I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the next president of the United States is going to be either Bush or Gore. Neither Buchanan, Nader, the Libertarian guy, nor any other candidate has a snowball’s chance in Hell.
Now, let’s say that Person A believes that all abortions, regardless of circumstance, should be banned beginning the first day of the next president’s term. Obviously, Buchanan is his guy. However, a vote for Buchanan is esentially a vote that Bush doesn’t get. And Person A will find that Bush is far closer to his views than is Gore.
Similarly, for the left: if Person B believes that all SUV’s should be banned lest more damage is done to the biota, Nader is his guy. However, a vote for Nader is essentially a vote that Gore doesn’t get. And Person B will find that Gore is closer to his views than Bush.
So, what is the best option from a moral/philosophical standpoint? Is it best to vote according to your conscience and vote for the guy who best represents your views, regardless of his viability? Or is it best to vote for a guy who has a chance and is closer to your views than his opponent (the lesser-of-two-evils approach)?
“Bush was elected. The Supreme Court, due to his appointments, has swung to the right. The enviroment is going down the tubes, abortions are illegal, and executions are at an all time high.
I’m so glad I stuck to my principles and voted for Nader, though!”
Yeah. Right.
Be honest, Naderites. If Ralph weren’t running, who would you be voting for? If you say nobody, you’re not being honest. If you say Gore, then your vote isn’t giving Nader anything except an ego-boo, and is defintely closing the gap between Bush and Gore. And only the shallowest person with no knowledge of politics whatsoever really believes that there is no diference between the two.
Maybe, but I know who I wouldn’t be voting for, Bush or Gore.
I disagree. If Nader gets 5% this year four years from now The Green Party will get Federal Election Commision funds and a name on every ballot in the US.
Then I, and some of the smartest people I know, must be the shallowest people with no knowledge of politics. Forgive me if I don’t believe you here.
I figure that I can either use my vote to say who I actually support, or I can throw it away. As much as I would prefer one of the viable candidates to the other, I cannot honestly allow either to believe that he has my support. While still an imperfect fit, Harry Browne is someone that I can actually support honestly. The reason that this country’s political scene is so bleak is that everyone thinks there are only two alternatives.
Do you really believe there is no difference between Bush and Gore, Dr. Lao? I don’t get it. I assume Nader and Gore agree on some issues, and I assume Nader and Bush agree on fewer things. Doesn’t that count as a difference?
This isn’t the British government, where the loser gets seats proportional to the number of votes gotten. I the Nader campaign takes enough votes away from the Gore campaign to cause Bush to win, then the country WILL swing farther to the right, Business WILL prevail over the consumer and, if Bush gets the chance to pack the Supreme Court, abortion will be illegal.
You are not voting in a vacuum. If you honestly believe that Ralph Nader, no matter how people proclaim a “moral” victory, will have an easier time furthering his agenda under a Bush presidency than under a Gore presidency, go right ahead.
Aside to Dr. Lao-is the small chance of getting the 5% worth throwing the election to Bush? Is the Nader campaign so shallow that it doesn’t care what it does to further it’s goal?
If you’re a libertarian or a green then vote for your candidate. Movements take time to occur and each of us needs to do our bit. If Gore loses to Bush solely because the Nader voters hamstrung him you can be certain that 4 years from now the Democratic candidate will pay more attention to the issues important to those voters. Ditto Bush and Buchanan.
“Every little bit helps”, said the old woman as she peed in the ocean.
Really, I don’t see a lot of difference in the outcomes between Gore and Bush. Yes the pendulum will swing one way or the other depending on who wins but it will eventually swing back the other way. What continues with either of them winning is the system. Both of them are big money candidates who will play for whomever made the biggest contributions. If Bush wins then the larger corporations get ahead…if Gore wins then the big corporations get ahead. You think the smart money doesn’t spend both ways?
Maybe it’s naive to think that voting should be an idealistic act but if I know one thing it’s that cynics almost never change anything.
Vote your principles and your heart. If enough people do it you WILL influence the elected. If you’re enough out of step (before your time or after) then your influence SHOULDN’T be felt.
with all due respect to J C [Vote your principles. ]
I have to say to vote for the guy that is closest to your principles who has a reasonable likelyhood to win.
the reason is that you don’t want someone so contrary to your beliefs to get in just because you waisted your vote. And
have to make a diagram here
you have belief system 1-9, lets say 1 is all the way to one side of the political spectrum and 9 is all the way to the other. the 2 most likely canidates lets say are 4 and 6 but you really want an 8 to get in. you and others who want the 8 vote for the 6 and 6 gets in.
next election the low number side will think people wanted a higher number so we will run a 5. The higher number side figures that people like the high number and run a 7 - unless the elected guy is a flop then it might backfire.
In other words I think the middle of the road position moves and by voting one side or the other (or getting elected as one side or another) a new middle is formed closer to the side of the elected persons views.
On the other hand, k2dave, history has shown that if a third party does reasonably well in elections, it gets subsumed by the major parties. The Free Soil Party had their agenda later enacted by the Republicans; the Populist Party later had their agenda enacted by both parties; the Dixiecrats were co-opted by the Republicans; one could even argue that with campaign finance reform taking such a forefront, the Reform Party has had its agenda stolen.
Therefore, a vote for a “unwinnable” candidate makes it more likely that your agenda will later be adopted by one of the major parties. If Nader does very well, the Democrats will likely move left and pick up the Green Party agenda in order to do better in the polls. If Nader does extremely poorly, then the Democrats will have no incentive to move further left, and may even move further right as time goes on.
And for those who say it’s “throwing your vote away”- do you watch the polls? Do you plan to vote for Bush if Bush is leading, because a vote for Gore would also be throwing your vote away? If Gore is leading, then do you plan to switch your vote to Gore because a vote for Bush would be throwing your vote away?
Vote for lesser evils, and you will never get anything but lesser evils.
While I don’t particularly like the concept of “don’t vote for x, because it takes votes away from y, who is the only one with a chance of beating z” it is, in many ways, valid. Since I am lucky, I live in a state that is most likely to support Gore (in the case of my politics, that is) and so I can in good conciousness vote for Nader and not feel that I am hurting the Gore campaign too much. However, if I lived in a state that was either, A) more inclined to support Bush, or B) extremely important electorally speaking(such as CA) then I would probably vote Gore- if for no other reason then I feel his supreme court justices nominees are more likely to protect certain things that I value. (Roe V Wade and the separation of church and state for example)
It’s never easy to vote for someone you don’t like just because you think they have a better chance of winning, but just remember- the presidential campaign is not the only one out there. There are plenty of local elections going on at the same time, and even if you feel obliged to support (again using the example of my own political leanings) Gore, you can always vote Green party for the Mayor/Governor/HighPoobah/etc. A strong showing of a more fringe group in local politics often sets the stage for a strong showing in national politics.
Initial Entry- why can’t you take your hypothesis and reverse it, though?
That is, for all the good or bad a President does, Congressional approval is usually necessary. Wouldn’t it be just as effective to vote for a national candidate whose views you truly endorse, but vote for ‘winnable’ Senate and House candidates who can block a possible President Bush? After all, I’m not sure how many local candidates the Green Party offers up (I don’t remember any on Maryland ballots, but then, I’d never vote Green in any case, no it’s not like I was looking for them).
Well, as far as I’m concerned the most obvious result of the presidential election is going to be who gets to nominate Supreme court justices. From what I can see of the current Supreme court, this will become necessary (barring the development of age enhancing drugs) pretty soon in at least one case. While congress could block the appointments of, say, Bush, it couldn’t get him to nominate anyone who wasn’t a bit right wing of what I feel comfortable with. (And of course this may be reversed to Gore/leftwing/etc in the case of those who are more conservative than I) With the current split between the more conservative and the more liberal justices as close as it is(I’ve seen far too many 5:4 decisions on things like school prayer then I’m comfortable with) I don’t feel that letting it up to congress to block the appointments of a candidate I disagree strongly with is a valid risk.
So in other words, normally while that might be a valid strategy in voting, with the current situation I feel that it isn’t something that would work out too well.
I’m not going to say you’re shallow, slythe, because you aren’t. However, I think it’s fairly…frantic and short-sighted to get upset that some people will be going with the party they believe in this election. I’m sorry, but despite Zenster’s wild-eyed raving to the contrary, if Bush gets elected, it won’t be the end of the United States as we know it. Ditto for Gore.
It’s a little more important to keep things in perpective. Let’s look at the past. How different in the fundamental workings is government now than it was four, or even eight, years ago? Has anything of significance changed? Of course not. Things don’t happen that fast in government. That’s thge beauty of our system. Sure, it may take three years to pass a bill as simple as getting rid of the “marriage penalty.” But don’t say that the Founding Fathers set up our system to be reactionary, because it’s not. They specifically put safeguards in place to prevent that.
I think that people in America really have a hard time with the long view. Maybe because we’re impatient. Maybe because our country’s history, relative to others’, is short. Regardless, we need to take a deep breath, calm down, stop the rhetoric, demogoguery and demonization, and realize that no matter who is elected this November, life as we know it will not cease.
So, if someone votes for their third-party candidate of choice, and the other major candidatewins because they didn’t select the major candidate who was closest to their views, so what? As John Corrado often points out (and did in this thread), third-party ideas are incorporated into the major parties if they receive enough support. Politicians are hypersensitive to poll and election results. It will happen. It just takes time. All the sound and fury about how this particular election will change the course of history forever is naive and myopic.
I’ve briefly considered voting Green this election, but have decided to vote for the lesser that two evils. Not just because Nader can’t win (wouldn’t vote Buchanan with a gun to my head) but more because of the Green platform and Nader’s non platform.
if you have any for respect for the system of democracy, you vote for the candidate who will most closely represent you. it frightens me to think that the people of the US are actually afraid to cast a losing vote. you have to take a stand for what you believe and let the chips fall where they may.
Care to actually suggest reasons why, or do you just like casting aspersions?
(side note muttering- what the hell is it with today’s influx of aggravating non-Americans? Has the British lorry strike forced taxi drivers to take out their normal aggressions on message boards rather than other drivers?)
In case you haven’t noticed, the Nader campaign doesn’t give a flying frood what happens to Gore in the election. They want to win, or do the best they can, at the expense of all the other canidates because they disagree with them enough to nominate their own canidate. If they agreed with Gore they would have nominated him. They don’t think (and I agree) the country under Bush will be significantly different than a counry under Gore. Both are pro-corporation and anti-worker. Both are in favor of the death penalty. Both have been silent about US foreign policy and there is every indication that the heavy handed policy of Reagen-Bush Sr.-Clinton will continue with Bush Jr. or Clinton Jr., I mean Gore.
You might see this as shallowness, but I see it as great depth. The fact that there are people out there to work on something they believe in, rather than take the false choice of our two party system. Voting for the lesser evil of the two major canidates is called politics. Voting your conscience is called democracy.
Dr Lao I have to join others and disagree with the “false choice” aspersion. There are in fact significant differences between the two parties and the candidates. Saying it’s not doesn’t make it so. BTW, are you a Nader supporter? If so, what do you think of the Green platform I provided earlier? again Id use Nader’s specifically but he doesn’t have one.
The Nader campaign to me is a protest vote nothing more.