this post was submitted on
10 points (53% like it)
77 up votes 67 down votes
shortlink:

gifs

unsubscribe393,583 readers

860 users here now

Links to amusing, interesting, or funny .gifs from the web! .gif format submissions only, please!

How to make your own animated gifs?

Looking for a gif? /r/gifrequests/

Want a gif made just for YOU? Try /r/makemeagif

Please try not to repost and post reaction gifs in /r/reactiongifs.

Direct image links preferred! Avoid pages that have other extraneous material besides the gif like headers, banners, ads, etc. And please, no blogspam. URL-shorteners are NOT allowed!

Witty titles optional. nsfw when necessary; this implies the comments within will be too.

Nudity and obscene material goes into /r/nsfw_gifs - No exceptions. If it can get you fired then it should not be here. Failure to comply will result in removal of post and banning.

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

9
10

To anyone who claims that people are "wasting their vote" by voting for third party candidates. (imgur.com)

submitted ago by symphonyofthecosmos

all 24 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]debianmike 11 points12 points ago

You are wasting your vote.

The problem is the way our voting system works...who ever gets the MOST votes wins, not the one who gets the majority.

If, for instance, there are 3 candidates.

1 gets 32%

2 gets 32%

and #3 gets 34%

Candidate #3 wins, but 64% of the population voted AGAINST this person.

Your 3rd party vote doesn't work unless we change to a majority vote like system.

[–]edmyster81 0 points1 point ago

Are you talking about popular vote or the electoral college? Because popular vote doesn't matter.

[–]debianmike 0 points1 point ago

This isn't as true any more since many states passed laws says the electoral college will vote for whomever the popular vote picked.

This outcome depends on how many electoral college votes that state actually has, but the point is still valid: instead of popular vote counts, it applies to electoral votes instead.

[–]op-swanks 0 points1 point ago

What the fuck did I just read. Please explain to me who had the majority vote in this case. If my calculations are correct, then 66% of people voted against candidate 1 and 66% of people voted against candidate 2. Clearly, less people disliked candidate 3 than both 1 and 2. I don't see anything wrong with the outcomes of your scenario or your scenario except that you boldfaced 1 and 2.

There are actual arguments against our voting system, so I pray that you are either 12 or sarcastic.

The electoral college as whoever the fuck said after me, can create scenarios where the majority vote is not who won. This issue has been resolved for many states ( at least districts ) where the majority vote within the district must be the vote submitted by the electoral college.

Edit: A majority vote as you so put it can only make sense for a 1 v. 1 issue. An issue such as yes or no on legalizing euthanasia, or chocolate or vanilla (you can't have both we ain't rich, this store doesn't sell mixtures, and fuck you if you think I'm buying any other flavors, I got the paper and I ain't spending it on no bull shit).

Edit 2: you some sort of crackhead or something

[–]debianmike 1 point2 points ago

What are you talking about?

Many other countries, the "winner" has to have 51%+ to win so that a majority (more than 1/2) wins.

If it works out as in my situation, they vote again.

And your math is correct. An overwhelming number of people would lose in this situation. ~66% would not get what they wanted, only about 34% of the voters would feel that their vote counted for something.

And yes, the changes to the electoral college do start to address these issues, which is why I said "Your 3rd party vote doesn't work unless we change to a majority vote like system."

[–]op-swanks 0 points1 point ago

If I vote, which I didn't, it won't be more than once. If you think a majority vote would work with a single vote, or that usa would have more than one actual vote (fuck if you think the primary's should actually count) then you are mistaken. It's a democracy, we demand options; bringing it down to just two candidates right away will aggravate many people. We actually had 10 candidates, so removing 8 of them would take plenty of work. When you impose a vote that asks who do you want kicked off, the top 2 get more affected by it than the third party people.

Third party people aren't benefitting from your system in the slightest sense, because they will be kicked off the ballot right away. What you are talking about boils down to a two party system and nothing else.

You're never going to get a majority of america to like who was voted into office. This system clearly does work, maybe not the best, but for the amount of voters and for the simplicity of the vote and counting, it does a fine job. The vote will never be perfect, and there may be flaws in it, but there are many flaws in your system as well.

[–]debianmike 0 points1 point ago

First off...if you don't participate in the system what does it matter?

Also, I don't get your point. I'm not being a jerk, I just don't.

So voting once is such an inconvenience that you don't do it, and there is no way in hell you'd vote twice so my system doesn't work.

You defend the 3rd party system, but say we should boil it down to 2 parties, a or b, black or white (no pun intended), and that you are either on this side or that side, and if you aren't on my side you must be an idiot/enemy/anti-american.

OK, YOU didn't say anti-american, but that's what we've become: either my way or the highway.

And that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm all for green parties and communist parties and whatever....but we can't have a leader in the white house that a majority of people didn't vote for and that is exactly what happens with the current model.

EDIT: i'm not saying my system isn't flawed. There are much smarter people out there to figure this out.

I am only commenting that in the current system a 3rd party vote is at best useless, and at worse counter productive to your own cause.

[–]op-swanks 1 point2 points ago

I didn't vote because George Carlin. Whether or not I vote or don't vote doesn't mean I don't care about our voting system. I would vote if it would actually make a difference. Ramney and Robama will both be overpowered by lobbyist etc. so they will pretty much have the same outcome.

America as a whole will not be alright with voting twice.

I'm saying that your majority vote would require it to boil it down to a two party system. If you think you can get a majority vote with more than 2 parties, you are mistaken, sure it can happen but nine times out of ten you'll have to settle with who got the most votes not a majority ruling.

Despite trying to satisfy the most people, you will still satisfy the exact same amount of people with your system. Yes it is good for eliminating extraneous votes for third part candidates, and yes this system will have no scape goats for saying (bitches stole all the democratic vote).

Sure it could use a little change, but there are much better proposed system than you may have been alluding to.

[–]debianmike 0 points1 point ago

Upvote, but mainly because you reference Carlin.

[–]rocketwidget 0 points1 point ago

I also like to throw out a real example. Ross Perot got an incredible 18.9% of the vote in 1992. He also got 0 electoral votes, no agenda, no influence on the government, and no political future.

It bears repeating: In our political system, you are throwing your vote away by voting 3rd party. It has the exact same effect as not voting, so you better have foresight that the lesser of two evils has already won before you do it.

[–]ttnorac 0 points1 point ago

There is a good reason we don't have a direct majority vote.

[–]jdon1807 -1 points0 points ago

I upvoted you because you are technically right. But in spite of what you've said, voting third party is not a waste of a vote. Be proud to vote for a candidate who represents you. To cast a vote is about representing your views and passions and thus is deeply meaningful. Show your contempt for the major two parties.

[–]debianmike 0 points1 point ago

I would be proud to vote for someone who represents me as long as that doesn't end up as a vote for someone who specifically is "against" me as is the case in the current system.

I'm not against America or apple pie, I will vote, but the system needs improvement before a 3rd party vote not only has a chance but is also not a vote FOR the opposition as is the case today.

[–]jdon1807 0 points1 point ago

Absolutely the system needs improvement. I never said it didn't. It needs huge reform. All I'm saying is that even in the current system, there is some small personal worth to voting for them.

[–]pokealex -1 points0 points ago

Yeah well, voting isn't symbolic.

[–]TheGator25 4 points5 points ago

Nader basically won the election for Bush in 2000. But you're right. If all the assholes out there that complain about our country actually voted we'd have more than just 2 parties.

[–]nancynaturally 3 points4 points ago

I really don't like this gif.

[–]balickma 1 point2 points ago

Unless the voting system is fundamentally changed, then yes, it is a waste.

[–]Arcnsparc 0 points1 point ago

I like to think of it as sending a message to get your party more in line.

[–]fatnino 1 point2 points ago

unless you live in a swing state, voting for president at all is a waste of time.

you should still vote on local things though.

[–]StochasticOoze 1 point2 points ago

what a well-reasoned and cogent argument.

[–]sleeper141 0 points1 point ago

I would never take my chances with a Romney Presidency. Fuck that.

[–]ttnorac 0 points1 point ago

Best part is, you don't even need to win to actually make a difference. I've been waiting for years for someone to break the Republicrat stranglehold.

Its sad Perot dropped out. He could have ushered in an actual 3rd party.

[–]duxup 1 point2 points ago

Too elaborate to be funny. We're already aware of the joke right from the start and it just doesn't end.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 27541 on app-205 running 146442e.