxical outcomes where if you vote for the candidate that most represents your views instead of the lesser of two evils, you can get the opposite result of what you want. Ask tree-huggers who voted for Nader.
If you want your views reflected in the political system, then you need to press the candidate to adopt them, just like Bernie/Warren are doing with Hillary.
I think the last third party to produce a President was the Republican Party in 1860, and the result of that election was Civil War.
Since then, the main effect of third party presidential candidates has been to lose, plus weaken the major political party closest in policy platform so that it loses too.
So yeah, it’s tough for third parties. It’s better in local politics.
You are weak, all you do is talk, and so government just laughs at you. The wife is shocked, she keeps saying “why do Americans mope around with head low, they do nothing to defend themselves?”. In Korea if a bank like Wells Fargo betrays the people, they are out of business by Friday. President Park just betrayed the people, and she is chain firing 10 advisors in pure terror, hoping that will be enough to appease the mob, but the mob will have her head yet.
It’s been this way throughout history, government’s fear of the mob, is what keeps the balance. In China and Korea the people still have power. You have nothing.