[imglorp]

Remember that outrage over the Patriot act abuses? Obama 2008 platform promised to restore the Constitution:

> We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. We reject torture. We reject sweeping claims of "inherent" presidential power. We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years. We will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine duly enacted law. And we will ensure that law-abiding Americans of any origin, including Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans, do not become the scapegoats of national security fears.

but as we have seen, every word of this has been reversed. I don't trust either party at this point. Both are scalp deep in this.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78283

[lettergram]

That's part of the reason I spend every political conversation discussing the merits of a multiparty (not biparty) system.

Pretty sure I've convinced at least a handful of people to vote Gary Johnson as a protest vote. Though personally I'm all about that #Snowden2016

[grandalf]

I don't think a responsible person can possibly vote for a major party candidate. Doing so just results in the same powerful interests remaining entrenched.

There's always the "oh no what if so and so gets elected" but it always turns out that any major party candidate does pretty much the same stuff once elected. Obama continued and extended the Bush Doctrine on foreign affairs, for example.

[jgroszko]

All first past the post systems like we have in the US will trend towards a two-party system. It sucks because voting third party just takes votes away from the major party candidate that most closely represents your views. To maximize your influence you have to hold your nose and vote for the major party candidate that most closely represents your views...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

[grandalf]

Perhaps that is true in terms of maximizing your influence in the next election.

But to maximize your influence over a longer time period, you should vote for the third party candidate that most closely matches your views.

Then, when the major party candidate you would have resorted to loses, the post mortem reveals votes lost to the candidate you voted for, and in the subsequent election the major party adapts its platform to win some of those lost votes.

If politicians expected voters to vote on principle and to hold them accountable, we'd have an entirely different sort of politicians.

[dragonwriter]

> But to maximize your influence over a longer time period, you should vote for the third party candidate that most closely matches your views.

That might, arguably, resemble truth if the details of the political system itself were guaranteed stable over time and not subject to alteration by the same people who gain power over other policies through electoral victories. But, in the real world, to maximize your influence over a long-time period, you should organize and advocate for both electoral reform and the minor party you most prefer during periods between elections (the former to work to mitigate the perverse effects of the existing system, the second to maximize the likelihood that, in the next election, the competitive major parties -- which can change over time -- will include the party you most prefer.)

But, once its clear who the major candidates are in the present election, you should still generally vote for the one least harmful to your interests if they win.

> If politicians expected voters to vote on principle and to hold them accountable, we'd have an entirely different sort of politicians.

With no changes to the electoral system, what we'd have with that is "major" parties representing even smaller pluralities (well, technically, only the biggest would be a plurality), and more negative campaigning directed by each major candidate at getting voters best served by the other to not vote for them to "hold them accountable" for something. Which is a change of degree, not kind, from what we have now.

[grandalf]

> you should organize and advocate for both electoral reform and the minor party you most prefer during periods between elections

I totally agree with this.

>Once its clear who the major candidates are in the present election, you should still generally vote for the one least harmful to your interests

I don't agree with this, because the platform-creation calculus of the major parties is to ignore interest groups that will not abandon ship.

As H's platform makes clear, when there is sufficient loyalty, it's in the best interest of the candidate to edge as close as possible to the opposing party's platform, to attract as many swing voters as possible.

[lettergram]

I'm pretty morally opposed to voting for a ruler I don't personally support. At least if Hillary decides she wants to break some more laws I have the excuse I didn't support her at any point.

Unfortunately, with Trump (if he's elected), there's a chance not supporting him would mean I'm imprisoned so... you win some, you lose some.

[nononosisisi]

More than two parties is not that great either. At least here in the USA you need to win a majority of the electoral college to win the presidency or else congress will elect one for you.