Are U.S. presidential elections de facto binary choices?

[LateForLunch]

The subject came up on another thread.

The assertion was made (by me) that U.S. elections are de facto binary choices, even though there are more than one candidate on the ballot.

Various posters disagreed, though I confess I didn't agree with them, they were with few exceptions, at leave somewhat civil about it.

Let us, at the invitation of one such poster who was unhappy with my inability to "understand" how an election with more than one candidate on the ballot could not ever be seen as a binary choice. This poster suggested that I lack an ability to grasp English.

So taking her seriously I will attempt to explore that possibility.
First, let's look at the word (borrowed from Latin) "de facto". What some may not know is that even if a word is Latin it can also become part of the English lexicon.

English has a long, rich history absorbing words from other languages and making them our own. The term "de facto" is one of them. A synonym for that term is "effectively". An antonym would be "literally". If I were to have said that U.S. presidential elections are LITERALLY binary choices, I would have been demonstrating a lack of understanding of English.

So in accepting the challenge on that term, I would assert that I used it correctly, since my central point was that even though the choice for president was LITERLLY multiple candidates, the greater point was that since only one of two candidates had any realistic chance of winning, the choice was EFFECTIVELY (de facto) only a choice between the only two candidates who could conceivably win and casting a null vote (effectively equivalent to abstention in the net effect)

So I guess what I would have to ask is whether the poster who questioned my grasp of English really understood the point? Another question might be whether that lack of grasping was due to apathy about reading or understanding the LOGIC of the post, or inability to realize the meaning of "de facto" ?

I feel comforted that I am only echoing what William F. Buckley elucidated many years ago - that there is a profound importance to understanding the difference between a candidate who simply qualifies to be on a ballot, and one that has a reasonable possibility of actually being elected.

So it seems to me that there can be no denying that in a practical (de facto) sense, the statement that U.S. presidential elections are binary choices is 100% true. No third party candidate (outside the TWO principle political parties operating in the USA) has ever been elected nor gotten to within artillery distance of the other two viable candidates.

I realize that for many, even the most basic stipulations of facts are considered controversial. I am prepared to accept that some of those who represent disagreement with basic stipulations may be doing do purposefully to avoid having to admit things that they don't want to admit (for whatever reason). I also realize that when exchanges of opinion are reduced to such minuscule facets of discussion as to whether or not an election is effectively a multiple choice or not, the value of engagement is fairly void. Such people will forever claim disagreement simply out of pure cussedness.

[Axeslinger]

And as you were told over and over and over again on the other thread: 

You're wrong.  The only binary choice is do I vote?  Yes/No

As soon as  candidates are introduced into the equation your binary nonsense flies out the window because you now have the choice of not voting.

Stop trying to convince us of your brilliance for voting for Trump.  We ain't buying.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes,  elections in the United States boil down to binary choices.   There has never been a possible three way tie in American History of which I am aware.



In fact,  many elections boil down to a unary choice.   Only one candidate had any possibility of winning.   



This last election was pretty much a binary choice,  it could have gone either way.  Only votes for one candidate or the other would have had any effect on choosing the leadership.   


Abstentions or votes for Third party candidates were merely noise in the balloting system,   and they did  nothing other than to waste the time of the poll workers.   

[Taxcontrol]

I believe it comes down to the view of the question.  If the question is viewed at a national level, then until a third party is able to gather more than 20% of the vote, then yes it is a binary choice.  However if the question is viewed from the personal level, then any candidate that is available to be voted for is a viable option.

[Wingnut]

I got a feeling this thread is going to give me a binary choice of a headaches.  Deep Pounding or sharp and painful like a knife in the eye.

[geronl]

You can either choose Coke or Pepsi, it's a binary choice!

uh, nope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=80&v=icVgXZyHdFw

[truth_seeker]

Being able to tell your associates, family, friends about voting for some 3rd party kook with no chance, gets some the type of attention the crave.

So called conservatives include within the ranks, a fair number of folks that are logic and math-statistics challenged.

[roamer_1]

One need only listen to the founding fathers, and their reluctance wrt parties, for exactly this reason.

What matters is what any candidate stands upon, and the veracity with which one can prove that stance to be true.
Thereafter vote for the one that your conscience can abide.

I will never pull the lever for the big, rhinestone 'R' again.
My vote must be earned.
and there has been a Conservative on every single ballot since Reagan.
That's the one that gets my vote, regardless of all this cacaphony (intentional misspelling).

If you listen to the founders instead of the game players, you will too.

[skeeter]

Don't like the word 'binary'? Fine.

From July 2016 onward there were only two people who could possibly have won the election.

Is that better?

[geronl]

Don't like the word 'binary'? Fine.

From July 2016 onward there were only two people who could possibly have won the election.

Is that better?

and neither one of them was worth voting for

[skeeter]

and neither one of them was worth voting for

And that is an opinion, no more or less valid than any other.

[INVAR]

Being able to tell your associates, family, friends about voting for some 3rd party kook with no chance, gets some the type of attention the crave.

So called conservatives include within the ranks, a fair number of folks that are logic and math-statistics challenged.

The only principle you value is apparently 'cheering your team' and 'winning the game', whatever that means in this day and age.

Your party that most of us were foot soldiers in for decades, told us to sit down, shut up and vote who they tell us to vote for, and/or get out of the party. They told us they wished we SOCONS would get lost. Trump's mobs told us that if we did not vote for Trump , we were to be counted as the enemy.  Now the same tell us that we have no right to criticize, ridicule or point out issues unflattering to Trump or we are again...the enemy.

Fine.

We're the enemy.  I'm done attempting to argue against that charge.

So here is the dealio:

We're not shutting up. 

We're not going away. 

We're not voting whom you tell us to vote for or else.

We're not supporting whom you insist we must support, or else.

We will vote third party if we choose.  We will vote Independent if we choose.

We will vote for whomever we damned well please.

We intend to be vocal about those issues that matter to us and invoke God and religion when applicable.

Other than bitching and moaning about us on a BB forum, what do you plan to do about it?

You have not persuaded us, you have only made irreconcilable the divide and ran off what would have been your natural allies.

[roamer_1]

and neither one of them was worth voting for

Which instantaneously and in a de facto fashion, suggests at least THREE options.
All valid.

[Hoodat]

Yes,  elections in the United States boil down to binary choices. 

This last one boiled down to liberal or liberal.  Which did you choose?

[jmyrlefuller]

I feel comforted that I am only echoing what William F. Buckley elucidated many years ago - that there is a profound importance to understanding the difference between a candidate who simply qualifies to be on a ballot, and one that has a reasonable possibility of actually being elected.

Let me remind you of one thing here.

William Buckley's brother James, who I'm assuming had Bill's support, ran for Senate and won. He did it on a third party line, when both of his opponents, one of whom was an incumbent Republican, were admitted liberals.

So it seems to me that there can be no denying that in a practical (de facto) sense, the statement that U.S. presidential elections are binary choices is 100% true. No third party candidate (outside the TWO principle political parties operating in the USA) has ever been elected nor gotten to within artillery distance of the other two viable candidates.

So, the question is: how do we change that?

The only way is to get a mass of people to vote, in unity, for a third option—something I advocated this past election cycle.

The great thing about the Electoral College is that a majority of electoral votes are needed. If the vote is split three ways, the candidate with 49% of them (for example) doesn't win. So, the task for a third party candidate is only to get electoral votes, either through shenanigans with the electoral college, or simply by winning a state election, and hope the other two split enough for neither to get a majority. Evan McMullin got very close this past election cycle to doing just that.

There is a viable way forward. Eventually, if neither party represents the right way, that path will have to be explored, no matter how uncomfortable that may be. Otherwise, you end up in the vicious cycle—nobody considers it because they can't win, and they can't win because nobody considers it. It's a cycle that can, and must, be broken.

[truth_seeker]

The only principle you value is apparently 'cheering your team' and 'winning the game', whatever that means in this day and age.

I became a Republican voter before Reagan. I liked Reagan, and still do. Far from perfect and amnesty really pissed me off at the time.  From those early years I learned it was a binary choice between the two major parties, and however imperfect the Republican was, he was the better alternative.

Name one time during your voting years when anybody other than the Republican, was the more choice.

If the vanity 3rd party thing rocks your boat, have at it.

Perot probably caused Bush I to lose, and Buchanan put Bush II in greater jeopardy.

Nader almost certainly cost Gore the election in 2000.

I try to learn from life, not fanciful dreams of what would be nice.

[Cripplecreek]

Yet somehow I managed to vote without voting for your Orange democrat or the Pantsuit aficionado.

I WILL do the same next time.

[Frank Cannon]

and neither one of them was worth voting for

Didn't matter. One of them was going to win no matter what.

[Cripplecreek]

This last one boiled down to liberal or liberal.  Which did you choose?

Its like a choice between Ernst Thälmann and his opponent.

[Hoodat]

I became a Republican voter before Reagan. I liked Reagan, and still do. Far from perfect and amnesty really pissed me off at the time.  From those early years I learned it was a binary choice between the two major parties, and however imperfect the Republican was, he was the better alternative.

I became a Republican because they opposed segregation.  I remained a Republican because they at least claimed to support Conservatism.  It is clear to me now that they no longer support it.

Name one time during your voting years when anybody other than the Republican, was the more choice.

2016

Perot probably caused Bush I to lose

Bush raising taxes after he promised not to, and then signing a budget $400 billion in the red is what caused Bush to lose.

Trump will repeat that same lesson in 2020 when we still have Obamacare, when our annual deficits exceed half a trillion dollars, and when the wall isn't built.

[truth_seeker]

2016

Hillary more conservative than Trump? They were the two choices. Others just vanity.

[INVAR]

Name one time during your voting years when anybody other than the Republican, was the more choice.

If the vanity 3rd party thing rocks your boat, have at it.

I try to learn from life, not fanciful dreams of what would be nice.

Unlike you, I do not put faith in politics for salvation.

Politics is merely a reflection of the character of the people in the nation.

And that in itself is an awful indictment.

[Hoodat]

Hillary more conservative than Trump? They were the two choices. Others just vanity.

Your argument is a preposterous fallacy.  My choice is Conservatism, or not Conservatism.  It is that simple.  Screw your two candidates, neither of whom was a Conservative.

[truth_seeker]

Unlike you, I do not put faith in politics for salvation.

Politics is merely a reflection of the character of the people in the nation.

And that in itself is an awful indictment.

I said nothing of salvation. That is a different topic. Struggling to stay on topic?

Your main theme is how lousy American people are. Psychologically it must make you feel superior, each time you put others down.

I value those who take action, not just words. All of the men and now women in uniform, who go in harms way to preserve all those mighty concepts you talk about, are tops in my book.

[INVAR]

I said nothing of salvation. That is a different topic. Struggling to stay on topic?

My bad, I thought we were initially discussing principles and you doubled down on voting again.  As to salvation, I've read quite a bit today about the need to get behind Trump and support him in order to save the republic or other similar nonsense. 

Your main theme is how lousy American people are.

If I had a theme, it would be how wayward, ignorant and corrupted this people have become.   Sorry if that offends, but it's the truth.   This culture stands as an indictment of where the people have allowed the nation to devolve, as does the current state our politics finds itself.  You can pretend all you like that it is not so, but it still screams each and every time we get to read the news and watch what is transpiring across the nation.

The Founders gave us plenty warnings about the kind of people that could preserve liberty and a Constitution.  As evidenced, we are no longer those people, and those that are - are a shrinking minority.

Of course being told by fellow self-identifying Conservatives to shut up about morality and religion and focus only on politics is certainly not building any confidence that my current viewpoint on the state of this people and the culture should warrant change.

Psychologically it must make you feel superior, each time you put others down.

Well doc, despite whatever BS Degree in psychoanalysis you've ascribed to yourself - pointing out the truth to a complacent people happy in their stupor is never popular and often results in nasty reactions by the very people you would like to wake up to the truth.  I would have thought someone with your handle would grasp that concept.

Unless politics is the only truth you actually seek.