Seriously, my fellow lefties...

[Figueira]

I'm also in Massachusetts, and I have several reasons for voting for Clinton, but the one that would most likely apply to Nathan would be the fact that I don't want Trumpists to be able to use the "we really won the popular vote" excuse. Of course, they probably will say that anyway, but it would have greater effect if it's true. I also don't want to reward the Greens or Libertarians by giving them a higher percentage of the vote, which they would if I didn't vote.

That said, I think it's wrong to attack Nathan as a terrible person over this, since he's in a safe state. If he were in Iowa I would get it.

[Mr. Morden]

I need to try to justify voting for someone I strongly dislike and think will do horrible (albeit not as horrible as Trump) things in power to myself emotionally, and being constantly shrieked at that not wanting to vote for Hillary makes me a terrible person hasn't been helping with that.

I don't think people think that. As I said a little further up thread, most people on here, by virtue of who most of our posters are, have the leisure of voting how they wish and it will have little to no effect on their wellbeing.

Every voter in Massachusetts has the leisure of voting how they wish and it will have little to no effect on their well being.  That's because the probability that Massachusetts will decide the election is effectively zero.

[Хahar 🤔]

You can almost smell the desperation in here.  It was the GOPs fault Trump was nominated, it will be the Dems fault if he wins.

good post as always

[Mr. Morden]

I think I’m going to start shaming Massachusetts voters into donating more of their paychecks to the search for near Earth asteroids.  Sure, the chances that a given contribution will make any difference is minuscule, but we’re talking about the survival of the planet here.  Even a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance that your contribution makes a difference is worthwhile when we’re talking about such high stakes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think I’m going to start shaming Massachusetts voters into donating more of their paychecks to the search for near Earth asteroids.  Sure, the chances that a given contribution will make any difference is minuscule, but we’re talking about the survival of the planet here.  Even a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance that your contribution makes a difference is worthwhile when we’re talking about such high stakes.

^^^^^^

Any argument that anyone for voting in a certain way based on consequentialist logic is bound to fail.

[muon2]

I think I’m going to start shaming Massachusetts voters into donating more of their paychecks to the search for near Earth asteroids.  Sure, the chances that a given contribution will make any difference is minuscule, but we’re talking about the survival of the planet here.  Even a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance that your contribution makes a difference is worthwhile when we’re talking about such high stakes.

^^^^^^

Any argument that anyone for voting in a certain way based on consequentialist logic is bound to fail.

But isn't tactical voting inherently consequentialist? If so, are you saying that any argument for tactical voting is bound to fail?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I just imagine how dumb any of this reasoning would look in the future. I'm sure there were people who voted for Hitler because Hindenburg had health issues or the Social Democrats had the wrong tax policy or their faith prevented them from voting for a Catholic party or whatever.

But in retrospect that was dumb and so is any reason you come up with for not voting Clinton.

In hindsight a vote for Hindenburg means making Hitler Chancellor.  I guess Clinton would be ☭Thalmann in this analogy?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Actually Maine is holding a referendum on ranked choice voting this year.

Minneapolis already uses it for city elections.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Actually Maine is holding a referendum on ranked choice voting this year.

Minneapolis already uses it for city elections.

a.k.a. "the LePage/Cutler rule"... the Maine referendum is a response to local circumstances, not a part of any national effort. Other than tat, none of this stuff is even seriously discussed outside of a few cities where Republicans are, in effect, a minor party.

Still I don't see how voting for two utter lunatics is going to force that to happen, if as you said Nader didn't. That sounds more like something that should be worked toward in the grassroots, as there is a big movement in Minnesota at least.

I'm also still asking why voting for Hillary instead of the Green ticket even if you actually prefer her is not the right thing to do. Because I have yet to hear anyone make such an argument (although to be fair I've yet to hear any arguments for voting Green that amount to much more than "HILLARY CLINTON IS A NEOLIBERAL IMPERIALIST WARMONGERER blah blah blah" style jfern rants.), or why Hillary voters have more of a "feel good" or identity politics mindset. Because look at it this way: If we did in fact have ranked voting nationally, do you think any of the Stein bashers now would preference her over Hillary?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think I’m going to start shaming Massachusetts voters into donating more of their paychecks to the search for near Earth asteroids.  Sure, the chances that a given contribution will make any difference is minuscule, but we’re talking about the survival of the planet here.  Even a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance that your contribution makes a difference is worthwhile when we’re talking about such high stakes.

^^^^^^

Any argument that anyone for voting in a certain way based on consequentialist logic is bound to fail.

But isn't tactical voting inherently consequentialist? If so, are you saying that any argument for tactical voting is bound to fail?

Not necessarily.

My rationale for sometimes (but not always!) voting tactically is not consequentialist at all. Instead, it's based on a variation on the categorical imperative: rather than asking myself what would happen if everybody voted the way I do (which of course precludes tactical voting), I ask myself what would happen if any group of any potential size (ranging from 2 voters to every voter) voted the way I do. If any of these hypotheticals produces an outcome that I consider morally unacceptable, then I conclude that me voting this way is morally unacceptable. The outcome does matter, but only in relation to a specific understanding of what my duty as a voter is.

For example, if I were Averroes, I'd note that if all the voters who shared my basic left-wing/environmentalist ideals in their broadest form (I'd say there are about 10-20% such voters in the US, of which half to two thirds plan to vote for Hillary) voted for Jill Stein like I'm planning to do, then Drumpf would almost certainly win the election. This, to me, implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with voting for Stein. Of course, there are different degrees of moral acceptability: if a candidate like Romney was the GOP nominee, I still would think that tactical voting is the correct choice, but I would be more willing to accept other motivations. If the GOP candidate was someone relatively harmless (like... idk... Jim Douglas, maybe?) then I might myself go for a third-party candidate.

I'm actually going to vote for someone other than Hollande in the first round in France next year, which means that I accept the responsibility of potentially fostering a Sarkozy/Le Pen runoff. The reasons I think it's not nearly as bad as the American context are a few, but they're just my reasons of course.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Such a pointless thread. Who will see this? #RIP

[they don't love you like i love you]

Actually Maine is holding a referendum on ranked choice voting this year.

Minneapolis already uses it for city elections.

a.k.a. "the LePage/Cutler rule"... the Maine referendum is a response to local circumstances, not a part of any national effort. Other than tat, none of this stuff is even seriously discussed outside of a few cities where Republicans are, in effect, a minor party.

Still I don't see how voting for two utter lunatics is going to force that to happen, if as you said Nader didn't. That sounds more like something that should be worked toward in the grassroots, as there is a big movement in Minnesota at least.

My point is that I don't take the sanctimony very seriously.

(Moreover, if Trump won, I would probably lose my job, my girlfriend could lose her health insurance, my younger brother could lose his health insurance and could easily wind up homeless as a direct result... and that's just what comes to mind immediately. It's absurd for a bunch of smug, smarmy morons on this forum to tell me that I'm only voting a certain way because I don't really have anything at stake in this election.)

So that's what I don't understand. Why is a protest vote more important than all of the above? This isn't so much something that I just don't agree with, I just can't comprehend it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, no, you totally misunderstood my post. I think that most people who aren't loyal partisans vote for the candidate whom they believe best reflects their values. That is what I am doing, and I have no reason to doubt that HRC's supporters are doing the same.

OK...but you've also openly said that you agree that Stein is a nut who says very stupid things, that most of her proposals are not reality-based and would never work, that her running mate is a complete whackjob, and that the Green platform is a total fantasy. So how on Earth does that best reflect your values?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Such a pointless thread. Who will see this? #RIP

You just had.

[muon2]

I think I’m going to start shaming Massachusetts voters into donating more of their paychecks to the search for near Earth asteroids.  Sure, the chances that a given contribution will make any difference is minuscule, but we’re talking about the survival of the planet here.  Even a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance that your contribution makes a difference is worthwhile when we’re talking about such high stakes.

^^^^^^

Any argument that anyone for voting in a certain way based on consequentialist logic is bound to fail.

But isn't tactical voting inherently consequentialist? If so, are you saying that any argument for tactical voting is bound to fail?

Not necessarily.

My rationale for sometimes (but not always!) voting tactically is not consequentialist at all. Instead, it's based on a variation on the categorical imperative: rather than asking myself what would happen if everybody voted the way I do (which of course precludes tactical voting), I ask myself what would happen if any group of any potential size (ranging from 2 voters to every voter) voted the way I do. If any of these hypotheticals produces an outcome that I consider morally unacceptable, then I conclude that me voting this way is morally unacceptable. The outcome does matter, but only in relation to a specific understanding of what my duty as a voter is.

For example, if I were Averroes, I'd note that if all the voters who shared my basic left-wing/environmentalist ideals in their broadest form (I'd say there are about 10-20% such voters in the US, of which half to two thirds plan to vote for Hillary) voted for Jill Stein like I'm planning to do, then Drumpf would almost certainly win the election. This, to me, implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with voting for Stein. Of course, there are different degrees of moral acceptability: if a candidate like Romney was the GOP nominee, I still would think that tactical voting is the correct choice, but I would be more willing to accept other motivations. If the GOP candidate was someone relatively harmless (like... idk... Jim Douglas, maybe?) then I might myself go for a third-party candidate.

I'm actually going to vote for someone other than Hollande in the first round in France next year, which means that I accept the responsibility of potentially fostering a Sarkozy/Le Pen runoff. The reasons I think it's not nearly as bad as the American context are a few, but they're just my reasons of course.

I completely understand your reasoning, I just think that the categorical isn't applicable. There is an assumption that everyone could adopt the same thinking and all vote the same way. For me, since that hypothetical is impossible to achieve it is irrelevant. (nb. As a quantum physicist I accept that there are states that can be described but cannot be realized, and those unrealizable states must be excluded from the consideration of choices.)

I see my vote as having marginal utility in the economics sense. I should apply it where the marginal utility is greatest. If there are only the two major party candidates on the ballot, then my choice should always be the one that I most prefer. If there are more than two then there is the possibility that my vote would have more utility going to a candidate other than my first choice. So, if I personally agree with a third party in a swing state, but I see a real difference in the two major candidates I may find more utility voting for the major party candidate I prefer. Alternatively, if I support a major party in a non-swing state but want to see more ballot access for third parties, I may find more utility voting for a third party to boost that party's profile in future elections.

[Figueira]

A lot of Stein supporters seem to have this idea that Stein would win in a landslide if only we had a fair voting system. That's not the case. Stein is a terrible candidate and would lose badly under any remotely reasonable voting system.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A lot of Stein supporters seem to have this idea that Stein would win in a landslide if only we had a fair voting system. That's not the case. Stein is a terrible candidate and would lose badly under any remotely reasonable voting system.

'

For real?

I mean, I've seen one comment on the yahoo stating something like "if not for Hillary-Trump drama, Stein would win easily", but dissmissed it as a sole moron. I can understand supporting Stein, but believing she'd have a shot. Come on.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think I’m going to start shaming Massachusetts voters into donating more of their paychecks to the search for near Earth asteroids.  Sure, the chances that a given contribution will make any difference is minuscule, but we’re talking about the survival of the planet here.  Even a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance that your contribution makes a difference is worthwhile when we’re talking about such high stakes.

^^^^^^

Any argument that anyone for voting in a certain way based on consequentialist logic is bound to fail.

But isn't tactical voting inherently consequentialist? If so, are you saying that any argument for tactical voting is bound to fail?

Not necessarily.

My rationale for sometimes (but not always!) voting tactically is not consequentialist at all. Instead, it's based on a variation on the categorical imperative: rather than asking myself what would happen if everybody voted the way I do (which of course precludes tactical voting), I ask myself what would happen if any group of any potential size (ranging from 2 voters to every voter) voted the way I do. If any of these hypotheticals produces an outcome that I consider morally unacceptable, then I conclude that me voting this way is morally unacceptable. The outcome does matter, but only in relation to a specific understanding of what my duty as a voter is.

For example, if I were Averroes, I'd note that if all the voters who shared my basic left-wing/environmentalist ideals in their broadest form (I'd say there are about 10-20% such voters in the US, of which half to two thirds plan to vote for Hillary) voted for Jill Stein like I'm planning to do, then Drumpf would almost certainly win the election. This, to me, implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with voting for Stein. Of course, there are different degrees of moral acceptability: if a candidate like Romney was the GOP nominee, I still would think that tactical voting is the correct choice, but I would be more willing to accept other motivations. If the GOP candidate was someone relatively harmless (like... idk... Jim Douglas, maybe?) then I might myself go for a third-party candidate.

I'm actually going to vote for someone other than Hollande in the first round in France next year, which means that I accept the responsibility of potentially fostering a Sarkozy/Le Pen runoff. The reasons I think it's not nearly as bad as the American context are a few, but they're just my reasons of course.

I completely understand your reasoning, I just think that the categorical isn't applicable. There is an assumption that everyone could adopt the same thinking and all vote the same way. For me, since that hypothetical is impossible to achieve it is irrelevant. (nb. As a quantum physicist I accept that there are states that can be described but cannot be realized, and those unrealizable states must be excluded from the consideration of choices.)

I see my vote as having marginal utility in the economics sense. I should apply it where the marginal utility is greatest. If there are only the two major party candidates on the ballot, then my choice should always be the one that I most prefer. If there are more than two then there is the possibility that my vote would have more utility going to a candidate other than my first choice. So, if I personally agree with a third party in a swing state, but I see a real difference in the two major candidates I may find more utility voting for the major party candidate I prefer. Alternatively, if I support a major party in a non-swing state but want to see more ballot access for third parties, I may find more utility voting for a third party to boost that party's profile in future elections.

How do you define your "utility" here? If you mean material utility, ie the utility of having your preferred candidate win, then your expected utility from voting will always be almost 0, since the probability that your vote decides who wins is insignificant (there ought to be a combinatorics formula to calculate the likelihood that an election where 100M people vote is determined by a margin of 1, but I don't remember it... point is, it's very low).

If you're talking about the emotional utility that you gain from the act of voting in and of itself, independent of the outcome, then yes, your rationale is valid. Personally, I think that voting exclusively based on one's emotions is morally irresponsible, but it's certainly not "irrational" (at least no more irrational than any other vote).

[muon2]

I think I’m going to start shaming Massachusetts voters into donating more of their paychecks to the search for near Earth asteroids.  Sure, the chances that a given contribution will make any difference is minuscule, but we’re talking about the survival of the planet here.  Even a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance that your contribution makes a difference is worthwhile when we’re talking about such high stakes.

^^^^^^

Any argument that anyone for voting in a certain way based on consequentialist logic is bound to fail.

But isn't tactical voting inherently consequentialist? If so, are you saying that any argument for tactical voting is bound to fail?

Not necessarily.

My rationale for sometimes (but not always!) voting tactically is not consequentialist at all. Instead, it's based on a variation on the categorical imperative: rather than asking myself what would happen if everybody voted the way I do (which of course precludes tactical voting), I ask myself what would happen if any group of any potential size (ranging from 2 voters to every voter) voted the way I do. If any of these hypotheticals produces an outcome that I consider morally unacceptable, then I conclude that me voting this way is morally unacceptable. The outcome does matter, but only in relation to a specific understanding of what my duty as a voter is.

For example, if I were Averroes, I'd note that if all the voters who shared my basic left-wing/environmentalist ideals in their broadest form (I'd say there are about 10-20% such voters in the US, of which half to two thirds plan to vote for Hillary) voted for Jill Stein like I'm planning to do, then Drumpf would almost certainly win the election. This, to me, implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with voting for Stein. Of course, there are different degrees of moral acceptability: if a candidate like Romney was the GOP nominee, I still would think that tactical voting is the correct choice, but I would be more willing to accept other motivations. If the GOP candidate was someone relatively harmless (like... idk... Jim Douglas, maybe?) then I might myself go for a third-party candidate.

I'm actually going to vote for someone other than Hollande in the first round in France next year, which means that I accept the responsibility of potentially fostering a Sarkozy/Le Pen runoff. The reasons I think it's not nearly as bad as the American context are a few, but they're just my reasons of course.

I completely understand your reasoning, I just think that the categorical isn't applicable. There is an assumption that everyone could adopt the same thinking and all vote the same way. For me, since that hypothetical is impossible to achieve it is irrelevant. (nb. As a quantum physicist I accept that there are states that can be described but cannot be realized, and those unrealizable states must be excluded from the consideration of choices.)

I see my vote as having marginal utility in the economics sense. I should apply it where the marginal utility is greatest. If there are only the two major party candidates on the ballot, then my choice should always be the one that I most prefer. If there are more than two then there is the possibility that my vote would have more utility going to a candidate other than my first choice. So, if I personally agree with a third party in a swing state, but I see a real difference in the two major candidates I may find more utility voting for the major party candidate I prefer. Alternatively, if I support a major party in a non-swing state but want to see more ballot access for third parties, I may find more utility voting for a third party to boost that party's profile in future elections.

How do you define your "utility" here? If you mean material utility, ie the utility of having your preferred candidate win, then your expected utility from voting will always be almost 0, since the probability that your vote decides who wins is insignificant (there ought to be a combinatorics formula to calculate the likelihood that an election where 100M people vote is determined by a margin of 1, but I don't remember it... point is, it's very low).

If you're talking about the emotional utility that you gain from the act of voting in and of itself, independent of the outcome, then yes, your rationale is valid. Personally, I think that voting exclusively based on one's emotions is morally irresponsible, but it's certainly not "irrational" (at least no more irrational than any other vote).

The utility here is how I'd like to see my government run now and in the future. How the government runs now is based on all the politicians who I'd like to see continue, including the ones on a specific line on the ballot. I've faced a choice where I like a candidate but I don't like the clash between that person and another person on a local board. I've felt my utility could be increased by voting against the conflict and against my otherwise preferred candidate. That can happen when the other party to the undesired conflict isn't on my ballot (staggered terms, different ward, etc.). In the case I'm thinking of I later helped that person successfully run for another office.

How the government runs in the future includes party building and access as well as individuals. There have been rare cases where a vote for a candidate other than my personal top choice does more to improve my party's chances in a future election. I've also noted that IL has ballot access thresholds for third parties and a timely vote for a third party candidate can improve competition in future elections by moving a third party up to major party status.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The utility here is how I'd like to see my government run now and in the future.

But that's the problem right here: your vote almost certainly won't affect your utility in this regard, because the probability that your vote determines the winner of the election is quasi-null (even in a local election with only a few thousand total votes, it's still infinitesimal). Did you read the rest of my post in which I explained that?

Also, if I'm doing a poor job explaining it, here's the relevant wiki article, since obviously I'm not the one who came up with all this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

[muon2]

The utility here is how I'd like to see my government run now and in the future.

But that's the problem right here: your vote almost certainly won't affect your utility in this regard, because the probability that your vote determines the winner of the election is quasi-null (even in a local election with only a few thousand total votes, it's still infinitesimal). Did you read the rest of my post in which I explained that?

Also, if I'm doing a poor job explaining it, here's the relevant wiki article, since obviously I'm not the one who came up with all this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

I'm familiar with the paradox, which is why I couched my preference as a marginal utility. I perceive a difference in utility between an action which would have an impact 0.001% of the time and one which would have an impact 0.0001% of the time. That percentage increase in the outcome is an increase in my utility and affects the actual margin where one vote might matter. My vote doesn't have to be the precise tipping point vote for this utility of likelihood to matter to me. I also appreciate that the difference between infinitessimal probabilities may have no effect on other people's utility, even though they do for me.

The utility of likelihood is not the only factor to consider of course. It has to be convoluted with my utility in seeing different candidates actually win if I were to determine the utility of of any particular vote. Most of the time the direct utility of having a particular winner dominates as a factor. My point is only that for me I have faced elections where I have thought about these likelihoods before voting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The utility here is how I'd like to see my government run now and in the future.

But that's the problem right here: your vote almost certainly won't affect your utility in this regard, because the probability that your vote determines the winner of the election is quasi-null (even in a local election with only a few thousand total votes, it's still infinitesimal). Did you read the rest of my post in which I explained that?

Also, if I'm doing a poor job explaining it, here's the relevant wiki article, since obviously I'm not the one who came up with all this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

I'm familiar with the paradox, which is why I couched my preference as a marginal utility. I perceive a difference in utility between an action which would have an impact 0.001% of the time and one which would have an impact 0.0001% of the time. That percentage increase in the outcome is an increase in my utility and affects the actual margin where one vote might matter. My vote doesn't have to be the precise tipping point vote for this utility of likelihood to matter to me. I also appreciate that the difference between infinitessimal probabilities may have no effect on other people's utility, even though they do for me.

The utility of likelihood is not the only factor to consider of course. It has to be convoluted with my utility in seeing different candidates actually win if I were to determine the utility of of any particular vote. Most of the time the direct utility of having a particular winner dominates as a factor. My point is only that for me I have faced elections where I have thought about these likelihoods before voting.

I understand your argument regarding how you choose to vote. What I don't understand is what your marginal utility of voting compared to not voting is. Surely, voting takes you some time, you might have to drive and it might screw up your schedule. Those are minor inconveniences, sure, but since the expected utility of the voting outcome is so low, they should still matter.

[muon2]

The utility here is how I'd like to see my government run now and in the future.

But that's the problem right here: your vote almost certainly won't affect your utility in this regard, because the probability that your vote determines the winner of the election is quasi-null (even in a local election with only a few thousand total votes, it's still infinitesimal). Did you read the rest of my post in which I explained that?

Also, if I'm doing a poor job explaining it, here's the relevant wiki article, since obviously I'm not the one who came up with all this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

I'm familiar with the paradox, which is why I couched my preference as a marginal utility. I perceive a difference in utility between an action which would have an impact 0.001% of the time and one which would have an impact 0.0001% of the time. That percentage increase in the outcome is an increase in my utility and affects the actual margin where one vote might matter. My vote doesn't have to be the precise tipping point vote for this utility of likelihood to matter to me. I also appreciate that the difference between infinitessimal probabilities may have no effect on other people's utility, even though they do for me.

The utility of likelihood is not the only factor to consider of course. It has to be convoluted with my utility in seeing different candidates actually win if I were to determine the utility of of any particular vote. Most of the time the direct utility of having a particular winner dominates as a factor. My point is only that for me I have faced elections where I have thought about these likelihoods before voting.

I understand your argument regarding how you choose to vote. What I don't understand is what your marginal utility of voting compared to not voting is. Surely, voting takes you some time, you might have to drive and it might screw up your schedule. Those are minor inconveniences, sure, but since the expected utility of the voting outcome is so low, they should still matter.

Good question. It made me think about it for a bit.

After thinking about my motives, I would conclude that the ability to impact the race is a small factor for deciding to vote. It does help that most ballots have a number of contested races, so that the probability of my vote having an impact is greater by the ability to influence many races at once. Nonetheless that's probably not where the utility arises.

When I first voted, I know I got the highest utility from the satisfaction of seeing how the process worked - essentially satisfying my curiosity. That same goal was important when I relocated to grad school and then after grad school. It is still a non-trivial factor when new election technologies came to my polling place. In one election I chose to drive some distance to vote early just to use the technology that was different than in my polling place. I'm a scientist and seeing the process first hand has real value to me.

However I think for most elections I find utility in the knowledge that I'm participating in this public process that exceeds the costs associated with voting. Voting history is public, so it's not just a matter of personal pride, but one of shared pride with others in the community. That would fall into the category of an emotional utility. Also, I have learned that local officials know who the voters are, and are more likely to turn to voters than non-voters for advice and help in the community. That stems in large part from the officials' knowledge that voters have that shared community pride. That's a utility beyond the merely emotional. Of course if one wants to then run for office, having a history of voting turns out to have utility above and beyond that shared community pride.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

[JerryArkansas]

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

But we would have done it anyways.  Not bitch and moan that we had too.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

Um, no? Why would someone who found Sanders too far left vote for the Green Party instead?