No, DeSantis isn't "winning" against Walt Disney World

I could never turn in a blank ballot, I would at least write in someone. Done it before, handing one in or not voting seems wrong.

Jeff:

Which one do you disqualify from watching your kids?

You forgot to mention the third person who I selected because they care about my kids even though I’m pretty confident they’ll get in a wreck on the way to my house because they can’t drive. Or something.

Strange, nonsensical hypotheticals are fun.

Be real with me for a minute. I see where you're coming from, I honestly do get it. Voicing the desire for the third option logically makes sense. But what if it contributes to the ascension of option 1? Is it worth it to draw a line in the sand for that ideal, when others may suffer as a result? I'm just saying that there may be consequences, even if they don't affect you personally.

I don’t believe I’m the one having a hard time grasping your and everyone else’s reasoning for voting the way you and everyone else voted.

Jeff:

Is it worth it to draw a line in the sand for that ideal, when others may suffer as a result?

To me? Yep. I think I’ve mentioned somewhere that my conscience is clean.

Let me check, just to confirm. You're saying that it's OK to contribute to the ascension of a person, by voting for a third party, who actively wants to marginalize other human beings and dismantle American democracy? I'm not asking about your conscience, I'm asking if you think that's OK.

Egad. No, I’m saying I voted for the person I wanted to be the President.

Guess what? Voting third party didn’t contribute to that. Want to really know where my head was on Election Day? I absolutely did NOT want Trump in office for four more years, but…I absolutely did NOT want Biden in office, either. There was a third candidate that I felt would do better than the other clowns even if she slipped into a coma on Inauguration Day, so I rolled the dice hoping (and suspecting) that there were enough other voters who would ensure Trump wouldn’t win. I was right.

Fair enough, thank you for engaging.

Hillary?

A few things:

Regarding third party voting, the belief that voting for a third-party candidate could contribute to the ascension of the worst candidate is flawed logic. All it takes is enough people to vote third party and either the third party wins or makes significant enough gains that the two current dominant parties have to step back and rethink who they’re putting out there. Where we’ve failed miserably as a country is convincing people that third party is an option. I contend that if we did convince people that there are more options, we’d probably have far less extreme positions from Republicans and Democrats. Efforts from either side to try and say that a third-party vote is a wasted vote is a prime example of how staying in power is more important to both parties than actually accomplishing things.

Also, I’m a Republican who voted third-party in the last two elections, so under the flawed logic of my vote contributing to the ascension of someone other than the one for whom I voted, it would’ve been Biden more so than Trump.

Second, the whole issue of how there isn’t moral equivalency between the two parties is a flawed premise because it assumes a shared moral code. I’ve seen some discussion about reproductive rights, but the arguments in this thread I’ve seen have almost exclusively been presented from the perspective of the left. Consider the argument from the pro-life side, if just for a moment. If the belief of a pro-lifer that life begins at conception is true, then from their perspective, to vote for the left is to essentially give approval to the single greatest act of mass murder in the history of humanity. If you consider it from that side, the argument that the left is somehow morally superior falls apart immediately.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I don’t think that the right is morally superior either, because the Republican Party leadership clearly knows that saving babies is essentially a non-negotiable and takes blatant advantage of that to neglect other issues like addressing racism and the horrific attempt to overthrow an election, but I’m just saying that you can’t expect to get very far on the issue of morality with folks when you ignore key issues for either side. If we want to get anywhere, we need to start with some wins on the issues we can all agree on, and we also need to stop allowing the extreme ends of both parties to have the influence that they do.

But beliefs can still be idiotic, no matter how sincerely they are held. That’s why 2020 election truthers don’t get a pass; yes, if we grant them their beliefs, then their actions seem (somewhat) justified. But the beliefs are really dumb, so we don’t grant them, which makes their resulting actions unjustified/unethical/immoral.

I wouldn’t call the pro-life stance dumb, but I think people that take such a hard line position, suggesting that the fertilized egg now implanted in the uterine wall is subject to the same rights and protections as the owner of that uterus, should have their beliefs challenged rather than conceded just because they really believe it.

Better rights and protections. That’s where they go wrong.

https://fivethirtyeight.com...tial-bids/

Tactically, voting for a third-party candidate seems really dubious to me. At best you are opting out; at worst, you're doing something like leftists did in voting for Ralph Nader and getting George W Bush elected.

I suppose it is possible that some third party will emerge in the future. If that happens, it will be because one of the current parties fractures. (Republicans seem like the better bet for that at the moment, whenever "post-Trump" arrives, assuming the man doesn't live forever.) It's not going to happen because Howard Schultz or Andrew Yang went on an ego trip.

And, if that happens, the new third party will be relevant for a couple cycles, and then either fade into the rear-view mirror (the Bull Moose Party) or replace the previous party (the Republicans replacing the Whigs). The way our political system is built (first past the post; electoral college; president instead of prime minister) practically guarantees it.

I also wonder, in places that have more viable parties, whether people really feel, "oh yes, the government listens to me, the people, because I might go vote for the Greens / the National Front / the Monster Raving Loony Party." Somehow I imagine they have the same complaints.

(Don't get me started on the lack of a "centrist" party in this country. That's not what we're missing.)

For my money, the lesser of two evils is the better choice. But you do you.

hambone:

At best you are opting out; at worst, you're doing something like leftists did in voting for Ralph Nader and getting George W Bush elected.

Ooh, another hypothetical! So, what if enough would-be Trump voting Republicans voted third party in 2020 resulted in Biden getting elected? That’s ok, because it would’ve prevented the inevitable shift to a fascist dictatorship, right?

You seem to imply that Trump is not a fascist or autocrat. Is that what you're saying?

sirloindude:

All it takes is enough people to vote third party and either the third party wins or makes significant enough gains that the two current dominant parties have to step back and rethink who they’re putting out there.

We both know that's not sound logic, because by voting day, you know what the odds of that are, because...

hambone:
Tactically, voting for a third-party candidate seems really dubious to me. At best you are opting out; at worst, you're doing something like leftists did in voting for Ralph Nader and getting George W Bush elected.

sirloindude:
Second, the whole issue of how there isn’t moral equivalency between the two parties is a flawed premise because it assumes a shared moral code.

That doesn't make sense. You can't say there isn't moral equivalency because people have different morals. That's the point. But if you meant something else, I'll sort of give you abortion, but not really because you can't want small government out of your life and tell you what to do with your body. That aside, I'm pretty sure that the majority of well adjusted human beings can agree that directing hate and discrimination toward people different from them is bad. I'm sure the majority agrees that throwing away the Constitution is bad.

And to take that a step further, mainstream Democrats are not the "radical left," they're at best centrists who don't want to go too far in anything controversial (Bernie Bros aside). They're mostly fine with the status quo, though I should remind you that the only balanced budget in my lifetime came from a Democrat. So if the GOP aligns with a hate campaign and tossing the founding documents, and the DNC does not, how is that morally equivalent?

Vater:

Ooh, another hypothetical! So, what if enough would-be Trump voting Republicans voted third party in 2020 resulted in Biden getting elected? That’s ok, because it would’ve prevented the inevitable shift to a fascist dictatorship, right?

I don't pretend to speak for you or anyone else. If you prefer Biden to Trump, you should vote for Biden rather than voting for a third-party candidate in the hope that enough other people will vote for Biden that Trump isn't elected. The latter is just wasting at least half the effect of your vote, and/or pretending to have a clean conscience when you're really just being self-indulgent.

Jeff:

You seem to imply that Trump is not a fascist or autocrat. Is that what you're saying?

No. I just don’t believe he’d be as successful as everyone thinks in changing our form of government. I get the concerns, I just doubt the inevitability, hence my sardonic tone.

I do find it odd that everyone seems to complain about the two party system but somehow voting third party in an attempt to shake it up, however meager and feeble it may be, is wrong.

“Vote. Just don’t vote the way I wouldn’t.”

For the record, I don’t prefer Biden to Trump.

That’s fine, I should have said “If one prefers Biden to trump, one should …” to make it clear I wasn’t referring to you specifically.

There are more effective ways to shake up the system. Get a third-party candidate elected to dog-catcher or mayor or sewer commissioner or something. Run for ward captain and push your local party to be more … whatever. Form a PAC. Or something else. Throwing your vote at some egomaniac seems like the most minimal way possible that you could voice your protest.

sirloindude:

Regarding third party voting, the belief that voting for a third-party candidate could contribute to the ascension of the worst candidate is flawed logic. All it takes is enough people to vote third party and either the third party wins or makes significant enough gains that the two current dominant parties have to step back and rethink who they’re putting out there.

2016 is a very recent example of 3rd party candidates making an impact on the election. Jill Stein ran on the Green Party ticket and nationally received around 1% of the vote. That breakdown was pretty similar in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Someone who voted for a Green Party candidate is MUCH more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate than the Republican candidate. Why bring up Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania? Clinton lost those states by less than 1%. Shift those three over to the blue side and she wins instead of Trump.

Let's say magically enough people decide to vote for the same third party candidate and they end up actually winning some electoral votes. That would throw the whole system into chaos. Candidates need 270 electoral votes to win, not to just be in first place. Syphon off some of those 538 electoral votes and 270 becomes much more difficult for anyone to achieve. Congress would then decide the next President with each state getting one vote. January 6th would look like child's play.

As Brian said earlier voting third party in a solid red or blue state doesn't really effect the outcome. In a purple state on a large enough scale could throw the system into chaos.

hambone:

There are more effective ways to shake up the system.

Great. Not what we’re discussing here, but sure, you’re absolutely right. There are more effective ways to waste my time, too, but here I am responding to this inane discussion. Again. And I apologize to everyone—and continue to question my sanity—for doing so.

Bakeman31092:

But beliefs can still be idiotic, no matter how sincerely they are held. That’s why 2020 election truthers don’t get a pass; yes, if we grant them their beliefs, then their actions seem (somewhat) justified. But the beliefs are really dumb, so we don’t grant them, which makes their resulting actions unjustified/unethical/immoral.

I wouldn’t call the pro-life stance dumb, but I think people that take such a hard line position, suggesting that the fertilized egg now implanted in the uterine wall is subject to the same rights and protections as the owner of that uterus, should have their beliefs challenged rather than conceded just because they really believe it.

You are quite correct that beliefs can be idiotic, and I think that believing that Donald Trump won in 2020 is ridiculous, especially when there’s compelling evidence that says that he tried to overturn some results himself.

I do appreciate the way you phrased your comments about the pro-life stance, and yes, I welcome challenges to what I believe and anybody should be open to that. From my perspective, yes, I believe that life begins when that egg is fertilized. It may not be able to viably survive outside of the womb, sure, but I believe that it’s a life at that point and is entitled to the same rights and protections as anybody else.

I think the way the whole things gets argued, though, is ineffective from both ends. Those of us on the pro-life end shouting, “It’s a life!,” don’t get anywhere because if you don’t share that belief, then no amount of me saying it is going to convince you otherwise. It also doesn’t help our cause at all when we allow policy to get enacted that puts it at risk the moment it’s suddenly out of the body. This is where I make the argument that we need to start the conversation from a different point that’s far less debatable. I definitely lean more right than left in a lot of ways, but I absolutely share the belief that a universal healthcare system funded with taxpayer dollars is the way to go. I’m not going to elaborate much on that in this post as it’s going to be lengthy enough as it is, but I’m happy to expand on it if you’d like. I just think that it would go a long way to lending some integrity to the term “pro-life” if we didn’t allow it to be so horrifically expensive to give birth in the first place.

I do think that universal healthcare works better when you have a healthier society, though, so it comes with some caveats, but still.

hambone:

For my money, the lesser of two evils is the better choice. But you do you.

This goes back to my argument about how different moral codes swing this different ways. I’m trying to avoid hanging everything on the pro-life/pro-choice debate, but the fact remains that if you subscribe to the belief that life begins at conception, the candidate you end up labeling the lesser of two evils might not be the same as someone else’s.

Vater:

Ooh, another hypothetical! So, what if enough would-be Trump voting Republicans voted third party in 2020 resulted in Biden getting elected? That’s ok, because it would’ve prevented the inevitable shift to a fascist dictatorship, right?

This 100%. If you need people who are defecting from their party in search of a better middle ground to go one step farther and go to the other major party instead, maybe your candidate isn’t as strong as you think or your agenda is not one shared by the majority. Me, as a Republican, defecting to a third party is not contributing to the rise of Trump and Trump-like candidates. That blame falls more on voters who vote for him outright, moderate Republican voters not showing up in enough numbers at primaries to get the moderate candidates on the tickets, and Democratic voters who either don’t show up at all or defect outright. That essentially puts us Republican defectors no higher than fifth on the list of voters who are contributing to the rise of extreme candidates.

Jeff:

That doesn't make sense. You can't say there isn't moral equivalency because people have different morals. That's the point.

How does it not make sense? Different moral codes mean that which side is morally superior is going to be different in the eyes of each person. Now, you did say later in the same paragraph from which I drew the above excerpt that we can all agree that discrimination and hate are bad, as is attempting to throw out the constitution. However, I could easily point to nuances in both of those cases where an argument could be made that the left is just as guilty of both in their own ways, but as I’m a Republican who agrees that the party leadership is using people’s morals in one area as a sort of you’re-always-going-to-vote-for-us-because-of-this cover that allows them to act terribly in all sorts of other ways, I think it’s better that I just agree that the Republican Party leadership is letting some bad actors get away with too much right now.

Jeff:

But if you meant something else, I'll sort of give you abortion, but not really because you can't want small government out of your life and tell you what to do with your body.

This is why the whole pro-life/pro-choice debate doesn’t really get anywhere. From a pro-life perspective, I’m respectfully saying that this argument goes nowhere because it ignores some basic tenets of the pro-life argument. The reverse is true as well, don’t get me wrong, because it’s often limited to, “Life begins at conception,” and doesn’t really go any farther, but I’m going to try my best here.

From the pro-choice perspective, the argument seems predicated on the belief that life does not begin at conception, but rather at some point afterward that can be as late as birth itself. That’s the only way the argument about it being the woman’s body can actually hold any water. From the pro-life side, there are two bodies in question because there are two lives: the mother and the baby. Given that basic tenet, it’s a little bit of an oversimplification to say that pro-lifers are telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies. The crux of the argument is that there are actually two bodies, and the problem is that whatever decision you make about the one, you’re making for the other.

On the pro-choice side, if you simply don’t believe that life begins at conception, much of what I’m saying is irrelevant. Instead, though, I’d ask when you would say life actually begins, because bringing this all back to the original argument about moral equivalence between parties, or lack thereof, the answer to the question of when life begins can really skew the direction one goes with which party is the morally inferior of the two.