politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Understood, but running with that analogy, it's a fucking stupid reason for turnout to be bad. Leg or head? That's a shit choice! You choose for me.
Because some people are bad enough off already a shot to the leg will still kill them, just be slow and painful.
They're dying either way mate.
That's not even getting i to how for lots of people, voting ain't a 10 minute stop on the way home from work.
It's 4 or even 8 hours waiting inline instead of putting food on the table.
Try to have some empathy
More like "I'm just not going to choose to be shot, thanks, you all have fun with that".
Unless you are leaving the country, you're getting shot
You have misunderstood the metaphor. (edit: Rather, the people you're describing have.)
You cannot opt out. Someone will take the office.
Rather, I reject the flawed nature of the metaphor and its poor fit. That's true - someone will take office... and you're not obligated to choose to be shot in either the leg or the head. You can, say, make no choice. You can choose, say, the hand.
We're all going to be shot through what some choose. Some will go for everyone getting headshot, some will go for everyone losing a leg... and roughly the same will decide such a choice is absurd and not make a choice at all. Some few will choose something less damaging entirely.
Of course, one has the freedom to cast their vote, or not, as they like. But I can't fathom why someone would "choose" an impossible outcome that ultimately makes the fatal scenario more likely instead of moving the needle toward the survivable one. It strikes me as irrational, which I could ignore if it were mere self-sabotage, but this affects others too.
Does voting third party or abstaining somehow increase the count of votes for Republicans? I realize I've been out of school a while, but my understanding was it did not.
Would this be more or less irrational than actively perpetuating the problems with a party and its candidates by guaranteeing them your vote for no reason other than they're not as bad as a different party?
No, I'm only describing the spoiler effect here.
It would be more irrational, because if the "shoot me in the leg, I guess" party loses, everyone dies, and nobody gets to have opinions about anything ever again.
I think we can both agree that voting to avoid bad outcomes rather than to select good ones is fucked.
Then the question still applies: in what way would a spoiler increase the count of either establishment candidate? My understanding of basic math is that it cannot.
That's certainly one opinion on the matter... coincidentally one perfectly aligned with a partisan propaganda viewpoint and, thus far, is nothing but alarmist hyperbole.
We sure can.
Correct, and to claim otherwise would be absurd. Have I done that? The absolute count of votes is immaterial. Elections are decided by the proportion of votes cast for each candidate. That's what admits the spoiler effect. Thanks, FPTP.
It's no coincidence. This is the means by which the establishment perpetuates itself. Doesn't mean both parties are the same.
I'm tapping out after this, but I appreciated the discussion. Have a great weekend.
Sure, let's play that game.
Candidate A: 50/100 Candidate B: 50/100 Candidate C: 0/100
If one abstains, there is no impact: Either candidate has 50/100 = 50%.
If one votes Candidate C, there is no impact: Candidate A and Candidate B are now both at 50/101 = 49.5%.
There is no spoiler.
Sure, and I'm not saying both parties are the same.
I'm saying one isn't obligated to vote for Party A for them merely being less awful than Party B - that doing so perpetuates the awfulness of either party; that trying to convince voters to do so is to perpetuate the awfulness of a given party.
You, too.