Funny articles in Time about how Nader was blamed for the Yankees win; for Kramnik win, and for Coca-cola dominance.
Okay Guin, why don’t you write a post about Gore’s integrity?
Absolutely. No argument here at all. In fact, I have written in candidates and voted for third party candidates several times in the past.
RTAcan legitimately say “I despised both Bush and Gore equally, so I voted for Nader, and it’s not my fault [Bush/Gore] won.” RTA can’t legitimately say “I didn’t want that frat boy retard as President, but I voted for Nader anyway, and it’s not my fault Bush won.” RTA has expressed many :koff: strong opinions about Bush and his supporters. Therefore, RTA has definitely expressed a preference here, albeit a negative one. If he/she has a preference between the two viable candidates, I posit that he/she is either obliged to vote for the preferred viable candidate, or accept the fact that voting for a third-party candidate (or not voting) translates into a vote for the unpreferred viable candidate, to coin a word.
I agree that the analogy is faulty. However, I don’t agree with your Hobson’s choice analogy either. Let me explain.
To my mind there are three legitimate reasons for RTA to vote for Nader.
- RTA thought Nader should and can win. I don’t think this applies, because I don’t think anyone thought Nader could win.
- RTA thought that Green Party building was the most important thing, particularly the 5% needed for federal funds, and so decided to blow having a voice in this election in order to build for the future. This, however, requires that RTA accept that in voting strategically, he/she will be influencing the current election. RTA refuses to accept that.
- RTA honestly thought Bush and Gore are equally unlikeable, and equally detrimental to this country, and therefore, there was nothing to choose between them. Again, viable (although I think this one is hypothetical - major party candidates always have at least policy differences). However, as discussed above RTA has made crystal-clear that Bush is scum. He/she had an opinion.
A final note: pl, as Mick sang, “you can’t always get what you want.” In political terms, I never have. My political beliefs are a mishmash of Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian policies. Since no one candidate, ever supports all of my positions, does this mean I shouldn’t vote for any of them? Hell, to be perfectly logical, I should write my name in on every ballot - I agree completely with my positions. ;).
I don’t think so. I think I should look to the possible. I think it means that I should vote for the person who (a) has a chance of winning, and (b) most closely aligns with my beliefs.
Sua
Well since there was so much concerted effort made typing bold-code around my name some dozen times, I guess I have to make one more appearace in this thread o’mine (I had lost all interest when the noted self-aggrandizer, conspiracy theorist, moderator-baiter, UFO advocate, chronic pothead and liar Contestant #3 pulled his head out of his ass so he could speak up and try and draw attention to himself by picking a fight with me).
These decreed “one of only three reasons” I voted the way I did conveniently skip many possibilities. Voting one’s conscience, for example.
Let’s play pretend: somebody detests all that a frat boy retard candidacy stood for, yet fails to be sufficiently inspired by his opponent (though he is, by millions of light-years, a preferable candidate to the frat boy retard) to actually vote for him. Meanwhile there is another candidate out there whose message is actually pretty right-on. The choice is obvious. Voting just because deep inside you want to belong to one of the two most popular subsets is quite high-school.
PS: to the fellow who spoke up about his landlord voting for the frat boy retard because he was worried that Gore was going to take his precious guns away - the idea that the “gummint” will ever come & confiscate firearms from the multi-multi-millions of law-abiding hunters, collectors, and sportsmen - I had hoped that the voting public would rank that idea right up there with black helicopters and the assorted Zionist-banker-UN schemes of world enslavement but alas, I had hoped in vain. I guess every crowd has a few fetishistic malcontents.
Low blow, since I never said Al Gore had much. But then, what politician DOES?
No one is saying Gore is a bastion of honesty, but I think people are fooling themselves when they claim Nader is the “honest” and “pure” candidate. Because he’s not. Far from it.
Yeah, writing that post would have been a lot easier if I knew your gender. 
I just hate writing “he/she”.
Voting your conscience is absolutely fine. But don’t, as you have, then bitch about results you could have affected had you not voted for Nader. As for Gore’s failure to inspire you, I guess you can base your vote on that. I submit to you that you’ll find in the long run that it would be better for your interests, personal and national, to vote for the candidate who has the best chance to implement at least some of the policies you support.
Where did this come from? This is the Pit; we have standards to maintain. Insults should at least have some connection to the issue. If we are going to go down this road, I would suggest that failing to vote against the person you don’t want to be President is the true immature behavior.
Sua
I posted this earlier in a thread that I appear to have killed (note: I am a CA voter, for the record):
I’ve never registered as a Democrat in my life, knowing that I was a bit to the left of them (have registered Socialist, then Green for the last few years). I’m not even sure whether I’ve ever voted for a Democrat for President. Did I OWE my vote to Gore? Was someone counting on my support? Ok, so in the campaign the Democrats consciously moved to the Right in order to get the centrist vote, knowingly alienating the Left. This created a void in the Left, which the Democrats should have expected that someone would fill. When the Democrats realized that the Greens were getting support, did they try to make concessions to woo the Left vote? Nooooo! Instead they started a campaign consisting solely of angry threats, centering principally on the notion that Bush will assign Darth Vader to the Supreme Court, and that you damn well better not vote for who you think best represents you (the Roe-Wade thing is the Democrat analogue to the Gum’mint gun control bogey-man). Do you doubt that this has alienated the Left even more? I can guarantee that, given the Democrats’ scapegoating and ranting in the last week, that 3.5 percent of the Left certainly will NOT support the Democrats in the next election. Gee, I hope it’s not a close race again. The closeness of the race just reflects the closeness of the cantidates’ stances. Not being a partisan, I don’t feel that a Dubya reign would be MUCH worse than Gore (who has moved wayyy Right of where he has always claimed to stand, re. environment, etc., and with an increasingly conservative voting record). Both cantidates know that they did not have a clear mandate, so I doubt either would make any extreme decisions during their presidency (not sure what tense is appropriate here right now-- future-present subjunctive conditional, I think). Both cantidates are primarily concerned with the status quo; the sky is not going to fall-- things are going to continue to plod along.
The worst that can happen with a Bush presidency is that it will galvanize the Left-- perhaps in the next election there might be a Left represented?
Oh, Pit, Right. Holy Zombie Jesus. Fuckity fuck.
Here is a third party voter I can respect. The difference here is that M.K. had no real preference between the two major-party candidates.
Now these are the high quality insults worthy of the Pit. Fuck you very much.
Sua