Voter’s dilemma: Voting against Hillary/Trump without risking President Trump/Hillary

Is there a way for this man to beat Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? (AP file photo)

Is there a way for this man to beat Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? (AP file photo)

Here’s an argument we’ve heard approximately twelfty jillion times (especially on this blog’s comment threads): If you don’t vote for Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump, you are giving a vote to Donald Trump/Hillary Clinton.

This argument of course ignores a number of factors, chief among them the fact we don’t actually live in a political duopoly even if it usually feels like it. The two major-party candidates may be 99.999999 percent likely to finish one-two in the election, but it doesn’t follow that if you don’t vote for one the other is entitled to your vote.

Necessity being the mother of invention, a new website has sprung up to accommodate #NeverTrump/#NeverHillary voters and give them a kind of permission to vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson. Here is the (at times slightly crass) explainer video:

In the name of journalism, I went to the site and went through most of the sign-up process (I didn’t go through with the matching part … yet). According to the final screen, there are “44,078 other rebels voting for Gary Johnson without risking Trump winning.” I’d have thought it would say “without risking Hillary winning” for me, since I indicated I’d normally vote Republican, so I don’t know if only 44,078 people have signed up or if that number should be doubled to account for #NeverHillary and #NeverTrump.

Whether it’s 44,078 or 88,156, you might not be impressed. Consider, though, that the above video has been on YouTube only since Aug. 25, just six days as I write this. That’s a pace of either 50,000 or 100,000 a week. Neither would be a fast enough pace to change the race with just under 10 weeks to go before Election Day. There would have to be a snowball effect, where people’s act of signing up itself brings awareness of the site to multiple people in their circle. That may be possible, because the site’s matching system incorporates Facebook a pretty powerful tool for getting the word out about things like this.

The better goal might be simply raising Johnson’s profile to the point he is able to qualify for the debates, which would require him to be at 15 percent on average in five national polls. That’s still doable, although he’s running out of time.

Finally, the other thought this brought to my mind is this is the ultimate political version of the prisoner’s dilemma. Being matched with someone from the “other side” is an interesting concept. But, as with a pair of prisoners brought in separately to talk to the police, each person is depending on the other to stick with the original plan — while having some incentive to deviate from it and serve their personal interests. Would both sides of this “match” stick with the pledge to vote for Johnson, risking the chance the other side would go wobbly and end up voting for someone “dangerous” to be president? It’s a good question.

Reader Comments 0

80 comments
AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

Johnson announced his candidacy for president on April 21, 2011, as a Republican,[9] on a libertarian platform emphasizing the United States public debt and a balanced budget in the federal government, protection of civil liberties, military non-interventionism, his advocacy of the FairTax, and opposition to the War on Drugs.


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


Same exact platform as Trump except for one thing. This is your brain and this is your brain on drugs. LOL. The dude wants to allow drugs to flow over our borders and destroy more of our youth, more of our communities, just transform our nation into a bunch of stoners. Read the news about all the overdoses and suicides under obama lately? Wanna see a big increase in them? 


Then vote for Johnson, girlymen.

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

Well our Hedely, ran off like a scalded dog after his false narrative that Democrats fought with Republicans and were solely responsible for winning  civil rights in 1964 for Black Americans was debunked.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@SGTGrit Hedley has a few incorrect notions that he repeats ad nausem and he will not let facts destroy his memorized talking points.  One of his biggest is all the old Jim Crow/Segregationist folks changed to the GOP. 


I have asked him before to name some of them.  He can't, other than Strom Thurmond.  All the rest died as life long Democrats, Geo Wallace, Lester Maddox, Herman Talmadge, Richard Russell,  John Stennis, Ernest Hollings, and Slick Clinton's mentor J. William Fulbright.


Orville Faubus, Bull Conner, ............................. blah, blah, blah

All Democrats.  He needs to watch Disouza's movie.

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

@RafeHollister @SGTGrit 

Rejection to the civil rights act was really more in the North than in the South. How soon some forget or were never around when it all went down. I must admit that I was in the USMC for many of those early years but I kept myself informed.

STHornet1990
STHornet1990

@SGTGrit @STHornet1990 Those who fought against civil rights at the time  are now proud to call themselves RINOs and evangelicals. Disprove it or shut up.

Aquagirl
Aquagirl

@IReportYouWhine You're citing Trump airlines as proof he's got money? With the $350 million loan he defaulted on when he lost the whole thing?  BWHAHAHA! 

Also, that was in '92. A little secret here....I don't want to shock you but it's the 21st century for the rest of us. 

 

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@Hedley_Lammar Obama is turning scores of them loose from Gitmo, so I don't think they will have too hard of time finding another mouthpiece to replace this POS. This time the mouthpiece with have experience and an education living with Americans and know how the military really thinks.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@STHornet1990 @RafeHollister @Hedley_Lammar You're the one that needs a link, find what will satisfy you.  I am no mind reader.  Hedley was just beside himself that Obama finally did something positive against ISIS for a change, and I pointed out the rest of the story.

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

People voting for a third party candidate gave us the first clinton and if you want the second one, then have at it. 


This sounds like some sort of excuse column, so that when the disaster of a clinton presidency starts unfolding, some people can say "I voted for Johnson." Wow, America thanks you for your participation.


We have the results of what the leadership of career politicians has done for our country. Only "college educated" government funded blog trolls can find anything positive about it. Everything from the economy to national security to our healthcare system, etc, etc is in ruins. And who is the career politician in this election? As one blogger put it, hillary is qualified to run the government, no doubt about that, and give us more of the same old, same old.


Donald Trump is the outsider that has a proven ability to run a successful business and create an empire from it. He risks his own money for his campaign while the other candidate risks money from foreign countries and ideological extremists. Yes, Trump is crude, but so what. He knows how to achieve success and that is exactly what America needs.


He doesn't directly run his own business, he hires the best people and let's them manage specific parts of it. Same way he would run this country. It wouldn't be letting who ever pays the democrats the most money run the country, like we have now.


Johnson is an act of futility.



MarkVV
MarkVV

@IReportYouWhine There is this strange idea many people express, that the knowledge to run the government disqualifies the candidate, while ignorance is in his/her favor. And the same for knowledge vs. ignorance of the world. Many times I have heard Trump’s supporters say. “Oh, Donald may not know those things, but he will surround himself with people who do.” So who are we voting for as the head of the government, the candidate or some unknown advisers yet to be chosen?

Wascatlady
Wascatlady

@IReportYouWhine With all those lawsuits and bankruptcies, trump isn't very good at "hiring the best people," is he?

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@MarkVV @IReportYouWhine You were all in favor of ignorance in 2008.  Obama had two years of Senate experience and some poorly attended voting "present" experience in Illinois.  He had never hired an employee or even managed a lemonade stand.


McCain lapped the field in qualifications, but you voted for the inexperienced unaccomplished individual,  so that makes you a hypocrite.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@RafeHollister @MarkVV @IReportYouWhine And your comment makes you - I can't write that, because of the rules. I am talking about principles, but in any specific case, one considers the totality of qualifications, And "qualification" is not synonymous with "experience."

As for voting for Obama rather than McCain, I have never made a better decision.

Aquagirl
Aquagirl

I've never understood the concept of a "wasted vote." The only votes wasted are ones from informed voters that are not cast. Votes are an expression of your opinion, even if your candidate doesn't win.


Third parties often serve to make the two majors sit up and pay attention, I guarantee if Johnson hits 15% it will move somebody (probably Republicans) more in the libertarian direction. The idea of absorbing that 15% of voters is very enticing to a major party. 

I've voted Libertarian in the past---I share a lot of their ideals, plus they push for improved ballot access. I'd much rather do that than hold my nose and vote. I just can't respect that.


Caius
Caius

I like a few others I have voted Libertarian in the past.  You wake up the morning after the election, check the votes and find that you are one of about 300K who voted Libertarian.  People tell me I wasted my vote.


Well, there you go again.  If you voted for Romney you wasted your vote and your time.

Same for McCain, same for Kerry, same for Gore and...well you get the idea.


I believe this year is different. I have a list of reasons to vote for Hillary and a list of reasons to vote for Trump.  The Trump list has no entries.  I cannot think of a single reason to vote for him. (He or she is not she or he is not a reason.)  He has  60 plus days to give me a reason.

But to do that he must talk to me. So far in his 14 months campaign Trump has not said a word to me. Not a word.

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

I like the quirky Johnson. When pressed, he's gotten a bit aggressive of late. That eliminates one of my concerns...as promised, he's not smokin' the weed.

What to do? What to do?

I'm goin' full on Honey Badger for President.

http://tinyurl.com/zew4kkv

I've seen where we've been and will now look to  the unknown.

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

Read an interesting commentary that discussed the potential for hidden Trump voters to step up on election day. Of course we won't know the impact until election day. What was pointed out is the reluctance on the part of many likely Republican and Independent voters when polled to say if they'll vote for Trump or if they won't. They won't say whether or not they'll even vote or who they would vote for if they do. This was never the case to have such a large group of Republican and Independent voters to withhold their voting intentions this far along before a national election. Evidently, this has confounded pollsters. Democrats and Democrat leaning Independents are readily offering up their respective voting intentions. I have noticed locally the absence of bumper stickers and lawn signs for or against either candidate.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@SGTGrit Its actually the other way around


If you haven't drank the Trump kool aid by now


Your not gonna.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@SGTGrit Recent polls indicate women are not supporting Hillary like folks thought they would, something less than 50%.  Pretty bad when you are trying to become the first female President and females don't seem to be much in support.


Be interesting to see where the women go with their votes.

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

@RafeHollister @SGTGrit 

Yeah, and the impact of the Evangelical vote that coupled with the Conservative Catholic vote surpasses the total of the entire Democrat voting blocks. I don't think any logical person can take the outcome of this election one way or the other for granted.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@SGTGrit @RafeHollister   I don't think any logical person can take the outcome of this election one way or the other for granted.


Of course not. Its politics


But the fat lady is warming up


Barring something dramatic


Clinton wins. 

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@SGTGrit @Hedley_Lammar @RafeHollister And ill tell you whoever the GOP ran this time was going to have a hard go of it.


Trump and the misogyny thing just made it tougher. 


The demographics just dont work for an all white GOP anymore

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

@Hedley_Lammar @SGTGrit @RafeHollister

You could look beyond traditional minority voting statistics and consider the rising number of affluent Blacks who've left the Democrat plantation. Of course you don't along with other progressive Democrats want to consider it and think about how successful conservative Blacks could potentially influence the general Black American community. You take far too much for granted as does the far-left Democrat movement.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@SGTGrit @Hedley_Lammar @RafeHollister  Huh ?


Affluent blacks would know better than anyone that Democrats fought hard against Republicans and Southern Conservatives to bring them civil rights.


Hell the South switched parties over it.


Trump is polling about 1 % with AA's BEHIND Johnson and Stein.


Don't forget many AA's are also Muslim. A group Trump seeks to ban from the country. 

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

@Hedley_Lammar @SGTGrit @RafeHollister

Huh? the House vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, had 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voting against. It passed both chambers of congress with a majority vote from both parties but most of the opposition was from Democrats. Successful, Conservative Blacks know that the Democrats did not fight hard against Republicans to achieve civil rights legislation.  

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@SGTGrit @Hedley_Lammar @RafeHollister  Huh? the House vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, had 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voting against.


Yes


SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS. WHO THEN LEFT THE PARTY AND BECAME REPUBLICANS


OVER THIS VERY ISSUE


You are woefully uninformed on this subject.

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

@Hedley_Lammar @SGTGrit @RafeHollister

"Woefully uninformed"? Why you didn't even challenge the veracity of my post. Of course you didn't because you couldn't. I challenged your false statement that Democrats fought hard against Republicans to bring them civil rights. Clearly, you were unable to defend your false narrative.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@RafeHollister @SGTGrit Recent polls indicate women are not supporting Hillary like folks thought they would,


Yeah


She is only winning the female vote by 23 %


LOL

BuckeyeGa
BuckeyeGa

consider the rising number of affluent Blacks who've left the Democrat plantation

Do you have a link to this statistics? Who is considered afluent?