Item — HN Reader

> There is no anti-drone party, no anti-NSA party, and no anti-Drug-War party: the two dominant parties agree more than they differ, especially when looking at actions rather than rhetoric.

There is! It isn't one of the big two, but there is a party that is anti-drone, anti-NSA, anti-drug war, etc.: The Libertarian Party[0].

[0] http://www.lp.org

3 comments

As others have mentioned, first-past-the-post makes third party voting counter-productive (although it's a better protest vote than not voting at all). I look forward to the day when individual states enact ranked/approval voting by popular referendum, so that third parties have a shot at viability.

That said: the current Libertarian Party has a lot of baggage regarding the religion of markets. While I think the market is a powerful and worthwhile engine of growth, I don't believe it is the only valid or effectual form of social contract. (I've come to adopt the term "Chomsky Libertarian". [1])

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ

Something in-between Obama/Bush and Libertarian Party would be nice

I am not sure what you mean – in-between relative to what? The LP is to the left of Obama (e.g., individual rights for social matters such as marriage) and also to the right of Bush/Obama (e.g., taxation).

I was referring to the points that you brought up in your previous reply (anti-drone, anti-NSA and anti-drug war) ... I don't think that they need to disappear but a strong refocus is definitely needed in all 3.

The Green Party also holds all three of those views, if that's your preference.

Unfortunately, since most elections in the US are winner-take-all and not proportionally representative, voting for any party other the big two generally decreases the chance of one's desirable election outcome.

(I say this as a registered Green(-Rainbow). I'll be voting for Hillary unless it looks like she has a wide margin.)

To a point. To the degree that policies are determined by political triangulation, someone deciding between Green and Democrat is only half as important as someone deciding between Democrat and Republican. Actually voting for the Green party decreases the odds of ones preferred outcome this election (down to what it would be if you did not vote), but increases the credibility of your threat for the next election.

Math-wise, the optimal strategy depends on the size of the effect that pull is likely to have, weighed against the odds your vote will change which of the frontrunners wins times the difference between the frontrunners.

Of course, ideally we could switch away from FPTP voting, but getting that to happen in selecting electors is a reach (though at least the Electoral College means we don't have to do it nationwide at once).

Regarding Hillary in particular, I think an overgrown security apparatus is the biggest threat this country faces, and she has decisively lost my vote with her self-serving and revisionist account of the Snowden affair.