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

[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.