Final-Fan said:
I added a point 6 for my response that wasn't directly to any of your 5 points. It's important.
1&2. While it is true that non-winners (or outsider candidates/parties) can still have a very significant influence on winners (or the two mainstream party platforms), it doesn't necessarily follow that your vote is best spent on fringe candidacies, even when they hew closest to your own preferred policy.
In rare cases a third party challenger can get real national traction, such as Perot in 1992 or others earlier in the century, and they had real effect on the political landscape. I recall hearing that Perot's fiscal policy had a large effect on the Democratic position and may deserve a lot of credit for the 1993 budget that was the biggest step toward balancing the budget which was achieved later that decade. But casting your vote for perennial fringe parties like the Green or Libertarian or Socialist Party is little more than a protest vote in my opinion, unless there is some factor that would allow that party to have an absolutely huge presence in the election compared to normal.
If you can actually identify a clear lesser evil between the two main party candidates, I think it's much better to try to influence the tiny margin that you cite, rather than try to indirectly influence whoever happens to win, especially since if the "greater evil" wins they will probably also be more hostile to your preferred fringe party. It's not a matter of "endorsing" it, even if that's how the candidate will interpret it; it's literally doing what you can as a voter to minimize the damage. What is more effective at minimizing the damage: Voting for the mainstream candidate you hate less, or voting for the no-hope fringe candidate you like in the hopes that he will do well enough that his policy platform gains the attention of whichever hated candidate won?
For some people, party primaries would a better way to try to raise visibility for your preferred policy positions by voting for candidates who support them, giving those issues traction in the intra-party debate going into the election; unfortunately, however, most states don't have a wide range of candiates to choose from, due to the widely spread primary dates and candidates dropping out as time goes on.
3. You can't have it both ways. First you say that Trump is devastating the GOP and that it has 10-20 years to live for demographic reasons; then you say that if Trump wins the Democratic Party will be done for despite being poised for victory in a decade. By the way, both parties do have extensive experience in surviving a simultaneous hostile White House, Senate, and House of Representatives.
4. The Green Party would have to double its popular vote on the national average to meet even the first threshold. The second is a pipe dream for any of the regular outsider parties.
5. This point is the worst of all! Even if the President doesn't do much directly, he has enormous influence by way of his office in appointing cabinet members, nominating to the Supreme Court and other judges, various department heads, executive orders, the list goes on and on. The argument that a protest vote isn't a big deal because the President isn't a big deal is just a lie—lying to yourself or the reader I cannot say. As for our effect on who the president is, I remind you that you just got done claiming that the margin is usually tiny. "Every vote counts" is no less true for being a cliche, and I know you believe it or you wouldn't have made this thread.
6. Honestly, I do support the concept of voting for third parties instead of just sucking it up and picking one of two party lines to tow. But the place to push for other candidates is usually at the local and state level. The national level is just not an effective place to do this in most elections, with notable rare exceptions when the electorate is catalyzed by some issue or even personality (Teddy Roosevelt). Personally I want to see ranked-choice voting of some form implemented, and this is also easier to push on the local level. When it is accepted there, push for state implementation, and then national! Then we can really see who the people support.
|
1&2 Gary Johnson is polling at 11% currently. He probably won't get that much of the vote, but even if he gets something like 5% it is a huge change from the 1% that the Libertarian party usually gets. And that 5% can win or lose a candidate if he or she got those votes. Why wouldn't the loser adjust his/her views to appeal to these people next go around?
3. Yes you can have it both ways. Both parties are losing membership not to each-other, but rather to the population of non-voters/independents/third parties. Trump is kiling the GOP's future, but if he wins he kills the Democratic party's present power. That doesn't mean the Democratic party can't come to prominence if it changes drastically, but it also doesn't mean that the Democratic party is in any good position. A Trump win, also doesn't mean the GOP is in any good position either. It is still losing voters regardless.
4. You mean the Libertarian party? Like I said, Gary Johnson is polling at 11%.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/24/libertarian-gary-johnson-double-digits-race-agains/
And since the polls it seems as if more people are looking toward Libertarians because many Cruz voters don't want to vote for Trump.
5. Sorry, the last five presidents have done the same thing. Increased the national debt, restricted rights, started wars. Was there much of a difference between Obama and Bush in policy? Not really. In rhetoric? A world. Hillary is going to be more of the same, and Trump isn't conservative enough to pick a good supreme court nominee anyway. This is the same guy who in 2000 supported the assault weapons ban and was as pro-choice as you can get. Every day of the week he flip flops. Literally this was the case with the minimum wage and transgendered rights last week. Obviously there is something greater that makes presidents act in the same way regardless of their ideology.
6. I am all for local activism, but the problem is that the way the GOP and Democratic parties are structured is very top-down. This has gotten a bit better on the GOP side of things with the tea party movement, but it still is mostly true. For that reason change needs to happen at all levels at the same time. There are still local and state successes of course, the free state project for example chose the easiest legislature and local parties to infiltrate (New Hampshire) and they are succeding slowly but surely, but they'd be squashed if people weren't protecting them from the national commitee's on the federal level.
Currently Online 
