I disagree. If the Dems can’t rely on votes from the Left, they’ll be forced even further rightward to make them up. Instread of laying back, demanding spoils in a war they’re not helping to win, Lefties should be out in front fending off the Republican attack machine. If you want to transform the Democratic party, the first step is to make sure the Republicans never win another election. Once the Dems can consistently garner 60% of the votes, they’ll be able to afford to experiment with their platform.
Amen to that. If the left-leaning half of the American populace is wasting time infighting amongst themselves, that just makes it easier for the right to pick them off.
The problem facing left-leaning voters is one of numbers. The further they go out on the limb to the left, the fewer of them there are. At the end of the limb, they have two choices…hold their nose and vote for the major party that represents most of their interests or withhold their vote and strengthen the hand of the opposition. It doesn’t matter if you vote for someone else or don’t vote at all…if you don’t have the numbers, you don’t matter. That said, there will be those for whom the cloak of martrdom is irresistable and they will proudly cast their vote for a candidate that reflects their views and has absolutely no chance of winning because those views are in the solid minority on the political spectrum.
If the only choice is between two evils, then evil is the only choice. Stop blaming people who vote their conscience for the failures of Republicrats to do right. Instead, force them to open the system so that third parties can compete fairly and competitively.
And how should they vote in the meantime? You suggest:
Purely voting one’s conscience is a perfectly valid method of voting guaranteed to alienate people by removing their ability to affect the political process in their favor. A vote is an instrument of political power; it should be used with thought as to the consequences. In any election, at least one person (though more likely more than one: a small group) will determine the election’s outcome. This voter or these voters have the most power, their votes are the most meaningful (can you think of a way to make your vote more powerful other than being the person who casts the vote for the winning candidate?), and they should be used wisely. Of course, since no one knows for sure whether they will be the crucial voter, or in the crucial group, it is paramount that each person vote as if they were. “Voting one’s conscience” is a pat answer to a very real question: how do I use my political power to advance my goals? Is my goal only to vote my conscience, outcome be damned, or do we vote in order to affect a particular outcome? How likely is this outcome? Are some outcomes more likely than others? --If so, do I have a preference among these?
If you demonize the political process, do not be surprised if you feel left out of it.
**Lib-**I don’t think that anyone has put any sort of moral burden on Naderites to vote a certain way. People can, and do, vote however they wish. I think that there is a valid argument to be made that the actions of these voters are actually running counter to their specific policy goals.
I think that this is the most frustrating thing that arises in dialog between Democrats and the far left- so much of the time, we are on the same side (in policy, if not in practice), but for the sake of ideological purity, lefties will often vote ‘their conscience’ instead of a real-world ticket that might enact part of their agenda. If one side has to budge, does it not seem silly for the ~50% of dems to move left, rather than the ~5% of lefties? Especially when the alternative not only won’t advance a leftist agenda, but will actively set it back.
Because for many of them, they see themselves as the only truly intelligent people on the face of the earth. It’s their job to educate the rest of the slack-jawed masses…and giving into pragmatism would be “selling out”.
But we’re dealing with politicians here, not boy scouts. The more likely scenario is that once the Dems can repeatedly command a majority vote, they’ll abondon their base and do whatever it takes to keep themselves in power-- which is pretty much what the Pubs have been doing for the past few years.
With the current system we have of winner-takes all, I’m not sure there is a good solution for supporters of 3rd party candidates. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. In the end, I say vote your conscience. Unlike a few people around here, I don’t think either major party is evil incarnate, so I won’t be too upset either way. The sun will come up, you’ll go to work and pay taxes; raise your kids, and enjoy life with your family and friends.
Both sides can afford to take their base for granted to a degree under the current system. A lesbian in San Francisco is never going to vote for a Republican. A minister in Texas isn’t going to vote for a Democrat. That’s why both sides are chasing the larger numbers in the middle and leaving Nadar (and Buchanan) voters out in the cold.
There are lots of strains of leftists who value ideological purity over political power or participation in the process. Eventually, though, most people like their politics to have more substance than a dorm room bull session.
They’re likely thinking they’re disgusted with both the Democrats and the Republicans and aren’t willing to vote for either party. I know that’s how I feel.
If the Democrats think the smartest strategy is to go after the active votes to their right instead of trying to mobilize that half of the population that chose not to vote, fine and dandy. They can squabble with the Republicans over what appears to be a steadily shrinking percentage of the voting population that thinks those are the only two choices available from now until Doomsday. Left-wing third parties with any sort of backbone to them would try to orient themselves towards the portion of the population that isn’t voting and try to win their votes; of course this will probably have an effect on those people who would vote anyway, causing some bleed-off from the Democratic vote. Democrats, being blinkered by the “them or us” perspective regarding the Republicans, naturally are going to hate that and would prefer to hang on to the votes they can get rather than allow other left-wing parties even that small amount they’d stand to lose. So they pour vitriol on candidates like Nader, claim third parties are always going to spoil elections, and justify it by saying “We’re not as bad as the Republicans, we might be more inclined to enact policies on the issues that concern you.” (Even if Kerry were pure untarnished gold on the issue of abortion, how is that supposed to be acceptable to someone who’s pro-choice and anti-occupation? Kerry wants to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq.)
It’s like I said in another thread; the Democrats are like a child on the beach throwing a tantrum because another child is using “his” sand to build a castle, completely ignoring the fact that the beach is miles long with plenty more sand where that came from.
The Democrats don’t want any alternatives to their left because they know damn well they’ll lose out. So they keep the arena closed off to challengers. Real democratic of them. They have neither my vote nor my sympathy.
There are lots and lots of Texas ministers voting for Kerry this year. Many of them are black, or Unitarian, or Episcopalian. But they’re there.
And, since there’s an active Log Cabin club in San Francisco, there’s sure to be a lesbian voting for Bush somewhere in the city.
What you say is true to a degree. But let’s be careful that general statements don’t speak to all members of a group. There still is free will in the voting booth.
Yes, but that doesn’t account for even a significant minority of the 100 million people who didn’t vote. More than likely most of them would vote if there were a candidate, even a third-party one, they considered worth voting for.
The recent trend, as I’ve read it, in politics is to mobilize non-voters because such a small portion of the population swings. Statistically, they would still have to play to the center to mobilize the most. Until we have a voting system conducive to more than two parties, playing to the center is the winning method.
For each voter that prefers one candidate to another, a vote for a minority party acts against their preferences. It is really quite simple. I don’t care why you vote the way you do, but you still pretend as if no one has explained this very simple fact to you. Perhaps you really, really don’t prefer Kerry to Bush. It’s possible. But I’m 100% sure that there are Nader voters who, verily, did have such a preference between Bush/Gore. If they did, and they voted Nader, they very obviously spoiled the election.
This will always and forever be a problem when we vote for representatives.
Oh come now, the saw cuts both ways. The Republicans were burned before by Ross Perot’s first ego trip in 1992. Pat Buchanan siphoned off some of the isolationist wing of the GOP in 2000.
With rare exception, third party candidates have had nearly no impact on presidential races. In 1992, Perot got 19.7 million votes. In 1996, Perot got 8.1 million votes. In 2000, Nader got 2.9 million votes. Each of the last three elections has seen a decrease in the third party vote. I’m betting 2004 will continue this trend, and the Nader backers will jump off their sinking ship and swim over to the Kerry camp at the last minute.
We’ll have to see if this is really the case next year, once the 2004 election returns are released by the FEC.
I just don’t see that. How can you have a mere 50% voter turnout if playing to the center mobilizes the most votes?
All right, that’s just outright facetious. You’re leaving out the fact that they obviously preferred Nader over Gore as well as Gore over Bush. Heck, a number of polls I’ve seen this year have specifically asked “If Nader weren’t running, who would you vote for?” which means that people who want to vote Nader are going to do so if Nader is actually running. Saying “You have to vote Democrat if you prefer them over the Republicans no matter who else is running, even if you like that candidate more than the Democrat, or you’ll spoil the election”… I just can’t think of the proper terms to convey how stupid an idea I think that is.
As long as the Democrats and the Republicans restrict the choice of representatives to their own parties, yes it will be.
True, he did. I didn’t see the Republican Party say “Gee, we should open up the area to right-wing third parties”, either. Both parties have a firm lock on the political arena and they want to keep it that way. They shouldn’t be surprised by the results, however - increased disaffectation with the electoral process and the need to fight harder over whatever voters remain.
Perot’s run in 1992, I believe, qualified the Reform Party for federal election benefits - he certainly garnered more than the minimum 5% of the total vote. Why the decline? Certainly not simply because they are third party candidates - Perot proved himself to be a nutcake of the first water with his “I’m out, no I’m back in, no wait, they’re coming to get me” approach to his candidacy. The hissyfit infighting with Buchanan and the RP head (whatever his name was) showed a lot of their supporters that the party couldn’t present itself as a serious alternative in 2000, which explains the decline of the RP but does not refute the arguments for third parties once and for all. Nader had a harder hill to climb in 2000 because of the Democrats’ hysterical fear of losing the Oval Office to the Republicans. This year he’s doing the same thing the Democrats have done for years - playing to the middle, and going so far as to actually accept the nomination of what’s left of the Reform Party. He’s probably not going to fare as well this year - not because he’s a third party candidate, but because he’s showing himself not to be a serious political alternative to the mainstream parties.
That may possibly be true of the left-wing Nader supporters, but I highly doubt any RP supporters would vote for Kerry under any circumstances. If Nader had spent the last three and a half years actively campaigning as a serious left political alternative, offering a challenge to both Republicans and Democrats, he’d probably have a much stronger political campaign now. Instead, he pretty much went into hiding and when he finally came back out went for the “disaffected conservative” vote right off the bat, which clearly alienated his left base of support.
So - there’s far more to Nader’s and Perot’s failures than merely being third-party proponents and candidates. You can’t attribute the decline in votes received to that one reason alone, if at all.
