I don’t know. The Democrats certainly don’t have an exclusive process. The Democratic nominee for Attorney General in my state was GOP a year & a half ago, & a lot of the Dems were campaigning against him in the primary–but he won it anyway.
Not so in Canada, anyway. While this is true of many ridings, there are also many where three parties, or even four are viable contenders. Even where it’s realistically just between two parties, it’s not always the same two parties.
Note that while the US and Canada both use first-past-the-post voting, the US has only two parties represented in Congress, while Canada had 5 (plus 3 independents) as of the recent election call (although the sole Green MP had been elected as a Liberal). Since 1930, there have only been 4 elections where there were less than 4 parties winning seats in the House, and 5 is not uncommon (although only the Liberals and old/Progressive/new Conservatives have as yet polled enough MPs at the federal level to able to form governments on their own). So it’s obviously not the voting system that’s at fault. In my opinion, the main difference is that the election process in Canada is run by a non-political independent federal government agency, whereas in the US it is run by hundreds/thousands of state/county highly politicised organizations, heavily biased towards the Dem/Rep status quo, which even control the nomination process in many states.
You must be from New York.
It is, of course, your right and obligation to vote for whom you believe best meets your own personal criteria. If you want to write in Unicorn, that’s your right. You don’t owe me squat. But I don’t owe you squat either. I cast my vote in the manner I think will be most useful for my country and community.
Of course it is. If one of the viable candidates is the lesser of two evils then the other is the greater of two evils. Do you want him to get elected?
To use your example, it would suck to have start printing money like crazy; we’d get hyperinflation and economic chaos. But that’s still better than voting for the Hitler guy; he’s going to start a world war while rounding up millions of people he doesn’t like and killing them. That puts a economic crisis in perspective.
Look at Gore and Bush. Do you think Gore would have invaded Iraq? Do you think he would have screwed up New Orleans? Do you think he would have looked the other way on Wall Street? Do you think he would have torn up constitutional rights? Do you really think there would have been no difference between Gore and Bush at this point?
I’m voting for Nader, solely because I refuse to believe this country oughtta be goverened by the same political machines it has been for the last fifty years. I disagree with you, and think that Nader would actually do well as President: we all know (or at least ought to know) that one man doesn’t do all of the work, but in fact assembles a Cabinet that makes recommendations on courses of action to him. I think Nader could assemble a reliable, prudent Cabinet to help him run the country.
Besides that, the Republicans and Democrats have run the election system into the ground to the point that nobody with a good idea, but without money can introduce that idea. This is bad for democracy. While there ought to be filters in place to help strain out the cacophony from the ‘peanut gallery’, it ought not be so stringent that the Dems and 'Publickers have a stranglehold on everything.
Thus, I vote Nader. Even if he’s a secret Dem or 'Publicker, he’s independent in name on the ballot, and that’s what matters to me–I like his track record too, even though I disagree with some major points of his decisions, but I can see why he chooses them. Transparency in government is a huge issue for me.
Thus, I do vote in protest of the current political machine. I vote Nader. If that makes me an “idiot”, then the hell with you.
Tripler
::stomps foot, closes eyes, puts fingers in ears, ‘Nyahh!’::
The extremes on the right got smart. They got inside the system. They held their noses and voted for Republican candidates they didn’t really like all that much. But they became a part of the Republican voting bloc and the Republican Party had to start listening to them. And they’ve managed to get their agenda acted on and their goals enacted into laws.
The extremes on the left, on the other hand, insist on ideological purity. They won’t compromise and vote for a Demcorat candidate who’s moderately closer to their position than his Republican opponent. The result is that the Democrat Party has no reason to listen to Greens or other people on the left. The left agenda sits there unsullied but unfulfilled.
One final word. I dislike Nader. As an individual not as a symbol of third parties. I think he’s devious and underhanded and that goes back to things he did before he ever ran for office. If I thought he had a chance of getting elected I would most likely vote for his opponent to keep Nader out of office. I feel that against most people, Ralph Nader would be the greater evil.
Little Nemo, your argument makes no sense. How does a party “have to start listening to” people who are going to vote for whatever candidate it puts up anyway?
BTW, I wouldn’t vote for Nader either. He’s not the only left-wing candidate in the race.
The blade cuts both ways on this issue. People automatically think Green takes away votes from Democrats. Well guess what, it doesn’t. A vote for the Green Party is a vote for the Green Party, not some damned “lost” Democrat vote. I’m a conservative, and I usually vote Libertarian. Does this mean that my vote is a “lost” Republican vote? Hell no. It’s a vote for the party and principles that I believe in, instead of voting “conservative lite.”
The extremes on the right have been suckered. The repubs talk all the social programs like gay marriage and abortion and do not deliver. They do not intend to. They just need the right wing nuts to get elected. The people who run the repub party are the rich Cheney types who want to run the country and the world. They are international bankers ,corporate execs. hedge fund managers and war profiting thieves. They have done very,very well. They just need the radical religious nuts to win. They actually have no intention of giving them anything. If they are absolutely forced to ,they may toss them a bone someday. But the religious right has almost no impact on governing. It is about money.
I think it’s ok if Democrats like IvanTheMute want to vote for the Libertarian. They’re not many of them, but I can understand ITM’s dislike of the Bush administration’s warrentless wiretaps, and the Republican Party’s anti-choice, anti-freedom initiatives.
And I guess I understand why Republicans like Tripler vote for Ralph Nadar. Ralph lies a lot like George Bush - Ralph said that he wouldn’t campaign in swing states, then went back on his word. And they’re both baffoons. McCain isn’t a fool, but he’s a sleaze innovator – but I guess he isn’t quite as slimy as Ralph. So I can see Tripler’s point.
You really are an arrogant little shit aren’t you. I am voting for Obama as I think for once the two parties have accidentally coughed up a very good candidate but it sure as hell is not because of assholes like you who do not respect the choice of others and can only disparage other points of view. Go fuck yourself with a rusted maul you stupid little man.
So they’re some ridings where 3 parties each get approximately 1/3 of the vote? Huh.
Given that, I’m somewhat surprised that Canada hasn’t switched to approval voting. I would think that some elections would leave solid majorities in certain ridings rather unhappy.
Thanks also to ultrafilter for the Duverger’s law link. I’ll attempt more circumspection in future posts on this subject.
Was my post more insulting than yours? Have I not made substantiated arguments on the previous page?
And why is calling somebody a Republican or Democrat disparagement? Just wondering.
Let me put it in a more serious fashion. Winner-take-all voting does a poor job of translating voter preference into electoral outcome. Among voting systems, it is uniquely bad: other systems can in theory give awkward outcomes, but empirically they tend to do roughly the same. (Ref: study of a British Union election, where voters filled out a very detailed ballot, permitting the researchers to contrast voting systems. I haven’t been able to track down the precise cite though).
I support voting reform. I don’t like winner-take-all voting. But that’s the system we work under. Under such circumstances, the consequences of voting your pure preferences can be perverse.
The phenomenon of the spoiled election is pretty well understood. Supporters of third parties in the US mostly dodge this matter.
This is exactly the point the OP is making. You’re not necessarily voting for a Green. In some cases you’re voting for a Republican who registered as a Green to get the vote of the people who will vote for the Greens without looking at the candidate. The Republicans mentioned are being duplicitous.
I don’t see the OP as saying all third party voters are stupid. Just the ones who vote straight party without looking at the candidate. I would presume that same proviso applies to people who vote straight ticket Democrat and Republican.
Reread your own posts and how you have dismissed other point of views and smeared the other candidates. It was not the use of Republican or Democrat where I perceived the disparagement. You are coming across like the worst example of a Democrat still whining about how Gore lost and blaming it on everything but the fact Gore did a bad job with his campaign. Rejoice, Obama is a far better campaigner than Gore and I think even a better man. Gore could have easily ensured every Green vote if he had bothered addressing Green issues in a bigger way in his campaign. That so many Green leaners voter for Nader over Gore speaks to how poorly Gore got his message out to those that should have been happy to vote for him.
I would be happy to see both current parties collapse and some new ones replace them. Constantly harping on the fact that a third party can’t make it and voting for a third party is throwing away your vote is a rather self-fulfilling prophecy isn’t it.
As to insulting you, I meant to and it is something I very rarely do on this board or anywhere. You are being a stupid little shit.
Jim
Yes: it was parody. I’m just saying that your post was not less insulting. (That’s not a complaint, just an observation).
Greens generally don’t like being called Republicans. It’s deeply insulting. I assume that for many Libertarians, being called a Democrat is also insulting (though I know from personal experience that this is not always the case).
But that’s the point: under winner-take-all-voting, casting one’s ballot for a third party can have perverse consequences. (Some Greens said that it’s ok if the result was a Republican victory- Nader argued this- and I was just running with the scenario.)
Yes, I called Nader a liar. If he kept his word and didn’t campaign in swing states like Florida or New Hampshire, Gore would have won. As it happens, majorities in both Florida and the US voted for Gore, so I’m not convinced that his campaign was that bad.
I would be happy to be the Prince of China, but that doesn’t make it so. Those serious about advancing the prospects of third parties in America should advocate electoral reform at the local level. Otherwise they’re just pissing in the wind.
Winner-take-all voting systems (AKA first-past-the-post, or plurality) don’t support third party candidates. That’s not a statement of opinion; it’s just the way the math works out. Third-party supporters need to understand that there is a cost associated with not voting for your least-unfavorite major party candidate, and I’m not sure that many do. If the cost-benefit analysis works out for your guy, then by all means vote for him, but don’t pretend like it doesn’t have to be done.