Um, what?!? :mad:
What makes you think I’m a Republican?
Make that pluralities in Florida and majorities in the US.
See ultrafilter’s last post. Under Winner-Take-All-Voting, a vote for a third candidate can have perverse outcomes, alas.
I was taunting you, but I was also trying to demonstrate a point.
Your point is lost on me. I know that voting for a third party can swing an election in difficult ways, but don’t you think some of us already realize that? I know damn well that if I cast my vote to third party candidates, maybe, just maybe over time the “big two” will start to lose footing, and third parties (and fourth, and fifth) will become contenders.
I don’t care for you putting words in my mouth. I have no idea what “your point” is, so don’t presume to know where I stand. I can speak clearly enough for myself, thank you very much.
Tripler
“Taunting me.” :rolleyes:
No, you don’t know this. You don’t know this because it doesn’t happen, it hasn’t happened historically, and there are good (i.e., mathematically sound) reasons to believe that it will never happen. If you want viable third parties, support voting reform.
Again, don’t put words in my mouth. What makes you think I don’t support voting reform? I haven’t volunteered for any organizations only because I’m never in one jurisdiction long enough to really get started and get into the issues. So, I’ll do what I can, when I can. Even if it means throwing a vote away from the “big two.”
Tripler
And no it hasn’t happened in the past. Invent me a crystal political ball so you can predict when it will.
It is ironic that we debate the differences of the parties as they become more and more alike. In America you do not fight money. The newspapers, TV and radio all are owned by huge corporations with a fairly specific agendas. Real news is hard to find. Many 3rd party voters actually think they are 2nd party voters since the Dems and Repubs work for the same people. Often which one you vote for is irrelevant because you wind up in the same place with either one.
When people ask me which party I support;
I hold out my right arm and say “Republicans”.
I hold out my left arm and say “Democrats”.
“Different Arms, Same Monster”.
The Simpsons had a good parody of our electoral system.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!
I think it can be reasonable in some cases to be upset with third party candidates, as they might actually be in a position to swing an election and do harm with their campaigns.
OTOH, getting in the face of third-party *voters *for “throwing their vote away” is really, really stupid – as if any vote for a major party candidate that you’ve ever cast in any election has made one iota of difference. Get some perspective.
The issue is not whether you support voting reform. The issue is that you believe that the voting Green will spur the collapse of the Democratic and Republican Parties.
To be clear, I believe that under the US’s plurality voting system, third party supporters in general and Nader voters in particular, are deserving of ridicule, especially those who dodge arguments involving split ballots. Thus, the taunts.
I agree: US third party voters are delusional. To say that there is no substantial difference between GWBush and Al Gore is just silly. To pass over Nobel Laurette Al Gore because he was insufficiently pure is hilarious.
I agree, narrowly. Single ballots don’t matter in the end (except perhaps is a few small town races) and voting to some extent is a form of social posturing. I say that as a habitual voter.
Because by raising the possibility you’ll vote for a party, you tell them they have to earn your vote. John McCain understands this - he doesn’t personally agree with the religious conservative wing of his party but he’s shown he’ll give them things to get them to go to the polls and vote. Barack Obama doesn’t care if the Greens go to the polls or not - they’re not going to vote for him anyway. So they get nothing.
If you have twenty items on your agenda, which is the better plan: Be pure and only vote for a candidate who supports all twenty items but has no chance of being elected? Or compromise and vote for a candidate who can get elected and promises to support two of your items? The question is what your principles mean to you. Are they just some abstract theory that makes you feel good or are you actually trying to accomplish something with them?
Exactly my point. You’re sitting on the sidelines, saying you won’t vote for either party. That’s the reason they’re ignoring you and your interests. They’re out on the field talking to the people, like big corporations, that are willing to make deals. If you want to change the system, get in and change it. Don’t sit there waiting for someone else to fix it and then hand it to you. Don’t complain that nobody else is protecting your interests when you aren’t willing to do it yourself.
What’s more likely is that one of the big two will coopt your ideas. Which is fine by me; I’m perfectly pleased with changing my vote for that reason. But they will not coopt those ideas unless a third party demonstrates that there is support for those ideas - enough support to scare the devil out of at least one of them, which is a perfectly good reason for voting third party.
I’ll add that - in my opinion - it is perfectly acceptable, and not only acceptable, but morally required, for people to vote for the party they prefer, whether it is the Prohibition Party, the Communist (Stalin) Party, or any other political party on the continuum.
How do you reconcile this opinion with the fact that this strategy often aids the major party candidate that the voter most disagrees with?
I don’t attempt to reconcile it; the party with the most votes wins. If the Democrats in 2000 (for example) fail to demonstate that their platform agrees with my beliefs, why should they expect me to vote for them simply because I disagree even more with the Republicans?
I don’t owe any party a vote; they have to earn it.
The consequences of your voting strategy implies that the government will become less representative of the voters’ preferences, if the system has plurality voting. So this moral rule of thumb doesn’t appear to advance democracy.
I will say though, that superior voting systems permit the consequentialist voter to vote their preferences. But we don’t have such a format.
Oh, of course it does, at least the way things work here in the U.S. The reason the Green Party this year has a candidate who is darn near certifiably lunatic is because the Democrats (and honestly - albeit to a far lesser extent - the Republicans) have espoused the reasonable points of the Green platform.
In the short term. It also provides an incentive for the Democrats - the ones who actually have the power to do it - to try to fix the system. If they won’t work for electoral reform in order to do the right thing, perhaps they will out of simple self-interest.
This is a bone of contention on the other side too. You can see plenty of arguments on conservative blogs between those who say “voting for a third party is voting for Obama!” versus those who say “I hate McCain because of his views, and I’m tired of rewarding RINOs just because of a letter next to their name!” One wants to win the White House, while the other wants to shape a wayward party for (what they see as) the better.
It’s an issue I don’t know how to resolve either.
But always holding your nose and voting for their candidate isn’t just “raising the possibility” you’d vote for them. It’s telling them you’ll vote for them whoever they nominate, so they don’t have to earn your vote.
What if you don’t believe your principles can be accomplished within the current two-party system?