Remember, Ron Paul won the debates...
November 8, 2008 5:02 PM Subscribe
What is the most succinct way to explain to people on why it is favorable to vote outside of the major party candidates for a Presidental election?
While I am pleased that the Democrats made great gains in this election, I am not ready to just give them a blank check when it comes to steering our democracy. With that in mind, I have been trying to tell people why that is, but I cannot come up with precise talking points without going so deep into my understanding of politics and thus losing them in the process.
The biggest point I try and get across, is this: would it not be great if the MSM would have let McKinney, Barr, Nader, Paul, Kucinich, etc., to participate more in the national campaign?
Articles, websites devoted to this topic, examples; anything you have would be very appreciated. Thank you.
While I am pleased that the Democrats made great gains in this election, I am not ready to just give them a blank check when it comes to steering our democracy. With that in mind, I have been trying to tell people why that is, but I cannot come up with precise talking points without going so deep into my understanding of politics and thus losing them in the process.
The biggest point I try and get across, is this: would it not be great if the MSM would have let McKinney, Barr, Nader, Paul, Kucinich, etc., to participate more in the national campaign?
Articles, websites devoted to this topic, examples; anything you have would be very appreciated. Thank you.
...in consequence of which you might be well advised to abandon the talking-point about the "MSM" in favor of making an argument about electoral systems. Of course, getting America to change its electoral system is essentially inconceivable, but you didn't frame your question in terms of practicality, so maybe that's not an issue.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 5:37 PM on November 8, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 5:37 PM on November 8, 2008 [2 favorites]
actually maybe not inconceivable.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 5:41 PM on November 8, 2008
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 5:41 PM on November 8, 2008
I think it depends a lot on what you're trying to accomplish.
If you're trying to feel virtuous, then vote for the candidate who is closes to your ideological position, irrespective of whether he has any remote chance of winning.
But if you're willing to compromise somewhat, then you're better off choosing the one of the top two candidates who is closer to your position. That's what you do if you want to achieve a partial victory for the policies you advocate.
But Duverger's Law is real. You can't wish it away. If you really want to make a difference, then it isn't a good thing to vote for splinter parties in the American winner-take-all system. It's a waste of your vote.
In fact, it's less than useless; it's actually counterproductive. The conservatives who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 made it possible for Bill Clinton to win. Liberals who voted for Nader in 2000 gave the election to Bush.
posted by Class Goat at 5:46 PM on November 8, 2008 [3 favorites]
If you're trying to feel virtuous, then vote for the candidate who is closes to your ideological position, irrespective of whether he has any remote chance of winning.
But if you're willing to compromise somewhat, then you're better off choosing the one of the top two candidates who is closer to your position. That's what you do if you want to achieve a partial victory for the policies you advocate.
But Duverger's Law is real. You can't wish it away. If you really want to make a difference, then it isn't a good thing to vote for splinter parties in the American winner-take-all system. It's a waste of your vote.
In fact, it's less than useless; it's actually counterproductive. The conservatives who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 made it possible for Bill Clinton to win. Liberals who voted for Nader in 2000 gave the election to Bush.
posted by Class Goat at 5:46 PM on November 8, 2008 [3 favorites]
In fact, it's less than useless; it's actually counterproductive.
To be fair, the counterargument is that if you've got any hope of building a third party movement it's going to be over multiple election cycles. Lots of Nader voters in 2000 believed it was more important to begin that process than to worry about which corporation-loving main-party leader they got for the next four years. They were very, very, very, very, very mistaken about that, but on the abstract level this argument isn't completely without merit.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 5:52 PM on November 8, 2008
To be fair, the counterargument is that if you've got any hope of building a third party movement it's going to be over multiple election cycles. Lots of Nader voters in 2000 believed it was more important to begin that process than to worry about which corporation-loving main-party leader they got for the next four years. They were very, very, very, very, very mistaken about that, but on the abstract level this argument isn't completely without merit.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 5:52 PM on November 8, 2008
If we IRV, voting your conscience would insure a greater plurality of voices in the process; however, practically, voting your conscience exists not as a statement of conscience, rather than as a practical political act. In fact, in reality, as class goat said above, in a close election it ends up being counterproductive.
If you cannot support either party, however, voting your conscience is valid.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:53 PM on November 8, 2008
If you cannot support either party, however, voting your conscience is valid.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:53 PM on November 8, 2008
Nader was not a spoiler in 2000; the democrats failed to defend the ballot system in exchange for senate positions.
posted by eustatic at 5:56 PM on November 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by eustatic at 5:56 PM on November 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
A data point.
I'm from Texas, and even though I went to school in New Hampshire, I still voted absentee in Texas. And I voted for the majority of Libertarian candidates in 04, 06, and 08.
Why? Because even though I know my vote is useless, and that I'm basically casting it into the wind, I can't deal with choosing the lesser of two evils. I have someone on one side who I theoretically agree with socially, and the other side which I theoretically agree with economically.
I hate it. I hate that my vote is cast into the wind. I also despise that neither part actually supports what I think.
Another point: I'm not Catholic, but my fiancee is. I went to Mass with her the Sunday before the election, and the priest said a little diddy about who the people should vote for. He argued that it was a tough choice, because one side protected the lives of the innocent (McCain and his nominally pro-Life beliefs), while one did not protect them, but promoted more of the ideals of the church (help to the poor, etc.).
I was thinking - if the Catholics, a rather large voting block in this country, had such a moral quandary about whom to vote for, why shouldn't they either form their own party, or push to nominate someone who follows all of their beliefs, not just a portion of them?
The two party system is about compromise in the end, it would seem. And that's kind of sad, I think.
posted by SNWidget at 6:00 PM on November 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm from Texas, and even though I went to school in New Hampshire, I still voted absentee in Texas. And I voted for the majority of Libertarian candidates in 04, 06, and 08.
Why? Because even though I know my vote is useless, and that I'm basically casting it into the wind, I can't deal with choosing the lesser of two evils. I have someone on one side who I theoretically agree with socially, and the other side which I theoretically agree with economically.
I hate it. I hate that my vote is cast into the wind. I also despise that neither part actually supports what I think.
Another point: I'm not Catholic, but my fiancee is. I went to Mass with her the Sunday before the election, and the priest said a little diddy about who the people should vote for. He argued that it was a tough choice, because one side protected the lives of the innocent (McCain and his nominally pro-Life beliefs), while one did not protect them, but promoted more of the ideals of the church (help to the poor, etc.).
I was thinking - if the Catholics, a rather large voting block in this country, had such a moral quandary about whom to vote for, why shouldn't they either form their own party, or push to nominate someone who follows all of their beliefs, not just a portion of them?
The two party system is about compromise in the end, it would seem. And that's kind of sad, I think.
posted by SNWidget at 6:00 PM on November 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
Paul and Kucinich WERE major party candidates. They just lost the nomination. It's not necessarily the media that is the major hurdle to these candidates. It is that most people do not want to vote for them. Hence, what your asking is really a tautology: Why don't people want to vote for a candidate people do not want to vote for?
posted by rikschell at 6:00 PM on November 8, 2008 [9 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 6:00 PM on November 8, 2008 [9 favorites]
You could talk about voting for small, local offices... as to why McKinney wasn't part of the big picture, she probably refused. (Have you met her?!) But to your question overall, TV and news is just cheap and stoopid. The trend toward "reality shows" probably hasn't helped election coverage.
Also, favorable is probably not a useful word.
What state are you in? Some states are free and easy about third, fourth, fifth parties, other states are not.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 6:02 PM on November 8, 2008
Also, favorable is probably not a useful word.
What state are you in? Some states are free and easy about third, fourth, fifth parties, other states are not.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 6:02 PM on November 8, 2008
why it is favorable to vote outside of the major party candidates for a Presidental election?
All non-totalitarian political systems, in the end, are bipolar -- the governing coalition and the opposition. Parliamentary systems have the dubious strength of minority parties' ability to bring down the government, but what you are trying to sell is simply nonsense at the Presidential level -- voting Green or LP or whatever has the exact same result as not voting at all.
I am not ready to just give them a blank check when it comes to steering our democracy.
Repeating the Republican taunt of those dark days earlier this decade, Elections Have Consequences. In our system of government, the House only gets two years of monkeying with thing before they face the voters again.
THIS is the level where caucus and factionalism can exist in our national government -- as it does now -- but having seen how silly Parliamentary systems can get (eg. Japan's Murayama becoming the PM for a largely LDP coalition) I remain unconvinced that factionalism is any better than a straight two-party system.
posted by troy at 6:32 PM on November 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
All non-totalitarian political systems, in the end, are bipolar -- the governing coalition and the opposition. Parliamentary systems have the dubious strength of minority parties' ability to bring down the government, but what you are trying to sell is simply nonsense at the Presidential level -- voting Green or LP or whatever has the exact same result as not voting at all.
I am not ready to just give them a blank check when it comes to steering our democracy.
Repeating the Republican taunt of those dark days earlier this decade, Elections Have Consequences. In our system of government, the House only gets two years of monkeying with thing before they face the voters again.
THIS is the level where caucus and factionalism can exist in our national government -- as it does now -- but having seen how silly Parliamentary systems can get (eg. Japan's Murayama becoming the PM for a largely LDP coalition) I remain unconvinced that factionalism is any better than a straight two-party system.
posted by troy at 6:32 PM on November 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
Take'em to a restaurant and wait until they're looking at the menu. Then take the menu and cross out everything 'cept two items and hand it back to them, asking if they would go a restaurant with only two items on the menu.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:18 PM on November 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:18 PM on November 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
New political movements are built from the ground up. Always have been, always will be. You can make an argument for supporting third party candidates at the local and congressional level, and building from there. Longshot primary candidacies can also have purpose, because winning delegates can lend them a voice in the party platform. And sometimes a candidate can change the terms of the debate even if he loses, like when all the 2004 dem. candidates turned anti-war after Howard Dean jumped out to a lead.
But candidacies like Nader's help absolutely no one and nothing except the ego of the candidate. And using the term "MSM" does not help your argument, or any argument.
posted by drjimmy11 at 7:40 PM on November 8, 2008 [2 favorites]
But candidacies like Nader's help absolutely no one and nothing except the ego of the candidate. And using the term "MSM" does not help your argument, or any argument.
posted by drjimmy11 at 7:40 PM on November 8, 2008 [2 favorites]
The most plausible argument I can think of that actually helps you is that a 3rd party candidate could drop out and endorse a major candidate in exchange for a cabinet position later, thus getting his views a voice in the new administration. I have never heard of this actually happening though.
posted by drjimmy11 at 7:44 PM on November 8, 2008
posted by drjimmy11 at 7:44 PM on November 8, 2008
Best answer: You can I explain it like this:
The masses are steered to the two-party system (with the help of MSM) as a means to keep our government corporate-indentured. This makes it certain that "debate" that goes on between the two parties on Capitol Hill is a charade. The ruling class wins, everyone else loses.
The reason why no one has fully paid health insurance, no mandatory paid vacation, no paid maternity leave, low wages, etc.. is because no lawmaker really has a duty to the working class.
posted by Zambrano at 7:55 PM on November 8, 2008
The masses are steered to the two-party system (with the help of MSM) as a means to keep our government corporate-indentured. This makes it certain that "debate" that goes on between the two parties on Capitol Hill is a charade. The ruling class wins, everyone else loses.
The reason why no one has fully paid health insurance, no mandatory paid vacation, no paid maternity leave, low wages, etc.. is because no lawmaker really has a duty to the working class.
posted by Zambrano at 7:55 PM on November 8, 2008
Nader was not a spoiler in 2000...
The final certified total of votes in Florida showed Bush with just 537 more than Gore. Nader had 97,000 votes in Florida. If Nader hadn't run, presumably most of those would have gone to Gore, and he would have won the election.
I believe there were other states where Bush's margin of victory was less than the number of votes that Nader received. According to this, Nader probably also cost Gore New Hampshire.
posted by Class Goat at 7:56 PM on November 8, 2008
The final certified total of votes in Florida showed Bush with just 537 more than Gore. Nader had 97,000 votes in Florida. If Nader hadn't run, presumably most of those would have gone to Gore, and he would have won the election.
I believe there were other states where Bush's margin of victory was less than the number of votes that Nader received. According to this, Nader probably also cost Gore New Hampshire.
posted by Class Goat at 7:56 PM on November 8, 2008
The "third parties have to start somehow" argument is nice idealism but it doesn't wash in the real world. In the entire history of the United States there have only been three major parties: Whig, Democrat, Republican. The Republican party formed when the Whig party imploded -- and we've had the Republicans and Democrats ever since, 150 years now.
Or at least, we've had parties by those names, but the modern parties would be unrecognizable to the people of 1860, the first time the Republicans won the presidency.
If you want to bring about change, you don't do it by starting third parties. You do it by working within one of the existing parties to try to change it.
The existing parties can be changed. Remember that in the first half of the 20th century, southern segregationists were Democrats.
posted by Class Goat at 8:08 PM on November 8, 2008 [2 favorites]
Or at least, we've had parties by those names, but the modern parties would be unrecognizable to the people of 1860, the first time the Republicans won the presidency.
If you want to bring about change, you don't do it by starting third parties. You do it by working within one of the existing parties to try to change it.
The existing parties can be changed. Remember that in the first half of the 20th century, southern segregationists were Democrats.
posted by Class Goat at 8:08 PM on November 8, 2008 [2 favorites]
Including 3rd-party candidates in debates does seem to genuinely improve the quality of discourse. Perot is probably the best example of this.
That said, the only reason to actually vote for one of them is as a way to express your dissatisfaction with the political process. With our winner-take-all voting system, the voter's best strategy is never to vote for someone who doesn't stand a chance of winning. C.f., tactical voting.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 8:24 PM on November 8, 2008
That said, the only reason to actually vote for one of them is as a way to express your dissatisfaction with the political process. With our winner-take-all voting system, the voter's best strategy is never to vote for someone who doesn't stand a chance of winning. C.f., tactical voting.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 8:24 PM on November 8, 2008
Best answer: If you don't like the candidates in the general election, be they not conservative enough or not liberal enough, the time to change that is during the primary process. You'd be surprised how much effect you can have with just a little work during a primary.
This is something the right figured out during the Goldwater revolution, and starting then the more moderate republicans were primaried out of office for the next 30-odd years, helping pull the country to the right. Of course, they were too successful, leaving us with the unelectable hyperconservative republican party we have now.
But it certainly works. The process is really gotten going in the democratic party now, starting with Leiberman being primaried out by Lamont (that didn't end too well), and with Donna Edwards beating Al Wynn in the MD-04 congressional primary.
In other words, you get the party, and candidates you deserve. if all you do is mouth off once the election comes because neither party's candidate is pure enough for you, I don't have a lot of sympathy. Get off your a&$ and make sure people you like get on a major party ballot.
posted by overhauser at 8:49 PM on November 8, 2008 [2 favorites]
This is something the right figured out during the Goldwater revolution, and starting then the more moderate republicans were primaried out of office for the next 30-odd years, helping pull the country to the right. Of course, they were too successful, leaving us with the unelectable hyperconservative republican party we have now.
But it certainly works. The process is really gotten going in the democratic party now, starting with Leiberman being primaried out by Lamont (that didn't end too well), and with Donna Edwards beating Al Wynn in the MD-04 congressional primary.
In other words, you get the party, and candidates you deserve. if all you do is mouth off once the election comes because neither party's candidate is pure enough for you, I don't have a lot of sympathy. Get off your a&$ and make sure people you like get on a major party ballot.
posted by overhauser at 8:49 PM on November 8, 2008 [2 favorites]
The existence of viable third parties allows the concept of coalition governments to form. In the U.S. system, with separate legislative and executive branches, the most immediately apparent effect of a coalition-based situation in the legislative branch -- meaning, no one party has a majority -- would be various changes in rules concerning committee appointments and committee chairmanships.
This would have a profound impact on how the House and Senate conduct day-to-day business. As it stands now, the majority party gets to determine most of these appointments. If a coalition were to be required to form a majority for the purposes of determining appointments, there would be a tremendous amount of horse-trading going on.
This could be a benefit in unlocking partisan bickering. Or, it could very well create a great deal more of it.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:04 PM on November 8, 2008
This would have a profound impact on how the House and Senate conduct day-to-day business. As it stands now, the majority party gets to determine most of these appointments. If a coalition were to be required to form a majority for the purposes of determining appointments, there would be a tremendous amount of horse-trading going on.
This could be a benefit in unlocking partisan bickering. Or, it could very well create a great deal more of it.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:04 PM on November 8, 2008
The two party system is about compromise in the end, it would seem. And that's kind of sad, I think.
Politics is about compromise. Politics is the practice of compromise. Politics is a method by which people with differing viewpoints agree on a course of action. It's not sad; it simply is.
No matter what 3rd, 4th, or 5th party you develop and endorse, it will, inevitably, face just as many situations of compromise as our present two major parties do. That is because we are a diverse nation with a wide range of points of view. There will never, ever be a politics without compromise. To imagine one is to be very naive, or to envision a monolithic single-party government that rules by coercion.
Given two sets of policy choices - particularly two sets as clearly and oppositionally defined as our two major parties' sets - I tend to think it's disingenuous to pretend that one is not favored. The experience of living under Bush for eight years, as opposed to the hypothetical of living under Gore for two years, does not lend itself to a facile characterization that one or the other is "the lesser of two evils." They are not two evils, two single events. They are entirely separate trajectories of policy crafting, legislative leadership, agency management, and response to crisis. They are two different worlds. Given the choice of two different worlds, rarely are they equally repugnant; Bush's world, for instance, is a lot more awful to me than just about any conceivable Gore world, based only on Bush's Supreme Court appointments and his response to crises, which could not have been worse.
I know I haven't answered the question, which is how to convince someone that it's a good idea to vote for a third party. My answer is that there are no convincing arguments for someone like me, who understands that politics is nothing other than the art of compromise, in which you work for the conditions you think best, and who sees a vast, real, and material policy difference between the two major parties, with very real and potentially painful and/or fatal effects for human beings when the choice is poorly made.
I agree with those who say that the place to build 3rd parties is not in the Presidential election, where the effort is either inconsequential or seriously harmful to the health of the nation, but at the local and perhaps state level. We elected a Green as a rep in my state this year, for example.
But even should a 3rd party grow in strength enough to contend for the Presidential election, we won't have a more inclusive, fairer politics - we'll have one with a triple polarity, in which the two parties whose goals are the closest split the votes of their strongest supporters, and the outlier, least-supported party wins and dominates the federal government. It seems as though parliamentary systems end up just devolving into blocs of party alignments which roughly match our binary system anyway, only with more names to remember, and no one sees their agenda happen anyway.
So when asked how to convince someone who isn't interested in 3rd parties to vote for one, my advice is, don't bother. Instead, use your energy to get active in a local or state-level campaign for a member of that party, or, as mentioned above, get active in the primary where you can have a huge influence on which person is the eventual nominee of a party.
posted by Miko at 9:12 PM on November 8, 2008 [3 favorites]
Politics is about compromise. Politics is the practice of compromise. Politics is a method by which people with differing viewpoints agree on a course of action. It's not sad; it simply is.
No matter what 3rd, 4th, or 5th party you develop and endorse, it will, inevitably, face just as many situations of compromise as our present two major parties do. That is because we are a diverse nation with a wide range of points of view. There will never, ever be a politics without compromise. To imagine one is to be very naive, or to envision a monolithic single-party government that rules by coercion.
Given two sets of policy choices - particularly two sets as clearly and oppositionally defined as our two major parties' sets - I tend to think it's disingenuous to pretend that one is not favored. The experience of living under Bush for eight years, as opposed to the hypothetical of living under Gore for two years, does not lend itself to a facile characterization that one or the other is "the lesser of two evils." They are not two evils, two single events. They are entirely separate trajectories of policy crafting, legislative leadership, agency management, and response to crisis. They are two different worlds. Given the choice of two different worlds, rarely are they equally repugnant; Bush's world, for instance, is a lot more awful to me than just about any conceivable Gore world, based only on Bush's Supreme Court appointments and his response to crises, which could not have been worse.
I know I haven't answered the question, which is how to convince someone that it's a good idea to vote for a third party. My answer is that there are no convincing arguments for someone like me, who understands that politics is nothing other than the art of compromise, in which you work for the conditions you think best, and who sees a vast, real, and material policy difference between the two major parties, with very real and potentially painful and/or fatal effects for human beings when the choice is poorly made.
I agree with those who say that the place to build 3rd parties is not in the Presidential election, where the effort is either inconsequential or seriously harmful to the health of the nation, but at the local and perhaps state level. We elected a Green as a rep in my state this year, for example.
But even should a 3rd party grow in strength enough to contend for the Presidential election, we won't have a more inclusive, fairer politics - we'll have one with a triple polarity, in which the two parties whose goals are the closest split the votes of their strongest supporters, and the outlier, least-supported party wins and dominates the federal government. It seems as though parliamentary systems end up just devolving into blocs of party alignments which roughly match our binary system anyway, only with more names to remember, and no one sees their agenda happen anyway.
So when asked how to convince someone who isn't interested in 3rd parties to vote for one, my advice is, don't bother. Instead, use your energy to get active in a local or state-level campaign for a member of that party, or, as mentioned above, get active in the primary where you can have a huge influence on which person is the eventual nominee of a party.
posted by Miko at 9:12 PM on November 8, 2008 [3 favorites]
we'll have one with a triple polarity, in which the two parties whose goals are the closest split the votes of their strongest supporters, and the outlier, least-supported party wins and dominates the federal government.
When you get that situation, eventually the two parties nearer one another merge, and you're back to two parties total. That's where Duverger's law comes from.
posted by Class Goat at 9:51 PM on November 8, 2008 [2 favorites]
When you get that situation, eventually the two parties nearer one another merge, and you're back to two parties total. That's where Duverger's law comes from.
posted by Class Goat at 9:51 PM on November 8, 2008 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Thanks for everyone's insight.
Here's an example of a battle that Kucinch had with NBC over one of the primary debates.
posted by captainsohler at 10:12 PM on November 8, 2008
Here's an example of a battle that Kucinch had with NBC over one of the primary debates.
posted by captainsohler at 10:12 PM on November 8, 2008
I successfully did this on Tuesday. Keep in mind I rant about this constantly - dozens of people have heard my feelings about this and only one came around to my point of view. Also keep in mind that I live in California so I could say with honesty: "You live in a winner takes all state and even the Obama campaign is so sure they're going to win that they aren't even campaigning here"
Actually, that was my entire argument. For whatever reason the guy agreed with me and voted Green for the sake of supporting 3rd party politics.
I've got to be honest that if I lived in Ohio or Florida I might not be so steadfast in my refusal to ever vote for another Democrat for president (after fresh facedly voting for Clinton in the very first presidential election I was elegible to participate in and then spending the next 8 years hating him and his welfare-slashing, Iraq-bombing, NAFTA-signing, Don't-ask-Don't-telling ways.)
posted by serazin at 10:13 PM on November 8, 2008
Actually, that was my entire argument. For whatever reason the guy agreed with me and voted Green for the sake of supporting 3rd party politics.
I've got to be honest that if I lived in Ohio or Florida I might not be so steadfast in my refusal to ever vote for another Democrat for president (after fresh facedly voting for Clinton in the very first presidential election I was elegible to participate in and then spending the next 8 years hating him and his welfare-slashing, Iraq-bombing, NAFTA-signing, Don't-ask-Don't-telling ways.)
posted by serazin at 10:13 PM on November 8, 2008
Nominally related: I found this book extremely compelling and convincing and I force it upon everyone who allows me to.
posted by serazin at 10:15 PM on November 8, 2008
posted by serazin at 10:15 PM on November 8, 2008
is because no lawmaker really has a duty to the working class.
and the reason that is goes back to the conservative-liberal divide in this country. Hello? McCain just got nearly 50%+ of the popular vote in this country!
Until Obama's Yes We Can reeducation centers get going we've just got to live with the retards among us.
posted by troy at 11:00 PM on November 8, 2008
and the reason that is goes back to the conservative-liberal divide in this country. Hello? McCain just got nearly 50%+ of the popular vote in this country!
Until Obama's Yes We Can reeducation centers get going we've just got to live with the retards among us.
posted by troy at 11:00 PM on November 8, 2008
You cannot form a convincing argument because you are wrong. It is not a good idea to vote for a candidate who has no hope of winning, and it is not a good idea for the media to waste their time and ours on such candidates except as a sort of stroll past the sideshow for the curious.
You should instead try to convince people that the voting system is bad, because that's an argument you can win, but the two existing big parties aren't going to be much help in eliminating a bad system that supports only their continuance, so good luck with ever getting it changed. The only change that will come is when one party has a political disaster that leaves room for a new party to step up, leaving the US with two parties again.
posted by pracowity at 2:51 AM on November 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
You should instead try to convince people that the voting system is bad, because that's an argument you can win, but the two existing big parties aren't going to be much help in eliminating a bad system that supports only their continuance, so good luck with ever getting it changed. The only change that will come is when one party has a political disaster that leaves room for a new party to step up, leaving the US with two parties again.
posted by pracowity at 2:51 AM on November 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
I just tell people the truth, I vote my conscience.
..I knew Obama was going to win and that's wonderful, my husband is a black man, so you can be sure that I had a vested interest in pushing this country to be more tolerant, but like I've said elsewhere, McCain doesn't even know how many houses he owns, Palin is dumber than a bag of nails, Obama belonged to a member of a church where the preacher is a bit of a racist lunatic, Biden said not too long ago that Obama wasn't fit to be president.
Do any of these people really represent me? No, they do not.
It's not pissing into the wind if you believe in your heart that it makes some sort of difference. Sorry if that's too Pollyanna for some people, but as much as my optimism annoys you, your cynicism annoys me.
posted by Grlnxtdr at 9:36 AM on November 9, 2008
..I knew Obama was going to win and that's wonderful, my husband is a black man, so you can be sure that I had a vested interest in pushing this country to be more tolerant, but like I've said elsewhere, McCain doesn't even know how many houses he owns, Palin is dumber than a bag of nails, Obama belonged to a member of a church where the preacher is a bit of a racist lunatic, Biden said not too long ago that Obama wasn't fit to be president.
Do any of these people really represent me? No, they do not.
It's not pissing into the wind if you believe in your heart that it makes some sort of difference. Sorry if that's too Pollyanna for some people, but as much as my optimism annoys you, your cynicism annoys me.
posted by Grlnxtdr at 9:36 AM on November 9, 2008
I think it depends a lot on what you're trying to accomplish.
If you're trying to feel virtuous, then vote for the candidate who is closes to your ideological position, irrespective of whether he has any remote chance of winning.
I think this was right on. At least in Presidential elections in our times, voting for a 3rd party is really more about the voter's sense of self and desire to make a statement than about the good of the country.
The above comment about "vote my conscience" reflects that. My political position's don't map directly onto either of the political party's platform either, and actually, I think most Americans would really fine-tune quite a bit if they could create their own ideal political platform. But I couldn't live with myself if I didn't use my vote to do what I can to improve conditions in age that threatens family law and women's self-determination, is holding people without warrant, is waging war, and so on. These issues have different outcomes because of who wins the elections, and some of the outcomes are ones I believe are harshly detrimental to the people of this country. "Voting my conscience" means that I need to do whatever I can to encourage positions I like and prevent positions I don't like from becoming a legal reality. To use my vote for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning would be betraying my conscience and putting the statement ahead of the reality of life for real people in America today.
posted by Miko at 10:16 AM on November 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
If you're trying to feel virtuous, then vote for the candidate who is closes to your ideological position, irrespective of whether he has any remote chance of winning.
I think this was right on. At least in Presidential elections in our times, voting for a 3rd party is really more about the voter's sense of self and desire to make a statement than about the good of the country.
The above comment about "vote my conscience" reflects that. My political position's don't map directly onto either of the political party's platform either, and actually, I think most Americans would really fine-tune quite a bit if they could create their own ideal political platform. But I couldn't live with myself if I didn't use my vote to do what I can to improve conditions in age that threatens family law and women's self-determination, is holding people without warrant, is waging war, and so on. These issues have different outcomes because of who wins the elections, and some of the outcomes are ones I believe are harshly detrimental to the people of this country. "Voting my conscience" means that I need to do whatever I can to encourage positions I like and prevent positions I don't like from becoming a legal reality. To use my vote for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning would be betraying my conscience and putting the statement ahead of the reality of life for real people in America today.
posted by Miko at 10:16 AM on November 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
political position's
Ouch. Positions. Sorry for the apostrophe...
posted by Miko at 10:16 AM on November 9, 2008
Ouch. Positions. Sorry for the apostrophe...
posted by Miko at 10:16 AM on November 9, 2008
What is the most succinct way to explain to people on why it is favorable to vote outside of the major party candidates for a Presidental election?
In a first-past-the-post system like we have, your premise is demonstrably false. Voting for a candidate who does not have a significant chance of winning is utterly useless.
So if you want it to be favorable to vote for someone who's not in one of the two major parties, push for instant-runoff voting. Right now, voting for a third-party candidate is equivalent to throwing your vote away. (Look to Canada's recent federal election for evidence of this: the Conservatives got 37.63% of the vote but 46.4% of the seats in Commons, and the Liberals and NDP together got 44.35% of the vote but only 37% of the seats. The Greens got 4.48% of the vote and no seats.)
posted by oaf at 11:15 AM on November 9, 2008
In a first-past-the-post system like we have, your premise is demonstrably false. Voting for a candidate who does not have a significant chance of winning is utterly useless.
So if you want it to be favorable to vote for someone who's not in one of the two major parties, push for instant-runoff voting. Right now, voting for a third-party candidate is equivalent to throwing your vote away. (Look to Canada's recent federal election for evidence of this: the Conservatives got 37.63% of the vote but 46.4% of the seats in Commons, and the Liberals and NDP together got 44.35% of the vote but only 37% of the seats. The Greens got 4.48% of the vote and no seats.)
posted by oaf at 11:15 AM on November 9, 2008
>>>...Nader was not a spoiler in 2000...
The final certified total of votes in Florida showed Bush with just 537 more than Gore. Nader had 97,000 votes in Florida. If Nader hadn't run, presumably most of those would have gone to Gore, and he would have won the election.
Like everyone else and their half-sister, I heard this argument over and over in the months after the 2000 election. There are some things about it I've never quite understood, however:
1. Why is it considered "presumably" true that most of the votes Nader received would have gone to Gore? It seems to me that there would have been quite a few of those voters who wouldn't have gone to vote at all if there wasn't a candidate they were excited about, just as many many people voted for Obama this time who were not in the habit of voting at all. Of the ones who did vote, who knows how they would have voted otherwise? How did this conclusion get made?
2. Why were so many Democrats more upset at Nader voters than they were at Bush voters, or those who didn't vote at all?
3. It seems to me that you could point to any number of counterfactuals (if Nader hadn't run, if Florida had had a different Secretary of State, if Gore had run a more effective campaign, if Florida had had a cold front that day and kept a lot of older voters home) and construct an scenario where any one of them could have given Gore the win. Why the vituperation associated with this particular counterfactual?
Also, to those who are saying over and over again in this thread that 3rd-party votes are utterly ineffectual, I would say that if the only possible effect you're considering is who will be the winner of the particular race in question, you're quite correct. However, the social effect of a large 3rd party vote turnout is hard to measure. I think it was at least notable to many people, including higher-ups in both established parties, that Perot and Nader, for example, got so many votes. It was a message that there was a significant segment of their constituency who were inclined to a particular set of views, information that I hope would be of some value to anyone hoping to understand the makeup of society and the opinions of the citizenry. (And that's my answer to the original question, too.)
posted by slappy_pinchbottom at 1:34 PM on November 9, 2008
The final certified total of votes in Florida showed Bush with just 537 more than Gore. Nader had 97,000 votes in Florida. If Nader hadn't run, presumably most of those would have gone to Gore, and he would have won the election.
Like everyone else and their half-sister, I heard this argument over and over in the months after the 2000 election. There are some things about it I've never quite understood, however:
1. Why is it considered "presumably" true that most of the votes Nader received would have gone to Gore? It seems to me that there would have been quite a few of those voters who wouldn't have gone to vote at all if there wasn't a candidate they were excited about, just as many many people voted for Obama this time who were not in the habit of voting at all. Of the ones who did vote, who knows how they would have voted otherwise? How did this conclusion get made?
2. Why were so many Democrats more upset at Nader voters than they were at Bush voters, or those who didn't vote at all?
3. It seems to me that you could point to any number of counterfactuals (if Nader hadn't run, if Florida had had a different Secretary of State, if Gore had run a more effective campaign, if Florida had had a cold front that day and kept a lot of older voters home) and construct an scenario where any one of them could have given Gore the win. Why the vituperation associated with this particular counterfactual?
Also, to those who are saying over and over again in this thread that 3rd-party votes are utterly ineffectual, I would say that if the only possible effect you're considering is who will be the winner of the particular race in question, you're quite correct. However, the social effect of a large 3rd party vote turnout is hard to measure. I think it was at least notable to many people, including higher-ups in both established parties, that Perot and Nader, for example, got so many votes. It was a message that there was a significant segment of their constituency who were inclined to a particular set of views, information that I hope would be of some value to anyone hoping to understand the makeup of society and the opinions of the citizenry. (And that's my answer to the original question, too.)
posted by slappy_pinchbottom at 1:34 PM on November 9, 2008
1. Why is it considered "presumably" true that most of the votes Nader received would have gone to Gore?
It didn't need to be most, and you shouldn't read it as "most." You should read it as "enough": at least 1000.
2. Why were so many Democrats more upset at Nader voters than they were at Bush voters
Bush voters were acting in ways that were reasonable given their beliefs and preferences.
Nader voters either were not, or had beliefs and preferences that many people would call themselves unreasonable. To vote for Nader, you have to either be completely delusional and think that Nader has a realistic chance of winning the election, or you have to believe that Gore has Florida in the bag, which is an unrealistic but not delusional belief to hold in November of 2000, or you have to not care whether Bush or Gore wins. The latter position is one that many would regard as irrational, deeply ignorant, or immoral.
3. Why the vituperation associated with this particular counterfactual?
(1) Knowing what we know now, this is the particular counterfactual where people act in especially precious ways, which is already annoying as in the case of people who tell you loudly that they don't have a television, and manage through their preciousness to throw the country into a major war, causing at the least, hundreds of thousands of deaths and hammering the last nail into the coffin of any sort of fiscal responsibility. You were not merely acting like a precious little flower, it says, your precious flowerness turned out to cause untold harm to our nation and others.
(2) The real counterfactual is just if Palm Beach County has another voting system in 2000: then we don't get the numerous error-votes for Buchanan instead of Gore, and Gore wins. Anyway, the non-Nader counterfactuals don't depend on people behaving in ways that are fundamentally, literally, irrational. There's no vituperation in the weather. There's no particular vituperation in Gore's campaigning; he was was probably campaigning about as well as he could, which it turns out was not especially well. There's no particular vituperation in Harris's in Harris's conduct; she acted like a decent lefty would expect a slimy Republican to act.
As well, none of the other counterfactuals were available to voters on election day. On election day, the weather is what it was, and Harris was secretary of state. On election day, voters couldn't choose to have Gore run a better campaign and get more nonvoters out to vote for him, or get a few more Bush voters to switch. On election day, Palm Beach had the voting system it had.
And on election day, 97000 people who knew or should have known that Nader couldn't possibly win, who knew or should have known that the race in Florida was very close, who knew or should have known that by any reasonable measure Gore would have been immeasurably better than Bush (and we now have every reason to think that this is, in fact, correct), and they went and voted for Nader anyway knowing that the only possible effect that their vote could have on election day, with everything else already done and unchangeable, is to swing the victory from Gore's to Bush's.
That's why. Because 97000 people voted in a way whose only possible effect was to give them their least-favored outcome, and we got that worst possible outcome, and we've lived with it for 8 years. For the ill of all of us, except the ones who are dead.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:18 PM on November 9, 2008 [5 favorites]
It didn't need to be most, and you shouldn't read it as "most." You should read it as "enough": at least 1000.
2. Why were so many Democrats more upset at Nader voters than they were at Bush voters
Bush voters were acting in ways that were reasonable given their beliefs and preferences.
Nader voters either were not, or had beliefs and preferences that many people would call themselves unreasonable. To vote for Nader, you have to either be completely delusional and think that Nader has a realistic chance of winning the election, or you have to believe that Gore has Florida in the bag, which is an unrealistic but not delusional belief to hold in November of 2000, or you have to not care whether Bush or Gore wins. The latter position is one that many would regard as irrational, deeply ignorant, or immoral.
3. Why the vituperation associated with this particular counterfactual?
(1) Knowing what we know now, this is the particular counterfactual where people act in especially precious ways, which is already annoying as in the case of people who tell you loudly that they don't have a television, and manage through their preciousness to throw the country into a major war, causing at the least, hundreds of thousands of deaths and hammering the last nail into the coffin of any sort of fiscal responsibility. You were not merely acting like a precious little flower, it says, your precious flowerness turned out to cause untold harm to our nation and others.
(2) The real counterfactual is just if Palm Beach County has another voting system in 2000: then we don't get the numerous error-votes for Buchanan instead of Gore, and Gore wins. Anyway, the non-Nader counterfactuals don't depend on people behaving in ways that are fundamentally, literally, irrational. There's no vituperation in the weather. There's no particular vituperation in Gore's campaigning; he was was probably campaigning about as well as he could, which it turns out was not especially well. There's no particular vituperation in Harris's in Harris's conduct; she acted like a decent lefty would expect a slimy Republican to act.
As well, none of the other counterfactuals were available to voters on election day. On election day, the weather is what it was, and Harris was secretary of state. On election day, voters couldn't choose to have Gore run a better campaign and get more nonvoters out to vote for him, or get a few more Bush voters to switch. On election day, Palm Beach had the voting system it had.
And on election day, 97000 people who knew or should have known that Nader couldn't possibly win, who knew or should have known that the race in Florida was very close, who knew or should have known that by any reasonable measure Gore would have been immeasurably better than Bush (and we now have every reason to think that this is, in fact, correct), and they went and voted for Nader anyway knowing that the only possible effect that their vote could have on election day, with everything else already done and unchangeable, is to swing the victory from Gore's to Bush's.
That's why. Because 97000 people voted in a way whose only possible effect was to give them their least-favored outcome, and we got that worst possible outcome, and we've lived with it for 8 years. For the ill of all of us, except the ones who are dead.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:18 PM on November 9, 2008 [5 favorites]
Thanks for trying to explain, ROU_Xenophobe. (Sincerely.) I think there must be something I'm still missing, though. I still don't see how anyone can know what was in the minds of any voters -- i.e., what the voters considered their own best interests, and whether they could be said to be voting against them -- it doesn't seem so clear to me. And as to what people should have known or not, the most sophisticated pollsters and pundits quite often miscall election results, so I also don't think that aspect was necessarily as obvious beforehand as it is in hindsight -- the idea of the race being so close that voting for a fringe candidate could possibly be viewed as swinging the election -- nobody knew that would happen with any certainty, just as nobody knew that Nader would get the really astonishing numbers he did, and thus that his voting bloc would be considered significant and scapegoat-worthy.
I can see blaming Gore's loss on people who didn't vote for Gore. Makes a certain sort of sense to me, though I can see arguments against it too. But even so, it seems to me like there are two tiers of blame there. First tier, most blame: those who voted for Bush. Second tier, arguably some blame: those who voted for neither Bush nor Gore. That would be anyone voting for Nader, Buchanan, Bugs Bunny, or not voting at all (assuming they were eligible to vote.) I can see being pissed off at all those folks, if you believe in the power of the vote. I just still can't see why, among the second group, Nader voters are found to be the most objectionable.
Why is it that Bush voters get a pass, but Nader voters somehow should have known better? It's as if Nader voters are assumed to have the intelligence or moral sense to have made a better choice than they did, unlike Bush voters. And why would they be presumed to have that intelligence or moral sense? I wonder if it's possibly that many Democrats felt more sympathetic to Nader's platform than to the mainstream Democratic platform, and thus assumed Nader voters to be like-minded individuals to themselves, only perhaps less practical/more idealistic/whatever. I just don't think that's a safe assumption to make. I think that many Nader voters were angry, like Nader himself is angry. They were sick of the status quo, and their vote was about expressing that dissatisfaction. That's what makes me think that if Nader hadn't run, a lot of those folks would have ended up voting for Bush if they voted at all -- remember, we had just had 8 years of Democrats in the White House. Gore's was not the party of change that time around.
And really, "through their preciousness...throw the country into a major war"? Really? They're more to blame than, say, Bush? Rumsfeld? Bin Laden? The bipartisan Congresscritters that authorized the war almost unanimously, and all the people who voted for them? (Naderites didn't elect that Congress -- that should be one point in their favor, at least.) It's this level of hyperbole (not at all uncommon) that really puzzles me about the Nader backlash. It's not reasonable to expect them or anyone else to have known that Bush would drag us into the insanity of the Iraq war. It's not like that was accepted wisdom anywhere outside some particularly prescient folks who had been keeping an eye on the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal; it certainly wasn't a talking point of the election.
It also may be that some Nader voters considered the creation of a viable third party to be a desirable goal, and one worth moving toward. If that was the case, how else to start working for one than to vote for it, and trying to get other people to vote for it? Even if you knew realistically that *this* time wouldn't be the one where you had a chance, or next time, you've got to start somewhere for the snowball to ever get going. Sure, it's an arguably myopic single-issue way to vote, but many many voters are single-issue voters.
(Now personally, I think that the two-party system has a pretty much unbreakable stranglehold on federal politics, but I don't enjoy that fact, nor think people who disagree are necessarily unreasonable; their high school history classes would have told them about a good number of new political parties which have come and gone over the course of American history. Why not another one? Is it too audacious to hope for change of that magnitude?)
posted by slappy_pinchbottom at 3:57 PM on November 9, 2008
I can see blaming Gore's loss on people who didn't vote for Gore. Makes a certain sort of sense to me, though I can see arguments against it too. But even so, it seems to me like there are two tiers of blame there. First tier, most blame: those who voted for Bush. Second tier, arguably some blame: those who voted for neither Bush nor Gore. That would be anyone voting for Nader, Buchanan, Bugs Bunny, or not voting at all (assuming they were eligible to vote.) I can see being pissed off at all those folks, if you believe in the power of the vote. I just still can't see why, among the second group, Nader voters are found to be the most objectionable.
Why is it that Bush voters get a pass, but Nader voters somehow should have known better? It's as if Nader voters are assumed to have the intelligence or moral sense to have made a better choice than they did, unlike Bush voters. And why would they be presumed to have that intelligence or moral sense? I wonder if it's possibly that many Democrats felt more sympathetic to Nader's platform than to the mainstream Democratic platform, and thus assumed Nader voters to be like-minded individuals to themselves, only perhaps less practical/more idealistic/whatever. I just don't think that's a safe assumption to make. I think that many Nader voters were angry, like Nader himself is angry. They were sick of the status quo, and their vote was about expressing that dissatisfaction. That's what makes me think that if Nader hadn't run, a lot of those folks would have ended up voting for Bush if they voted at all -- remember, we had just had 8 years of Democrats in the White House. Gore's was not the party of change that time around.
And really, "through their preciousness...throw the country into a major war"? Really? They're more to blame than, say, Bush? Rumsfeld? Bin Laden? The bipartisan Congresscritters that authorized the war almost unanimously, and all the people who voted for them? (Naderites didn't elect that Congress -- that should be one point in their favor, at least.) It's this level of hyperbole (not at all uncommon) that really puzzles me about the Nader backlash. It's not reasonable to expect them or anyone else to have known that Bush would drag us into the insanity of the Iraq war. It's not like that was accepted wisdom anywhere outside some particularly prescient folks who had been keeping an eye on the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal; it certainly wasn't a talking point of the election.
It also may be that some Nader voters considered the creation of a viable third party to be a desirable goal, and one worth moving toward. If that was the case, how else to start working for one than to vote for it, and trying to get other people to vote for it? Even if you knew realistically that *this* time wouldn't be the one where you had a chance, or next time, you've got to start somewhere for the snowball to ever get going. Sure, it's an arguably myopic single-issue way to vote, but many many voters are single-issue voters.
(Now personally, I think that the two-party system has a pretty much unbreakable stranglehold on federal politics, but I don't enjoy that fact, nor think people who disagree are necessarily unreasonable; their high school history classes would have told them about a good number of new political parties which have come and gone over the course of American history. Why not another one? Is it too audacious to hope for change of that magnitude?)
posted by slappy_pinchbottom at 3:57 PM on November 9, 2008
What magnitude? Those parties didn't survive. They didn't contribute anything unique that could not find accommodation within the agenda of one or the other major parties, given sufficient activism.
posted by Miko at 4:19 PM on November 9, 2008
posted by Miko at 4:19 PM on November 9, 2008
I can see blaming Gore's loss on people who didn't vote for Gore.
There's no "blame" involved WRT voting per se. Each individual has the sacred duty to exercise their franchise as they see fit at the time. We can only "blame" people who regret their vote in 2000 or 2004 and wish they could change it now, but there's no mileage to be had in that.
I believe this answers your question in a global and consistent manner:
"Why is it that Bush voters get a pass, but Nader voters somehow should have known better?"
posted by troy at 6:17 PM on November 9, 2008
There's no "blame" involved WRT voting per se. Each individual has the sacred duty to exercise their franchise as they see fit at the time. We can only "blame" people who regret their vote in 2000 or 2004 and wish they could change it now, but there's no mileage to be had in that.
I believe this answers your question in a global and consistent manner:
"Why is it that Bush voters get a pass, but Nader voters somehow should have known better?"
posted by troy at 6:17 PM on November 9, 2008
Is it too audacious to hope for change of that magnitude?
The problem isn't the selection of parties, it's the people.
I could cite several public polling results like % of people who can't find the US on a map, or can't name ONE SCOTUS jurist, or aren't buying this whole evolution thing, but that shouldn't be necessary.
GIGO.
posted by troy at 6:44 PM on November 9, 2008
The problem isn't the selection of parties, it's the people.
I could cite several public polling results like % of people who can't find the US on a map, or can't name ONE SCOTUS jurist, or aren't buying this whole evolution thing, but that shouldn't be necessary.
GIGO.
posted by troy at 6:44 PM on November 9, 2008
I think it was at least notable to many people, including higher-ups in both established parties, that Perot and Nader, for example, got so many votes.
Perot got a lot of votes. Nader didn't.
posted by oaf at 6:59 PM on November 9, 2008
Perot got a lot of votes. Nader didn't.
posted by oaf at 6:59 PM on November 9, 2008
^ also, the mathematics of winner-takes-all elections dictate that a vote you can win from your main competition is worth 2 votes you find somewhere else.
posted by troy at 7:47 PM on November 9, 2008
posted by troy at 7:47 PM on November 9, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Spurious at 5:23 PM on November 8, 2008 [2 favorites]