2016 elections - because it's never too early

[dps]

So, if a voter knows both Hillary and Trump are terrible options, what other option does he/she have? Johnson right?
Why vote for the lesser evil between Trump and Hillary? For some strategy? Ugh

I don't like voting strategically;  I'd much rather vote my conscience, which this go-round would mean voting for a 3rd party (though I haven't decided which 3rd party).  But OTOH, my conscience won't let me not do what little I can to keep Trump from winning.

[Admiral Yi]

Why vote for the lesser evil between Trump and Hillary? For some strategy? Ugh

Not for "some strategy."  You vote for the lesser of two evils because you care about the quality of your life and the lives of your family, friends and fellow citizens.

[lustindarkness]

Why vote for the lesser evil between Trump and Hillary? For some strategy? Ugh

Not for "some strategy."  You vote for the lesser of two evils because you care about the quality of your life and the lives of your family, friends and fellow citizens.

So that voter should vote for the lesser evil? Still evil right?
A voter that "cares about the quality of their life and the lives of their family, friends and fellow citizens" should vote for a evil/terrible candidate?

[Admiral Yi]

So that voter should vote for the lesser evil? Still evil right?
A voter that "cares about the quality of their life and the lives of their family, friends and fellow citizens" should vote for a evil/terrible candidate?

Of course, if the only other realistic choice is a greater evil.  Would you rather have first degree burns or third degree burns?

[frunk]

Well, maybe disaster isn't exactly the right word here.  Big government is a chronic affliction.  A Trump Administration would probably create a lot of acute problems.  Not that I have a lot of faith in Hilary to deal with an unexpected domestic crisis either, but at least she's less likely to be the cause of one than Trump.

A big part of the reason why Hillary is unlikely to be that dangerous is that the Democrats probably aren't going to control both houses of congress.  If you assume that Hillary's main goal is exploding the size of government I don't think she'll ever get legislative authority to do so.  In that sense I'd say your concern is rather unfounded.

[lustindarkness]

So that voter should vote for the lesser evil? Still evil right?
A voter that "cares about the quality of their life and the lives of their family, friends and fellow citizens" should vote for a evil/terrible candidate?

Of course, if the only other realistic choice is a greater evil.  Would you rather have first degree burns or third degree burns?

I would rather not get burned.
So what is this "if the only other realistic choice is a greater evil" option that the voter in our example would have? There is a third party candidate, are you saying that voter should not vote for that third party candidate just because there is no realistic chance of that third party candidate to win?

[Barrister]

So that voter should vote for the lesser evil? Still evil right?
A voter that "cares about the quality of their life and the lives of their family, friends and fellow citizens" should vote for a evil/terrible candidate?

Of course, if the only other realistic choice is a greater evil.  Would you rather have first degree burns or third degree burns?

I would rather not get burned.
So what is this "if the only other realistic choice is a greater evil" option that the voter in our example would have? There is a third party candidate, are you saying that voter should not vote for that third party candidate just because there is no realistic chance of that third party candidate to win?

It also depends how bad the bad is.  I've voted for parties that came in third or fourth, but the winning candidate wasn't God-awful.  If it comes down to two candidates I don't like I'll gladly vote my conscience.  But if it's Trump?

[Admiral Yi]

I would rather not get burned.
So what is this "if the only other realistic choice is a greater evil" option that the voter in our example would have? There is a third party candidate, are you saying that voter should not vote for that third party candidate just because there is no realistic chance of that third party candidate to win?

In addition to Johnson, there's a Green Party candidate, probably a Constitutional Party candidate, surely a Socialist Party candidate, etc., etc.  And none of them have any chance of winning.

[DGuller]

Voting "your conscience" for a third party candidate is an exercise in mental gymnastics.  Your conscience should be concerned about the marginal effect your vote has on the probability of each candidate winning.  Voting for third party candidate will have exactly zero impact on the probability of third party candidate winning (it will go from 0.000000% to 0.000000%), but it sure can have an impact on the probabilities of the two major party candidates.

Yes, the two party system is a bad one.  But voting for a hopeless third party candidate will not bring about parliamentary democracy.

[Malthus]

I voted for Kodos.

[DGuller]

"Don't blame me, I voted for Nader."

[lustindarkness]

So our voter should vote for the lesser eveil because of maths?!

Maybe we should recommend to our example voter that he/she should not vote for the lesser evil, but for The Greatest Evil, Cthulhu. 

[FunkMonk]

In a normal election I'd say vote your conscience in all honesty, but this isn't a normal election.

In this election we have two major nominees: one a lifelong, self-serving politician, the other an authoritarian, de facto Putin-backed stooge. At least the self-serving pol isn't going to hand the nuclear codes over to the FSB (unless it's sent over a private email server ). I don't plan on seeing the White House bulldozed and the Kremlin built over it so Hillary it is for me this time 

Hopefully there will be a better choices in 2020.

[11B4V]

Jon taking over The Late Show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNiqpBNE9ik

[Legbiter]

So far we have cannibal holocaust (Dorsey), US annexed by Russia (Funkmonk) and Timmy shot in the face with a Bolter for heresy against the Emperor of Man (Ed Anger) by Ed Anger. 

Your mind movies are more exciting than mine.  In mine Trump "does deals" puts more emphasis on infrastructure, immigration gets curtailed but no mass deportations, foreign policy will be more hands-off but history could get in the way, etc. So, I'd hold off on killing vagrants for their meat for the time being.

Really, you're basically getting a bigger-tented GOP with an increased emphasis on white blue collar workers'  concerns. Oh the humanity!