2016 United States Election

[Cerin]

Yes, indeed, Frelga, but I think those who voted for Nader were passionately opposed to both candidates—to Bush because he was Bush, and to Gore because he was not Nader. No one but Nader was suffiiciently pure, and they could not sully their vote by choosing a pragmatic candidate. Rather let the country burn!

And burn it did, though it wasn't our country. So the Nader voters could still feel righteous, despite the fact that a lot of American sons and daughters literally burned because of that vote.

I object to the wholesale disparagement of a group of people in this way. Everyone has the right to vote their conscience, and people shouldn't be maligned because their conscience tells them something different than yours tells you.

It's absolutely outrageous to hold Nader and Nader voters responsible for people burning. Nobody voted for people to burn. George Bush and his administration bear sole responsibility for their policies and the results of those policies.

What you seem to be suggesting is that no one ever dare vote for what they actually believe in, but that is the very attitude that keeps us where we are.

[axordil]

people shouldn't be maligned because their conscience tells them something different than yours tells you.

Unless, you know, they vote for Nazis or something. All consciences might be created equal, but some people are really bad about going in for oil changes.

[axordil]

a gut-level "feeling" about her honesty/trustworthiness/integrity which is not going to stand up to much of a debate here

I have that too. And yet I cannot shake the feeling I have it at least in part because I was meant to have it by powerful people who fear and loathe her, going back to 1992. Once one is operating under a confirmation bias it becomes self-reinforcing.

Plus there's the fact that about the only President I can think of in my lifetime who wasn't a demonstrated liar was Carter, and as swell of a human being as he is, I'm not sure that's a recommendation for the trait in this context.

[Frelga]

I object to the wholesale disparagement of a group of people in this way. Everyone has the right to vote their conscience, and people shouldn't be maligned because their conscience tells them something different than yours tells you.

It's absolutely outrageous to hold Nader and Nader voters responsible for people burning. Nobody voted for people to burn. George Bush and his administration bear sole responsibility for their policies and the results of those policies.

What you seem to be suggesting is that no one ever dare vote for what they actually believe in, but that is the very attitude that keeps us where we are.

No. In a democracy, you are responsible for what you elect.

Politics are not about values or ideals, although those can be helpful measuring sticks. Politics and elections are about real, practical, measurable things. New laws. Appointed officials. Military deployment. Regulations. Funding.

So no, I don't think voting for "what I believe in" is helpful unless I can see a specific path from my vote to all those things being implemented in a way as consistent with my values as is possible in a diverse, pluralistic democracy.

Voting for a candidate who is not getting elected under any circumstances is a waste of vote at best. In 2000 it meant voting for Bush. And in 2016 it will mean voting for Trump. If that's what you believe in, go ahead.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

People certainly have the right to decide to vote their conscience even if it means voting for someone that has no chance of winning, and even it if it makes it more likely that someone reprehensible wins. But other people equally have the right to point out and be critical of the consequences of such a vote, whether or not the person making the vote intended those consequences.

[Cerin]

So no, I don't think voting for "what I believe in" is helpful unless I can see a specific path from my vote to all those things being implemented in a way as consistent with my values as is possible in a diverse, pluralistic democracy.

That's a perfectly legitimate way for you to look at your right to vote and the process of voting. However, others may legitimately assess the process and their responsibility differently.

People certainly have the right to decide to vote their conscience even if it means voting for someone that has no chance of winning, and even it if it makes it more likely that someone reprehensible wins. But other people equally have the right to point out and be critical of the consequences of such a vote, whether or not the person making the vote intended those consequences.

People burning in Iraq was not a consequence of the Nader candidacy, or the votes given to Nader; people burning in Iraq was the consequence of Bush's decision to invade that country on a false pretext. Do you consider all the deaths of innocents in the last four years as a result of drone warfare to be a direct consequence of your vote for Obama? Is that blood on your hands? Or are those deaths a consequence of the President's decisions?

[Frelga]

As I have said before, I consider Obama's policy in Middle East an unmitigated disaster (unlike his domestic policy, which I consider to be the most successful of any modern president) . However, I am also aware that we did not have a realistic alternative candidate who would have been less hawkish, so no, I do not take personal responsibility for it. Besides, my opinion on drone warfare is more complex than "slaughter of innocents".

[RoseMorninStar]

I have never been particularly politically minded nor have I considered myself to be strongly affiliated with one party or another. I did not vote for Bush Jr, but when he was elected I figured he would do well enough for our country and gave him the benefit of the doubt (and my respect as our president). I can recall almost precisely when my attitude changed. It was after 9-11 in the run up to the Iraq war and I read an article about this event.

It's an article about an elderly father & middle-aged son who went to the local Mall & had t-shirts made. One said 'Give Peace A Chance', 'No War With Iraq', and 'Let Inspections Work'. They put on their new purchases and proceeded to have lunch in the food court. They were not protesting (other than wearing the t-shirts); they were customers at the mall--and they were arrested. For wearing the t-shirts (*that went against popular opinion/opinion o the mall owner/manager). At the time I also had been getting a hard time for my unwillingness to have our country jump into war, but this article struck a chord with me and it crossed a line. I was terribly upset by this and wondered, 'What the heck is going on?' It didn't seem like the country I'd grown up in.

Too often it's hard to filter out fact from rhetoric, propaganda, lies.. I try, but it's hard. I muddle along as best I can and try to make the best choices I can.

* edited for clarification

[anthriel]

a gut-level "feeling" about her honesty/trustworthiness/integrity which is not going to stand up to much of a debate here

I have that too. And yet I cannot shake the feeling I have it at least in part because I was meant to have it by powerful people who fear and loathe her, going back to 1992. Once one is operating under a confirmation bias it becomes self-reinforcing.

This is a darned good point, ax, and one I have rolled around myself. I'd like to be fair to the woman. I do think I gained my particular opinion of her long before she was senator, or secretary of state; before she had any more power than a typical First Lady has. But has my opinion been solidified or focused because of things I have read and heard after that time? As much as I try not to expose myself to political conversations which are inherently manipulative, it is difficult to insulate oneself completely. (Although I have to admit that almost all of my real political discussions have been on this board and with board members off-board, and y'all haven't made me a Democrat yet. ) So... good point. I can't shake that feeling either.

Plus there's the fact that about the only President I can think of in my lifetime who wasn't a demonstrated liar was Carter, and as swell of a human being as he is, I'm not sure that's a recommendation for the trait in this context.

All too true. Carter was and is a caring, intelligent man, but he was not a great President. I wonder if lying would have helped?

[River]

With any public figure, there is the person and the persona. Who they are and who we believe them to be. Hillary is a poster-child for
happens when said public figure fails to control their own myth. She has instead wrapped herself in a circle of people who try to protect her by playing defense. In doing so she has, for a very long time now, allowed her adversaries to define her.

This doesn't mean I, River, have the faintest idea who Hillary Clinton really is. I don't. But I don't think many people do, even those who believe otherwise.

[Túrin Turambar]

I read an article today which pointed out the interesting fact that the reaction to Brexit gives us some idea what will happen in November should events play out in a certain way. The growing realisation of the result as first Pennsylvania, then Florida and Ohio flash up as red on the map, the cameras cutting to Democratic supporters watching screens with their hands over their mouths, commentators on the media lost for words, Hillary Clinton holding her composure as she slowly and deliberately says “I just called Mr Trump to congratulate him on his victory…”, people crying, protests, riots in some areas, the crowd assembling outside Trump Tower, all wearing their red “Make America Great Again” hats and chanting “Trump! Trump!” while pumping their fists in unison, people asking if there’s some way the result can be overturned, bitter recriminations within the leadership of both parties, Wednesday dawning to the largest stock market crash in history and crisis meetings in foreign governments...actually, I think that the Brexit will be a minor thing compared to this.

[Primula Baggins]

Túrin, I know you write science fiction, but does it have to be apocalyptic science fiction?

Before breakfast?

(I know what you're saying about complacency, and I'm hoping a lot of people get that now.)

[Cerin]

I read an article today which pointed out the interesting fact that the reaction to Brexit gives us some idea what will happen in November should events play out in a certain way. The growing realisation of the result as first Pennsylvania, then Florida and Ohio flash up as red on the map, the cameras cutting to Democratic supporters watching screens with their hands over their mouths, commentators on the media lost for words, Hillary Clinton holding her composure as she slowly and deliberately says “I just called Mr Trump to congratulate him on his victory…”, people crying, protests, riots in some areas, the crowd assembling outside Trump Tower, all wearing their red “Make America Great Again” hats and chanting “Trump! Trump!” while pumping their fists in unison, people asking if there’s some way the result can be overturned, bitter recriminations within the leadership of both parties, Wednesday dawning to the largest stock market crash in history and crisis meetings in foreign governments...actually, I think that the Brexit will be a minor thing compared to this.

I don't know how they conduct voting in the UK, but I'd bet the votes aren't mostly cast on privately owned electronic machines that have been proven easy to tamper with without detection, whose proprietary codes are in the hands of partisans, without a paper trail, making the results unverifiable. I'd bet the voting procedures don't vary wildly across the country, that the availability of voting venues isn't in the hands of partisan executives who close 80% of them in areas where the demographics don't favor their preferred outcome, that laws weren't passed to suppress the vote and put obstacles in the paths of those expected to support an unfavored result.

In short, the difference I imagine between the UK and the US, is that UK citizens can be fairly confident that the vote tally actually represents votes that were cast, and if people doubted that, they'd have recourse to verify the result. In the US, you could very well have the above scenario taking place even if more people voted for Clinton. And yet, we'd meekly accept the results just the same as we've accepted dubious results in the past, because Trump as President would be better than the existential threat involved in entertaining the notion that our supposed democracy is a sham.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Um, voting for major party candidates generally determines the outcome. The number of people voting with asterisks is usually minuscule. I doubt there was a measurable percentage of Obama voters who were passionately opposed to Romney and voted accordingly despite hating Obama. People passionately opposed to one candidate are, most likely, quite comfortable with or even strongly supportive of the other one.

Not everyone is trinary.

I live in California. No matter who I vote for, the state will go to the Democrat.

I have a friend who lives in Texas. No matter who he votes for, the state will go to the Republican.

So tell me more about how voting for major party candidates determines the outcome.

[anthriel]

With any public figure, there is the person and the persona. Who they are and who we believe them to be. Hillary is a poster-child for
happens when said public figure fails to control their own myth. She has instead wrapped herself in a circle of people who try to protect her by playing defense. In doing so she has, for a very long time now, allowed her adversaries to define her.

I don't think I even realized until the last few years that so many people found her unlikeable. That doesn't mean she can't be elected, though. Didn't most people consider Richard Nixon unlikeable, as well? Or was that just after the controversy with him?

[River]

Beats me. I was born roughly three months after Reagan swore in for his first term.

[Primula Baggins]

As I recall the history, Nixon lost a lot of likability in 1960 when he debated JFK.

Even I was too young to have seen it for myself.

[Nin]

From what I see, the US election system is flawed. I have always lived in countries where governments were composed of more than one party - coalitions. And from the coalition you choose a leader - like Angela Merkel, who is the head of government but has to compose (and always had to) with at least one other party. The point of view of every party gets respected. I do see several of the problems the USA is facing also in France which also has a very strong presidential position and where the president is elected by simple majority (although usually in a two-step voting procedure: first step all parties can send someone in, second step: the two candidates who won the most voice in the first round get represented in the second round). Hollande got elected because his predecessor was so unpopular. Not because people voted for him but they voted against Sarkozy. In a system like the German this happens a lot less, because you know that even if your party won't nominate the head of the government, chances are great that it will take part in some other form, like presenting the state secretary, the defense of or the budget minister and all of those are important.

How likely does it seem that at some point the political system of the US could be reformed?

[Túrin Turambar]

As I recall the history, Nixon lost a lot of likability in 1960 when he debated JFK.

Even I was too young to have seen it for myself.

It's an important point to make that you don't need to be likeable to win elections, even in landslides. Nixon is a good example, as arguably is Lyndon Johnson. Obviously it helps if your opponent is George McGovern or Barry Goldwater.

[yovargas]

How likely does it seem that at some point the political system of the US could be reformed?

I would put it at near zero. At least any time remotely soon.