Poorly, inaccurately, and without support. shrugs I take it for what it’s worth.
Further, this argument you presented earlier is a handy strawman for you to score rheotrical points on, but equally inaccurate:
I suggested no such thing. What I have said, again and again, is that the Democratic Party (or any Party, for that matter, including the Greens) must adequately address my concerns to earn my vote. I know many people who voted for Nader in 2000 who feel the same way.
Are you suggesting that this is not true? If so, then that’s crazy talk.
First, a disclaimer: in case anyone didn’t already know, I’m a Canadian citizen living in the U.S., so I only get to vote vicariously through the rest of you. I only mention this because minty’s suggestion that I “come back to the fold” seems to indicate that he thinks I actually voted in 2000.
What, pray tell, is “silly”?
The idea that a vote is the expression of the will of the people?
The idea that is the job of a party to make their platform appeal to voters?
Or is the “silly” thing the idea that the voters don’t have some bizarre obligation to vote for a Democrat even if they think someone else is a better candidate?
You want to talk about consequences? Fine. If I (being hypothetically eligible to vote for President of the U.S.A. in 2000) honestly felt that Nader was the best presidential candidate but voted for Gore, then the consequence of my action is that I’ve subverted the democratic process. The purpose of the vote is to allow me to say who I want to be President, and if I don’t do that, then I’ve undermined the purpose of the vote, lied, forced the government of the United States to work with imperfect information, and “thrown away” what is for most people their only chance to actually have their opinion recognized and reflected in the operation of the government.
Silly enough for you yet? Wait, it gets better: Your idea that voting for Nader is “immoral” (even if the voter honestly believes Nader is a better candidate) is complete hogwash. Your basis for judging that act to be “immoral” is that it allowed Bush into the Oval Office, so by that standard every single voter who voted for the winning candidate performed an immoral act. So it would seem that either the democratic process itself is immoral…or else the democratic process is inherently amoral, and the duty of a voting citizen is to express their honest preference.
Yea gods, man. The ability to express their honest preference in an election is the only power most voting citizens have over their goverment. If I accept your “silly” hypothesis that I have some kind of moral duty to vote Democrat, even if I truly think a third party best represents my views, then neither the Dems nor the Pubs will ever have any incentive to reflect those views. And then, and only then, will I have really thrown away my vote.
With the number of violently anti-Bush conspiracy theorists posters on this forum, I’m surprised no one has figured out yet that Nader is actually an undercover Bush operative. And a damn successful one at that!
Good for you. Compelling argument there. I’m glad to see that the Democrats are being so reasonable about it. :rolleyes:
Need I even point out that this sort of thing (crappy analogies, vague threats, finger-pointing) is why people don’t want to have anything to do with either major political party?
Tell you what, minty… when the Democratic Party offers up a candidate I can agree with, who stands on a firm platform and doesn’t waffle when confronted, I’ll vote for that candidate. Until then, feel free to take your disdain for individual choice and march it in your goose-step parade.
To put it another way… the day that voting in lockstep with a party is preferred over voting for the best candidate is the day that America has betrayed its own political principles. Perhaps that day has already passed, if minty is correct. If so, it makes me sad.
That doesn’t mean I’ll vote for a party affiliation, though, especially when that party can’t get its own shit together enough to present a consistent message.
Although I agree with many of the points made by those who feel recent history has shown that there is a big difference between Bush and Gore, I do have a couple of complaints about the “vote for Nader is a vote for Bush” logic:
(1) As a simple matter of mathematics, it is demonstrably wrong. A vote for Nader might be equivalent to “throwing your vote away” or simply not voting at all, but it is not equivalent to a vote for Bush. Think of it this way: If you voted for Bush instead of Gore, you subtracted one vote from the Gore column and added one vote to the Bush column. However, if you voted for Nader instead of Gore, you simply subtracted one vote from the Gore column…i.e., from the point of view of the contest between Bush and Gore, it is as if you did not vote at all; it is not as if you voted for Bush. This may seem nitpicky, but I think it is a worthwhile distinction to point out.
(2) I lived in NY State and voted for Nader because there was no conceivable way that Gore would have won the election without winning easily in NY State (and indeed polls in NY State showed him far ahead). I strongly supported the Ivans’ rule (to vote for Gore if you had to and Nader if your vote didn’t matter because you were in an uncontested state). In fact, on this message board, I was strongly encouraging folks in battleground states (and I would have included Wasnington State in that group, by the way) to vote for Gore and was arguing that I would probably be saying “I told you so” to those who claimed there was really no difference between the two.
Thanks for the research, bayonet1976. But actually, I was talking about more than one incident. During Bush’s recent press conference, I felt that he had a definite attitude of “who cares what they think?” when asked about the protesters. For that matter, “who cares what you think?” seems to be his entire attitude toward the UN.
Someone (I believe it was minty green) asked for a cite for Gore saying “A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.” I’m afraid I heard him say it in an NPR report during the campaign, and I can’t exactly dig up 3-year old radio broadcast! However, are you really disputing that the phrase was popular with the Gore campaign?
The entire anti-Nader argument, as best I can tell, is predicated on the idea that Gore would do things that the Naderites would support. But, as has been pointed out, there’s no way to know that. My own understanding is that Gore’s record on issues of importance to me is quite poor.
So why should the Democrats change their ways? If they can scare liberals with Republican bogeymen, then the Dems can be as pro-corporate and as conservative as they like. They’re not going to buy the cow if they can get the milk for free. OTOH, if liberals start voting Green, then one of two things will happen: the Democrats will start becoming more liberal and start playing hardball with the Republicans, or the Democrats will continue in their old ways and alienate more voters until they are replaced by the Greens. Thus far, it looks like the latter is how things are playing out. But one thing is for certain: as long as liberals vote for Democratic candidates that they don’t actually like, then the Democratic Party will see no need to produce worthwhile candidates.
If I had been able to vote in 2000, I would hope that I would at least have had the dignity and maturity to accept the results of a democratic election without whining that my candidate lost because…gasp!..not everyone voted for him.
Let me repeat some previous hyperbole in the form of a question: do you, minty, feel the democratic process is immoral? After all, the democratic process actively put Bush into the Oval Office, and you’ve already claimed that people voting for Nader acted immorally just by not keeping Bush out.
Do you honestly feel that democracy and morality somehow became mutually exclusive in 2000?
And if not, what other reason do you have for apparently refusing to accept an outcome you don’t like?
Of course not. My thesis, since you seem to have missed it, is that it is immoral to knowingly squandering one’s vote on an ideal candidate with zero chance of winning instead of voting for a somewhat objectionable candidate who really can win when the candidate who is likely to win due to said vote-squandering is a Right Evil Bastard. You and the other Nader apologists in here obviously feel otherwise. Take comfort in your ideological purity as the ice caps melt and the forests are leveled.
I will gladly argue that voting for Bush was also an immoral act. But at least from the perspective of naked self-interest, it was not a profoundly stupid act, and I have a modicum of respect for that. Not so with Martyrs for Nader.
Not at all. There is nothing “mutually exclusive” about voting for the lesser (far lesser) of two evils instead of wasting the time of everyone at the polling station with a useless ballot for Nader. Stay home, make the line shorter for those of use who actually give a damn how the country will be run for the next four years.
Well I’m not so fond of that Supreme Court decision either. Plus, I have to admit that sometimes it feels amazingly good to remind people I told you so!
Except, of course, that I’ve already proven Washington was a competitive state, a vertitable tossup between Bush and Gore. You gambled and came out okay. Pseudo-Greens in Florida gambled and fucked it up for everybody.
Minty: What you said, in spades. May the Naderites live in stripmined ex-forests. May thier civil rights be yielded upon the tarmac. May Enron shares be thier retirement plan. May a Caribou spit on thier Segway. Ye shall reap what ye have sown.