Ralph Nader is a self-centered ass hat!

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Olentzero

I still maintain that Labor was to the left of the Liberal Party and is therefore a non-centrist party that successfully rose to the top 2 slots of a national political scene. And therefore I maintain that such a feat is possible here in the US as well.

My hypothesis: Such a feat is only plausible in the US under 2 conditions. 1) We can change the electoral system or 2) existing Democrats within Congress defect to the Green party or whatever. Whether this hypothesis is supported by the British experience remains to be seen. Absent those 2 conditions, support for the Green party at the national level equates to support for Republicans.

It doesn’t matter whether it was Carter’s $10 million or Reagan’s $100 million, the goal was to prevent a successful uprising and revolution by the Sandinistas, and both Carter’s and Reagan’s actions had a tangible cost in human lives. Call it “rollback” or call it “democratization”, Carter has Nicaraguan blood on his hands same as Reagan.

But there’s a substantial distinction between, say, the blood of dozens and the blood of thousands. It matters whether or not you plan to organize an army against a country. I’m saying Carter would not have organized the Contras into a fighting unit and that the election of Reagan resulted in thousands of extra Nicaraguan deaths. I’m also saying that this latter fact matters. I’m guessing that I weigh quantitative differences, even large quantitative differences, more than you do.

At the same time, I should also concede that somebody with Olentzero’s temperment is less likely to be taken in by distinctions that actually do result in small material differences.

---- The whole basis for this stupid war and occupation was laid during a Democratic tenure in the Oval Office…

Yeah, but Gore wouldn’t tear up 60 years of international relations in his rush to war. Furthermore, he wouldn’t direct his advisors to avoid post-war planning, because it might undercut the case for war. Finally, if Gore followed Clark’s perspective, I submit that the Iraqi invasion would not have taken place (at least before 2005), as Iran, North Korea and Al Que’ada are all higher security priorities.

[erislover]

@Rubystreak

But you honestly think that failing to support third parties with your vote AND trying to talk other people out of voting for them helps third parties?

No, and it isn’t supposed to. It is supposed to help people understand voting in this crappy system to make the most of it.

The problem is that I think there are many people who are registered Democrats who would be better represented by the Green party or other alternate parties, but like you, they vote for the lesser of the two evils instead of the greater good.

Maybe so. Because the lesser of two evils is what is going to win, and if they can help the lesser evil win instead of the greater evil, I’d say they’re behing intelligently and responsibly. Of course, they might not even think democrats are evil.

I really don’t think you’re fighting ignorance by trying to convince people to continue supporting the status quo and just whining about the voting system to no avail.

I am explaining how people can get the most out of their votes under a first-past-the-post system. You are appealing to some nebulous “integrity.” Takes all kinds, I guess.

Whatever. I’m doing a fuck of a lot more than just pining and appealing.

Good. That’s what is going to help.

I don’t need to offer your my resume to feel good about how I’m doing my part to work some change in American politics.

Funny you should ask me to, then. And I didn’t ask.

Before you call me self-righteous, just remember who is trying to convince whom to betray whose conscience.

Next time you vote, ask yourself if anyone reading that ballot can distinguish “I love Nader to death” from “fuck democrats.” When you find a way, you let me know. Until then, I’m pretty sure I’m not asking anyone to betray their conscience, I’m asking them to view the situation how it is and work from there, rather than how they’d like it to be and pretend otherwise. For that matter, I do not intend to tell people how to vote. Sure, this thread (and others) have been directed towards Nader but that’s incidental. It doesn’t take much to get a third party candidate on a ballot, just some signatures. It takes a lot more to shape the way people think. You want third parties in politics rather than on ballots, you’re going to have to rethink things. Good luck.

Measure for Measure, I don’t think it is impossible to change the system at all, and I hope I never implied otherwise. All it takes is people spreading the word that they’re unsatisfied. Of course, that involves tackling the roughly two thirds of the voters who align with one of the two major parties to think they’re getting the short end of the stick under this system. The first step to evening things out a bit might be to get more states to dole out their EC votes in proportion to the popular vote cast inside their state. But this is a state-by-state issue, not a federal one, so far as I know, which means a lot more people doing a lot more mouthwork.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@erislover

Measure for Measure, I don’t think it is impossible to change the system at all, and I hope I never implied otherwise… But this is a state-by-state issue, not a federal one, so far as I know, which means a lot more people doing a lot more mouthwork.

No, you didn’t imply that: I mangled my point a little. … Oddly, I think the biggest step would be to make the change in one measily state. After that, the idea of trying a new voting system won’t seem as alien.

Sheer Speculation:
Part of the reason why there is less outrage over Gerrymandering is that the politically involved either are members of the majority party (in which case they find gerrymandering entertaining) or they are members of the minority party (in which case their outrage doesn’t translate into political change).

Put another way, this leftie would prefer that gerrymandering end in Republican Texas rather than in Democratic California. Unilateral disarmament is always unpopular. Payback, OTOH, is another matter.

The other problem is that the tiny sliver of voters who are Green or Libertarian don’t work particularly hard on this boring technical issue.

Oh, here’s another problem. Sensible electoral systems (that is, ones outside of Israel and Italy) typically have a minimum level of support that a party must receive (5% in Germany) before gaining seats. This hurdle may make some Greens and Libertarians nervous.

I still find our imperfect electoral system puzzling.

[erislover]

Well, there is a small number of libertarians and a small number of greens. But this is an issue that would help both of them. Suppose they cooperate, add in other smaller parties, and the voice on this issue is getting a little larger. Though of course libertarians might be too pure to lower themselves to working with greens or socialists.

[Olentzero]

@Measure for Measure

My hypothesis: Such a feat is only plausible in the US under 2 conditions. 1) We can change the electoral system or 2) existing Democrats within Congress defect to the Green party or whatever

Don’t need either of them. The Green Party, or any other third party, nets 5% of the vote in a national election, they qualify for federal electoral funding and are therefore able to compete with the big boys in the ring. I hate the Republicans just as much as the next centrist or left-wing person. But people who are disgusted with both Democrats and Republicans aren’t likely to get out and vote unless there’s an alternative out there they think is worth mobilizing for.

But there’s a substantial distinction between, say, the blood of dozens and the blood of thousands.

Carter and Reagan both spilled blood to prop up a regime friendlier to the US than the Sandinistas were. It doesn’t matter how many deaths did or didn’t occur under either administration, what matters is that blood was spilled in order for the US to keep having its say in another country’s affairs. I honestly just can’t help thinking that for you, a Democrat spilling blood is somehow more palatable than a Republican spilling blood. I really hope you can disabuse me of that notion.

It matters whether or not you plan to organize an army against a country.

True, Carter wasn’t organizing one, he was trying to prop up one that already existed. The results were the same.

I’m saying Carter would not have organized the Contras into a fighting unit and that the election of Reagan resulted in thousands of extra Nicaraguan deaths.

Carter’s goal in Nicaragua was the same as Reagan’s - propping up a US-friendly regime in opposition to the Sandinistas. He may not have done it to the extent Reagan did, but I’d be very surprised if he hadn’t done anything along those lines.

I’m also saying that this latter fact matters. I’m guessing that I weigh quantitative differences, even large quantitative differences, more than you do.

It’s ludicrous to simply compare the number of deaths alone and state that as the main, or sole, factor in deciding which party or President or candidate is more acceptable than the other. It’s tacitly accepting that deaths in other countries will occur as a result of US foreign policy, and that it is either somehow necessary or unstoppable. I can’t accept either of those options.

At the same time, I should also concede that somebody with Olentzero’s temperment is less likely to be taken in by distinctions that actually do result in small material differences.

When I look at why those deaths occurred, the comparison of numbers becomes irrelevant.

Finally, if Gore followed Clark’s perspective, I submit that the Iraqi invasion would not have taken place (at least before 2005), as Iran, North Korea and Al Que’ada are all higher security priorities.

I honestly think it would have taken place; note how many congressional Democrats ultimately voted for the invasion, even with Bush’s atrocious diplomatic behavior. Regardless of that, however, Kerry plans to continue the occupation. We can see what results the occupation has already produced; on that issue (and many others) I don’t see a vote for the Democrats as accomplishing anything constructive.

[Rubystreak]

@erislover

I don’t think it is impossible to change the system at all, and I hope I never implied otherwise. All it takes is people spreading the word that they’re unsatisfied.

If you really think that’s all it takes, then you’re stunningly naive and/or justifying your unwillingness to really do something about it. It’s going to take a hell of a lot more than just “spreading the word” to change our voting system. If that’s all you’re doing, and you feel you’re doing your part to make major changes in our political system, you’re kidding yourself.

[erislover]

@Rubystreak

If you really think that’s all it takes, then you’re stunningly naive and/or justifying your unwillingness to really do something about it.

That’s really all it takes, but takes people from all sides of the fence, not some disaffected wing. People need to care about it. While I do feel most of politics is partially corrupt, I am also sure that self-interest goes some way, and if enough people give a shit, some politician somewhere will see this issue can win some votes when added to their typical populist rhetoric. It will be the ultimate cause of the change, but of course there will be some intermediate effects.

It’s going to take a hell of a lot more than just “spreading the word” to change our voting system.

Why don’t you outline it then, instead of just disagreeing with me. I’ve provided links, you’ve provided shit. I’ve provided arguments that deal with the actual systems we use, you’ve accused me of thinking that the system we use is the best we can do. I suggest third party votes don’t initiate change because they are too risky to win back, you whine that I’m compromising my fucking ethics. Well here’s your chance, Rubystreak, make a fucking argument, lay it on the table.

What’s it going to take? Not, “What are you doing?” Not, “What can I do?” Just, aggregately, what is it going to take?

[Rubystreak]

@erislover

That’s really all it takes, but takes people from all sides of the fence, not some disaffected wing. People need to care about it.

First, people need to understand the issue and why they should care. If they think of third parties as radical left or right wing weirdos, they won’t see the relevance to their lives.

[/quote]

Why don’t you outline it then, instead of just disagreeing with me. I’ve provided links, you’ve provided shit. I’ve provided arguments that deal with the actual systems we use, you’ve accused me of thinking that the system we use is the best we can do. I suggest third party votes don’t initiate change because they are too risky to win back, you whine that I’m compromising my fucking ethics. Well here’s your chance, Rubystreak, make a fucking argument, lay it on the table.

What’s it going to take? Not, “What are you doing?” Not, “What can I do?” Just, aggregately, what is it going to take?
[/QUOTE]

First of all, this question is a bit absurd. Do you think I have all the answers? Please. I’ll tell you what I’ve been doing with the Greens. We table at as many events as we can and try to educate people about third parties: what they are, why they are important, what they stand for, how our founding fathers did not approve of the two-party duopoly and why. Then we try to explain how the voting system works, what is the electoral college, how it came into play in the 2000 election. Also, tabling is a good place to get people to register to vote, for whatever party they like. We write letters to the editor, contact our representatives in Senate and Congress about specific issues, circulate and sign petitions. We go to demonstrations, show active support for the causes we promote, campaign for local candidates running on our ticket, fundraise, etc. And yes, we vote third party most of the time because to do otherwise would make us massive hypocrites.

Obviously all these efforts haven’t been enough to change things on a national level, but I think at least getting off your ass and writing letters and e-mails, talking to people at events, and educating people on how things are v. how they could be is better than just talking about the issue. I hope I have answered your question.

[erislover]

Well, I don’t see that we are at any odds here, other than the nebulous claim that voting for third parties involves integrity. It is my suggestion that you vote for democrats now and keep up the good work in other areas. I linked to wikipedia which gives a really thorough introduction to voting systems. If you have access to jstor.org through a school nearby, I’d recommend finding the paper titled, “Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem” which goes into the mathematics of sincere, rational, and Nash equilibrium voting, and under what circumstances sincere voting is not rational, etc. There has been a lot of really interesting work on the subject for centuries.

The point I intend to drive home is simply that there is an optimal voting strategy in our system, and that is no consequence of any ideology. Furthermore, that sincere voting likely isn’t rational, especially in the case of independents and third parties, unless those parties have public support (which we can tell through polling).

The electoral college beef is, IMO, a total red herring. Every system of representation will have quirks like the EC. There is simply no way to do otherwise. The popular vote thing is not going to change politics. The proper way to reform the EC is to ensure states dole their votes out proportionally, rather than on a winner-take-all system.

I understand, sympathize, and agree that third parties are very important. But they will not become worth voting for in national elections until we do something about the voting system. There are several systems used throughout the world which tend to favor minority parties. For single-seat elections the matter is even simpler. Runoff voting as in the single transferable vote, or approval voting, would really help third party exposure because a vote for a third party is never wasted. I understand you don’t think it is a waste, but I would bet my life that some people (imo, with justification) do think it is, and if we moved to one of those systems we’d see a lot more support for minority parties. For example, in approval voting you can never mathematically hurt a candidate’s chance of winning by voting for them, and there is no reason to vote for any one candidate without voting for all the other candidates you’d also prefer. Surely you can see this would be a great leap forward for minority parties, and more importantly, for minority representation.

I’m sure we both agree that if minority parties could take off, more people would align themselves with them because they’d 1) be a more informed electorate and 2) would be able to align themselves with people they more closely agree with. The question is how this is to be accomplished.

That’s where we differ. Voting for third parties, IMNSHO, ain’t gonna do it. It isn’t even going to help. It might even create hostility and actually hurt. Long term goals are great so long as they don’t ignore short-term practicalities. It is my contention that your integrity is hurting your cause more than helping it.

Do you think I have all the answers?

Since when has that ever been a requirement of making a case?

[Rubystreak]

@erislover

Well, I don’t see that we are at any odds here, other than the nebulous claim that voting for third parties involves integrity.
…

It is my contention that your integrity is hurting your cause more than helping it.
Since when has that ever been a requirement of making a case?

We are going to have to agree to disagree about this. I was never at any point trying to change your mind, and you haven’t changed mine. Sorry if things got a bit heated, but I’m really sick of people criticizing how I use my vote. It has been interesting discussing this with you.