Third Party Candidates and the Triple Threat to Democracy

by Jason Dzubow on October 18, 2016

President Obama said in a radio interview, “If you vote for a third-party candidate who’s got no chance to win, that’s a vote for Trump.” But for those planning to vote third party, it’s not simply the prospect of a President Trump that worries me. It’s also the idea that voting Libertarian or Green actually sets back the hope of growing those movements. Worst of all, voting third party represents an inability to compromise—and the ability to compromise is perhaps the most important characteristic necessary for democracy to survive.

I prefer Clinton's baggage to Trump's barrage.

I prefer Clinton’s baggage to Trump’s barrage.

Let’s set aside the third party candidates—Jill Stein of the Green Party and the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson—and whether they have the abilities needed to serve as President. For purposes of this discussion, it doesn’t much matter—they both have their strengths and weaknesses, as does Hillary Clinton. But unlike voting for Ms. Clinton, voting for a third-party candidate constitutes a triple threat to democracy. Why do I say this?

First, because Donald Trump is, himself, a threat to our country’s democracy. I won’t rehash all the ways Mr. Trump is unfit to lead our nation. I doubt anyone who reads this blog supports his bid for the White House. But I will note that for people like my clients–immigrants and refugees from majority-Muslim nations–this election is about life or death. Mr. Trump has threatened that if he wins the presidency, he would return Syrian refugees to their war-torn region: “If I won, they’re going back,” he’s said. Scapegoating refugees and immigrants is nothing new, but as a Jew whose European relatives were destroyed by Hitler, I know very well where this type of talk ultimately leads.

Further, Mr. Trump’s repeated comments about putting Hillary Clinton in jail reveal quite clearly his fundamental inability to lead a democratic society. It’s not just Ms. Clinton, by the way. Anyone who disagrees with Mr. Trump on policy, or who stands in the way of his bid for power is “stupid” or a “liar” or “corrupt” or a “fat pig” or should be thrown in jail (or worse). Maybe an uncompromising bully can succeed in the world of business, but that’s not how politics—particularly democratic politics—works. As President, you have to be able to talk to people who disagree with you: Leaders of other nations, members of Congress, governors, civic and business leaders. Even with regard to rivals, you have to find common ground in order to make progress and keep our country safe. Also, in a democracy, you have to make arguments to convince your opponents that you are correct. You have to persuade them. It’s hard to get cooperation or build coalitions when you threaten or denigrate anyone who disagrees with you. Indeed, this approach to governing is antithetical to democracy.

Second, I believe that voting for either third party candidate will set back progress towards a more viable multi-party (as opposed to two-party) system. I felt the same way about Bernie Sanders, even though his policies more closely align with my own beliefs. For a third party candidate to succeed in office, he or she needs a viable foundation upon which to govern. I am a member of the Green Party, and I will vote Green for the down-ballot candidates. For a Green Party (or Libertarian) candidate to successfully lead our nation, we need third-party governors, mayors, members of Congress, etc. This is how a movement is built: From the bottom up. It takes time, patience, and commitment. More, it takes many people willing to devote themselves to lower-profile races. If we had dozens of elected officials from the Green Party serving in local offices, we would be more ready for a Green President (ditto for the Libertarians). Without that, a third-party President would have no base to build upon, and I believe such a President could accomplish little. In this way, the third-parties’ focus on the presidency distracts from the real work of building a viable alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. And this, I believe, is bad for our democracy.

Finally, voting for a third party candidate threatens our democracy because it represents an inability to compromise. Compromise being essential to any democratic society.

Jill Stein has argued that voters should not have to choose a “lesser evil,” that she—and presumably Gary Johnson—represent a third way. This is false. Polling and social science data demonstrate that neither third-party candidate can win this election. Indeed, Gary Johnson—who is more popular than Jill Stein—has less than a 2% chance of winning even one electoral vote! Maybe you don’t believe the polls. Maybe you also think that global warming is a fraud, that cigarettes don’t cause cancer, and that vaccines cause autism. If so, you are probably voting for Donald Trump already. But if you live in the real, evidence-based world, here is some (non) news: Global warming is real, cigarettes do cause cancer, vaccines do not cause autism, and neither third-party candidate has any chance to win this election.

Perhaps you see your third-party vote as a boycott of “The System.” But that argument fails as well. If you don’t like the corporate policies of, say, Starbucks, you can stop buying their coffee and hope that the economic impact of losing your business will cause them to change their ways. But that’s not how it works with elections. “Boycotting” the election because you oppose the “lesser evil” only serves to empower the greater evil. It’s as if boycotting Starbucks would encourage them to continue the very policies you oppose. In other words, boycotting the election will have the exact opposite effect of what was hoped for.

We live in a democratic republic. If we had a different system—like a parliamentary democracy—voting third party might make sense. Once the elected officials are in office, they themselves would have to make the compromises necessary to forge a ruling coalition. But in our system, we, the people, elect a President. We have to make those compromises ourselves. And of course, making compromises is not easy—not getting your way never is. But that is our system, and for now at least, this is our choice: Vote for Hillary Clinton or for Donald Trump. The others are just a dangerous distraction from reality.

{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }

AJ Genz November 4, 2016 at 1:15 pm

Jason,
Thank you for your insightful comments on the election. I particularly appreciate your view that voting for third party candidates reflects a fundamental inability to compromise or to acknowledge that either Trump or Clinton will be elected president (as even Libertarian VP nominee Bill Weld has all-but done). Oddly, it better articulates my critique of Jill Stein than I have done to date, because I find her insistence upon not compromising to be disqualifying for the office.
I am afraid of what Trump’s election might mean for my clients and others from Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Central America. Surprisingly, they appear to be less troubled by the prospect than me, perhaps because they’re more cynical and never believe that any government is bound by the rule of law.
On Clinton, I share your concern about her willingness to engage in military action abroad, but I believe she is reasonable and would consider the wellbeing of civilians whose lives it would imperil. I have no such confidence with Trump. This is why I can live with her being president.
More generally, I’m inspired by your patient and non-judgmental responses to your detractors. Much though I find the racist elements of Trump’s appeal hard to miss, I would do well to follow your example and avoid any accusations of bias in favor of more neutral substantive points of disagreement.
Regards

Reply

Jason Dzubow November 4, 2016 at 2:08 pm

I am less diplomatic in person, but I think if we are to engage with people who have different views, we need to exercise self control. It can be hard to do, but I think this is the question for our time: Can we learn to have civilized conversations with those who have different ideas, and to reach decisions based on evidence, compromise, and mutual respect, or are we as a nation doomed to fail? Our Constitution–and thus our system of government–is challenging precisely because it is vague. Each generation must examine our founding document and interpret it for our time. This requires that we interact with each other, that we compromise with each other, and that we ultimately respect whatever decision is made. It ain’t easy, but we have to keep trying. Take care, Jason

Reply

LC October 25, 2016 at 12:48 pm

Hey Jason ! 2 weeks before my asylum interview I joined the Army Mavni program ! So I went to the asylum interview after signing with Army and I think the Army already started my background check before send me to he basic training but it may take a year from now to finish ! My interview asylum interview was 8/24/2016 but I still waiting for the decision . Do you think my asylum decision will take a long time because of Army ? I applied for renew of EAD and got a receipt yesterday ?

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 26, 2016 at 6:25 am

I do not know, but I suspect that the two checks are independent and one will not affect the other. Take care, Jason

Reply

jack 80 October 25, 2016 at 2:13 am

dear sir Jason
i am a doctor and my asylum case still pending since 2 years ago , can i change my status from asylum pending to H1B visa when i get job as
physician without leaving U.S
or can i get Green Card Through (a Physician National Interest Waiver (NIW)).
thanks

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 25, 2016 at 6:40 am

In general, unless you have some lawful status here, you would need to leave the US to get the green card or the H1b visa, and if you only have asylum pending status, that does not count as lawful status. If you have TPS, you can sometimes change status without leaving the US, but that can be a bit tricky. There are some other possible exceptions (for example, if you were in the US prior to December 20, 2000 and are eligible under INA 245(i)), and so I recommend you talk to a lawyer about this to explore if there might be any options for you. Take care, Jason

Reply

jack 80 October 25, 2016 at 11:32 am

thank you so much , i appreciate your help.

Reply

Ale23 October 25, 2016 at 1:05 am

Hi Jason!

Thank you so much for your work and your helpful articles!

I have a pending asylum case in New York office since 2015 summer. I came from acountry where they don’t allow gay marriage and very hard to live a full life as a gay person.
I got married here, we applied together for asylum.
Our case’s strong point is the marriage which is banned in home country.

But as of a couple months, we’re having issues and my spouse wants to move another state and I don’/can’t.

I’m the derivative on the case. We’re from same country. What would happen to us/our case if we get divorced? We haven’t had interview yet. Just got EAD’s. Can I go forward with the case on my own or have to apply separately a completely new case? Do I have to wait years again?
Would it be better to just wait until interview is done and try to fix our issues?

I’m really concerned as of what to do.

Thank You for your answer!

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 25, 2016 at 6:37 am

If you get divorced, you will need your own case, but I am not sure procedurally how you do that without starting over again. My guess is that you can submit your own I-589 directly to the local office, with evidence that you were a dependent, but that now you are divorced. I recommend that you contact the local asylum office and ask them about this. You can find their contact info if you follow the link at right called Asylum Office Locator. You might also try Googling “Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual”, which is the manual for asylum officers. It is pretty long, but there is a good index, and maybe you can find the procedure for your situation. Take care, Jason

Reply

Ale23 October 25, 2016 at 9:12 am

Thank you!

We will try and work on our issues and might do long distance until this whole case happens to get to a decision.
It’s just I’m scared we won’t see each other that often and eventually one of us wants to get divorced.
If my spouse lives and works in another state but I remain in our original address, are there any problems with that?

Of course my partner would come back to NY if we need to get something done.

I just don’t really wanna give up on this case after 1,5 years of waiting.

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 26, 2016 at 6:14 am

If one of you lives in a different state, but you keep the original address and the person still uses that address for driver’s license, taxes, etc., it should not be a problem to spend most of the time in a different state. I advise my clients to live their life as if they will win the case (as long as they are not separated from family overseas). Otherwise, they will go crazy with the wait. Hopefully, you can do that to the best of your ability during the waiting period. Take care, Jason

Reply

Ale23 October 26, 2016 at 5:46 pm

Fantastic!

Thank you for your detailed answers!

Hena October 24, 2016 at 10:33 pm

Hi jeson, thak you for everything you are doing.
I applied in august 2015 from boston,ma and i got my EAD card few days before july 2016 ends. I moved to new orleans la last september did the application on ligne for change of address and mailed the application with a letter explaining where i was living and where i am now To both newark office and the office in harrisonburg Va. and till now i didnt get now letter from uscis about the confirmation of the change of address.
My questions are : is this normal ? What do i need to do if i dont hear from them ? Thank you again

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 25, 2016 at 6:32 am

They do not send a confirmation for change of address. However, since your case is moving from one asylum office to another, you may want to contact the old and new offices to make sure the case was moved and you are in the queue. You can find their contact info if you follow the link at right called Asylum Office Locator. Take care, Jason

Reply

Mehmet Sawut October 24, 2016 at 10:13 pm

Jason:

I applied for renewal of EAD on August, 16th. Currently it is still in process and it expires on November 23rd, 2016. Do you think I can still get 2 year Validity to my EAD? It is in (c)(8) category.

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 25, 2016 at 6:31 am

Yes – I think any card issued after October 5 (or 6?) will be valid for two years. We are seeing EAD renewals take 3 or 4 months, so hopefully you will have the card before the old one expires. Take care, Jason

Reply

Patti Lyman October 24, 2016 at 6:30 pm

I have represented largely law abiding, decent people for 15 years. I have followed every Trump speech, statement and interview. Every one. As an attorney, I listen to what is actually said and published by the campaign; I do not listen to what others say when they are CHARACTERIZING the words or policies. I am convinced that my deserving clients will fare much better with Trump than they will with a Clinton mass amnesty of every scofflaw, gangbanger, violent criminal, illegal border crosser and identity thief with a beating pulse. The criminal, destructive elements of the illegal alien community harm legitimate immigrant communities more than any other. Those who followed the rules deserve to live in safe neighborhoods and not be kicked in the teeth with a mass amnesty while their law abiding relatives wait peacefully in Crapistan for decades for their turn. And speaking of the safety of Americans….Hillary Clinton could have forced multiple countries to take back their violent criminal illegal aliens by denying their citizens visas. She refused to do so, and instead let those countries empty their cesspools of criminals who the US in turn must release after 180 days if removal is not imminent. Therefore, her actions released criminal illegal aliens back into the community to steal, rape, and murder. I know no one who fights harder for their persecuted clients than I do, and once I secure safety for them in the US, they also deserve to be safe in their communities from rampaging criminal aliens, including many who do not and will not respect our laws, culture or pluralistic, tolerant, diverse society. If you love what has become of Paris, Sweden, Calais, Germany, and parts of London….all enjoying notoriety as new rape capitals since being overrun with economic migrants…then by all means vote for Hillary Clinton. She did, after all, name Angela Merkel as her favorite world leader.

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 25, 2016 at 6:20 am

I stand corrected on one point in the post – at least one person who supports Trump read it. I am not sure how you conclude that HRC plans to grant amnesty to lots of criminal aliens, or what the evidence is that she refused to force countries to take back criminal aliens, or what is your evidence for the claim that various European cities are now rape capitals. This sounds like you are listening to the characterization of Clinton and Europe espoused by Trump. I do think there are legitimate concerns about immigration and asylum, and about who we let in, especially at the Southern border. But I also think we need to consider the actual people who are coming here and why they are coming, and not the caricature of them as boogeymen created by those who simply oppose all (non-European) immigration. Anyway, I think your perspective is important and this is exactly why I wanted you to write a blog post. If you decide to, let me know. Take care, Jason

Reply

Patti Lyman October 25, 2016 at 12:10 pm

Jason, I do my own research, I know what I’m talking about, it’s just that you and I have different objectives. I know you are passionate about this, so I’ll overlook the implication that my knowledge of Clinton and Europe come only from Trump – ha! If you speak to ERO folks they’ll tell you the kind of criminals they’ve been forced to release into the population because their governments refuse to issue travel docs. The US can use leverage to deny visas to citizens of countries that refuse to take back their criminal citizens; Clinton refused to do so and thereby allowed them to be released because removal was not “imminent”, per SCOTUS. It happened in prior administrations as well, but let’s not pretend it’s not happening and that nothing could have been done about it. Trump is the first candidate in recent memory willing to stop it. Check out the testimonies of American parents who had their children killed by illegal aliens who should never have been allowed to remain in the US. What Obama did by inviting tens of thousands per month over the Southern border (to immediate public benefits, btw) through non-enforcement and/or weak enforcement coupled with the promise of amnesty had one goal…get as many warm bodies across the border as possible. That’s why our law abiding asylum clients wait years for an interview while their families languish overseas in legitimate danger. I refuse to tell my folks that it’s a good thing to hand legal status to law breakers while they follow the rules and can’t even get an interview. I can’t believe you haven’t read about the violence and extensive rape being perpetrated by the wave of economic migrants flooding Europe; in fact, I would bet a bundle that you have, but it ruins the open borders narrative. In some parts of Europe the government presses the media to not report the nationality, religion or immigration status of accused sexual predators because they are virtually all Muslim migrants and reflect badly on Merkel. Heck, check out the 5 yr old in Idaho recently sexually abused by “resettled” refugees who were allegedly vetted. The onslaught against the 5 yr olds family and the hostile treatment by government officials seeking to hide the identity of the perps (because it might jeopardize the resettlement dollars) has been horrifying. There is zero indication that any selectivity will be involved in the Clinton amnesty of the first 100 days; here in VA her chief fundraiser and now governor tried to grant blanket voting rights to felons in VA…when slapped down by Va Supreme Court, he just rigged a way to do mass pardon by mass affixation of his signature to pardons to restore voting rights before the election. The warm bodies getting the amnesty and massive multiplication of economic migrants admitted to the US (disguised as genuine refugees) will be overwhelmingly welfare dependent for extended periods. It’s not that they are all bad people – they are not- but without the full panoply of welfare benefits only a tiny minority have the requisite skills, education, fluency and experience to become self
sufficient here (and still send money back home, of course). This is about building a permanent govt dependent constituency while throwing out any concern about public safety or security of those legally residing here. I think that Americans – AND those genuine and deserving immigrants you and I represent – deserve a fighting chance to be safe here.

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 26, 2016 at 6:25 am

It is a basic problem when our facts differ – I have heard of issues in Europe and of course the terror attacks there, but the info about sexual crimes is unclear, and much of the “Cologne incident” seems to have been debunked. The data I have seen on immigrants in general and refugees specifically is that they are less likely to commit crimes than native-born people. However, I have seen no data on the recent wave of migrants who have crossed our Southern border. I would like to see more non-partisan studies of immigration and crime, and of refugees and crime. I think we need more reliable data to reach conclusions about how to set our immigration policies. All that said, I think it needs to be done in a rational manner, and discussed in a respectful, non-racist, non-scapegoating way, and this is something Trump is incapable of. As I have always written here, the concerns you raise are important, but there is a way to have the discuss and a way not to have the discussion, and Trump’s way is wrong. Maybe if he loses, others will be able to articulate the concerns of his constituency in an appropriate way, and we can try to move forward on these issues

Reply

Patti Lyman October 26, 2016 at 2:02 pm

Jason, when pointing out the facts about illegal alien crime is labeled racist, it shuts down discussion rather than encouraging it. Please research the facts about illegal alien crime in the US, as well as the rampant sexual assaults in Europe. I also just read a story in a UK paper involving mass import of Calais alleged “child” refugees who are being concealed with screens to prevent the public from seeing that they are in fact mostly men in their 20s being treated as children to fast track them….to immediate public benefits, of course. Information about the numbers of illegal aliens and refugees being released into US communities is also being withheld from the public and those who raise public safety and budget concerns are called racists rather than addressing legitimate concerns. You provide a tremendous service to your clients and to the community at large with your excellent blog. It’s important to be informed on the facts, even when they don’t support a political objective or candidate. I appreciate our discourse and I am committed to keeping the focus on facts and not labels. As always, all the best to you and yours.

John October 21, 2016 at 4:03 am

My nephew has a pending asylum case for 2 and a half years now and was married in his home country and with 2 kids. He had included his wife and kids in the asylum application. The wife divorced him and moved on with her life while in her home country. He is currently dating a US citizen who they plan to wed.
1. What happens to the case as her wife is no longer married to him?
2. Can he still if he is successful petition to bring the kids to the US?
3. Can he marry the US citizen and how will this affect his asylum case?
4. Can he apply for change of status of the case in case of marriage?
Thank you

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 21, 2016 at 6:24 am

1 – The case continues, but he will need to inform the Asylum Office of the change in his marital status; 2 – Yes. If he wins asylum he can do that (as long as they are under 21 and not married). Also, if he marries the US citizen, she can petition for the kids as the step mom; 3 – He can, and if he is eligible, she can apply for his green card. Once he has that, he can close his asylum case; 4 – see # 3. Take care, Jason

Reply

Sabina Izmaylova October 19, 2016 at 11:43 pm

Hi Jason. Thank you so so much for this website with all information!!!!
I have just two question?
I applied for asylum in Florida , but then I moved to California (because my husband got better job offer )and I didn’t change address because I still have person who can check mail. Is it OK that I still have my Florida address?

And second question is
We are going to buy a car because it’s California. Can I get California driver license??? Or since I have pending asylum case in Florida I have to get driver license there in Florida?
Thanks in advance!

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 20, 2016 at 9:46 pm

You could probably get a license in FL or CA. However, if your license, home, husband, etch is in CA, it probably means you have moved to CA. If so, you should change your address with the asylum office. If you do not, when you get to the interview, they may think you are lying about your address. And if you are lying about your address, they may think you are lying about your case. Take care, Jason

Reply

james October 19, 2016 at 10:34 am

Hi Jason, thanks for your time and efforts. Question on a different topic. My wife and I have our asylum pending for over 3 years now and while I ‘am still under my OPT , her student status is about to expire and she’ll be on F-2 status after that. My question is can she work with her EAD from the pending asylum case while maintaining her F-2 status.

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 20, 2016 at 6:38 am

I think she can – She is allowed to work based on the EAD from asylum, and she is in valid F-2 status based (I presume) on your status. So if she wanted to change to another status (like F-1 or H1b) she should be able to do that without leaving the US. Take care, Jason

Reply

JR October 18, 2016 at 2:43 pm

As an immigration lawyer dealing with the aftermath of conflicts, I don’t actually see how it is possible to vote for Hillary.

I see clients every day. I hear stories of violence and loss of life and freedom. I can not and I will not vote for HRC. I think about the stories of my clients from Yemen, from Syria, from Iraq, from Honduras, and from Haiti.

Look at Libya first. Obama admits that ousting Qadafi was his biggest mistake in office. HRCs advice and encouragement was critical (See the NYT article from 2/24/16 as source of HRC’s central role in this). Surely you have had clients impacted by the disaster of the core belief of HRC, that she has the wisdom to know which dictators stay in power and which ones have to go. In an interview on CBS, Clinton laughed about Gaddafi’s death, “We came, we saw, he died.” She is so proud of killing someone. Now look at the result.

Second, look at Haiti. This is the very first country I dealt with as an asylum lawyer in 1992, right after the coup that saw Aristide deposed. The Clinton (Bill) connection to Cedras may be speculative only, though the CIA involvement in the coup is less speculative. Regardless, HRC’s connection with the moneyed, anti-democratic interests in Haiti is not. The released email show HRC’s connections to Presidents Martelly and Moise, the knowledge of the State Dept that their fraudulently coming to power would cause riots among the people, but the care-free attitude to such is too much for me. It is the same proplem I saw in my first “Aristide supporter” cases in 1992. (the coup was 1991, but I did my first of those cases in 1992). How does she has so much wisdom that she gets to pick the President ?

I do not know a lot about Honduras, but I have certainly been having clients from there since before Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was arrested at gunpoint by the military. HRC’s role in this arrest is well documented. Google will show many credible and reliable reports of the connections and of course all immigration lawyers deal with the consequences as the rise of the power of gangs seems to be directly correlated.

Clinton called for the resignation of Assad in 2011, followed by an April 2012 speech in Turkey calling for regime change: “Assad must go,” she said. She was a prime motivator of the arming of Syrian rebels, even though Obama himself initially rejected this dead. As an immigration lawyer with Syrian clients, this one was a little tougher for me. I have seen so many clients devastated by Assad and his regime. There are so many good people that have lost so much for so little reason. Regardless, the US simply does not have the right to choose who gets to stay and who gets to go. HRCs insistence on Assad’s fall now leads us into renewed conflict with Russia. They have the legal and moral upper hand despite the constant damming of them by the US and our followers in Europe. They have the upper hand because they are not causing regime change according to their whim, but supporting a sitting president from foreign overthrow.

Foreign Policy magazine accused the US and its allies of complicity in war crimes by funding and arming the Saudi regime in its campaign of airstrikes agaist civilians in Yemen. They wrote: “Hundreds of civilians have been killed in airstrikes while asleep in their homes, when going about their daily activities, or in the very places where they had sought refuge from the conflict. The United States, Britain, and others, meanwhile, have continued to supply a steady stream of weaponry and logistical support to Saudi Arabia and its coalition.” What is HRC’s justification ? She wants to support Saleh, the deposed president who fled to KSA after a popular uprising against him caused him to flee. She wants him back in power. She wants to choose who should be President.

There is another president who fled a country after a popular uprising, but she does not support him (Ukraine). Why ? Because she thinks she has the wisdom of who should be President and how should not. No matter what country, she will always know what is best for that country and will not stop before her ideas are implemented.
As an immigration lawyer, I will continue to see those who are paying for her pride after she becomes President but I don’t want to. I want it to stop. I will not participate by voting for her.

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 18, 2016 at 10:23 pm

I have many similar clients. And while I think the US bears the blame for many problems around the world, I do not think that we alone are to blame. The people in those countries also share the blame. In addition, I think it is difficult to blame HRC for these things. I do disagree with some of her policies, especially the vote on the Iraq war. But all this seems not very relevant at this point. Our choice is Trump or Clinton. No one else will win. And while HRC has a record of good and bad, Trump does not have a public record. But I evaluate him based on his statements – about Muslims, immigrants, women, minorities, etc. And I see him as unhinged. Will he start a nuclear war? Who knows. What will he do to Muslims who refuse to leave? To BLM protestors? I believe that HRC is reasonable, and that she can be persuaded by arguments and/or protests. I do not think Trump will be. If she is elected, we can try to push her the right way. But I doubt we can do that with Trump. Anyway, maybe you evaluate her differently, but I have not seen any convincing argument that somehow Trump will be better for our country or the world. And voting for the third party candidates or not voting will accomplish nothing. Take care, Jason

Reply

Not Jason Dzubow October 19, 2016 at 12:48 pm

“And voting for the third party candidates or not voting will accomplish nothing”

Other people may have different priorities than you. Maybe they’re voting to improve ballot access or matching funds for their party so that they can help build the party, like you said earlier, while enjoying the fact that they voted for who they thought could do the best job instead of playing a game of strategy (and if you don’t think they can do the best job, you’re in the majority, clearly, but maybe those people, like you, haven’t seen a convincing argument to sway them from their choice).

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 20, 2016 at 6:30 am

Obviously, they can vote as they please. I just find those arguments unconvincing in the face of Trump, who is a national emergency. By the way, the matching funds issue is interesting, but rather than voting third party, why not work to change the way matching funds are distributed? Or work to elect down-ballot third party candidates who can then try to influence this? I don’t buy the idea that the presidency is the only path for increasing matching funds or expanding third parties. Take care, Jason

Reply

Jason Dzubow October 27, 2016 at 11:16 am

Thanks – unfortunately, it is hard to come by facts these days. I do think there are some who overuse the racist accusation, but not everyone involved in the policy discussion does this. I don’t, unless I think it is justified, and even then, I usually don’t, as it only serves to shut down conversation. Take care, Jason

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: