Don't vote for Johnson because ISIS is Nader's fault

[Associate Justice PiT]

Meh, putting the blame on third-party candidates or their voters is obviously wrong, but it's undeniable that if a voter genuinely cares about preventing the worst outcome, then the only worthwhile course of action is choosing the lesser evil.

Because, you know, Trump is totally going to win in California if I vote for Johnson.

He might if every person who didn't like Hillary but liked Drumpf even less chose to vote for Johnson while all the voters who didn't like Drumpf but liked Hillary even less still voted for Drumpf. Of course that's not actually gonna happen, but the mere theoretical possibility is troubling to me.

The point is, if Trump winning California is within the realm of probability, he has already won the election because of votes in other states, so it won't matter at that point anyway.

Ugh, I hate the Electoral College for making this inherently ridiculous logic actually make sense...

Yeah, if it weren't for the Electoral College, I would be far more inclined to agree with the "lesser of two evils" argument. Of course, if we combined a national popular vote with some sort of multi-round or IRV system, than voting for the lesser of two evils would be even less necessary.

     A multi-round majoritarian system like France has would be cool, even if it did lead to a hilariously lopsided second round between Chirac and Le Pen in 2002.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I blame George III for ISIS

No George III - No American Revolution - No America - No Bush

     You mean President George III, AKA George W. Bush? It settles it: no Bush means no Bush.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I blame George III for ISIS

No George III - No American Revolution - No America - No Bush

You mean President George III, AKA George W. Bush? It settles it: no Bush means no Bush.

Wouldn't he technically have been George II?

George I = George Washington
George II = George H.W. Bush
George III = George W. Bush

     Yes, I've thought about this.