r/politics • u/slaysia • Dec 19 '17

Democrat wins Va. House seat in recount by single vote; creating 50-50 tie in legislature

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/democrat-wins-va-house-seat-in-recount-by-single-vote-creating-50-50-tie-in-legislature/2017/12/19/3ff227ae-e43e-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html?utm_term=.82f2b85b50fa
64.6k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

91

u/blue_jay_jay Dec 19 '17

I never want to hear an excuse ever again.

44

u/RE5TE Dec 19 '17

Buh buh both sides!!!

Vote third party! (aka garbage can)

47

u/throwaway_ghast California Dec 19 '17

Jill Stein is being investigated for her involvement in Russian meddling in the US election. Garbage can indeed.

16

u/vikinick California Dec 19 '17

Hilariously enough it seems the Libertarians were more moral in the 2016 election than the Republican and the Green Party.

9

u/Chewzilla Dec 19 '17

Libertarian. Morals. Pick one.

3

u/vikinick California Dec 19 '17

Somehow they didn't sell out to Russia. Maybe not for a lack of trying, but they seem to have not.

6

u/allwordsaremadeup Dec 19 '17

good that. Should curtail third party voting a bit. hope some ruckus is made about it. I'd love a viable green party in a multi party democracy, but as we are, when you're voting third party, you're just helping out evil MF's

2

u/aessa Dec 19 '17

Well, not necessarily evil MFers. A vote for a party is two things:

1) effectively a vote for the victor 2) raises awareness for change in the political parties.

The problem is when a presidential candidacy is pursued and aided by a foreign entity strictly for the purpose of taking votes away from a side.

1

u/HealzUGud Dec 19 '17

If you wan a green party fix FPP. Otherwise you don't get a gren party, you get a split vote.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

I know I'm going to sound like a broken record and like a proselytizing crazy person because I keep saying this, but man. Read Dark Money by Jane Mayer. The both sides narrative really is pushed by the right wing. The Kochs were the ones behind ads claiming Obama was too cozy with wall street. They spend billions and billions to control elections at every level, even school boards. Both sides are not equally bought or the same. Not. Even. Close.

0

u/wnolan1992 Dec 19 '17

I'm sorry, but belittling third party voters is fucking stupid.

But hey, I'm just a foreigner looking in. Y'all keep reinforcing that two party system, 'coz it just plum works so gosh darn well!

3

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

Third party is fine when there's a good candidate who has even a remote chance. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were neither.

If those third parties gave a shit they'd spend their time and money on mayoral elections and state representatives that they can actually win. So then those candidates could build a name and resume for higher offices and more exposure for party candidates.

But the third parties are so far only interested in theater, especially the US Green Party.

2

u/wnolan1992 Dec 19 '17

I totally agree. This thread was talking about a state legislature race which is mainly why I responded. I think it's ignorant to belittle and mock third party voters at any level, but especially at these levels voting for third parties should be encouraged and embraced.

Assuming of course, as you say, there is a candidate worth supporting. Voting solely on party lines is always bad, whether that be always voting D, always voting R or always voting 3rd Party.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

Except I think in this election voting third party would have been tremendously stupid given how close it was. Unless that other candidate was looking at least somewhat competitive it'd be intellectually and morally bankrupt to vote for them over your preference out of the main party candidates. Because a vote for third party would essentially be a vote for your least favorite out of the other two.

But yes I do think if there is a viable (and that doesn't have to mean leading in the polls, just be realistic about it) candidate from a third party you like then by all means go for it.

The problem is there is almost never a viable third party candidate.

1

u/wnolan1992 Dec 20 '17

That's not how I look at it to be honest.

If you have a strong preference for a third party candidate, I think you should vote for them regardless of their viability, rather than just picking the "least-worst" option from the two large parties. The only way the third parties will become viable is if they grow support. The only way they grow support is if people vote for them.

It's a catch 22 I know.

I know it's not the same thing because we have PR so my vote transfers down the ballot, but I'll just use my own constituency as an example:

Where I live, 3 people are elected to the parliament. For the past 36 years (constituency created in 1981) it's always been two from one major party, one from the other major party, and just alternate which party has two and which has one. It's an incredibly rural, conservative part of the country (both major parties are centre-right).

I don't agree with either of the major parties. So I vote for a smaller party candidate, with my lower preferences going to Independents and other smaller parties.

My logic is that, yes, it's highly unlikely the person I vote for will ever be elected. However, it is my hope that by supporting that smaller party they can gain a foothold over time and eventually challenge the dominant parties.

Essentially what I'm getting at is that if 3rd parties are to ever be viable, some people are going to have to "throw their votes away" in a few election cycles because of the First-Past-The-Post system the US has. If people start to see "Hey, Party X got 10% of the vote in the last Senate election..." then maybe more and more people will start to look at them as an option.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

I disagree. You start with smaller positions and non-partisan elections for trustees and such and build a coalition from the ground up. You're never going to 10% yourself to a viable party with high level elections.

5

u/princeparrotfish Dec 19 '17

The U.S. is different because we exist in a "first past the post" system that naturally goes towards a two party system. It isn't perfect, but until we get alternative voting or ranked voting, third party candidates are spoilers. Always.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

To me, it's still incredible how the US elects presidents without a majority of the vote. If 49.9% of the people vote for one guy, it should not mean that this guy is chosen by the people. You should run a second time with the two top ones in that case.

If you ever have multiple strong parties, you could end up with people getting elected with less than a third or a fourth of the vote. It doesn't make sense.

1

u/wnolan1992 Dec 19 '17

FPTP, while an incredibly idiotic system of voting, exists in the UK too, yet there isn't the same ridiculous situation that exists in the US. While yes, you're inevitably going to have one or two large parties who dominate, at least in the UK smaller parties are represented (not as well as they are in a PR system like we have in Ireland, but they're still there and often are part of the government). Glancing at the make up of the US Congress right now, according to Wikipedia there are 2 Independents out of 535 elected people. (I'm not familiar with the groupings in the House. Wiki seems to list them as different parties (Tuesday Group, Freedom Caucus, etc) but then seems to group them all into R's and D's at the end rather than showing them as independents voting in line with R's and D's). So essentially 350 million people are "represented" by one of two parties. That's just... I dunno, silly.

So FPTP can't really be solely blamed for the two party system.

Furthermore, saying that people shouldn't vote for third parties until the system is changed is also, IMO, incredibly misguided. Because what incentive do the two large parties have to change the system if they keep getting the lion's share of votes each cycle? Literally the only way change is likely to come about is if more and more people move to third party alternatives and start demanding representation.

But that's not going to happen, so you'll probably continue the lurching left and right every 4-8 years and having 40%+ of the population dissatisfied with who's in power at any given time.

2

u/princeparrotfish Dec 20 '17

You raise some fair points that it's not just FPTP, but also our "winner take all" voting system combined with gerrymandering. If Party A got 45%, Party B got 35%, and Party C got 10% in a state election, only Party A gets the nomination.

It's ultrafucked.

1

u/Triknitter Dec 20 '17

If third parties want to be taken seriously they need to start a hell of a lot smaller than President. Get some city councilors, some school board members, some state reps, some campaign infrastructure before you start trying to run for the highest office in the land.

A third party can’t compete in the current system unless they have that infrastructure.

1

u/Triknitter Dec 20 '17

If third parties want to be taken seriously they need to start a hell of a lot smaller than President. Get some city councilors, some school board members, some state reps, some campaign infrastructure before you start trying to run for the highest office in the land.

A third party can’t compete in the current system unless they have that infrastructure.

1

u/wnolan1992 Dec 20 '17

Exactly right. That's what I'm trying (badly) to get across here. Third parties should be pushing hard to get into state legislatures and onto city councils and stuff and build a grass-roots support. Build up their party and actually try and get people to Congress, then start gradually challenging the two majors.

Realistically, they may never win the Presidency, but surely building up gradually over a few decades to at least having a few Senators and Reps would be worth it? Then they could have actual power and influence by going into coalition with D's or R's to get policy through.

1

u/blazarquasar Colorado Dec 19 '17

They’re not belittling third party voters but simply stating that, in our current political circumstances, it’s wasting the vote. Everyone who voted third party in 2016 helped trump get elected.

1

u/ceiffhikare Dec 20 '17

i guess i get that it is a wasted vote. it definitely seems that way most years. thing is there is some loophole in our election laws that requires something like 10% of the vote to make it to the next election's ballot/debate without a major effort/write in campaign by the 3rd party candidate. thats why if i cant force myself to choose between the turd sandwich or the diarrhea soup i just ask for some toast,even if its gonna be thrown on the dirty floor. im hoping with the turd sandwich we got now theres at east enough fiber there to clean the system out.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

Vote third party! (aka garbage can)

worse than a garbage can. a vote for a 3rd party you agree with is basically a vote for the major party you agree with least.

0

u/kekokguy Dec 19 '17

Like all things, sometimes it makes sense to vote third party. It doesn't make sense to throw a blanket over all third parties.

Unless it's JS, she's fucking horrible.

3

u/devries Dec 19 '17

Reddit overflows with this kind of bullshit every election season.