Hacker News Reader

Comment by Joeboy | Hacker News Reader

For most of us this is not a problem as we don't get to vote for the US government anyway.

As a non-US citizen I am spared the illusion that voting can prevent the US government spying on me, murdering me by drone or imprisoning me without trial. And those are primarily things the US does to non-US citizens.

View on HN

Most of us in the U.S. don't really get to vote either. There is no anti-drone party, no anti-NSA party, and no anti-Drug-War party: the two dominant parties agree more than they differ, especially when looking at actions rather than rhetoric. Moreover, huge numbers of people are completely disenfranchised if they support the minority party in the wrong district or state.

Our democracy isn't completely ineffectual; some good people sneak through now and then, and there is some counter-balance to blatant abuses of power. But it's a far cry from government by/of/for the people.

(Incidentally: it's worth nothing that the Constitution repeatedly refers to "person" and not "citizen". I think it is deeply shameful that we do not afford basic human rights protections to persons of all nationalities, as a matter of first principles.)

> There is no anti-drone party, no anti-NSA party, and no anti-Drug-War party: the two dominant parties agree more than they differ, especially when looking at actions rather than rhetoric.

There is! It isn't one of the big two, but there is a party that is anti-drone, anti-NSA, anti-drug war, etc.: The Libertarian Party[0].

[0] http://www.lp.org

Something in-between Obama/Bush and Libertarian Party would be nice

I am not sure what you mean – in-between relative to what? The LP is to the left of Obama (e.g., individual rights for social matters such as marriage) and also to the right of Bush/Obama (e.g., taxation).

I was referring to the points that you brought up in your previous reply (anti-drone, anti-NSA and anti-drug war) ... I don't think that they need to disappear but a strong refocus is definitely needed in all 3.

The Green Party also holds all three of those views, if that's your preference.

Unfortunately, since most elections in the US are winner-take-all and not proportionally representative, voting for any party other the big two generally decreases the chance of one's desirable election outcome.

(I say this as a registered Green(-Rainbow). I'll be voting for Hillary unless it looks like she has a wide margin.)

To a point. To the degree that policies are determined by political triangulation, someone deciding between Green and Democrat is only half as important as someone deciding between Democrat and Republican. Actually voting for the Green party decreases the odds of ones preferred outcome this election (down to what it would be if you did not vote), but increases the credibility of your threat for the next election.

Math-wise, the optimal strategy depends on the size of the effect that pull is likely to have, weighed against the odds your vote will change which of the frontrunners wins times the difference between the frontrunners.

Of course, ideally we could switch away from FPTP voting, but getting that to happen in selecting electors is a reach (though at least the Electoral College means we don't have to do it nationwide at once).

Regarding Hillary in particular, I think an overgrown security apparatus is the biggest threat this country faces, and she has decisively lost my vote with her self-serving and revisionist account of the Snowden affair.

As others have mentioned, first-past-the-post makes third party voting counter-productive (although it's a better protest vote than not voting at all). I look forward to the day when individual states enact ranked/approval voting by popular referendum, so that third parties have a shot at viability.

That said: the current Libertarian Party has a lot of baggage regarding the religion of markets. While I think the market is a powerful and worthwhile engine of growth, I don't believe it is the only valid or effectual form of social contract. (I've come to adopt the term "Chomsky Libertarian". [1])

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ

We have to be more strategic with our votes. Even if there were an anti-NSA party, it's likely that there's another deal breaker there (see: Paul, Ron). It'll take several steps before we can steer government in the direction we'd like, and the first step is to get a government that's more responsive to our vote.

Hence, I give money to https://mayday.us, and the issue that I primarily vote on is reform. If my vote "doesn't matter" (whether it's because I can't tell the R and D candidates apart or because it's not a close race), then I vote for the most viable third party.

"People will say with a straight face that having one choice for dear leader is tyranny – but having two is freedom. Is that second choice on the ballot really the qualitative difference?" [1]

[1]: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/why-i-w...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com