I have the same belief, Whitney. I also believe that voting is a civic duty that everyone should engage in. However, there are third parties, so you don't necessarily have to vote for the lesser of two evils just to maintain your belief. I wish more people understood that, but change has to start somewhere.

My issue with voting for a third party is that at this point, there are not enough People voting for those parties where there would be a chance for them to be elected, so (in my opinion) it would be just like throwing my vote away. 

That does not mean I am right - that is just merely how I feel about it. 

As long as people don't take third parties seriously and only think of them as the butt of the joke, that's how its gonna remain. People aren't going to invest in something they don't know, and its because of a lack of wanting to learn about them is why this cycle has continued on and on over decades. That and people as a whole only care about the parties they consider to be the "real" ones. >>

Also to address something that Brittany had said, even if we had someone with morals in the running and won, they would still have to deal with the Houses.

See, I don't let that attitude deter me from voting third party, especially not after this election cycle. There's no such thing as throwing away a vote except in the cases of not voting or voting for the lesser of two evils(the second one is solely my opinion). Just because your chosen candidate doesn't win in the end doesn't mean you wasted your vote. You just voted for who you thought was right for the country, but not enough people agreed. That's democracy, and democracy thrives by debate. It's perpetuating the illness of our system if we say that the reason we don't vote for a party is because not enough people vote for that party. If we voted for that party, they would have more votes. It just needs to build up. 

My question to this wasted vote mentality is when did the actions of others become the determining factor of our politic views? If you feel discontent with the main parties, find a third party you like and advocate for them rather than just saying they can never win. The Republicans started out as the same thing. They were a third party that split off from the Democrats around the time of the Civil War, and look where they are now? A thorn in the country's side, obviously, but you get the idea.

Plus there are polls and studies out there now, Brandon, that say that the number of voters looking at third parties is increasing drastically this election cycle and for the foreseeable future. Third parties might no longer be the butt of the joke anymore, considering the discontent with both major parties. As for the issue with Congress, yes, that needs to be fixed. Actually, Congress is more important than the Presidency in many ways, but that's a whole other can of worms that I've no idea how to fix other than encouraging people to vote for those against money in politics. There are such candidates, if you look for them. The issue is sorting out the liars from those who are telling the truth.

I realize that the Canadian government is a Parliamentary system (rather than a Presidential system, like in the US), but we also use first-past-the-post and… I vote third party in pretty much every election. Granted, they started getting seats in 1935, but then we also have the Green party that only one its first seat in 2011. (And there is another party in our federal parliament, but they're unique.) The UK government also has third parties, including one (UKIP) that only recently gained a seat, and then they surge in popularity. (Depressing, if you know what UKIP stands for, but they exist.)

Some countries allow you to 'protest' vote by turning in a blank ballot, or refusing a ballot. You're marked as having voted, but the idea here is, all the candidates on the ballot are terrible and none of them deserve your vote. It's used to send a message to the parties: give me better options, stop sucking, etc. In countries where a blank ballot is not an option, voting third party can send a similar message to the mainstream parties.

In a presidential election, a third party candidate isn't going to get elected. These parties really ought to try to gain more legitimacy by getting members elected to Congress. (Bernie Sanders tried to run for office as a third-party candidate, before becoming an independent. He lost every election while he was associated with this party, but still. That's how he got his start.) However, voting third party is still very much a valid choice for people who are unhappy with the Democratic or Republican candidates, or who feel that the third party candidates better reflect their views. It can have the same effect as a protest/blank ballot, if that's your thing. 

Personally, I think the most important thing is to vote, period. (Though I know some people have valid reasons for not voting, or they are barred from voting. Choosing not to vote is still a valid choice, though I very much dislike voter apathy; the two are not necessarily the same thing.) Especially for young people, when voter apathy is high and turnout is low, not voting tells politicians that they can be ignored. Politicians don't have to appeal to their needs as much, because that won't help them get re-elected. Appealing to seniors, on the other hand, will. So, whether a person votes for one of the main parties or third party, just vote, and then politicians will have to start noticing you and caring about you and the issues that matter to you. It is never, IMO, wasted, to vote for someone who has no chance of winning, because you still showed up to vote in the first place. Also, if enough people support third parties, they'll become more mainstream. They meet certain support targets, and they get to be in debates. In Canada, there used to be a vote subsidy. Every vote gave that party $2 for the next election, so long as the overall vote share met a certain minimum, and I highly recommend this. 

So, yeah. I don't a third party vote is a wasted vote, any more than a vote for the losing main party candidate is wasted. It always sends a message to those who are elected, that maybe if they were more like that third  party, those votes could be theirs; and to the candidate(s) not elected, those votes could be theirs; and to the third party candidates themselves, to keep going, because people voted for them, and that means they've got support.

Thanks for the response, Jenna. I didn't find one piece that I disagreed with, and your points actually elaborate on my own better.

As I recall, there is a federal funding benchmark for 3rd parties in the USA. I'm pretty sure it's 5% of the popular vote before a party gets federal funding for the next election. Yes, 3rd parties will likely not win this election cycle, but voting for someone other than the main parties can help drive the narrative in a way that the chance of your chosen third party winning in future elections goes up.

Green party is trying to get more recognition in the states, actually. They've won quite a few local elections and are putting up federal candidates for Congress again this year. Hopefully we'll start seeing more of them, because they're the closest party to Sanders' position at the moment. Given that Green is the 2nd most powerful third party in the USA right now(next to the Libertarians), they stand to grow substantially in this coming election where the prevailing narrative is, "We hate the establishment."

I just want to take this opportunity to say, if this had been a typical Canadian election, a seven-week-old thread like this one would no longer be relevant, because the election would be over.

ANYWAY! We have our first VP pick, courtesy of Donald J. Trump. He's selected Indiana Governor Mike Perce, a man largely unknown nation-wide, but he's a former congressman in addition to Governor, so he does bring some government experience to the table. Being unknown is probably a bit of a benefit to Pence, being that people don't already know who he is and hate his very existence. (Gringich and Christie, on the other hand, command a good deal of dislike among the voting population.) Pence is probably not a very good choice, and his views don't align with Trump's a whole lot, especially in views that make Trump a less-terrible candidate than, say, Ted Cruz; Trump is a moderate on social issues, compared to the rest of the GOP, and his protectionist views on trade, including a dislike for trade agreements, might have earned him some support from Bernie Sanders supporters. Mike Pence, on the other hand, is quite conservative, perhaps hanging out with Ted Cruz on the political spectrum: socially conservative (he signed a disastrous anti-LGBT 'religious freedom' bill and won a boycott for his efforts, plus he's signed a lot of anti-abortion legistlation, making him perhaps the worst governor in the country in that regard), but he looooove those trade agreements and partnerships! Pence did try to prevent Syrian refugees from living in Indiana, however, so maybe him and Trump will have that to bond over? But while choosing Pence is probably not a good idea, it might be the least-bad choice.

Pence is considered to be the most conservative VP pick since 1976.

Also, how about that logo (note, possibly NSFW)? It may not be the official campaign logo (I've been told it's the logo for a PAC), but it's the only one I've seen since the VP announcement. It also doesn't pass the twelve-year-old test. I mean, putting T and P together is going to generate some toilet humour, but this might be the worst possible design, which the arrangement of the letters suggesting something sexual. I have to wonder if there's a logo designer having a good laugh about this, having trolled the Trump/Pence campaign so hard.

It's also worth noting that Trump made this announcement via Twitter. Because of course he did.

Choosing a VP is the first major test of a presidential candidate. Trump… didn't do very well. Pence is the least-bad choice but still awful, the announcement was bad, the logo is bad (unless you're making/sharing logo memes, in which case, it's great, but Trump probably doesn't like the reception), and it tells me that Trump is an unpopular candidate no one else in the party wants to associate with, and that he either doesn't check with his staff, doesn't have any staff, or ignores what they say. Trump was handed his first major political decision, and he botched it.

So here's my take on it since I've been absent for so long.

When comparing all the candidates, we should use a few resources to actually break things down and one of the better ones is ontheissues.org

Now, I will never claim to be the end all, know all of who should be in charge, I can only base my decision on the things I see and the things I research.  I say these things only after I've done my homework on it.

I can trust neither Hillary nor Bernie.  In Hillary's case, the failure of the State Department to act when American lives are in danger on foreign soil (one of the few things the State Department actually has full responsibility on), was a travesty resulting in the loss of four Americans to include the US Ambassador, a direct subordinate of the State Department.  The information that was publicly put out by varying interviews and depositions was that the State Department had been aware of a degrading condition based on the information provided by other agencies, which should have prompted either contact with the Department of Defense to increase security or prompt an emergency withdrawal of all personnel from the embassy in Benghazi.  Neither of these happened and it was her prerogative to preserve those lives.

Second for Hillary, the continuing scandal regarding the mishandling of classified information. This recent event is an indicator that she is a portion of the obvious oligarchical club in politics that she sits among with impunity.  I personally have signed a SF 312 (Standard Form), which is an agreement between the signer and the United States to safeguard all sensitive information provided during the individual's tenure in contact with such material and the contract to not disclose the information to those without proper clearance and need to know.  The contract remains binding for 75 years following the signing of the closure of the contract when access is no longer required or granted.  

Some will argue that since it was her email, she had classification authority.  She did not.  Information that is not created by her and instead is derived from external sources requiring a classification above "unclassified" means she is no longer able to disseminate the information without the other individual having access to it by clearance as well as a need to know.  For digital communications like her emails, it requires an appropriately classified system with the proper security protocols and monitoring in place to ensure the information is not compromised.  She failed on all of these accounts and as such, SHOULD be held accountable for various instances of misdemeanors and felonies associated with each spillage of information.

Next, the various steps she took is the biggest issue.  She attempted to cover it up, deleting the hard drives to her various servers (which were recovered since she never 0'd the drives), and her statements that not only were there no instances of information being leaked of a classification her systems were not permitted to possess, but she disclosed the emails to her lawyers, none of which had clearances for the type of information found.  Again, additional felonious charges that were ignored. 

I could go on all day with her, let's discuss Bernie.

For many, Bernie was a good pick, and honestly, there's nothing wrong in providing hope and highlighting a few possibilities for our future as a nation.  Unfortunately, my first reason is entirely based in preference, legitimate reason will follow.  I believe no government should radically intend to shift suddenly.  Things are performed at the macro level and much like a stone being cast into water, the ripples are far reaching, therefore, the larger the stone, the greater the change.  In his case, the change, in my opinion, was much too sudden, something we should reach for over the course of two decades or longer, not immediately without carefully stepping forward to make sure this rickety bridge we call America doesn't collapse under the weight like the end of Temple Of Doom. (Yes, I know the ropes were cut, but still)

As far as what he stated, however, I cannot find any reason to trust him for a single instance.  His previous history indicated he had no cares for either the poor or minorities when he co-sponsored a bill intending to dump toxic waste from Vermont close to an impoverished, largely Latino community in southern Texas named Sierra Blanca.  Then there's other inconsistencies such as his claim that white people don't know about poverty (paraphrased, not literal), followed by his claim to having grown up in an impoverished family.

In other things, such as his definition of democracy: "Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production, it means decentralization, it means involving people in their work. Rather than having bosses and workers it means having democratic control over the factories and shops to as great a degree as you can." which is really a stance of pure socialism based on its economic implications.  Sure, corporatism is bad (the difference between that and capitalism is the fact corporatism provides corporate influence over politics while capitalism simply maintains free markets with no political interaction). However, socialism inevitably fails when applied to an economic industry because it invariably must expand to incorporate additional economic institutions, then additional markets and resources to provide the necessary materials to balance the command economy model proposed by socialism.  

I don't say this because he's a socialist.  He claims to be a democratic socialist, however, his definition of democracy implies socialism when the two are actually very different. Should we, as a nation work toward equality as a people? Yes, by all means.  Should we force economic equality, elevating some at the expense of the majority? No, that is something entirely against democracy and is almost entirely authoritarian in nature.  

I digress but that needed to be stated.  I can go on for a long time about him too.

For Donald Trump, believe it or not, I think he's actually brilliant.  A lot of what he says is impromptu and that's why he has done so well compared to the plethora of candidates that had been eligible in the Republican primaries.  He has provided the presentation that he is not a lifelong politician, which many people have grumbled over. The policies he proposes actually have some merit to them, such as replacing a "disastrous" policy in the Affordable Care Act.  I use the term loosely because some people will say it is the greatest thing ever while others view it as wasteful and inefficient.  

In that instance, he has a 7 point plan to propose that can significantly reduce the cost of medical insurance to a level that only the poorest 1% (maybe) would have difficulty affording and in that instance, it now becomes state responsibility to provide insurance options, with great reduction in cost.  What he proposes in this instance is heavily focused on the concept of capitalism.  In the US, most of us know that insurance companies, for the most part, are not permitted to conduct business across all 50 states and are instead relegated to a group.  This reduces competition, which permits a rise in price to a level that maximizes profit among the smallest responsibilities for customers, reducing the probability of paying for care (in addition to various ways of getting out of it altogether).  The proposal would open all 50 states to the same trade among similar companies, allowing competition to cause rates to drop as each brings different rates and packages to the table with some "pick and choose" options.  

Next, let's look at the whole "anti-refugee" stance everyone seems to cling to.  He has stated previously his ban of immigrants and ban of Muslims entering the country is a proposed temporary measure to ensure a better means of screening individuals entering is put in place.  Look at it this way, no mentions of half the crap happening throughout Europe due to the open border policy is happening here.  The intent is to help maintain that security and make it better.  Don't get me wrong, I'd certainly love to help anyone in need of asylum, however, our first responsibility is to our people before we can help others.  It's along the same vein logically as "you can't make others happy if you can't make yourself happy", in a sense.

Anyway, there's your differing view, I can go on and on but I really don't want to type for the next six hours trying to break it all down about the many factors going into this decision.  

I signed in for the first time in months to respond to this, as there are a number of inaccuracies in the previous post I felt ought to be addressed.

… the failure of the State Department to act when American lives are in danger…

It is patent you are referring here to the Benghazi crisis.  In the midst of the furore generated by this incident, and by the perceived inaction by Secretary Clinton and her Department, there was a rather well-written piece in the New York Times (which I now cannot seem to locate, to my chagrin) that went overlooked by the general public.  It was, however, quoted in a recent article in Time magazine.  Briefly, it stated that matters of consular security do not ever reach the Secretary's level and are instead left to subordinates far down the ladder.  The conclusion to be drawn is rather obvious.

Another bit of information that is neither well-known nor actively sought after is that the consular offices in Benghazi were that only in name:  Their primary role was to serve as diplomatic cover for the much better-staffed CIA station that operated on the premises.  (I cannot currently recall if this was reported in the same NYT/Times article, or if it was in Chomsky's Who Rules the World?.)  For this reason the question must be asked:  Whose responsibility was it to provide for the facility's safety?  Whose ought it have been?  Judging by the utter lack of excoriation received by General Petraus (the CIA director at the time, and a Republican) during his testimony before Congress, we can guess at what the Republican-led legislature thinks (or pretends to think) about the matter.

Some will argue that since it was her email, she had classification authority.

No serious analyst or commentator will argue this.

… no government should radically intend to shift suddenly.

While I disagree with this, the belief that Senator Sanders wanted to do anything of the sort betrays - on your part, and on that of the American populace - an ignorance of his actual policies.  Many informed commentators have described Mr Sanders as "pretty much a New Dealer".  There used to be a time when even Republican presidents and legislators agreed that those who do not hold with the core tenets of the New Deal do not belong in the American political arena.  Eisenhower comes to mind.  It is only from your vantage point - dragged far over to the right as you and the populace at large have been by the modern political machine - that the Senator seems to look like the grim spectre of socialism.

I won't quote the whole thing here, but the "definition of democracy" that you provide was uttered by him during an interview he gave in 1987.  It is, I think, safe to say that his views have evolved since then.  Consider that the examples of democratic socialism he usually cites are Canada, the UK, and the Nordic countries; hardly outposts of communist thought.  Here is what he has said the phrase "democratic socialism" means to him, more recently:

I think it means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship, all of our people have health care; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality child care, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly."

Your commentary on the benefits of capitalism over socialism is frivolous here, and your mentioning capitalism as "maintaining free markets" in a thread about American politics is pretty laughable.  Finally, you severely misrepresent (or perhaps misunderstand) what wealth redistribution in the context of democratic socialism is.  Equating it to Soviet-era communism, as you have done, is thoroughly dishonest.

He has stated previously his ban of immigrants and ban of Muslims entering the country is a proposed temporary measure to ensure a better means of screening individuals entering is put in place.

I will concede that the United States is experiencing an immigration problem.  However, it is not one which is linked in any immediate way to Islamic terrorism.  If you will note, all of the perpetrators of (Islamic) terrorist attacks on US soil since 2010 were US citizens (with the exception of Tashfeen Malik, who was a lawful permanent resident).  Banning Muslims from entering the US, if any such policy were even remotely enforceable, would not have any significant impact on the incidence of such events.  I will remark that it is telling that so much of the electorate supporting Mr Trump would endorse such a measure, considering that so many of them feel that their own Christian faith is in a constant state of peril.