Hacker News Reader

Comment by capote | Hacker News Reader

I'm a little bit put off by the mentality of "both sides are bad" that a lot of people seem to have in both of these issues.

Yeah, both sides have massive flaws, but isn't it stifling to keep insisting on this fact and to keep preaching it? Shouldn't we all just accept the lesser evil, by however small a margin it's less evil?

As good a point as you may have, isn't it more important to avoid a Donald Trump presidency/a brexit/a ridiculous fear of immigrants and Islam than to say what is technically correct so loudly and prominently?

I feel like if we wind up with the worse cases, people might regret having made both sides seem bad. Plus, less intelligent people might avoid voting altogether rather than voting for the lesser evil because they keep hearing intellectuals say how bad both sides are.

View on HN

Yeah, both sides have massive flaws, but isn't it stifling to keep insisting on this fact and to keep preaching it? Shouldn't we all just accept the lesser evil...

Today's vote only has two possible outcomes, but please don't perpetuate the myth that Americans have only two choices in November. Both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein would serve the public better as president than either of the two corrupt charlatans that the two wings of the Status Quo Party will nominate. If we want to improve the nation, and we want to do it by voting, we will be fools if we continue to vote as we always have.

A myth? We literally only have two choices. There is not a single chance that someone else will be elected unless someone within either of the parties does something.

What do you seriously suggest the people do to get another person besides these two?

Whether you like it or not, the fact remains that those who vote for a third party have always been a tiny minority and have ultimately caused elections to be lost to people even they think is the worse evil. Unless of course you respond with what your plan of action is and how it will work.

Some people have already done something, and both of the candidates I mentioned by name in the parent comment will be on the ballot in your state. Please vote for one of them! Don't vote for what you know to be "evil"; that wouldn't be rational. No one will stop you from voting rationally, except yourself, by listening to the "literally only two choices" bullshit that the media spoon-feeds you.

This is probably too political for HN, so I'll stop now.

I want to listen to you (I'd write in Bernie to be honest) but unfortunately it's not realistic. I've come to this conclusion by observation of reality, not from the media. I don't even consume much American media.

You're saying you only want to vote for a party that could win. Why? For the satisfaction of feeling like you made a difference? If the polls showed that the "greater evil" party was winning by a large margin, would you vote for that too because the lesser evil one has zero chance?

People who vote against their own interest and focus on over-emotional bipartisan feelings are exactly the reason America's government keeps doing things that people don't like. They're so afraid of the "greater evil" that they'll even kill the greater good in a futile attempt to avoid it. The republicans will still keep on winning every couple of cycles, just as they always have. Voting for one of the two major parties is really a vote for the status quo of alternating republican and democrat governments. It's like sports, no team is ever really going to win. They just keep switching places.

Run some computer simulation. In a first-past-the-post system, voting for anything but one of the top two contenders is throwing away your vote.

The strawmen about only voting for the winner doesn't apply.

If you want to make voting your conscience easier, support something like eg Range Voting.

http://www.rangevoting.org/

Score Voting or Approval Voting, yes. It's the only way to ensure—like mathematically guarantee—it's safe to vote for your favorite candidate _always_.

> It's the only way to ensure—like mathematically guarantee—it's safe to vote for your favorite candidate _always_.

I am not so sure. I think there are other systems that can achieve this too. Eg a proportional system perhaps?

Anyway, yes, score voting is still a good idea if you can only elect a single candidate. People already understand how it works from sports.

Why? Getting a bit political here, and I'm sorry, I just need to answer the question then I'll cut it out with the strong political views:

Because I couldn't bear to be a citizen of a country that elects Donald Trump as president. I'd be too embarrassed in the face of my peers around the world. I already get made fun of enough for my country by my German, Swiss, and Korean friends for just the prospect of Trump winning. I couldn't live here anymore or represent this country when I travel. The people who surround me, my compatriots, would be too stupid, bigoted, and hateful in my view for me to continue living here.

For any other election, I'd happily agree with you and might even try to change the status quo. But the risk of a Trump presidency has my insides sinking.

But right now, I'm going to vote for anything to stop that guy from winning. Even if it means voting for a crook.

If you can tell a difference between Trump and Clinton, you have discriminating tastes indeed.

the fact remains that those who vote for a third party have always been a tiny minority

Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992. I'd say that shows what a third party candidate can do.

It does. It shows a third party candidate can surpass expectations and still come nowhere close to winning a state.

Assuming that you think Trump would somehow be a disastrous clown - or at least more of a disastrous clown than Hillary. Really, it's Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich here, but from my perspective, Hilary has done nothing to inspire confidence, and a great deal to make me wary - Trump might be a jackass, but he is generally a shrewd operator, and really not liable to simple corruption.

> but he is generally a shrewd operator, and really not liable to simple corruption.

That would probably come as a surprise to the small army of people who have sued him over the years[0], or who have been sued by him for what seem to be vindictive or petty reasons[1].

You may prefer Trump, but the corrupting interests of business and politics very often intersect. I think it would be a mistake to assume he's neither corrupt nor corruptible.

[0]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-t...

[1]http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/donald-trump-lawsuits/

My comment was mainly aimed at people who agree with me that Trump would be a disaster and Hillary would simply be the continuation of the not-so-great status quo. To those people, I plead to stop making the both-sides-are-evil argument.

You seem to be a Trump supporter, so there you go, you're not on the both-sides-are-evil boat. I have no qualms with you other than the obvious political differences.

I'm no fan of Hillary, but have you listened to what Trump has been saying?

I highly recommend reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer . It was written in the aftermath of WW2 and tries to break down the factors that go into the formation of mass movements like Naziism and Communism.

I wouldn't say we've reached the same levels by a ways, but the parallels between the situation then and now are chilling.

> Shouldn't we all just accept the lesser evil, by however small a margin it's less evil?

That margin is an epsilon, and its inverted for people with different pressing concerns than you.

The Republican party is full of people will be voting for Trump, not because they really like him, but simply to keep Killary out. That is their lesser evil.

This is the manufactured consent of US politics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com