Voting

[Jeremy E.]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

[forummm]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

[mrpercentage]

Pardon the French but Im mostly just anti-Washington bullshit. Im tired of their 15 year war and nuclear weapon upgrades while they spend our social security money on things other than retired people and have the nerve to say its running out. I do mail in ballots. I just got something asking if I wanted to vote in the primary. I signed up for Democrat so I can pick Sanders. Somehow Arizona is already Hillary. Can you say voter fraud. I will give everyone in office a go when the real ballot shows up. Im cleaning house. Good night

[MoonShadow]

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

But they were Republican governors, not libs.  His complaint is that the Libertarian Party can't build a party with a future, and nominating two Republicans over principled libs, mostly based upon the idea that they have actually won an election or few, is evidence that his opinion is sound.  And as far as Will Weld as VP, the idea that he is a lib on any scale nauseates me.  Johnson has a loose claim, although he isn't particularly ideological; but Weld is a neo-con.

[MoonShadow]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

Not as far as I am aware.  Care to enlighten me on this perspective?  How does adding "Democratic" in front of "Socialist" actually modify the core meaning of "Socialist"?

[GuitarStv]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

Not as far as I am aware.  Care to enlighten me on this perspective?  How does adding "Democratic" in front of "Socialist" actually modify the core meaning of "Socialist"?

The adjective "democratic" is stuck in front to distinguish it from Marxist–Leninist socialism (which is authoritarian not democratic).  Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair, and François Mitterrand would be examples of people who attempt to govern via democratic socialism.

[Jeremy E.]

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

But they were Republican governors, not libs.  His complaint is that the Libertarian Party can't build a party with a future, and nominating two Republicans over principled libs, mostly based upon the idea that they have actually won an election or few, is evidence that his opinion is sound.  And as far as Will Weld as VP, the idea that he is a lib on any scale nauseates me.  Johnson has a loose claim, although he isn't particularly ideological; but Weld is a neo-con.

Johnson got the most votes for pres of any libertarian in the history of the libertarian party, to say he has a "loose claim" makes no sense.

[MoonShadow]

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

But they were Republican governors, not libs.  His complaint is that the Libertarian Party can't build a party with a future, and nominating two Republicans over principled libs, mostly based upon the idea that they have actually won an election or few, is evidence that his opinion is sound.  And as far as Will Weld as VP, the idea that he is a lib on any scale nauseates me.  Johnson has a loose claim, although he isn't particularly ideological; but Weld is a neo-con.

Johnson got the most votes for pres of any libertarian in the history of the libertarian party, to say he has a "loose claim" makes no sense.

Johnson is a socially liberal Republican.  He deviates quite a bit from libertarian philosophy, but not so much that I couldn't overlook that if it were him alone.  I did vote for him last time, after all.  But I can't overlook the pairing of Will Weld.  He's not even a neocon in lib clothing, he's just a neocon in neocon clothing.  I refuse to debase myself.

[MoonShadow]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

Not as far as I am aware.  Care to enlighten me on this perspective?  How does adding "Democratic" in front of "Socialist" actually modify the core meaning of "Socialist"?

The adjective "democratic" is stuck in front to distinguish it from Marxist–Leninist socialism (which is authoritarian not democratic).  Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair, and François Mitterrand would be examples of people who attempt to govern via democratic socialism.

You didn't answer the question.  How is Democratic Socialism different than plain old Socialism?  Giving me examples of world leaders with a softer leadership style than Carl Marx or Lenin doesn't explain the difference in the economic or social philosophy, just that there exist examples of socialists that aren't murderous dictators.  Just a few, mind you; so far the nice socialist world leaders are the exception, not the rule.

[GuitarStv]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

Not as far as I am aware.  Care to enlighten me on this perspective?  How does adding "Democratic" in front of "Socialist" actually modify the core meaning of "Socialist"?

The adjective "democratic" is stuck in front to distinguish it from Marxist–Leninist socialism (which is authoritarian not democratic).  Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair, and François Mitterrand would be examples of people who attempt to govern via democratic socialism.

You didn't answer the question.  How is Democratic Socialism different than plain old Socialism?  Giving me examples of world leaders with a softer leadership style than Carl Marx or Lenin doesn't explain the difference in the economic or social philosophy, just that there exist examples of socialists that aren't murderous dictators.  Just a few, mind you; so far the nice socialist world leaders are the exception, not the rule.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here.  If you don't see any difference in social philosophy between advocating for an authoritarian state and a democratically elected one, I'm not sure that you'll accept any answer given.  Economically, there are very different theories and approaches associated with democratic socialism . . . ranging from state ownership to staying out of the market.

[MoonShadow]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

Not as far as I am aware.  Care to enlighten me on this perspective?  How does adding "Democratic" in front of "Socialist" actually modify the core meaning of "Socialist"?

The adjective "democratic" is stuck in front to distinguish it from Marxist–Leninist socialism (which is authoritarian not democratic).  Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair, and François Mitterrand would be examples of people who attempt to govern via democratic socialism.

You didn't answer the question.  How is Democratic Socialism different than plain old Socialism?  Giving me examples of world leaders with a softer leadership style than Carl Marx or Lenin doesn't explain the difference in the economic or social philosophy, just that there exist examples of socialists that aren't murderous dictators.  Just a few, mind you; so far the nice socialist world leaders are the exception, not the rule.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here.  If you don't see any difference in social philosophy between advocating for an authoritarian state and a democratically elected one, I'm not sure that you'll accept any answer given.  Economically, there are very different theories and approaches associated with democratic socialism . . . ranging from state ownership to staying out of the market.

Show me, please.  Because I've never been able to get anyone to actually present such a theory, just opinions as you are right now.  Socialism is, at root, defined as the public ownership or control of resources, industrial production or industrial output, or a combination of the above.  The Soviet Union did all three, as best as they were able.  How would a democratically elected socialist government alter this definition?  Murderous dictators have been democratically elected in the past, so what would stop the next socialist president (after Bernie, who I admit wouldn't be going on any purges) from going full-on socialist?  The checks & balances that are supposed to work in our government system are not the democratic parts of it.

[deadlymonkey]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

Not as far as I am aware.  Care to enlighten me on this perspective?  How does adding "Democratic" in front of "Socialist" actually modify the core meaning of "Socialist"?

The adjective "democratic" is stuck in front to distinguish it from Marxist–Leninist socialism (which is authoritarian not democratic).  Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair, and François Mitterrand would be examples of people who attempt to govern via democratic socialism.

You didn't answer the question.  How is Democratic Socialism different than plain old Socialism?  Giving me examples of world leaders with a softer leadership style than Carl Marx or Lenin doesn't explain the difference in the economic or social philosophy, just that there exist examples of socialists that aren't murderous dictators.  Just a few, mind you; so far the nice socialist world leaders are the exception, not the rule.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here.  If you don't see any difference in social philosophy between advocating for an authoritarian state and a democratically elected one, I'm not sure that you'll accept any answer given.  Economically, there are very different theories and approaches associated with democratic socialism . . . ranging from state ownership to staying out of the market.

Show me, please.  Because I've never been able to get anyone to actually present such a theory, just opinions as you are right now.  Socialism is, at root, defined as the public ownership or control of resources, industrial production or industrial output, or a combination of the above.  The Soviet Union did all three, as best as they were able.  How would a democratically elected socialist government alter this definition?  Murderous dictators have been democratically elected in the past, so what would stop the next socialist president (after Bernie, who I admit wouldn't be going on any purges) from going full-on socialist?  The checks & balances that are supposed to work in our government system are not the democratic parts of it.

Socialism is a theory where all members of the society are equal and have equal ownership of the means of production.  A great theory on paper and in the initial proposals it was proposed that this should evolve naturally.  It was until Marx and Lenin added the autocratic portions of Socialism that we are familiar with in its current incarnations.  Where the select few run the government and they own the means of production. 

Democratic Socialism strives for equality amongst society as well, but focuses specifically on the democratic voting process. There is no autocracy as all leaders are elected and changes in society are determined through the voting process.  Economically there are many flavors of it, just like their are many flavors of communism/socialism today (China, Venezuela, Vietnam, USSR all had/have different economic models).  There are no democratic Socialist countries that have 100% state owned economies.  Certain sectors are state owned but there is still a significant amount of capitalism involved. 

Democratic Socialism is an attempt to curb the worst aspects of capitalism.

[MoonShadow]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

Not as far as I am aware.  Care to enlighten me on this perspective?  How does adding "Democratic" in front of "Socialist" actually modify the core meaning of "Socialist"?

The adjective "democratic" is stuck in front to distinguish it from Marxist–Leninist socialism (which is authoritarian not democratic).  Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair, and François Mitterrand would be examples of people who attempt to govern via democratic socialism.

You didn't answer the question.  How is Democratic Socialism different than plain old Socialism?  Giving me examples of world leaders with a softer leadership style than Carl Marx or Lenin doesn't explain the difference in the economic or social philosophy, just that there exist examples of socialists that aren't murderous dictators.  Just a few, mind you; so far the nice socialist world leaders are the exception, not the rule.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here.  If you don't see any difference in social philosophy between advocating for an authoritarian state and a democratically elected one, I'm not sure that you'll accept any answer given.  Economically, there are very different theories and approaches associated with democratic socialism . . . ranging from state ownership to staying out of the market.

Show me, please.  Because I've never been able to get anyone to actually present such a theory, just opinions as you are right now.  Socialism is, at root, defined as the public ownership or control of resources, industrial production or industrial output, or a combination of the above.  The Soviet Union did all three, as best as they were able.  How would a democratically elected socialist government alter this definition?  Murderous dictators have been democratically elected in the past, so what would stop the next socialist president (after Bernie, who I admit wouldn't be going on any purges) from going full-on socialist?  The checks & balances that are supposed to work in our government system are not the democratic parts of it.

Socialism is a theory where all members of the society are equal and have equal ownership of the means of production.  A great theory on paper and in the initial proposals it was proposed that this should evolve naturally.  It was until Marx and Lenin added the autocratic portions of Socialism that we are familiar with in its current incarnations.  Where the select few run the government and they own the means of production. 

It was my understanding that Marx literally defined the term "socialism" (as well as "capitalism" for that matter)  in his many books (Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, Wage Labor & Capital, Theories of Surplus Value, etc) and fully expected that a revolution would have been required, because the Burgouis would have been unwilling to surrender control without force.  Are you claiming that there was a prior socialist philosopher that I'm not aware of?  If so, why is this person not famous also?  And if we are going back to economic theories of the 1800's as our basis for a "democratic socialism", why do you have the habit of dismissing other economic theorists, such as Adam Smith, out of hand?

Democratic Socialism strives for equality amongst society as well, but focuses specifically on the democratic voting process. There is no autocracy as all leaders are elected and changes in society are determined through the voting process.

This is exactly what occurred in Venezuela.  Is that your base model?

Economically there are many flavors of it, just like their are many flavors of communism/socialism today (China, Venezuela, Vietnam, USSR all had/have different economic models).  There are no democratic Socialist countries that have 100% state owned economies.  Certain sectors are state owned but there is still a significant amount of capitalism involved. 

This is true, even with Venezuela.  Well, there still is North Korea.

So you are saying that the successes of a democraticly elected socialist country appear to be corrolated to how much capitalism they keep, then?  I can accept that.  So if the greater the capitalism, the better off society is as a whole, why would we want to become more socialist than we already are?  Wouldn't we, logically, have better success by dismantling the socialist portions of our society that already exist?

Democratic Socialism is an attempt to curb the worst aspects of capitalism.

Such as?

[GuitarStv]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

Not as far as I am aware.  Care to enlighten me on this perspective?  How does adding "Democratic" in front of "Socialist" actually modify the core meaning of "Socialist"?

The adjective "democratic" is stuck in front to distinguish it from Marxist–Leninist socialism (which is authoritarian not democratic).  Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair, and François Mitterrand would be examples of people who attempt to govern via democratic socialism.

You didn't answer the question.  How is Democratic Socialism different than plain old Socialism?  Giving me examples of world leaders with a softer leadership style than Carl Marx or Lenin doesn't explain the difference in the economic or social philosophy, just that there exist examples of socialists that aren't murderous dictators.  Just a few, mind you; so far the nice socialist world leaders are the exception, not the rule.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here.  If you don't see any difference in social philosophy between advocating for an authoritarian state and a democratically elected one, I'm not sure that you'll accept any answer given.  Economically, there are very different theories and approaches associated with democratic socialism . . . ranging from state ownership to staying out of the market.

Show me, please.  Because I've never been able to get anyone to actually present such a theory, just opinions as you are right now.  Socialism is, at root, defined as the public ownership or control of resources, industrial production or industrial output, or a combination of the above.  The Soviet Union did all three, as best as they were able.  How would a democratically elected socialist government alter this definition?  Murderous dictators have been democratically elected in the past, so what would stop the next socialist president (after Bernie, who I admit wouldn't be going on any purges) from going full-on socialist?  The checks & balances that are supposed to work in our government system are not the democratic parts of it.

The word socialism means different things.  At it's heart, socialism is an attempt to deal with the failings of capitalism.  This can take a wide variety of forms . . . anything from full market control, to the establishment of unions, health/safety/environmental regulation, to the establishment of support programs for the needy.  I'd suggest you start by checking out the wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) article to learn more and broaden your understanding so that we can continue this conversation.

I already gave several examples of people who were in power and didn't try to do the terrible things that you're claiming will always happen when socialists are in control.  One of them was Tony Blaire.  Tony Blaire was a democratic socialist.  He led the Labour party in England . . . which was a democratically socialist party.  He was prime minister of England, and yet somehow no purges went on during his rule.

There is no successful country in the world that eschews all socialist concepts and policies . . . just as there is no successful country in the world that does away with all capitalist ones.  Claiming that all socialism is evil and should be avoided by cherry picking certain examples is as silly as claiming that all capitalism is evil and should be avoided because of the state of Somalia, or the Western Sahara.

[MoonShadow]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

Not as far as I am aware.  Care to enlighten me on this perspective?  How does adding "Democratic" in front of "Socialist" actually modify the core meaning of "Socialist"?

The adjective "democratic" is stuck in front to distinguish it from Marxist–Leninist socialism (which is authoritarian not democratic).  Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair, and François Mitterrand would be examples of people who attempt to govern via democratic socialism.

You didn't answer the question.  How is Democratic Socialism different than plain old Socialism?  Giving me examples of world leaders with a softer leadership style than Carl Marx or Lenin doesn't explain the difference in the economic or social philosophy, just that there exist examples of socialists that aren't murderous dictators.  Just a few, mind you; so far the nice socialist world leaders are the exception, not the rule.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here.  If you don't see any difference in social philosophy between advocating for an authoritarian state and a democratically elected one, I'm not sure that you'll accept any answer given.  Economically, there are very different theories and approaches associated with democratic socialism . . . ranging from state ownership to staying out of the market.

Show me, please.  Because I've never been able to get anyone to actually present such a theory, just opinions as you are right now.  Socialism is, at root, defined as the public ownership or control of resources, industrial production or industrial output, or a combination of the above.  The Soviet Union did all three, as best as they were able.  How would a democratically elected socialist government alter this definition?  Murderous dictators have been democratically elected in the past, so what would stop the next socialist president (after Bernie, who I admit wouldn't be going on any purges) from going full-on socialist?  The checks & balances that are supposed to work in our government system are not the democratic parts of it.

The word socialism means different things.  At it's heart, socialism is an attempt to deal with the failings of capitalism.  This can take a wide variety of forms . . . anything from full market control, to the establishment of unions, health/safety/environmental regulation, to the establishment of support programs for the needy.  I'd suggest you start by checking out the wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) article to learn more and broaden your understanding so that we can continue this conversation.

I already gave several examples of people who were in power and didn't try to do the terrible things that you're claiming will always happen when socialists are in control.  One of them was Tony Blaire.  Tony Blaire was a democratic socialist.  He led the Labour party in England . . . which was a democratically socialist party.  He was prime minister of England, and yet somehow no purges went on during his rule.

There is no successful country in the world that eschews all socialist concepts and policies . . . just as there is no successful country in the world that does away with all capitalist ones.  Claiming that all socialism is evil and should be avoided by cherry picking certain examples is as silly as claiming that all capitalism is evil and should be avoided because of the state of Somalia, or the Western Sahara.

That is exactly what you have just done, and what you always do.  Good for you but not for me, eh?

[Jeremy E.]

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

But they were Republican governors, not libs.  His complaint is that the Libertarian Party can't build a party with a future, and nominating two Republicans over principled libs, mostly based upon the idea that they have actually won an election or few, is evidence that his opinion is sound.  And as far as Will Weld as VP, the idea that he is a lib on any scale nauseates me.  Johnson has a loose claim, although he isn't particularly ideological; but Weld is a neo-con.

Johnson got the most votes for pres of any libertarian in the history of the libertarian party, to say he has a "loose claim" makes no sense.

Johnson is a socially liberal Republican.  He deviates quite a bit from libertarian philosophy, but not so much that I couldn't overlook that if it were him alone.  I did vote for him last time, after all.  But I can't overlook the pairing of Will Weld.  He's not even a neocon in lib clothing, he's just a neocon in neocon clothing.  I refuse to debase myself.

Where does Johnson deviate from the libertarian platform?

[GuitarStv]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

Not as far as I am aware.  Care to enlighten me on this perspective?  How does adding "Democratic" in front of "Socialist" actually modify the core meaning of "Socialist"?

The adjective "democratic" is stuck in front to distinguish it from Marxist–Leninist socialism (which is authoritarian not democratic).  Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair, and François Mitterrand would be examples of people who attempt to govern via democratic socialism.

You didn't answer the question.  How is Democratic Socialism different than plain old Socialism?  Giving me examples of world leaders with a softer leadership style than Carl Marx or Lenin doesn't explain the difference in the economic or social philosophy, just that there exist examples of socialists that aren't murderous dictators.  Just a few, mind you; so far the nice socialist world leaders are the exception, not the rule.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here.  If you don't see any difference in social philosophy between advocating for an authoritarian state and a democratically elected one, I'm not sure that you'll accept any answer given.  Economically, there are very different theories and approaches associated with democratic socialism . . . ranging from state ownership to staying out of the market.

Show me, please.  Because I've never been able to get anyone to actually present such a theory, just opinions as you are right now.  Socialism is, at root, defined as the public ownership or control of resources, industrial production or industrial output, or a combination of the above.  The Soviet Union did all three, as best as they were able.  How would a democratically elected socialist government alter this definition?  Murderous dictators have been democratically elected in the past, so what would stop the next socialist president (after Bernie, who I admit wouldn't be going on any purges) from going full-on socialist?  The checks & balances that are supposed to work in our government system are not the democratic parts of it.

The word socialism means different things.  At it's heart, socialism is an attempt to deal with the failings of capitalism.  This can take a wide variety of forms . . . anything from full market control, to the establishment of unions, health/safety/environmental regulation, to the establishment of support programs for the needy.  I'd suggest you start by checking out the wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) article to learn more and broaden your understanding so that we can continue this conversation.

I already gave several examples of people who were in power and didn't try to do the terrible things that you're claiming will always happen when socialists are in control.  One of them was Tony Blaire.  Tony Blaire was a democratic socialist.  He led the Labour party in England . . . which was a democratically socialist party.  He was prime minister of England, and yet somehow no purges went on during his rule.

There is no successful country in the world that eschews all socialist concepts and policies . . . just as there is no successful country in the world that does away with all capitalist ones.  Claiming that all socialism is evil and should be avoided by cherry picking certain examples is as silly as claiming that all capitalism is evil and should be avoided because of the state of Somalia, or the Western Sahara.

That is exactly what you have just done, and what you always do.  Good for you but not for me, eh?

I argued that pure socialism is a bad idea as is pure capitalism and gave examples of failed capitalist systems (since you had provided failed socialist ones).  In this case I cherry picked examples to demonstrate the fallacy of only using cherry picked examples.  I don't quite follow what your outrage stems from on this.

I get the impression that you're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point.  When you have read up a bit and learned what socialism is, you will have an easier time understanding what democratic socialism is and how it differs from other forms of socialism.  I'm not sure that there's any point in continuing the conversation until you do that.

[MoonShadow]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

Not as far as I am aware.  Care to enlighten me on this perspective?  How does adding "Democratic" in front of "Socialist" actually modify the core meaning of "Socialist"?

The adjective "democratic" is stuck in front to distinguish it from Marxist–Leninist socialism (which is authoritarian not democratic).  Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair, and François Mitterrand would be examples of people who attempt to govern via democratic socialism.

You didn't answer the question.  How is Democratic Socialism different than plain old Socialism?  Giving me examples of world leaders with a softer leadership style than Carl Marx or Lenin doesn't explain the difference in the economic or social philosophy, just that there exist examples of socialists that aren't murderous dictators.  Just a few, mind you; so far the nice socialist world leaders are the exception, not the rule.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here.  If you don't see any difference in social philosophy between advocating for an authoritarian state and a democratically elected one, I'm not sure that you'll accept any answer given.  Economically, there are very different theories and approaches associated with democratic socialism . . . ranging from state ownership to staying out of the market.

Show me, please.  Because I've never been able to get anyone to actually present such a theory, just opinions as you are right now.  Socialism is, at root, defined as the public ownership or control of resources, industrial production or industrial output, or a combination of the above.  The Soviet Union did all three, as best as they were able.  How would a democratically elected socialist government alter this definition?  Murderous dictators have been democratically elected in the past, so what would stop the next socialist president (after Bernie, who I admit wouldn't be going on any purges) from going full-on socialist?  The checks & balances that are supposed to work in our government system are not the democratic parts of it.

The word socialism means different things.  At it's heart, socialism is an attempt to deal with the failings of capitalism.  This can take a wide variety of forms . . . anything from full market control, to the establishment of unions, health/safety/environmental regulation, to the establishment of support programs for the needy.  I'd suggest you start by checking out the wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) article to learn more and broaden your understanding so that we can continue this conversation.

I already gave several examples of people who were in power and didn't try to do the terrible things that you're claiming will always happen when socialists are in control.  One of them was Tony Blaire.  Tony Blaire was a democratic socialist.  He led the Labour party in England . . . which was a democratically socialist party.  He was prime minister of England, and yet somehow no purges went on during his rule.

There is no successful country in the world that eschews all socialist concepts and policies . . . just as there is no successful country in the world that does away with all capitalist ones.  Claiming that all socialism is evil and should be avoided by cherry picking certain examples is as silly as claiming that all capitalism is evil and should be avoided because of the state of Somalia, or the Western Sahara.

That is exactly what you have just done, and what you always do.  Good for you but not for me, eh?

I argued that pure socialism is a bad idea as is pure capitalism and gave examples of failed capitalist systems (since you had provided failed socialist ones).  In this case I cherry picked examples to demonstrate the fallacy of only using cherry picked examples.  I don't quite follow what your outrage stems from on this.

In this case, my outrage is with you, Guitar, because you argue in bad faith. 

I get the impression that you're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point.  When you have read up a bit and learned what socialism is, you will have an easier time understanding what democratic socialism is and how it differs from other forms of socialism.  I'm not sure that there's any point in continuing the conversation until you do that.

I've done plenty of reading.  It's all the same.  Opinions about subtle distinctions.  Opinions, but not actual distinctions.  How is Venezuela not a valid example of a Democratic Socialist state?  It's a failed one, or do you disagree with that?  In my experience, you will just ignore points that you can't rationally respond to.  Again, bad faith.  The US has never been the kind of pure capitalist state that you rail against either.  I don't want more socialism, because I believe that the degree of socialism is directly related to the likelyhood of a destructive spiral; and I prefer the (often mild) unfairness & stability that capitalism begets to the unstable promises of modified utopia.

[forummm]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

Not as far as I am aware.  Care to enlighten me on this perspective?  How does adding "Democratic" in front of "Socialist" actually modify the core meaning of "Socialist"?

The adjective "democratic" is stuck in front to distinguish it from Marxist–Leninist socialism (which is authoritarian not democratic).  Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair, and François Mitterrand would be examples of people who attempt to govern via democratic socialism.

You didn't answer the question.  How is Democratic Socialism different than plain old Socialism?  Giving me examples of world leaders with a softer leadership style than Carl Marx or Lenin doesn't explain the difference in the economic or social philosophy, just that there exist examples of socialists that aren't murderous dictators.  Just a few, mind you; so far the nice socialist world leaders are the exception, not the rule.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here.  If you don't see any difference in social philosophy between advocating for an authoritarian state and a democratically elected one, I'm not sure that you'll accept any answer given.  Economically, there are very different theories and approaches associated with democratic socialism . . . ranging from state ownership to staying out of the market.

Show me, please.  Because I've never been able to get anyone to actually present such a theory, just opinions as you are right now.  Socialism is, at root, defined as the public ownership or control of resources, industrial production or industrial output, or a combination of the above.  The Soviet Union did all three, as best as they were able.  How would a democratically elected socialist government alter this definition?  Murderous dictators have been democratically elected in the past, so what would stop the next socialist president (after Bernie, who I admit wouldn't be going on any purges) from going full-on socialist?  The checks & balances that are supposed to work in our government system are not the democratic parts of it.

Etc

[robartsd]

On the original topic, I dunno -- Our two-party system sucks (except for every other system out there), but I really f'ing hate it when someone plays the spoiler "on principle." I think people are justifiably incensed when some dude runs on a 3rd party ticket and siphons off enough votes to give it to the other candidate they really detest. For example, if Sanders did that to Clinton and ensured a Trump victory, I'd be plenty pissed. Or if a conservative ran against Trump and took an otherwise victory away from him, I could imagine conservatives being furious. I think pragmatism has to outweigh principle in these instances.

There are other systems that seem better to me: Instant Runoff Voting and its multi-seat sibling Single Transferable Vote (voters rank candidates allowing them to vote for the candidate they feel is best without "throwing their vote away" on an uneletable candidate) and Range Voting (voters give candidates a score and the candidate(s) with the highest average score wins). California took a baby step in this direction with Top Two Runoff.

Personally, I'd love to see a non-partisan two round version of Instant Runoff Voting. In the first round (primary election) voters would be ALLOWED to rank several candidates candidates as they like. After counting all the first choice votes, you'd rank the candidates by first choice votes. Candidates receiving the fewest first choice votes would be eliminated such that the remaining candidates represent a (super)majority and votes for eliminated candidates would be transferred to remaining candidates based on ballot rankings. This process would then repeat until no candidate can be eliminated such that the remaining candidates would hold the (super)majority required or the slate had been reduced to a specified number of candidates (whichever comes first). Candidates not eliminated would qualify to be on the second round (general election) ballot. In the second round voters would be encouraged to rank ALL candidates. Voters who choose not to rank all candidates would have their vote discarded (not count towards majority requirements) if all of the candidates they did rank are eliminated. In the second round, candidates with the fewest votes would be eliminated and votes transfered until a remaining candidate has been credited with a majority of votes and declared the winner.

[GuitarStv]

I get the impression that you're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point.  When you have read up a bit and learned what socialism is, you will have an easier time understanding what democratic socialism is and how it differs from other forms of socialism.  I'm not sure that there's any point in continuing the conversation until you do that.

I've done plenty of reading.  It's all the same.  Opinions about subtle distinctions.  Opinions, but not actual distinctions.  How is Venezuela not a valid example of a Democratic Socialist state?  It's a failed one, or do you disagree with that?  In my experience, you will just ignore points that you can't rationally respond to.  Again, bad faith.  The US has never been the kind of pure capitalist state that you rail against either.  I don't want more socialism, because I believe that the degree of socialism is directly related to the likelyhood of a destructive spiral; and I prefer the (often mild) unfairness & stability that capitalism begets to the unstable promises of modified utopia.

Venezuela is an example of a failed democratic socialist state.  The US is not purely capitalist, this is part of what has allowed it to succeed.  There are many countries which follow a more socialist path than the US that have achieved stability and comfort.  I can't think of too many that are more capitalist that haven't ended in ruin.

[deadlymonkey]

I get the impression that you're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point.  When you have read up a bit and learned what socialism is, you will have an easier time understanding what democratic socialism is and how it differs from other forms of socialism.  I'm not sure that there's any point in continuing the conversation until you do that.

I've done plenty of reading.  It's all the same.  Opinions about subtle distinctions.  Opinions, but not actual distinctions.  How is Venezuela not a valid example of a Democratic Socialist state?  It's a failed one, or do you disagree with that?  In my experience, you will just ignore points that you can't rationally respond to.  Again, bad faith.  The US has never been the kind of pure capitalist state that you rail against either.  I don't want more socialism, because I believe that the degree of socialism is directly related to the likelyhood of a destructive spiral; and I prefer the (often mild) unfairness & stability that capitalism begets to the unstable promises of modified utopia.

Venezuela is an example of a failed democratic socialist state.  The US is not purely capitalist, this is part of what has allowed it to succeed.  There are many countries which follow a more socialist path than the US that have achieved stability and comfort.  I can't think of too many that are more capitalist that haven't ended in ruin.

QFT, Venezuela was a democratic socialist state, that went off the rails and ended up more autocratic then probably originally intended.  It failed.  Other Democratic Socialist states have succeeded.  The US is Capitalist with some Socialism aspects.  The US is probably trending more to Corporatism than anything else.  Increasing the socialism mix in the engine might help curb that.  Moving the US to a full socialist system is probably not a good idea and I don't think anyone is really advocating that.  There can be changes though that reach a middle ground.

[MoonShadow]

If enough people ignore that advice and vote for the candidate that can't win... then maybe they can win?

Enough people would have to want said candidate to win. That's the problem--there aren't enough Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, etc. in this country to get those parties' candidates elected.

And the other problem, of course, is that our third parties (unlike the ones in Europe) behave like toddlers, wanting their present (the presidency) NOW NOW NOW and running doomed campaigns for that instead of building a viable party from the ground up: city council, mayor, state legislature, governor, etc., building a track record so that a presidential run from that party looks reasonable instead of ridiculous.

What's the socialists party you speak of? I feel Marty was talking about Sanders, who, if he had been able to take about 10% more votes from Clinton, would of become the next president, so clearly people DID vote for him and he DID have a chance, but more people wanted Clinton so she won.

Also, both of the candidates on the libertarian parties ticket are former 2 term governors, so in the terms you are speaking of as being not viable, the libertarian party is clearly viable.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, not a Socialist. And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing than Socialist. Social Democrats are very popular in Europe. Generally moderates there.

Not as far as I am aware.  Care to enlighten me on this perspective?  How does adding "Democratic" in front of "Socialist" actually modify the core meaning of "Socialist"?

The adjective "democratic" is stuck in front to distinguish it from Marxist–Leninist socialism (which is authoritarian not democratic).  Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair, and François Mitterrand would be examples of people who attempt to govern via democratic socialism.

You didn't answer the question.  How is Democratic Socialism different than plain old Socialism?  Giving me examples of world leaders with a softer leadership style than Carl Marx or Lenin doesn't explain the difference in the economic or social philosophy, just that there exist examples of socialists that aren't murderous dictators.  Just a few, mind you; so far the nice socialist world leaders are the exception, not the rule.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here.  If you don't see any difference in social philosophy between advocating for an authoritarian state and a democratically elected one, I'm not sure that you'll accept any answer given.  Economically, there are very different theories and approaches associated with democratic socialism . . . ranging from state ownership to staying out of the market.

Show me, please.  Because I've never been able to get anyone to actually present such a theory, just opinions as you are right now.  Socialism is, at root, defined as the public ownership or control of resources, industrial production or industrial output, or a combination of the above.  The Soviet Union did all three, as best as they were able.  How would a democratically elected socialist government alter this definition?  Murderous dictators have been democratically elected in the past, so what would stop the next socialist president (after Bernie, who I admit wouldn't be going on any purges) from going full-on socialist?  The checks & balances that are supposed to work in our government system are not the democratic parts of it.

Etc

Another forum member prone to fits of bad faith.

[Daleth]

In a two party dominant system you only have a few options:

1. You can vote for one of the two parties you hate the least.

2. You can vote for who you think is the best choice.

3. You can chose not to vote. Thus letting others make the choice for you...

I believe the only wrong choice here is to not vote, since if enough people follow that logic, that system will no longer be representative and you will not be doing your part as an active participant and a good citizen.

Thought this was interesting:

An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)
By John Halle and Noam Chomsky
https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/

[Kris]

You didn't answer the question.  How is Democratic Socialism different than plain old Socialism?  Giving me examples of world leaders with a softer leadership style than Carl Marx or Lenin doesn't explain the difference in the economic or social philosophy, just that there exist examples of socialists that aren't murderous dictators.  Just a few, mind you; so far the nice socialist world leaders are the exception, not the rule.

A more perfect use of "let me google that for you" has never existed.

Here, let me google that for you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=democratic+socialism+vs+socialism

[wenchsenior]

Kris, I think that Moonshadow is no longer among us.

[Kris]

Kris, I think that Moonshadow is no longer among us.

Ah, thank you! I was wondering what the hell he was doing in this thread, as I had thought the same. I hadn't realized that his contribution was so long ago.

And, good. His presence was absolutely exhausting.

[robartsd]

Thought this was interesting:

An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)
By John Halle and Noam Chomsky
https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/

I do like that LEV is only encouraged in that argument in "swing" states; however, I'm not sure if this is meant to encourage LEV every cycle in swing states or arguing that Trump is so great an evil that LEV should be used this cycle. While I'm not at all interested in arguing for or against the merits of strategic voting in this particular election cycle, I am of the opinion that recurring LEV is the primary driver in maintaining the 2 party stranglehold on US politics and a pattern of LEV does long term harm for short term gain. As I outlined earlier, I'd love a voting system that did not reward LEV.

[marty998]

On the original topic, I dunno -- Our two-party system sucks (except for every other system out there), but I really f'ing hate it when someone plays the spoiler "on principle." I think people are justifiably incensed when some dude runs on a 3rd party ticket and siphons off enough votes to give it to the other candidate they really detest. For example, if Sanders did that to Clinton and ensured a Trump victory, I'd be plenty pissed. Or if a conservative ran against Trump and took an otherwise victory away from him, I could imagine conservatives being furious. I think pragmatism has to outweigh principle in these instances.

There are other systems that seem better to me: Instant Runoff Voting and its multi-seat sibling Single Transferable Vote (voters rank candidates allowing them to vote for the candidate they feel is best without "throwing their vote away" on an uneletable candidate) and Range Voting (voters give candidates a score and the candidate(s) with the highest average score wins). California took a baby step in this direction with Top Two Runoff.

Personally, I'd love to see a non-partisan two round version of Instant Runoff Voting. In the first round (primary election) voters would be ALLOWED to rank several candidates candidates as they like. After counting all the first choice votes, you'd rank the candidates by first choice votes. Candidates receiving the fewest first choice votes would be eliminated such that the remaining candidates represent a (super)majority and votes for eliminated candidates would be transferred to remaining candidates based on ballot rankings. This process would then repeat until no candidate can be eliminated such that the remaining candidates would hold the (super)majority required or the slate had been reduced to a specified number of candidates (whichever comes first). Candidates not eliminated would qualify to be on the second round (general election) ballot. In the second round voters would be encouraged to rank ALL candidates. Voters who choose not to rank all candidates would have their vote discarded (not count towards majority requirements) if all of the candidates they did rank are eliminated. In the second round, candidates with the fewest votes would be eliminated and votes transfered until a remaining candidate has been credited with a majority of votes and declared the winner.

We have a form of this in Australia - preferential voting and optional preferential voting.

Say there a 6 candidates on a ballot.

You number each candidate from 1 to 6.

The person with the least number of #1 votes is eliminated, and the #2 preference on those ballots is distributed to the remaining 5 candidates.

The next person who has the least number of votes is then eliminated, and the #2 or #3 preferences on their ballots are then allocated out to the remaining 4 candidates.

You continue eliminating candidates and distributing preferences until 1 has a simple majority of 50%+1 votes (ignoring informals), or if it is optional preferential voting, until there are 2 remaining candidates.

Your vote is never wasted in this way... you can still protest vote for a minor party, and whichever major party who want your vote to end up with you just list higher in preference than the other major party.

[boarder42]

On the original topic, I dunno -- Our two-party system sucks (except for every other system out there), but I really f'ing hate it when someone plays the spoiler "on principle." I think people are justifiably incensed when some dude runs on a 3rd party ticket and siphons off enough votes to give it to the other candidate they really detest. For example, if Sanders did that to Clinton and ensured a Trump victory, I'd be plenty pissed. Or if a conservative ran against Trump and took an otherwise victory away from him, I could imagine conservatives being furious. I think pragmatism has to outweigh principle in these instances.

There are other systems that seem better to me: Instant Runoff Voting and its multi-seat sibling Single Transferable Vote (voters rank candidates allowing them to vote for the candidate they feel is best without "throwing their vote away" on an uneletable candidate) and Range Voting (voters give candidates a score and the candidate(s) with the highest average score wins). California took a baby step in this direction with Top Two Runoff.

Personally, I'd love to see a non-partisan two round version of Instant Runoff Voting. In the first round (primary election) voters would be ALLOWED to rank several candidates candidates as they like. After counting all the first choice votes, you'd rank the candidates by first choice votes. Candidates receiving the fewest first choice votes would be eliminated such that the remaining candidates represent a (super)majority and votes for eliminated candidates would be transferred to remaining candidates based on ballot rankings. This process would then repeat until no candidate can be eliminated such that the remaining candidates would hold the (super)majority required or the slate had been reduced to a specified number of candidates (whichever comes first). Candidates not eliminated would qualify to be on the second round (general election) ballot. In the second round voters would be encouraged to rank ALL candidates. Voters who choose not to rank all candidates would have their vote discarded (not count towards majority requirements) if all of the candidates they did rank are eliminated. In the second round, candidates with the fewest votes would be eliminated and votes transfered until a remaining candidate has been credited with a majority of votes and declared the winner.

We have a form of this in Australia - preferential voting and optional preferential voting.

Say there a 6 candidates on a ballot.

You number each candidate from 1 to 6.

The person with the least number of #1 votes is eliminated, and the #2 preference on those ballots is distributed to the remaining 5 candidates.

The next person who has the least number of votes is then eliminated, and the #2 or #3 preferences on their ballots are then allocated out to the remaining 4 candidates.

You continue eliminating candidates and distributing preferences until 1 has a simple majority of 50%+1 votes (ignoring informals), or if it is optional preferential voting, until there are 2 remaining candidates.

Your vote is never wasted in this way... you can still protest vote for a minor party, and whichever major party who want your vote to end up with you just list higher in preference than the other major party.

yep would be awesome

[Fudge102]

On the original topic, I dunno -- Our two-party system sucks (except for every other system out there), but I really f'ing hate it when someone plays the spoiler "on principle." I think people are justifiably incensed when some dude runs on a 3rd party ticket and siphons off enough votes to give it to the other candidate they really detest. For example, if Sanders did that to Clinton and ensured a Trump victory, I'd be plenty pissed. Or if a conservative ran against Trump and took an otherwise victory away from him, I could imagine conservatives being furious. I think pragmatism has to outweigh principle in these instances.

There are other systems that seem better to me: Instant Runoff Voting and its multi-seat sibling Single Transferable Vote (voters rank candidates allowing them to vote for the candidate they feel is best without "throwing their vote away" on an uneletable candidate) and Range Voting (voters give candidates a score and the candidate(s) with the highest average score wins). California took a baby step in this direction with Top Two Runoff.

Personally, I'd love to see a non-partisan two round version of Instant Runoff Voting. In the first round (primary election) voters would be ALLOWED to rank several candidates candidates as they like. After counting all the first choice votes, you'd rank the candidates by first choice votes. Candidates receiving the fewest first choice votes would be eliminated such that the remaining candidates represent a (super)majority and votes for eliminated candidates would be transferred to remaining candidates based on ballot rankings. This process would then repeat until no candidate can be eliminated such that the remaining candidates would hold the (super)majority required or the slate had been reduced to a specified number of candidates (whichever comes first). Candidates not eliminated would qualify to be on the second round (general election) ballot. In the second round voters would be encouraged to rank ALL candidates. Voters who choose not to rank all candidates would have their vote discarded (not count towards majority requirements) if all of the candidates they did rank are eliminated. In the second round, candidates with the fewest votes would be eliminated and votes transfered until a remaining candidate has been credited with a majority of votes and declared the winner.

We have a form of this in Australia - preferential voting and optional preferential voting.

Say there a 6 candidates on a ballot.

You number each candidate from 1 to 6.

The person with the least number of #1 votes is eliminated, and the #2 preference on those ballots is distributed to the remaining 5 candidates.

The next person who has the least number of votes is then eliminated, and the #2 or #3 preferences on their ballots are then allocated out to the remaining 4 candidates.

You continue eliminating candidates and distributing preferences until 1 has a simple majority of 50%+1 votes (ignoring informals), or if it is optional preferential voting, until there are 2 remaining candidates.

Your vote is never wasted in this way... you can still protest vote for a minor party, and whichever major party who want your vote to end up with you just list higher in preference than the other major party.

Really wish we did this.  We need to start making efforts towards this change after the election today...

[libertarian4321]

On more than one occasion in the past someone has said that to me: Well if you vote for ______ it's a waste because they can't win. What a load of crap. It's my vote by right and its in the direction I think we should go and my vote does matter regardless of who it is for. I will never vote someone I do not want period.

Yup.  No way in HELL I'd ever vote for Hillary or Trump. 

I voted for Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson.

I can hold my head high for the next 4-years, knowing that I didn't sell my soul to vote for the "lesser evil" (whichever that is).  I voted for the person I believe is the best candidate.

FWIW, if Gary Johnson hadn't been on the ballot, I would have voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party.  I don't agree with her views, but she's not the vile, repugnant person that Trump and Hillary are.

[boarder42]

voting for someone who has no chance of winning to hold your head high doesnt fix a broken system.  and doesnt even really get part of the way there.  Each state can change how it votes though.  everyone says this has to be done on a national level but its up to the states to decide how they determine who their electoral votes go to.  moving to the system as mentioned above would give actual rise to 3rd parties and more.  so if you really want to hold your head high go start a campaign to get a new ballot measure in place to fundamentally change the way in which we vote and get rid of first past the post. 

it annoys me to no end when people play the i voted for who i though was best card.  well then you may as well have stayed home if it wasnt someone with a chance to win. like voting for someone you believe in vs against someone you dont want to win makes you a better person.  ha

[Northwestie]

..................especially with the quality, or lack thereof, of the alternatives.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

This "throwing your vote away" nonsense is really getting old. I don't care who you voted for, or even if you abstained from voting altogether - as long as you did it conscientiously.

[robartsd]

it annoys me to no end when people play the i voted for who i though was best card.  well then you may as well have stayed home if it wasnt someone with a chance to win. like voting for someone you believe in vs against someone you dont want to win makes you a better person.  ha

Yes, but how many times is this defeatist attitude the reason it was someone who has no chance of winning. Also, both the Green Party and the Libertarian party are hoping to get 5% of the popular vote qualifying them for Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants in 2020 - this will make a huge difference in their campaign funds.

I do agree with you that taking action to change the voting system would also be worthwhile. The best we could hope for at a state level would probably be instant runoff voting (IRV). If a battleground state had IRV, that might significantly change major party political strategies. However, there'd still be a risk if there was a possibility that your third party candidate could take your state but not the overall election.

At a federal level, a constitutional amendment could require states to split their electoral votes (probably by congressional district as Maine and Nebraska currently do, but it could also be done by popular vote - rounding up for the candidate who received the most votes). Of course once you get to the constitutional amendment level, a nation-wide IRV popular election could be possible.

[Northwestie]

Yes, but how many times is this defeatist attitude the reason it was someone who has no chance of winning. Also, both the Green Party and the Libertarian party are hoping to get 5% of the popular vote qualifying them for Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants in 2020 - this will make a huge difference in their campaign funds.

Not going to happen

[robartsd]

Yes, but how many times is this defeatist attitude the reason it was someone who has no chance of winning. Also, both the Green Party and the Libertarian party are hoping to get 5% of the popular vote qualifying them for Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants in 2020 - this will make a huge difference in their campaign funds.

Not going to happen

For most voters, it is more likely that their vote will make a difference by helping a third party gain access to Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants than making a difference in which major party candidate is elected. This is a very good reason to vote for a third party instead of LEV. With record dissatisfaction for the major party candidates, the chances are better then they ever have been.

[Fudge102]

We the people need to come together starting tomorrow to fix our voting system.  Only then can we actually enact change.  We must force it as the people in office have no incentive to change what got them there.  It is possible but we have to take responsibility for our government and not just pass it off as something to do every two or four years.  Maine has an initiative on the ballot to do this now.  The rest of us just need to get our states to jump on board.  If we do nothing, it's our fault if nothing changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Read the link above.  It's a simple change.  It might not be perfect, but it eliminates all this talk of wasted votes.  By ranking the candidates and forcing a 50+% majority to win, third party candidates can actually run and matter.  Until we do something other than winner take all that we have now, third parties will not have a chance unless you get mass support which is highly unlikely no matter how much we wish it could happen.  We the people need to act to change our system and take it back from the parties who have forced their will upon us.  It starts with us, and it starts now.

[boarder42]

Yes, but how many times is this defeatist attitude the reason it was someone who has no chance of winning. Also, both the Green Party and the Libertarian party are hoping to get 5% of the popular vote qualifying them for Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants in 2020 - this will make a huge difference in their campaign funds.

Not going to happen

For most voters, it is more likely that their vote will make a difference by helping a third party gain access to Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants than making a difference in which major party candidate is elected. This is a very good reason to vote for a third party instead of LEV. With record dissatisfaction for the major party candidates, the chances are better then they ever have been.

it still wont matter you have to change how we vote ... a party could rise up overtake one of the parties in power but in doingn so would cost the party closest to it. 

also a libertarian wanting federal grant money is beyond laughable.

[Northwestie]

Yes, but how many times is this defeatist attitude the reason it was someone who has no chance of winning. Also, both the Green Party and the Libertarian party are hoping to get 5% of the popular vote qualifying them for Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants in 2020 - this will make a huge difference in their campaign funds.

Not going to happen

For most voters, it is more likely that their vote will make a difference by helping a third party gain access to Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants than making a difference in which major party candidate is elected. This is a very good reason to vote for a third party instead of LEV. With record dissatisfaction for the major party candidates, the chances are better then they ever have been.

Like I said - ain't happening this cycle.  The libertarian and green party will be stuck where they always have been.  The dustbin of obscurity.

[Metric Mouse]

Yes, but how many times is this defeatist attitude the reason it was someone who has no chance of winning. Also, both the Green Party and the Libertarian party are hoping to get 5% of the popular vote qualifying them for Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants in 2020 - this will make a huge difference in their campaign funds.

Not going to happen

For most voters, it is more likely that their vote will make a difference by helping a third party gain access to Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants than making a difference in which major party candidate is elected. This is a very good reason to vote for a third party instead of LEV. With record dissatisfaction for the major party candidates, the chances are better then they ever have been.

Like I said - ain't happening this cycle.  The libertarian and green party will be stuck where they always have been.  The dustbin of obscurity.

I don't know, could be the start of something. Moveing away from the democratic party towards 3rd party candidates. Could be a bad trend for one of the major parties.

[sol]

For most voters, it is more likely that their vote will make a difference by helping a third party gain access to Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants than making a difference in which major party candidate is elected.

Hahahha!  Look how wrong you were!

How many states did Clinton lose by margins smaller than the libertarians took?  Was it every single one?

Sure looks to me like third party voters absolutely handed this election to Trump.  We'll have to wait for the final vote counts to know for sure.

[marty998]

For most voters, it is more likely that their vote will make a difference by helping a third party gain access to Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants than making a difference in which major party candidate is elected.

Hahahha!  Look how wrong you were!

How many states did Clinton lose by margins smaller than the libertarians took?  Was it every single one?

Sure looks to me like third party voters absolutely handed this election to Trump.  We'll have to wait for the final vote counts to know for sure.

What if it was Republicans voting for the third candidate? Is there any way to tell?

[GuitarStv]

Hopefully all the people who voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson are happy with the results they provided the country.

[robartsd]

How many states did Clinton lose by margins smaller than the libertarians took?  Was it every single one?

I count 10 states and 111 electoral votes that could have been swung by libertarian voters: Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (75 electoral votes) went to Trump; Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico (36 electoral votes) went to Clinton. Combining all third party voters could also swing Arizona (11 electoral votes) or Utah (6 electoral votes) which also went to Trump.

[boarder42]

I'd assume libertarian voters would swing more Republican than Democrat if those were their only options.

[jinga nation]

We the people need to come together starting tomorrow to fix our voting system.  Only then can we actually enact change.  We must force it as the people in office have no incentive to change what got them there.  It is possible but we have to take responsibility for our government and not just pass it off as something to do every two or four years.  Maine has an initiative on the ballot to do this now.  The rest of us just need to get our states to jump on board.  If we do nothing, it's our fault if nothing changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Read the link above.  It's a simple change.  It might not be perfect, but it eliminates all this talk of wasted votes.  By ranking the candidates and forcing a 50+% majority to win, third party candidates can actually run and matter.  Until we do something other than winner take all that we have now, third parties will not have a chance unless you get mass support which is highly unlikely no matter how much we wish it could happen.  We the people need to act to change our system and take it back from the parties who have forced their will upon us.  It starts with us, and it starts now.

Ain't gonna happen as long as 'we the people' don't have enough money to get lobbyists to change the system.
Corporations and Lobbyists run Washington DC and all state capitols, regardless of the faces you see on TV, print media, etc.
Hey, Corporations are People, too!

[robartsd]

We the people need to act to change our system and take it back from the parties who have forced their will upon us.  It starts with us, and it starts now.

Ain't gonna happen as long as 'we the people' don't have enough money to get lobbyists to change the system.
Corporations and Lobbyists run Washington DC and all state capitols, regardless of the faces you see on TV, print media, etc.
Hey, Corporations are People, too!
[/quote]
I would support a voter initiative to switch to IRV (though I'd actually prefer range voting). I know that it could be done in some states.

IRV as described on the wikipedia page does have one problem as seen in the hypothetical "Tennessee capital election" example on that page. This problem is easily fixed by eliminating as many of the lowest ranked candidates as possible each round such that combined they represent less than 50% of the vote. Both Chatanooga and Knoxville would be eliminated in round one by this rule and Nashville would receive a majority in round two.

[retiringearly]

For most voters, it is more likely that their vote will make a difference by helping a third party gain access to Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants than making a difference in which major party candidate is elected.

Hahahha!  Look how wrong you were!

How many states did Clinton lose by margins smaller than the libertarians took?  Was it every single one?

Sure looks to me like third party voters absolutely handed this election to Trump.  We'll have to wait for the final vote counts to know for sure.

How did you determine that third party voters would have voted for Hillary instead of Trump?