undefined | Better HN

0 pointstoyg10y ago0 comments

> The Democratic nomination has basically always been guaranteed for Clinton.

That may or may not be, but second candidate with good numbers would have strong chances of getting a VP berth (for himself or a protégé). I don't see it as a conspiracy.

> Support for people who aren't likely to win the general election at least shows what issues are important to voters

Undoubtedly, but I think what Lessig is proving is that voters don't give a rat's ass about his issues. By continuing on this road I fear he's doing more harm than good to his cause. Even Nader's bid, which was much more realistic than Lessig's, did more harm than good to his movement in the long run.

> Supporting someone you disagree with more just because they're likely to win is truly "throwing your vote away"

The hard truth of First-Past-The-Post systems is that purism doesn't pay. A slightly-shaky alliance taking you to 40% trumps a purist core of 10% every day. That is an objective fact. It sucks, but you can't wish it away.

0 comments

qrendel10y ago

> The hard truth of First-Past-The-Post systems is that purism doesn't pay. A slightly-shaky alliance taking you to 40% trumps a purist core of 10% every day.

Disagree. What matters in the end are the policies, not the person. In Lessig's case, he wants campaign finance reform. If whoever gets elected takes that up as part of their platform, and does their best to implement it as president, then he's won. If he gets them to take up a diluted version of it, he's still partially won.

Sending the message that you'll only support candidates if they align with your biggest policy issues is effective. Electing candidates who don't support your big policy issues is not.

(Edit: The part about voters not caring about his issues may be valid. From TFA he seems to think otherwise, but I wouldn't be surprised if in fact mainstream voters are completely apathetic towards campaign finance reform.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse