I get the impression that some people would berate him with a beraseball berat.
That said, I voted for Nader in 2000, and my vote achieved one of the two things i hoped it’d achieve.
It didn’t help the Greens reach the threshhold for receiving matching funds. So it failed in that respect.
However, it DID send a clear message to Democrats that they couldn’t run as Republicans Lite. Nader, as a precursor to Pelosi and later Dean, helped show Democrats that as long as they spent all their energy appealing to moderate voters, they’d lose their base. The Christian Coalition, well aware of this, kept moving the Republican party farther and farther to the right side of the field, dragging the Democrats after them.
But with the 2002 elections, Democrats finally, finally got the message that we Greens were sending, and now we’re seeing politicians willing to stand up for traditional Democratic principles. This time around, it’s looking a lot like the Democratic party will earn my vote.
Of course, there’s a time to send a message and a time to vote practically. Even if Lieberman were the Dem candidate this time, I’d vote for him. In 2000, I didn’t realize that the republican candidate for office was Karl Rove; this time, that’s very clear, and I’m happy to vote practically.
So how am I supposed to get gay marriage by voting for a candidate who’s opposed to it? How amd I supposed to bring the troops home by voting for a candidate who agrees with Bush sending them to Iraq?
Well, first it’s important to note that even if you vote for someone who promises to do those items that you deem important it’s meaningless unless that person has a chance to win.
If we accept as a given that only two candidates have any chance of winning then doesn’t it behoove one to vote for the candidate that BEST represents your choices?
It is impossible to expect a candidate will adequately represent all of your views. Therefore it’s necessary to find one with whom you agree MOST who has a chance to win. Or, for those of us in ‘I hate them all’ mode…the one with whom you DISagree least, I suppose.
Simply put, no third party candidate has enough support to win in the upcoming election. Even when Perot was causing a fuss he pulled 20% and never actually came close to winning.
So think about what your goal is in voting. That’s always been the important point to me. Do you want everything right away? Or is some few items worthwhile enough to play the game inside the two parties?
Get me, I’m not registered for either party. My opposition to GWB is based largely on fiscal and civil liberties issues. So it’s not like I’m flacking for the democrats here. I just want to make clear that there’s more ways of using the 1 piece of political power you have, a vote, than just voting for the guy you like best.
Not unlike people who cross the party line in states with open primaries. Does it best represent their interests to vote for the candidate of the OTHER party who is most defeatable in the general election? Of course it is.
There will be thousands of active and willing Bush supporters circulating Nader petitions. It doesn’t look like it’s very hard to do, he only needs 5,000 names in Ohio. I’m sure he’ll get on the ballot in all 50 states.
In most elections, all a 3rd party candidate can hope to do is to get an election tossed into the House of Representatives. Take Perot in 1992, if Clinton doesn’t win an electoral majority, the election goes to the House. There are no Reform party members in the House, the Democratic House gives the election to Clinton.
Now, with Wallace or Thurmond, it was a bit different. Getting that election in the House still means the Dems win, but it gives the Dixiecrat wing of the party a strong influence in national policy.
If Nader would have taken a state or two and tossed the election into the House, Bush wins easily in the House.
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
So think about what your goal is in voting./QUOTE]Short and sweet? To register my displeasure with both mainstream parties and to express my desire that the election process on all levels be opened up to more political parties. Especially ones that address the issues that concern me and with whom I’m in agreement.
Voting is not the only piece of political power I have, JC. Political activity covers a lot more ground than that.
I have linked you at least once to explanations of how, and why, tactical voting works. I’m sorry it doesn’t come with a slogan that might make it easier.
I’ve read the explanations, and the how I can understand, but the why I don’t buy.
Firstly, I don’t think voting for the candidate I think most likely to win is an acceptable compromise of my views on the issues of the day. Kerry doesn’t “best” match my views and opinions of the two mainstream candidates because he doesn’t match them at all. Why in God’s name should I therefore vote for him?
Secondly, tactical voting has more of a likelihood to push politics in the direction you don’t want than voting for the candidate who most closely matches your views, regardless of the potential for that candidate to win.
Let’s take the Democrats, for example. Kerry, should he wrap up the nomination, can be assured of the tactical vote from the left as long as they’re still suffering from rampant cases of “Anybody (i.e. any Democrat) but Bush” fever. So who is he going to turn to for more votes? The people to the left of the tactical voters? No, he’s going to turn to the center - i.e. push his political stance further to the right to convince moderate Republicans to vote for him. The only way the Democrats might consider pushing their politics to the left is by losing more votes to third-party and independent left-wing candidates like Nader.
Nader may not stand a chance of winning in 2004, but he and other independent candidates won’t ever stand a chance of winning if people don’t start voting for them now. Hell, the Republicans didn’t win their first presidential election and look at 'em today.
I live in MA. The prospect of Gore getting all electoral votes for MA were about as good as, oh, the sun rising the next day.
Given 1, my harmless casting of a Green ballot might get them enough votes to qualify a third party for federal campaign funding, and I figured that was a healthy thing for democracy.
Every single person I know who voted for Nader had pretty much the same idea: It’s not like Gore’s gonna lose Mass., so lets mix things up a little.
If this line of thinking informed the decisions of citizens of other states, I think we can rest assured they are NOT going to risk that strategy agian. The “protest” or “statement” vote along those lines is not an option for the vast majority of prior Nader voters. It’s clear Nader cost Gore some states, and that certainly was not the desired result.
However, there is a new twist: The gay vote. The choice for those who feel fervently about the issue of same-sex marriage is as follows:
Bush: Same-sex marriage is wrong. It should be a matter for the states, as it has been, to decide on civil union legislation. I will support a constitutional amendment to codify this position into national law.
Kerry: Same-sex marriage is wrong. It should be a matter for the states, as it has been, to decide on civil union legislation. I will not supprt a constitutional amendment to codify this position into national law.
Nader: Hasn’t weighed in yet, AFAIK, but I’m guessing he’ll support gay marriage fully. Otherwise, how does he distinguish himself on the issues, as he clearly seeks to do?
1 in 10, right? Say 1 in 10 of that 1 in 10 thinks Kerry is being a weasel (which he is), and casts a vote for Nader in protest over Democratic cowardice? You’re talking maybe a couple million votes.
Why is Kerry’s position of “allow the states of decide” a weasly position?
I mean, I’m all in favor of same-sex marriages, but if I were running for public office, I wouldn’t have any qualms about saying “I am in favor of same-sex marriages, but I realize not everyone will agree with me, so I support a compromise by allowing individual states to resolve the matter as they see fit.” Does that make me a weasel as well?
(It’s a sad state of affairs when compromise is seen as a bad thing…)
I believe we’ve already discussed the particular voter named Olentzero and I have found that you have nothing to gain from a compromise vote.
I don’t follow.
Every PubDem runs for the center. It has the largest number of voters able to be captured.
Yes, and the 5% they gain from the greens would translate to a much larger loss toward the center.
They will not win until the nation’s politics move left. Bottom line is that most of America does think somewhere right of the green party. If they want to tell the vote counters how much they are in love with Ralph Nader, well, great. I’m glad they’re expressing their opinion. I’d rather they dyed their hair, wore geren party t-shirts, and voted democrat first, but, I don’t intend to tell anyone how to vote. I only intend to let people know that this voting system has some natural consequences and an available strategy if someone wants their political aims furthered in the long run. What they choose to do with this information is beyond my ability to control.
I also think that most of Americans are a bit left of the Bush Administration too, but they are setting policy.
I do hope you realize how condescending this is. I should dye my hair Green and wear a GO NADER t-shirt to express my deeply-held beliefs? Wow.
I think that voting my conscience DOES further my political aims in the long run, and your suggestion, to the contrary, only furthers my aims in the SHORT run.
Voting for the Democratic candidate might help to achieve the short-term goal of ousting Bush, but it’s not going to change the Democrats for the better. If anything, it shows them that they can abuse and take advantage of the liberal vote with impunity. OTOH, if my goal is to vote for the man I think is best for my country, and to send a message to the Democrats that moving too far right is losing them votes, then doing what you suggest would undermine my agenda. No?
I agreed with you in 2000, but you’ve gotta have some carrot along with your stick. The Dems HAVE moved leftward since Gore, and Kerry and Edwards are both presenting a face of strong opposition to Bush this year.
In some part, I believe, that’s due to exactly the message Greens sent in 2000. They know that their base isn’t safe, and they’re working with us now.
But if you vote for Nader again this year, then you’re telling them that they can forget about your vote – and if that’s the case, then they’ll go hunting for coalition partners, for votes, elsewhere.
Give 'em some encouragement for what they’ve done so far. Maybe they’re not where you want them to be, but they’ve made some progress. If you vote for Nader, they’re likely to erase all that progress.
The Democratic nominee moving leftward toward Nader means losing how many votes from the center? erislover mentioned this, but nobody else has addressed it.
Um, dye it any color you want. Don’t dye it at all. I don’t care. It isn’t condescending at all: I do sincerely wish the green party supporters would vote democrat on election day and scream green the rest of the year. I don’t know about your world, but there are 1459 days between presidential elections in mine. I’m asking you to pick that one day and be a little realistic. The other 1459 days, live your principles to the fullest, be as idealistic as you want. Perhaps that will help America move left. Voting Nader won’t change the rest of America, ok? And the rest of America is who the politicians will try and win over. Surely you don’t feel that politicians themselves decide the opinions of the voters?! Then again, you do feel that if only those democrats went further away from the opinions of the rest of America, they’d suddenly come into office. Or is it just that they’d have integrity, but no seats in congress and no presidency?
Don’t worry, Nader is running this election. Surely all the republicans who were going to vote for Bush now have an alternative. :rolleyes:
OK. Good luck with that.
Thing is, I think the democrats already think they’re ok.
Yes, politicians everywhere just love to take advantage of the voters who vote for them with impunity. Well, I guess we’ll call this democracy a failure!
Why are you asking me. You already know what my opinion is as to how to best serve your interests if you want political power to shift left. Since you don’t want that, I don’t care what you do. Votes don’t express the opinions you wish them to.