General US Politics

[Original Alear]

The answer is really yes, but I put maybe, because that describes it better.

If I found out there is a third party candidate I would always give them at least a little consideration (is this person even running seriously) and then a little more (do they fail a very basic litmus test) and then a little tiny bit more (is there something about them in spite of being strongly out of line with my beliefs that is very notable, because many of the most negligible third parties are really "single issue parties" in terms of what they'll actually talk about and focus on).

Past that point, the answer is most likely no, for this election. I don't see Johnson or Stein getting my support at this point.

However, I would never rule it out. I will also never rule out not voting, barring something that forces me to do so.

Edited October 6, 2016 by HELP

[Irysa]

Depends how close it looks on the day. I'm not a US citizen but I've grown sour about tactical voting over the last 10 years given I've never really liked Labour and I hate the SNP, and there's nothing I can do about it either way in my constutiencies. I generally vote third party in elections now because the results are practically predetermined in my area. I would probably vote Gary Johnson (warts and all) just for the hope that it continues some kind of push to change American politics from what it is now, but if I was in a swing state and it seemed close between the two current candidates I'd vote Hillary.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Irysa

[EricaofRenais]

I would vote third party if it was some one I could support, I am more Libertarian in my views than most parties but I don't like Johnson at all. As of right now I am not sure if I will vote on the president, but I will be voting on local and state things though.

[Thor Odinson]

Maybe another election, but not this one. Neither third party candidates are remotely appealing to me, and even if I did, I don't find a display of ideology in this election worth risking when I absolutely despise one of the candidates and would rather do what it takes to keep him from being elected.

Not that I even dislike Hillary anyway. While I would've preferred Bernie, her incorporation of his goals into her platform shows a willingness to listen and change and she has a lot of experience in policy. I'm fine with that.

That being said I wish America just had a more reasonable voting system instead of first-past-the-post winner-takes-all bullshit. Preferential voting would be great.

[Sunwoo]

Not this year. I don't like the current political system of the U.S., but this year there's just way too much at stake. Unfortunate as it is, under the current system third parties really only sabotage one candidate over the other, and if Trump becomes our next president I'm going to be embarrassed to call myself an American.

[Rezzy]

I see it a lot, but people say there's too much at stake every presidential election to vote third party. I've voted in every election since 2004, and people say there's too much at stake every election to vote third party, and I doubt that will ever change.

[Thor Odinson]

If only we had a system that wasn't asinine.

[Rezzy]

If only we had a system that wasn't asinine.

Preferential voting would be nice, but I doubt it will ever happen.

[Topaz Light]

No, because I prioritize practical results that actually mean something for the future over "making a statement" that's just going to be buried in the smoldering remains of the nation that Donald Trump would leave behind should he be elected.

[Res]

I can't vote, but if I could, probably not as the system currently stands. I like the theory in practice, though.

The idea of a Trump presidency terrifies me, so I definitely wouldn't this election.

[-Cynthia-]

If you want a more effective third party movement, then I think voting them at the local or state level is going to have more of an impact overall than going from 2% to 4% in a presidential election.

Edited October 6, 2016 by -Cynthia-

[Rezzy]

If you want a more effective third party movement, then I think voting them at the local or state level is going to have more of an impact overall than going from 2% to 4% in a presidential election.

I can't in good conscience vote for either Hillary or Trump. If I don't vote third party, I'm not voting at all.

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

If more people go out and vote for third parties, the idea is that eventually our horrible two party system will be forced to integrate into a more multiparty scheme.

I think so too, even if they got the votes only by protest voters.

I mean what's the point of a politcal system, if you can choose of two people (parties) who are on a good way to bring abuses in their country?

Thankfully I'm not American (yet), so I don't have the hard choice to vote one of these (mad) dudes.

However Idk anything about the politics of the third-parties... but after reading a few comments I guess they're not better than Trump and Clinton at all.

If I was forced, I'd vote a third party just to express my protest towards the political system.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Ayama Wirdo

[Thor Odinson]

tbh I feel like a lot of the flak Clinton gets is undeserved and overblown by the media but probably not the place to discuss that

I feel like with Sanders losing the democratic party nomination it definitely shows that third parties aren't going to get voted at least at this election, anyway--while there may have been some shady shit going on at certain polls and closed primaries are definitely not beneficial to him, the margin he lost by was still significant enough to show that he likely would not have won regardless, and he actually had good momentum and a significant support base than whatever the third parties at the fringe.

Ralph Nader is also one of the reasons many people are reluctant to vote third party in the current system.

[ruadath]

gary johnson is an idiot ("what is aleppo?"), and jill stein is crazy, so no.

Sadly, the third-party candidates this year aren't really any better than the mainstream ones...

write in bernie

[NekoKnight]

For those curious, here is an informative video explaining first past the post.

I see it a lot, but people say there's too much at stake every presidential election to vote third party. I've voted in every election since 2004, and people say there's too much at stake every election to vote third party, and I doubt that will ever change.

Indeed. Each election is more urgent than the last, apparently. We can't let the other side win, no matter what!

Edited October 6, 2016 by NekoKnight

[Radiant head]

Indeed. Each election is more urgent than the last, apparently. We can't let the other side win, no matter what!

i would say the candidates are actually getting more dire as time progresses.

clinton would be considered to the right of nixon a few decades ago. unless we somehow swing back left, i can see trump's brand of extremism becoming the "lesser evil" next decade.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Radiant head

[Rezzy]

I really hate the "left" and "right" designations because people misuse them and not everything is a dichotomy. I think both major parties are far too "right" in authoritarianism. I just want to combine the Republicans' small government (whether they actually do it is debatable) with the Democrats' stand on most social issues.

In two election cycles, I might just start writing my own name in.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

Yes. I am voting third-party. I will not vote for Trump or Clinton. As of right now, Johnson has my vote.

[Nobody]

1 - why would clinton be to the right of nixon? What policies does she have that are to his right?

2 - even if her policies were to his "right", what about her policies make them worse than his? Calling a policy "right winged" or "left winged" has no intrinsic meaning (EDIT: on whether they're a good or bad policy) without telling why they're good or bad.

3 - if trump isn't elected now, how the fuck would his sort of speech have any shot at winning in a country that is even less favourable to that sort of speech due to demographic reasons? If Trump target demographic isn't big enough to get him to win now, it absolutely won't be in 10 years.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Radiant head]

of course left and right wing have intrinsic meanings. maybe try reading up on some basic political terminology

[Nobody]

of course left and right wing have intrinsic meanings. maybe try reading up on some basic political terminology

That's not what i meant. What i meant was that calling a policy "right" or "left" doesn't mean they're necessarily bad or good if you don't explain WHY they're bad or good. Right and Left are also somewhat subjective. Most current far right parties are anti trade, while most mainstream center left parties in first world countries are pro trade. Until some years ago, being pro trade was considered a right wing view.

Answering why clinton is to the right of nixon and why that's a bad thing, or posting an article showing that would be way more clarifying than making empty meaningless statements

Edited October 6, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Radiant head]

lol why do i have to talk about what's good or bad. i'm pointing to a specific shift in american politics further and further to the right, and never intended to say anything else.

for what it's worth i think right wing politics are pretty toxic and dangerous, but it's not something i'm interested in explaining in this thread.

[Nobody]

All i'm asking is WHY is Hillary to the right of Nixon. You claimed that but you never said why she's to the right of Nixon. Do respected political analysts say she's to the right of Nixon? Or is that just something people who dislike her for whatever reason claim on the internet? If you claim such a thing, people will want to know your reasoning.

BTW, her platform is to the left of Obama's. Even if she were to the right of Nixon, claiming that the democratic party would keep moving to the right, to the point of reaching Trump's levels (lol), is not a reasonable line of thought. Specially considering my third point in that post, that you never answered

Edited October 6, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[blah the Prussian]

If there was a Monarchist party, then sure. Unfortunately, there isn't one, and I like Clinton more than Gary Johnson (decent guy, but I entirely disagree with the Libertarian ideology) and Jill Stein (anti vaccine, nuclear energy).