Should I Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils in the US Presidential Election?

[Kevin McHugh]

Is there really a third party candidate you think is worthy of being President that truly deserves your vote? I can't find one. I'd write in Canada's Prime Minister Trudeau, but unfortunately he's Canadian.

Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico is a staunch believer of Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and smaller government. I think he is the Libertarian candidate this cycle.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On a related note, Amanda Carpenter, former communications director for Ted Cruz, is saying that Trump is a disaster for the party and this is why they have delegates. They should simply refuse to nominate Trump at the convention.

 

[CalcNerd]

Bad as I feel Donald is, I like him a tad bit better than the Texas Senator from Canada, Ted Cruz (AND I am not quickly going to forgive Canada for that export! ). I have not yet decided which evil I like less, between Hilleary or Donald. Depending upon the 3rd party candidate, your vote towards them is a vote for Hilleary or a vote for Donald ie Ralph Nader took many more votes from Al Gore than he took from George Bush. If Ralph Nader really wanted a more liberal man in the White House (and one with a more ecology friendly agenda), he would have withdrawn from the race. But good ole Ralph stayed in the race anyway! So, by voting your conscience, you may actually elect the greater of the two evils . So, I will be voting for one of the above . My current beliefs would put me in Hilleary's group much more than The Donald's. However, Donald is a sleazy weasel real estate mongrel, who can yet slicker himself up and adopt far more lenient and reasonable views, especially AFTER the republican nomination. Then he can see the overall big picture and placate the lefties (well, maybe enough of them) to win! (of course, that would mean that Donald truly had a change of heart, or much more likely, he is a lion SOS). That I can't immediately say that I am voting for Hilleary, means, I don't think much better of her either!
.
If any third party candidate that is an alternative to Hilleary should enter the race (Ralph Nader or someone similar, doesn't even have to be better ), well, then Donald just might win.
.
I remember when Bill Clinton ran against George H Bush. Bill Clinton was very, very fortunate that Ross Periot ran and threw tons of mud at George, while not really attacking Bill all that much. Ross, being a successful business man, was a republican dark horse darling and literally handed the election on a silver plate to Bill Clinton. If he hadn't withdrawn from the race for 4-6 weeks over the critical summer months, I would have probably voted for him too.
.
If anyone wants an amusing look at some of the past histories of our previous esteemed candidates , you can google "Skeletons in the Closet" and read up on some of our past candidates. Sadly, Donald is probably as good of a candidate as 70-80% of them .
.

 

[Hornbein]

On a related note, Amanda Carpenter, former communications director for Ted Cruz, is saying that Trump is a disaster for the party and this is why they have delegates. They should simply refuse to nominate Trump at the convention.

That surely is tempting, but its too late now.

 

[mheslep]

@Ryan_m_b : thanks for that - forced me to go check:

The election of President and Vice President of the United States is an indirect election in which citizens of the United States who are registered to vote in one of the fifty states or Washington, D.C. cast ballots for a set of members of the U.S. Electoral College, known as electors. These electors then in turn cast direct votes, known as electoral votes, for President and Vice President of the United States. The candidate who receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for President or Vice President is then elected to that office. If no candidate receives an absolute majority for President, the House of Representatives chooses the President; if no one receives a majority for Vice President, then the Senate chooses the Vice President. The Electoral College and its procedure is established in the U.S. Constitution by Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 4; and the Twelfth Amendment (which replaced Clause 3 after it was ratified in 1804).
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election​

... so you vote for the person who you want to vote for the president?

Yet the US Presidential ballot will contain the names the actual presidential candidates, not the electoral college members who are obliged to vote as does the electorate. There is no electoral college representative on the ballot with whom we need be familiar because they might choose opposite the electorate.

For instance:
http://etc.usf.edu/clippix/picture/2012-presidential-election-ballot.html?refresh=328001745

The effect of the electoral college is only to enforce the US federal system as opposed to a national popular vote; that is, an election by citizreny of each state, winner take all in each state.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That surely is tempting, but its too late now.

It is only too late once they vote at the convention. That's why they vote at the convention. :)

Many people don't realize that the party controls the primary, not "the" people. Technically the nomination process need not be democratic. In principle you can start a party and name your nominee without having any vote.

The question is, which would be more damaging to the party: Ignoring the popular vote or nominating Trump.

 

[mheslep]

Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico is a staunch believer of Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and smaller government. I think he is the Libertarian candidate this cycle.

I agree with many of Johnsons proposals, but he does not appear serious, unlike the other effectively libertarian candidate, Rand Paul, who was. Rather, Johnson appears to be tossing one-off answers between bong hits, and gets annoyed and confused when pressed to rectify incoherence, as if the time was better spent on the next bong hit (the last of which was five weeks ago he stated last night)

Also, I don't believe Johnson is all that staunch about Constitutional government. I think he prefers *libertine* government. Last night he said he preferred Congress act on immigration, but nonetheless "he happened to agree" with Obama's executive orders to settle illegal aliens and encourage more of the same. Nevermind the court order declaring Obama's action unconstitutional, again (and ordering Candor to the Court training for all DC based attorneys in the United States Department of Justice).

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/05/judge-in-immigration-case-issues-sweeping-new-order/

 

[mheslep]

I haven't researched him a ton, but so far I'm liking Gary Johnson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

Good interview last night. http://video.foxnews.com/v/49294107...n-domestic-and-foreign-policy/?#sp=show-clips

Summary:
J: I'm a state's rights guy.
Do you support the right to gay marriage, enforced federally?
J: Yes.
How about polygamy, currently a felony?
J: Humma-humma, that's a states rights issue.

Summary:
J: More jobs in Mexico now than the US.
Why are people coming to the US, record number of foreign born, etc?
J: For the jobs, jobs in e.g. El Paso, Tx.

I think Johnson was impatient for more of his product, and questions get in the way, dude.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Is there really a third party candidate you think is worthy of being President that truly deserves your vote? I can't find one. I'd write in Canada's Prime Minister Trudeau, but unfortunately he's Canadian.

Sorry, but we in Canada get to keep Trudeau!

BTW, according to the latest poll (dating from April of this year), Trudeau continues to enjoy broadly high approval numbers.

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2491/wide-supermajority-seen-trudeau-favourables-up

 

[mheslep]

(dating from April of this year),

So, after 5 months in office.

 

[Hornbein]

It is only too late once they vote at the convention. That's why they vote at the convention. :)

Many people don't realize that the party controls the primary, not "the" people. Technically the nomination process need not be democratic. In principle you can start a party and name your nominee without having any vote.

The question is, which would be more damaging to the party: Ignoring the popular vote or nominating Trump.

That's completely true. A political party is a private organization. When I was young a lot of the states didn't have primaries. It changed after Humphrey/Nixon.

Back in the 19th century political parties used to be a lot more corrupt than they are now. People joined because if the party won it would give them a job as a postmaster or something like that.

Lyndon Johnson rigged a Texas primary for US Senator. Hugo Black ruled that the US gov't had no jurisdiction over that, so the result stood.

I think ignoring the popular vote would be much worse for the GOP than nominating Trump. There was a rather feeble move in that direction but it went nowhere. It might have succeeded if Cruz had been a more attractive candidate, or if T hadn't been able to gain a majority. Now they'd have to change their rules at the convention, which would be too outrageous.

I bet the GOP moves to superdelegates from now on. The Democratic party's system is cleverly set up to appear democratic, but the party has almost complete control of the process. There is even a a recording of the DNC chair saying so. It isn't any secret. The idea is to get people involved without giving them any real power. The D's learned their lesson with McGovern.