The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[sirkickyass]

No room for being the change you want to see in others?

There would have to a be a fundamental structural change in America that would allow for more than two competitive parties for such a change to be in the realm of imagination.

Realistically, we don't have a way for a party to "die" in this country peacefully.

 

[sirkickyass]

In terms of having any impact on a national election, even in a close state, voting for the front runners is the same as not voting at all. Or to use your words, voting for the two major candidates has exactly "the same impact as not showing up at all to vote for this office."
And voting third party has the exact same impact, and so does writing in a candidate. In all of those scenarios, the voter will have zero impact on the election. No national election has ever been decided by a single vote. So if you vote AT ALL you are throwing away your vote by any reasonable definition, because it is meaningless in terms of actually impacting the election.

I think you're making a pretty significant error and leap in logic in assuming that any vote that is not the "critical" vote (or threshold deciding vote) is irrelevant. That's your definitional issue, not mine.

First past the post voting in this country means that there are structural factors that tend to narrow the field to two realistic candidates. Otherwise you get vote splitting and a strengthening of whichever party the third party "spoiler" candidate is actually least aligned with. We've seen this play out in this country so many times I can't believe it even needs to be explained.

No single vote among those two columns is the "threshold vote" even in an election decided by a single vote, because it's impossible to know the vote counts in advance in a freely held and anonymized election. Instead every vote is added to the accumulation of votes that goes towards getting "past the post." Even in an election decided by a single vote any individual vote in that pile added to the accumulation required to win - not just the final vote cast.

As practical matter, under the system as it currently exists, all the rules strongly favor pooling into two lanes because those are the two that can actually win. Every other vote effectively is null. Sorry. That's the way it is. You wasted your vote in 2016 other than I guess it made you feel better. I wasted my vote in 2012 basically just to say I voted for a female candidate. That was dumb too.

There's always a handful of exceptions to what I'm describing above that require regional explanations of local voting patterns. Lisa MurKowski's write-in campaign probably being the best example. But in the presidential election I feel very comfortable with the above until proven wrong.

 

[PJF]

So true.

 

[colton]

Gotta start somewhere. Maybe kicky could convince you to vote against trump (Biden) and then convince others. And maybe you go ahead and convince others too. Then the snowball gets rolling. Then hundreds of thousands of individuals like yourself end up voting Biden and end up being the difference in the election and kick trump out of the Whitehouse. I mean if that is even something you really want.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Oh, I plan to vote for Biden. And I will attempt to persuade many people to do the same. But shaming people for voting third party by saying they are wasting their votes is still wrong. And logically indefensible.

 

[colton]

I think you're making a pretty significant error and leap in logic in assuming that any vote that is not the "critical" vote (or threshold deciding vote) is irrelevant. That's your definitional issue, not mine.

First past the post voting in this country means that there are structural factors that tend to narrow the field to two realistic candidates. Otherwise you get vote splitting and a strengthening of whichever party the third party "spoiler" candidate is actually least aligned with. We've seen this play out in this country so many times I can't believe it even needs to be explained.

No single vote among those two columns is the "threshold vote" even in an election decided by a single vote, because it's impossible to know the vote counts in advance in a freely held and anonymized election. Instead every vote is added to the accumulation of votes that goes towards getting "past the post." Even in an election decided by a single vote any individual vote in that pile added to the accumulation required to win - not just the final vote cast.

As practical matter, under the system as it currently exists, all the rules strongly favor pooling into two lanes because those are the two that can actually win. Every other vote effectively is null. Sorry. That's the way it is. You wasted your vote in 2016 other than I guess it made you feel better. I wasted my vote in 2012 basically just to say I voted for a female candidate. That was dumb too.

There's always a handful of exceptions to what I'm describing above that require regional explanations of local voting patterns. Lisa MurKowski's write-in campaign probably being the best example. But in the presidential election I feel very comfortable with the above until proven wrong.

Interesting take. But until you can explain to me what would be different if you had voted major party in 2012 I reject the notion that you wasted your vote. Even given your analysis of each vote contributing toward a pile of votes, you can't say there's any difference between a pile of (making up numbers) 1,200,345 and a pile of 1,200,346 when the opposing major party pile has a losing 1,005,098. Or a winning 1,400,055.

 

[PJF]

 

[One Brow]

So true.

Whose families were jeopardized?

 

[Deleted member 365]

Brutal just brutal



He would’ve made a lot more money had he testified.

 

[PJF]

 

[colton]

 

[NAOS]

Oh, I plan to vote for Biden. And I will attempt to persuade many people to do the same. But shaming people for voting third party by saying they are wasting their votes is still wrong. And logically indefensible.

I don’t shame them. But, in my experience hearing these people explain themselves, they’re often either (a) exaggerating the potential impact of their dissent, or (b) holding fast to some view that they can’t vote for someone who didn’t earn their vote.

The latter is reasonable, in principle. But the present situation seems to require that we get beyond the strictures of principle and look at all the options with a different set of eyes.

When I lived in Utah, I voted for Nader. Obviously this had no outcome on that electoral debacle. But the scope of my action in my own eyes was outsized, for sure.

 

[fishonjazz]

But the present situation seems to require that we get beyond the strictures of principle and look at all the options with a different set of eyes.

This.
Trump is such a bad president that people need to look at this election like no other. Hold your nose and vote for someone you don't like to get rid of trump.

Every other election go ahead and vote for whoever you like best or don't vote at all or whatever.

This election help rid the country of agent orange. Agolf twitler.

#nevertrump

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app