That is not the point. The point is that, in a free democracy, candidates run and voters vote and the person with the most votes wins in a free and fair election.
Voting could be designed so that if one candidate does not get a majority (+50%), then there is a run-off between the top two candidates. Currently, in most states (all states?) a plurality wins it.
I doubt people here would be whining like this if the third-party candidate was conservative. This is the same reason people choose to ignore the fact that Libertarian Candidate Johnson got more than 3 times as many votes as Stein in 2016. If the Johnson voters had voted for Trump, he would have won the popular vote over Clinton. So blaming Stein for Trumpâs victory in the Electoral College is simply ignorant.
Gore and Clinton both won the most votes in their races. The voters chose the Democratic candidate.
The problem is not with the voters or the candidates, the problem is that we donât have a constitutional democracy, and the Electoral College can choose anybody they want to be President. Until that is changed, then the Presidential election is still nothing but a non-binding national popularity contest.
Yes, you just described some members of my family ⌠drives me bananas.
Hereâs my voting tip - if youâre basing your vote on the sound of their voices, clothing styles or family pics, please donât bother. Other people have actual concerns and will be devastated by the wrong outcome. Better yet, vote for their candidate. Make empathy fashionable again.
Stupid Democracy! We should just let our betters choose who runs the government. We certainly canât leave that awesome responsibility to the ignorant votersâŚ
Snark aside, the Democratic candidate should get busy and start registering as many new voters as possible. (This is the case for every Democrat in every race in a Republicanât-led state, where massive, illegal voter suppression will be what prevents Democrats from winning, No Russians Required.) The registration deadline for the general election is 21 days before the election, so on or about October 16 if my math is correct. She also needs to work hard to convince people who may consider voting for other candidates why she is the best person for the job. Whining about the system or the circumstances rarely wins elections (at least for Democrats.)
Stein and her voters carry their part of the responsibility. Everything could be as you said and if they had decided to vote to make a difference in the real world rather than to indulge their sense of moral superiority, we would not have Trump.
Hey, hereâs an idea: Instead of crying into their beer, Dems could wait until thereâs polling data, wait for it, wait⌠Then blast Kansas with the message that a vote for Orman is a vote for Kobach, since only Colyer has the numbers to defeat Kobach. Oh wait, what was I thinkingâŚactual strategy could never compete with crying into oneâs beer.
Yes. It is immoral to do what Stein and her voters did. Isâm stating my position on this in the hope of deterring future voters from throwing their votes away.
The strategy of voting for the best person with a chance of winning produces a higher chance of obtaining better policies. Voting for a third candidate with no chance of winning simply for the sake of feeling pure is immoral.
You have no inherent psychic powers to assign or understand the reasons that a person votes for the candidate of their choice. People have many many reasons for voting the way that they do.
For you to stand in judgment of other voters based on your own erroneous and false generalizations is a good example of the âmoral superiorityâ that you claim to want to decry.
