Hacker News Reader

Comment by boomboomsubban | Hacker News Reader

There isn't a "reasonable" party, the Democrats could have made this a law making repealing it difficult. They found the to give ISPs billions of dollars, and to legalize spying on their customers though.

Both parties are a joke, voting for either is an awful choice.

View on HN

That's a lie, plain and simple. 2017 is the year that the claim that both parties are just as bad went from being a somewhat valid commentary on American politics to the cries of the intellectually lazy.

One party would not attempt to ram throw a bill that took away health insurance for millions without a back plan. One party would not attempt to ram through a tax reform bill that was literally being amended on the floor before the vote. One party would not let a federal agency make a sweeping change that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not support. One party would not allow the president of the United States to use Twitter to incite violence and spread out racist messages. I can go on, but the point is that had Clinton won, this year would not have been such a mess as the Republican party bungles it's way around trying to pillage and loot America for the benefit of its donors.

Not a lie, supported third parties for my voting life as it's clear the system is a broken joke. Voting Hillary in wouldn't have created a liberal paradise, just changed the details of the mess we are in.

Electing Clinton would have given us 4 more years of Obama. That means Congress would be busy wasting time, but as I said, we wouldn’t be dealing with any of the issues of healthcare, taxes, or net neutrality we are now.

So my poor friend would still be struggling to choose between healthcare or slightly more money, our taxes would still be used to indiscriminately kill thousands of innocents worldwide, and we might have the government spying on all our internet traffic for slightly less money. Huge improvement, I can see why I should support a party promising that.

Be careful who you call “intellectually lazy.”

Anyone who claims both parties are the same after the past year is intellectually lazy.

Intellectual laziness is reading "both parties are a joke" as "both parties are the same."

The Democrats were pretty much unable to pass any legislation worth a damn after 2010, which is why everything done afterwards is so easily undone.

One party is for dealing with climate change, privacy, net neutrality, healthcare, etc. It may be bad, but it's definitely _less_ bad.

One of my examples was before 2010, the other was introduced by a Democrat and signed into law by one.

They didn't consider universal health care an option, saying they cared about privacy is a sick joke, they didn't make net neutrality a law. They may be slightly less bad but voting for them is still a terrible choice.

The thing about the lesser of two evils is that it’s the lesser of two evils and picking it over the greater of two evils is a good choice. That said, the most important issue of our time is climate change and the difference there is utterly clear.

The idea that it is a binary choice is a false one. The two parties will drone on about how other candidates are "spoilers" who only benefit who you see as the worse choice. That's nonsense, your vote should go towards who you think represents your interests best.

Yes, that vision ultimately needs more than just a third party win. The system itself is broken. It's still a better choice.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about various industrial wastes to comment on environmental issues. If that's what you see as the most important issue, why would you vote anything but Green? That's been a core of their platform for fourty years.

> The two parties will drone on about how other candidates are "spoilers" who only benefit who you see as the worse choice. That's nonsense, your vote should go towards who you think represents your interests best.

You need to learn Civics. I could write in my own name since my opinions are closer to my opinions than the Green candidate. What would that accomplish?

If, one day, the US introduces proportional or preferred representation then the calculations will change. In Australia, for example, you can vote (1) Green, (2) Labor (say) and then if the Green candidate is eliminated your vote is counted for your second choice. But if the Green candidate gets enough support then you get your first choice.

Even then, Democracy is difficult. In proportional systems, small parties can have disproportionate influence.

>I could write in my own name since my opinions are closer to my opinions than the Green candidate. What would that accomplish?

I don't think I have the political knowledge or general knowledge to represent my interests best in government, and failing to campaign shows I'm not prepared for the responsibility. I can't say for certain, but I assume it's the same for you. If I'm wrong, you should vote for yourself. I imagine most candidates do.

Yes, some better form of representation is part of my ultimate goal. The fear of small parties having a disproportionate influence doesn't worry me, small groups already have a disproportionate influence.

Fear of losing to the other party is the only thing that keeps them from being more awful. So please don’t stop voting.

Vote in every election, just never for an awful choice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com