se-alum;1296517 wrote:Because, if you put dung, vomit, and Ribeye in front of 101 people, those 101 people take the Ribeye, because they know definitively that those are the choices. No matter how many people try to tell me how delicious the dung and vomit are, I'm still taking the Ribeye because it's more appetizing to the eye. In a political race, people's opinions shape what they believe are dung, vomit, and Ribeye. What I believe to be dung or vomit, you may believe to be Ribeye.

The choices are the choices. The options in a political race are what they are. This year, the two favorites are Romney and Obama, with other choices being the "third" option. Those are the options. What we find palatable is subject to our opinions and preferences.

Much the same is applied to the analogy. The options are the options. People's preference regarding them would entirely be up to their subjective opinion. Just because you say everyone would take the ribeye doesn't make it objective.

The point of this was to analogize the circumstance of those who prefer a third party candidate, who DO see the main two as vomit and dung. There is always an assumption that one of the third-party candidates is closer to one or the other major party, and the supporters of that party will often say that voting for anything but one of the main two is a waste, even when the voter sees the main two as vomit and dung, respectively, and sees the third option as ribeye. They'll say, "We have to get _______ out of the White House! If you don't vote for _________, and ________ gets another term, it's your fault!"

Here's what said third-party voter hears: "We have to get Vomit out of the White House! If you don't vote for Dung, and Vomit gets another term, it's your fault!"

Reality is, we probably don't see one as being noticeably better than the other, so we care less about keeping what we perceive to be Vomit out of office if Dung is the only alternative (or vice versa), because we don't see it as better, really. That isn't to say we don't think Vomit is repulsive. We do. We just also think Dung is repulsive.

gut;1296538 wrote:Maybe, maybe not. But I will always take a chance on unknown success over a proven failure.

Look, a 3rd party has to have about 30% before it can be taken seriously as a threat to win an election. And it won't matter if they 49% if Dems have locked-up over 50%.

You just can't ignore the short-run. The election process is one of building consensus. Your guy went thru the primaries. Your guy could run as a independent. For the majority of voters, his shit stinks even if you think it doesn't. But back to the building a consensus. That's the system, you can participate in it or not, but don't fool yourself into thinking your protest vote is going to make a difference. Grass roots/change do not begin on election day.

For what it's worth, the rib eye in the example was Gary Johnson. He's running.

I agree that it doesn't start or end on election day, but election day isn't a day off from it either. Third-party movements, if ever successful, are going to require building over time, and while that's not limited to the election, it doesn't exclude it either. So long as people continue to take election day as a "day off" from choosing their actually desired elected official, it wouldn't matter if 99% of people agreed on the third option in the off-season.

gut;1296538 wrote:Maybe, maybe not. But I will always take a chance on unknown success over a proven failure.

Look, a 3rd party has to have about 30% before it can be taken seriously as a threat to win an election. And it won't matter if they 49% if Dems have locked-up over 50%.

You just can't ignore the short-run. The election process is one of building consensus. Your guy went thru the primaries. Your guy could run as a independent. For the majority of voters, his shit stinks even if you think it doesn't. But back to the building a consensus. That's the system, you can participate in it or not, but don't fool yourself into thinking your protest vote is going to make a difference. Grass roots/change do not begin on election day.

Like I've said before, getting over 5% of the popular vote will give the party a HUGE chunk of money for 2016. I'm not voting for ribeye out of protest. I'm voting for ribeye because it's the option I believe in. You can write it off all you want, but in the long run it CAN make a difference. Will it make a difference? I have no fucking clue, but I'm certainly not going to compromise my beliefs just because it might not.

O-Trap;1296545 wrote:For what it's worth, the rib eye in the example was Gary Johnson. He's running.

I agree that it doesn't start or end on election day, but election day isn't a day off from it either. Third-party movements, if ever successful, are going to require building over time, and while that's not limited to the election, it doesn't exclude it either. So long as people continue to take election day as a "day off" from choosing their actually desired elected official, it wouldn't matter if 99% of people agreed on the third option in the off-season.

Word.

gut;1296538 wrote:Maybe, maybe not. But I will always take a chance on unknown success over a proven failure.

Republican options and nominees in recent history have been proven failures, I'd suggest. They've increased spending over their predecessors. They've failed to do anything about military conflict (even though Bush II's first platform was run on anti-interventionism).

justincredible;1296527 wrote:Yeah, but someone pissed in the sandwich bag and now it's soggy.

Pissed blood in the sandwich bag. STD-infested blood.

Heretic;1296566 wrote:Pissed blood in the sandwich bag. STD-infested blood.

That post smells of Anarchism. LOL

justincredible;1296549 wrote:Like I've said before, getting over 5% of the popular vote will give the party a HUGE chunk of money for 2016. I'm not voting for ribeye out of protest. I'm voting for ribeye because it's the option I believe in. You can write it off all you want, but in the long run it CAN make a difference. Will it make a difference? I have no fucking clue, but I'm certainly not going to compromise my beliefs just because it might not.

Perot received nearly 20% of the popular vote in '92. It did nothing to help Independents in the future.

As far as the election goes, a vote for an Independent is a waste, but it's not a waste personally if it is a candidate who you truly believe in.

se-alum;1296579 wrote:Perot received nearly 20% of the popular vote in '92. It did nothing to help Independents in the future.

As far as the election goes, a vote for an Independent is a waste, but it's not a waste personally if it is a candidate who you truly believe in.

Ribeye isn't an Independent.

justincredible;1296581 wrote:Ribeye isn't an Independent.

Ok, Libertarian, but it doesn't change the rest of the statement.

se-alum;1296597 wrote:Ok, Libertarian, but it doesn't change the rest of the statement.

So you believe getting upwards of $100mil for the ribeye party for tomorrow's dinner won't help?

Don't forget. The ribeye party is the fastest growing party at the dinner table, too.

se-alum;1296597 wrote:Ok, Libertarian, but it doesn't change the rest of the statement.

Ever?

Or are you somehow saying that it's a waste to vote that way until they have a chance to win the election? Do you think that is possible without people voting for them in the meantime?

justincredible;1296599 wrote:So you believe getting upwards of $100mil for the ribeye party for tomorrow's dinner won't help?

Oh, it will help, on a very small scale. I just don't believe there is enough power in the Libertarian party to really get anything done.

O-Trap;1296608 wrote:Ever?

Or are you somehow saying that it's a waste to vote that way until they have a chance to win the election? Do you think that is possible without people voting for them in the meantime?

Not what I'm saying at all. I said it's a wasted vote as far as the election goes, but I also said that you should vote if you truly believe in what they have to offer. I'm Republican, but I would never tell someone not to vote for a Democrat or Libertarian. It's a fundamental right and obligation(I believe) to cast your vote for the candidate you feel is most fit.

se-alum;1296631 wrote:Not what I'm saying at all. I said it's a wasted vote as far as the election goes, but I also said that you should vote if you truly believe in what they have to offer. I'm Republican, but I would never tell someone not to vote for a Democrat or Libertarian. It's a fundamental right and obligation(I believe) to cast your vote for the candidate you feel is most fit.

You know, I think I see your point. Knowing that a person won't win THAT election, I could see one saying it would be a fruitless vote in the immediate short order. If the vote is, however, for the purpose of maintaining current support so as to increase it as the movement grows, it still has merit in the long order.

Who said two people in a discussion on politics cannot come to a reasonable understanding?

se-alum;1296579 wrote:Perot received nearly 20% of the popular vote in '92. It did nothing to help Independents in the future.

As far as the election goes, a vote for an Independent is a waste, but it's not a waste personally if it is a candidate who you truly believe in.

Mr. Perot just endorsed Mr. Romney. He understands the situation.

QuakerOats;1296651 wrote:Mr. Perot just endorsed Mr. Romney. He understands the situation.

I'd contest that he doesn't, but that he's got some political relevancy for the moment. Good for him, I suppose.

O-Trap;1296638 wrote: Who said two people in a discussion on politics cannot come to a reasonable understanding?

That's what happens when two people can deal with being disagreed with!

justincredible;1296549 wrote:Like I've said before, getting over 5% of the popular vote will give the party a HUGE chunk of money for 2016. I'm not voting for ribeye out of protest. I'm voting for ribeye because it's the option I believe in. You can write it off all you want, but in the long run it CAN make a difference. Will it make a difference? I have no ****ing clue, but I'm certainly not going to compromise my beliefs just because it might not.

You guys really are not getting it. There's a fairly long history of varying degrees of failure for 3rd party candidates. There's always someone who's not going to vote for the consensus choices. Those votes have been pretty much inconsequential - no different to the candidates than someone who doesn't vote. If you are note voting for the consensus alternative, you are not hurting them. Politicians care about re-election - they do not try to be all things to all voters nor do they overly concern themselves with votes they can't win.

You idea of the protest vote is hardly new. It hasn't made a dent or any progress over the last 20 some years. You are throwing away your vote. Logic dictates it as such. Empirical evidence dictates it as such.

You clearly have never been in a situation at a company where an incompetent failure of a senior exec is absolutely debilitating because of management's inability to act. It truly is addition by subtraction. You don't continue to fuck yourself because you have been unable to identify the ideal alternative.

People notice when someone gets fired. They don't react much, or even notice in most cases, subtle or quiet protests/reprimands. Your strategy to affect change with a protest vote will continue to fail as it has for decades. Your goal to affect change by withdrawing from the consensus building process will continue to fail as it has for decades. Pass the buck and hope those willing to take on the responsibility make the right choices.

gut;1296702 wrote:You don't continue to fuck yourself because you have been unable to identify the ideal alternative.

I'll take a serviceable alternative, but I'm not going to support sinking the ship or blowing the ship up just because most people are supporting one of those two. Presumably, when such an executive is sacked, he isn't replaced by someone who openly supports ideals that only perpetuate the continued downward direction of the company.

Or completely ruin the current Republican party until it shifts more moderate(read: more libertarian). Might as well keep voting Democrat so I don't waste my vote!

gut;1296702 wrote:You guys really are not getting it. There's a fairly long history of varying degrees of failure for 3rd party candidates. There's always someone who's not going to vote for the consensus choices. Those votes have been pretty much inconsequential - no different to the candidates than someone who doesn't vote. If you are note voting for the consensus alternative, you are not hurting them. Politicians care about re-election - they do not try to be all things to all voters nor do they overly concern themselves with votes they can't win.

You idea of the protest vote is hardly new. It hasn't made a dent or any progress over the last 20 some years. You are throwing away your vote. Logic dictates it as such. Empirical evidence dictates it as such.

You clearly have never been in a situation at a company where an incompetent failure of a senior exec is absolutely debilitating because of management's inability to act. It truly is addition by subtraction. You don't continue to fuck yourself because you have been unable to identify the ideal alternative.

People notice when someone gets fired. They don't react much, or even notice in most cases, subtle or quiet protests/reprimands. Your strategy to affect change with a protest vote will continue to fail as it has for decades. Your goal to affect change by withdrawing from the consensus building process will continue to fail as it has for decades. Pass the buck and hope those willing to take on the responsibility make the right choices.

Bummer, man.

sleeper;1296720 wrote:Or completely ruin the current Republican party until it shifts more moderate(read: more libertarian). Might as well keep voting Democrat so I don't waste my vote!

Indeed. He's convinced me. I've voting Obama in 2012.

justincredible;1296724 wrote:Indeed. He's convinced me. I've voting Obama in 2012.

Pretty much. Don't want to waste that whole vote-dealie or anything.

justincredible;1296724 wrote:Indeed. He's convinced me. I've voting Obama in 2012.

Remember, a vote for Obama is a vote for Obama!