Ethicists - Voting Your Heart is Immoral

[Nonsensei]

I do not mean trump, I mean groups like the neocons, the tea party, etc. who shifted the party to the right ( and now are losing their footing).

Show me where a third party candidate has made nearly the influence Bernie has as a dem...

Uh, why? Why are we restricting this to dems and then excluding Bernie? I thought the question was whether or not a party could really change from within.

[Shiranu]

Uh, why? Why are we restricting this to dems and then excluding Bernie? I thought the question was whether or not a party could really change from within.

Not restricting to dems, and not excluding Bernie. I'm just saying, show me a third-party candidate who has influenced the national dialog as Bernie did by working within the system, be it influencing the Democrats, the Republicans, or even Independents. The third-parties have historically been, at best, incorporated into one of the two major parties and shift them... but that's only after years of "strong" (for a third-party, so a percentage or two of the vote) showings. Most of the time they just fade away into the sunset.

Bernie Sanders, in one election, got the entire dialog shifted to the point the Democrats are now promising things they wouldn't have even discussed a year or two ago. It remains to be seen how many of those promises they will hold to, but if they want to secure the independent votes they got... then they will at least make an effort to follow through on a fair few of them.

The only similar example in recent time is the Tea Party hijack of the Republican party, for all the wrong reasons. But both those and Sanders have made more change in their short time as a member of a major party than they (or people who agreed with them) did in years of running as third-party.

The system simply is a two-party system. We can cry about that all we want, but the smartest thing is to be pragmatic and force them to appeal to our vote by "infiltrating" their party and showing them what people really want from within.

[Duncle]

As an interested observer in the UK, it seems to me that Trump is potentially a lot more dangerous than Hillary, who basically represents the status quo. With Hillary you'd get more of the same, including more Middle Eastern wars, more corporate money corrupting whats left of your democracy and more breaks for her pals in financial services. With Trump, on the other hand, you simply don't know what you'd get, since he has no political track record and is unpredictable to say the least. However, given his clear proto-fascist leanings, its pretty much certain that whatever you'd get with Trump wouldn't be good.

There is an argument to the effect that both candidates are so awful that voting third party is the real principled choice, since it would help to undermine a deeply corrupted political system. After all, if you keep on accepting the lesser of two evils time after time, evils will be all that you'll ever get. I'm sympathetic to this argument, and if Hillary were running against someone else (say Kasisch or Cruz) then I think it would hold. But with Trump as the Republican nominee, I'm not so sure. Trump really could be very bad indeed- he looks like a would-be dictator, and I'm not convinced enough of the committment to rule of law and democracy in the Republican Party to rule out his becoming an American Putin.

[SGOS]

Change of the Democrats, as change of the Republicans, will come from within the party... not from without. That has little to do with morality and more just common sense. Look how much influence Bernie had by joining the party, of forcing the Democrats to address certain issues they wouldn't have otherwise. What third party has ever done that?

I have absolutely no reason to think that Sanders has changed the Democratic party.  He appealed to a more liberal faction of the party, some who were always there, and some who are new to politics and have never considered themselves affiliated with either party.  Hillary's nomination represents entrenchment of the status quo.  I have no reason to believe she will adopt any of Sanders' values, or create anything within the party of a Sanders nature.  Only time will tell, but at this point, the notion that Sanders had some kind of positive effect on the Democrats is conjecture.

Same for the Republicans... look at how long libertarians and other far-right conservatives have been trying to make change with little to no effect. Yet once they joined the party, they managed to pull the party very far to the right in almost no time at all by forcing the mainstream to appeal to them.

I'm not sure we can say these rebel factions were ever outsiders, and I have no way of knowing whether they have moved their party toward their values or destroyed the party, as many liberals would believe.  Whatever Trump is, outsider or not, I suspect he's the result of the Republican party not living up to their promises, or that party promises are becoming increasingly meaningless to Republican voters.

Voting third-party at local level, state level... okay, that's fine and personally I think great because they actually stand a chance to win. But until those third parties can even win at a state-level, expecting them to make any difference at a national level without playing within the rules and forcing the major players to come towards their ideology or risk fracturing the party and turning away independents (who win elections) is, if not immoral, moronic.

Third parties are not breaking any rules.  They may not meet your expectations, but they are not breaking any rules.

"Immoral and moronic" is great hyperbole to describe a strategy you disagree with, but as hyperbole, it's not truly an accurate description.  Third party voters are not generally morons, and they are immoral only to the extent that you pass judgment on them.  I might tend to be more amiable to your views without the moral/immoral implications, which sound mostly like appeals to emotion.

And I say that as a Bernie supporter, with the caveat that I have always recognized him to be a one-trick pony type of politician. A very important one-trick, but a terrible president he would make nontheless. Bernie, Stein, all of them are more useful working to bring their fields of expertise and passion to a major party and using their independent appeal to force that party in their direction because that's just the way the system works.

Generally speaking the Democratic party works to discredit, exclude, and marginalize elements like Sanders or Stein, and to advance the political careers of conservative members and the status quo.  You call yourself a Bernie supporter, but you think he would be a terrible president?  I find this incomprehensible, much the way I relate to your moral/immoral argument. 

[stromboli]

Fuck ethics. My "qualifier" is the candidate I least want to kick in the nuts. Since Clinton has no nuts (I think) she wins by default.

[SGOS]

Fuck ethics. My "qualifier" is the candidate I least want to kick in the nuts.

That's the ticket!  Why fuss around with justifications?

[Shiranu]

Third parties are not breaking any rules.

Never said they broke rules, they simply just refused to play the game and thus cannot change the out-come of it.

You call yourself a Bernie supporter, but you think he would be a terrible president?  I find this incomprehensible, much the way I relate to your moral/immoral argument.

Yes, I think he would make a terrible president because he is a one-trick pony. I do not think he could garner enough support from both parties to get even a 10th of his views across, and his inexperience and lack of addressing issues outside his core two or three means we have no idea what to expect or that he has the know-how to get it done.

I think he is much better serving how he has; at state and committee levels, where he can focus on the core issues that he is most passionate about.

[GSOgymrat]

“The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a worldview. It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce outcomes,” says Jason Brennan, a philosopher at Georgetown University and author of The Ethics of Voting. “If they’re smart, they’ll vote for the candidate likely to best produce the outcome they want. That might very well be compromising, but if voting for a far-left or far-right candidate means that you’re just going to lose the election, then you’ve brought the world further away from justice rather than closer to it.”

I think Trump is an example of the flaw in this argument. Few people thought Trump was a viable candidate when he threw his hat in the ring. If supporters hadn't believed in him and voted for him he wouldn't be one step away from becoming POTUS. Trump supporters believe he will be good for America, that by being outside the current system, utilizing his business acumen and putting Americans first he will create positive outcomes for US citizens. By the author's reasoning people who believed in Trump ideologically should have supported Cruz.

That said, I do agree that in some circumstances the candidate that is an ideological match might not be the candidate that produces the best outcomes. Jimmy Carter is a president I greatly admire as a person but as president he wasn't the best. I think of Sanders similarly.

[Shiranu]

Jimmy Carter is a president I greatly admire as a person but as president he wasn't the best. I think of Sanders similarly.

That's who I was trying to think of... I would say that's a very good way I think of Sanders.

By the author's reasoning people who believed in Trump ideologically should have supported Cruz.

Not sure I agree with this, since Trump was showing strong for a long time. The article I think is more a matter of when the odd's are 1/1000000000 of them winning rather than 1/5 or 1/10.

[PickelledEggs]

No third party has a chance of winning the election. If you want to vote for a third party and go with your heart, I will agree (probably, depending on which third party candidate you are voting for) that they are a much better candidate for president than Trump AND Hillary. But will that be an effective vote against Trump?

Hell.
Fucking.
No.

I will say this every time it needs to be said:
Our first priority is making sure Trump isn't elected in to office.  Priority number 2 is voting out the current members of the House and Senate and voting in better ones. NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING will get accomplished with even a good president in office. Even if Bernie Sanders was elected president, he would be fighting non-stop with the other 2/3 of the judicial system to get anything done. Almost none of it will. In order for anything to get done, we need to have the other 2/3 of this system work correctly and not like the current cluster-fuck of a system it is right now. We can't just pretend it away like trying to elect a new president will fix that. It wont. We need to vote in a new House and Senate for anything to get done, but right now, that is only priority number 2. Priority number one. Above anything else, is making sure that shit-lord of a man, Donald Trump is not elected president. I'm not happy the alternative is Hillary Clinton either, but you know what? It's better than having a fake nice person in office that doesn't currently publicly condone hate and a backwards agenda, than a person that openly endorses a backwards, hate-filled, racist, sexist agenda.

We cannot have Trump as president. Period.

It's your right to vote for whoever you want... even if it's a third party candidate... and it's even your right to not vote at all. It's not a duty or obligation. But do know that you are being lazily selfish and stubborn.

[Shiranu]

Let's not forget how important the Supreme Court is going to be these next elections; even if you think Hillary and Trump are one in the same, do you really think their nominations to the SC will be the same as well?

... than a person that openly endorses a backwards, hate-filled, racist, sexist agenda.

Also this. If we let Trump win, it means we are okay with this type of mindset reaching the highest position in the land. It's bad enough he even stands a chance, but just think how emboldened these type of people will be if he wins?

We already have that Duke guy, the Grand-whatever KKK guy, running for office because he realised there are people who will vote for him. Letting Trump win is opening a flood gate for these types of assfucks.

[Hydra009]

Yes, I think he would make a terrible president because he is a one-trick pony. I do not think he could garner enough support from both parties to get even a 10th of his views across, and his inexperience and lack of addressing issues outside his core two or three means we have no idea what to expect or that he has the know-how to get it done.

???!  He's been in office since the 80s and US senator for almost 10 years.  Anybody who's remotely familiar with the guy would know that, just like they would know that he has a pretty extensive platform so the "lack of addressing issues outside his core two or three" is also absolute bullshit.

It's okay to rah-rah-rah for Clinton, but it's not okay to live in an alternate reality.

[Nonsensei]

No third party has a chance of winning the election. If you want to vote for a third party and go with your heart, I will agree (probably, depending on which third party candidate you are voting for) that they are a much better candidate for president than Trump AND Hillary. But will that be an effective vote against Trump?

Hell.
Fucking.
No.

That's not my priority.

Our first priority is making sure Trump isn't elected in to office.

No, thats YOUR first priority.

Priority number 2 is voting out the current members of the House and Senate and voting in better ones.

That isn't ever going to happen. No matter what. And even if it did, we would just be in the same situation again a decade from now. Its not the people in office, its the system that allows them to keep getting elected without restriction. Changing that system is another thing that will never happen, because the people empowered to impose term limits are the same people who would have those limits imposed upon them. Asking a politician to give up power for no return is an exercise in naive futility.

Even if Bernie Sanders was elected president, he would be fighting non-stop with the other 2/3 of the judicial system to get anything done.

But he won't be actively trying to fuck us, which is more than I can say for either of the current candidates.

We cannot have Trump as president. Period.

I agree. Unfortunately I feel the exact same way about Hillary.

It's your right to vote for whoever you want... even if it's a third party candidate... and it's even your right to not vote at all. It's not a duty or obligation. But do know that you are being lazily selfish and stubborn.

Hah. I feel the same way about people who voted for Hillary in the primary. An obviously power hungry social and political chameleon, willing to do literally anything to override the will of the voters and ensure she wins no matter what. A woman with a questionable history as secretary of state. And yet people still voted for her. Why? I've never gotten a real answer as to why anyone would vote for her over Sanders except "well I think she has a better chance to beat Trump". Talk about selfish and stubborn. You picked the worse candidate just because you hate Trump and the people supporting him.

You don't get to cast a knee-jerk wrong headed vote for a terrible candidate then turn around once the primary is over and insist that we are selfish if we refuse to fall in line and compound your HORRIBLE decision. No fucking thanks.

[Shiranu]

???!  He's been in office since the 80s and US senator for almost 10 years.  Anybody who's remotely familiar with the guy would know that, just like they would know that he has a pretty extensive platform so the "lack of addressing issues outside his core two or three" is also absolute bullshit.

It's okay to rah-rah-rah for Clinton, but it's not okay to live in an alternate reality.

Almost all of those are two or three core issues... financial reform, health-care and student debts, and social issues. Which is fine, but that did show that he doesn't have the experience of dealing with many other pressing issues in American society.

Like I said, I respect the things he has fought for and think he is best served doing those at the state/senate level. I just don't think his field of work is broad enough for the president, nor would he have the ability to convince the House and Senate to pass them... this is what I mean by experience. He is too "good" of guy to force people to get the shit he wants done.

[Shiranu]

An obviously power hungry social and political chameleon, willing to do literally anything to override the will of the voters and ensure she wins no matter what. A woman with a questionable history as secretary of state. And yet people still voted for her. Why? I've never gotten a real answer as to why anyone would vote for her over Sanders except "well I think she has a better chance to beat Trump".

If we are going to quote Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

...I'm sorry, but Hillary Clinton's body of work for helping Americans is far and beyond anything Bernie has done.