Some last-minute thoughts going into Tuesday

Great Debates
1

First off, I’ve already made my choice (I took an absentee vote one week ago), so no amount of “a vote for Ralph Nader/Harry Browne/Pat Buchanan/that “Duke” guy in Doonesbury is a vote for George W. Bush” or “wasted vote” rhetoric is going to change my mind. (Okay, granted it never would have…) Just want to leave a few parting thoughts to those of you out there who are still undecided.

  1. A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush. It’s HALF a vote for Bush, and even then only if the voter was considering Gore in the first place (which I, and certainly the Green, Reform, and Libertarian Party faithful, never did). Anyone who follows sports standings knows this. A team that wins gains half a game on the rest of the division; only if one of those teams later loses does the first team gain a whole game. At any rate, if Bush is elected (hey, the Cardinals beat the Redskins today, it could happen ;)) because of the third-party vote, the credit/blame still rests overwhelmingly on the people who voted for Bush. All right? Don’t forget, too, that there are voters who are switching from Bush, too, so it’s not really possible to predict just what impact the third-party vote will have.

  2. This is the first election ever where I’ve seen such a ferocious, concentrated assault on third-party voters, and the ONLY reason I’ve seen was that it might get Bush elected (never mind the voters that are switching from Bush…they exist, I tell you!). Even our own Honolulu Weekly…Honolulu Weekly! The paper that runs This Modern World! One of the last few bastions of free thought in America!..ran a half-page ad spouting this ludicrous rhetoric. Now is it just me, or are a lot of Democratic and Republican supporters afraid all of a sudden? That a lot of people are finally wising up and refusing to select the marginally lesser evil when there are other valid choices? That arrogantly ignoring support of candidates who have “no chance of winning” could prevent their own candidates from winning? Hmm, you don’t suppose this could actually be a good thing, do you?

  3. An estimated 100 million voters won’t show up at all, and the main reason for this is that the major parties’ choices are so poor (and have been poor for years). If all of them voted for a third-party candidate, he’d probably win in a landslide. Of course, it’s more likely that their votes would be spread out among the five choices, but there’s still a good chance that at least Nader, Browne, or Buchanan, and possibly all three, would win electoral votes, forever destroying the notion that “fringe” candidates didn’t have a chance. In fact, if they were required by law to vote, it’s very likely that they’d do just that. If Bush wins a close one, is anyone anyone going to hold these holdouts of democracy possible, or will we all be too busy screaming at the “irresponsible” third-party supporters?

  4. Finally, I’ll assume for the sake of argument that winning is everything. Issues are meaningless, who’s the best candidate is meaningless, it’s all a damn horse race. Fine. So why did the Democrats nominate Al Gore? Why did they nominate someone who they knew would be tainted by the Clinton administration, who they knew was not a liberal, who they knew would be challenged to pony up something positive for his eight years in office? Couldn’t they have gone with, oh, Bill Bradley? You know, the other guy? Really, what were they thinking?

So you undecideds just think about all this…and remember, a vote for Bush is actually a vote for Gore, since they agree on so much. Thank you, and good night.

[Note to admin: I didn’t think this was serious enough for Great Debates. If I’m wrong, feel free to correct my assumption.]

2

Less than 48 hours 'til those damn political ads stop polluting my television!!!

I think I may be able to make it, but it’ll be close. I’m just about on the verge of reaching through my picture tube and strangling the talking heads there each time I hear “statistical dead heat.”

3

Actually, this one’s perfect for Great Debates.
Off we go! :slight_smile:

4

It doesn’t make one iota of difference who or what candidate you support. The major thing to remember is ** get off your dead ass and vote**. It doesn’t matter who for but nothing will change until the voter turnout becomes large enough to start to cause concern. If everybody who was eligable voted, we wouldn’t put up with mediocre candidates.

5

I personally think we have an awful choice, in terms of individuals. In alphabetical order: Bush is stupider than toast, self-contradictory, and holds positions that I find morally repugnant and economically unfeasible. Gore is more abrasive than I thought humanly possible, and relies more on his PR advisors than on common sense. Nader is more arrogant than Gore, even, and comes across as far more full of his own bloated self-importance than any real political agenda. (Buchanan… well… never mind.)

In this situation, the only choice is to vote for party platform and policies, and the hell with the individual.

However, I think there’s a practical side as well. Given that you KNOW that Nader stands zero chance of even winning one state – hell, he’ll be lucky to pull 10% of the vote in any state – his role is purely a spoiler. If you’re really interested in Green Party politics and philosophy, start at the grass roots level. A party that makes a splash in the newspapers every four years through an unsuccessful campaign for President, well, that’s a joke. Get people elected to state government and to Congress who are Green Party supporters, and then you’ve got some control – having a couple of seats in the Hosue or Senate would mean that the parties are courting you for your vote, and you can put a price tag on it (political compromise is the name of the game.) Taking an all-or-nothing position behind Nader is all sizzle and no steak.

6

Oh yes, the blitz is on. A repeat from the previous election.

I totally disagree that a vote for Nader (or any other third party candidate) is half Bush, half Gore, or a vote for Gore.

As long as your convinced by their false claim of that it does happen, they win because you switched your vote.

I received a call from my youngest daughter last night asking whom we’re voting for. She doesn’t like Bush or Gore. I said “Harry Browne”. She said, “I never heard of him”. I said, “That’s because he’s a third party candidate.” Ventura is her Governor.

My other daughter and her husband aren’t voting at all because they don’t like Bush or Gore.

Prove to me that my vote for Browne will not actually go into Browne’s tally, but instead be diverted to someone else either in whole or by halves. It doesn’t really happen does it?

I refuse to swallow.

7

I am more annoyed by the never ending stream of political mailers I get. I have yet to read a single one of them, they just go straight into th egarbage.

8

Damn, that’s two administrators espousing the same viewpoint. “Let Nader and the Greens get some local political office first and then he can run for President”.

No, no, NO! First off, it’s highly elitist to presume that the only people qualified to hold higher office are the ones who’ve been through lower offices first. Would you have said the same thing about Buchanan if he were polling as high as Nader? Would you have said these things about Nader if Gore were leading Bush 60% to 35%? No, probably not. The Democrats are up in arms because Gore is losing to Bush so badly.

The only thing Nader’s spoiling is the Republocrats’ long-cherished view that they’re the only show in town. What’s arrogant isn’t Nader speaking to real issues for once, it’s that the two ‘mainstream’ parties have been fronting the “vote for us or your vote’s wasted” viewpoint for decades on end. What’s arrogant is setting criteria for presidential debates that are more stringent than the criteria for federal funding of candidates. Monopolizing the political arena for an entire nation is arrogance. Challenging the status quo isn’t.

9

Wasted vote? Well, it’s both true and untrue. In principle you should vote for whoever you believe best represents your views and outlook for the direction this country should take. Chances are no candidate meets you on every point so you pick the candidate that is closest.

That said it is clear to anyone who can add that a vote for Nader/Browne/Buchanan will only aid (or hinder) the Gore/Bush. DKW suggests that some people who switch from Nader may go to Bush. While I have no doubt that’s true I’d venture that the vast majority of Green Party voters would go with Gore and not Bush (both the Gore and Bush camps feel this is the case). They may hate and despise Gore and he may be lousy on issues important to them but on the whole Dubya would be worse.

Of course, this can be a self-fulfilling prophecy thing. Don’t vote third-party because they can’t win and your wasting a vote so then the third party candidates never win and you say, “See, I told you so!”

Again, VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE! If Nader’s your guy than vote for him. “Wasted” vote or not this system works best if you vote your conscience…period. The only caveat I would give to this is if you absolutely abhor the idea of Bush or Gore in the Whitehouse (but could live with the other one). If you really really really don’t want one of those two in there then it’d probably be best to vote for the other frontrunner.

One other thing to note. I don’t recall the columnist (from the Washington Post I believe) but he suggested that Nader WANTS Bush elected. That is to say, if Nader himself can’t get elected (as seems likely) then he’d like to see Bush win. In Nader’s view things need to get worse before they can get better and he believes that Dubya is just the guy to make things worse (at least more worse than Gore). Then, come the 2004 elections, the Green Party will look much more appealing. I have the copy of part of this article at home…I’ll be sure to bring it in tomorrow and post the details if anyone asks for backup to this.

10

Olentzero:

I don’t think thats what CKDextHavn is suggesting at all (Please forgive me if I’m putting words into your mouth, btw), i.e. that Nader should hold a local office first. What he is actually saying (and this is something that I believe too), is that if the Greens want a measure of credibility and support, and if they truly want their platform issues addressed, rather than doing these runs for president that, at the most, get Liberals pissed off at them, they should instead run for and win local elections. Get people into the House or the Senate. Begin building up a power base in Washington. That will a) get their voices and opinions heard a lot more effectively than a quadrennial political splurge and b) would mean that both Democrats and Republicans would have to contend with a Green voice in government.

As it is, Nader has no chance of winning. I also don’t think that his winning 5% of the vote this year will lead to his winning that much more four years down the road. So instead of spending Green resources to actually get stuff done, it seems to me that they are doing this purely to be the spoilers in this election (viz. Nader’s campaigning in battleground states… he obviously isn’t just trying to get his 5%). Is this the way that a third party is going to become a viable alternative in our political system?

11

To be honest, I’m not voting for Nader because I support the Greens. I’m voting for Nader because he’s speaking about the issues that Gore and Bush can’t or won’t. I don’t think electoral politics are the way forward for change; if that were so I think Bernie Sanders and the other independent Congressman would have had much more of an impact than they did. As a matter of fact, Sanders has ended up tailing the Democrats almost completely, instead of bending them to his will through the art of compromise. Any Greens that get into the House or Senate, unless they carry several states at the same time or in quick succession, would be swamped.

I don’t think Nader’s going to win, either. But he is a voice speaking to real issues and I’d much rather vote for that than hold my nose and vote for someone who’s only marginally more palatable (and even that’s questionable) than someone else.

Nader’s gotten more issues addressed through activism and grassroots organizing than through electoral campaigning. His campaign can be used by serious activists as a springboard for further activism and organizing, whether they belong to the Green Party or not.

12

The 2 major candidates are really an embarrassment to this country. But considering the fact that Bush’s 24 year old DUI conviction was made public recently, is it no wonder that more qualified people don’t step up to the plate?

I mean, I’m a pretty boring person. Still, I’ve sucked a bong or two in my life. I also had an affair with a married man when I was a teenager.

Does this mean I am utterly unqualifed for public office?Would I run for office knowing that all my past indiscretions would be made public and that every person I ever slept with or smoked a joint with would become a target for the unrelenting media?

Doubt it.

Face it, we scare away a lot of very qualified, very intelligent people by microanalyzing their every move, current and past. It’s not good for the candidates, and it’s certainly not good for the country. And as long as we allow this to happen, we shouldn’t be surprised that the caliber of contestants has diminished.

13

This is an awful risky strategy though, IMHO!

14

Worked for Huey Long, didn’t it? Oh, wait.

15

  1. There’s already a pro-Nader thread contending that Bush is the better choice. On the merits. Swear to gawd. Just look.

  2. From the OP:

George Wallace did that in '68. Didn’t forever destroy nuthin.

  1. From the OP:

Gore won the primaries. Bradley didn’t. Gore put his horse down, Bradley put his horse down. Gore won.

16

As a young Minnesotan, the only real exposure I’ve had to politics was the election in which Jesse Ventura was elected.

Therefore, whenever I hear someone say that such-and-such has a 0% chance of winning, I laugh inwardly.

Here’s hoping Nader shocks the world.

17

I lack eloquence. I haven’t been able to say, except haltingly, why I’m voting for Nader.

But I will say, I am excited about going out and voting today. And I haven’t ever been before. Ooh, I almost feel like I’m really VOTING.

Vote!

18

The only way I’ll feel guilty voting for Nader is if Bush wins Virginia by a single vote. (Not likely)

However, while a vote for Nader isn’t a vote for Bush, it’s not accurate to claim that a Gore and Bush are not at all different. All three of the big guys have been using hyperbolic rhetoric in persuit of their goals Bush-Gore for the White House, Nader to punish the democratic party for moving to the center on economic issues. Whether or not that is a admirable goal has yet to be determined. The only thing I know is that historically no third party has risen without a second party faltering or collapsing. Otherwise the independent party itself collapses. Federal matching funds did not save the Reform party (though I believe, in my little universe, McCain might have).

Peace

19

Just please…

20

pantom - You missed the point, so I’ll elaborate.

Granted that Bill Bradley didn’t “put his horse down”. Was Al Gore really the best choice? It seems to me that he spent far too much effort distancing himself from Bill Clinton the man (i.e. the adulterous philanderer who couldn’t be faithful etc.), while not taking a single step away from Clinton’s policies (NAFTA, GATT, the Defense of Marriage Act, the War on Drugs, “welfare reform”, managed care, etc.). This being a democracy, the Demos were perfectly free to search for and pick someone who stood a better chance…I don’t remember anyone claiming that a vote for someone other than Gore in the primary was a wasted vote. Given that Gore’s failings had to be well-known to the DNC before the campaign even began, and that his eight-year association with President Clinton’s character and policies would do nothing but hurt, why hand him the nomination?

As for George Wallace in '68…well, I wasn’t alive then, but I seem to recall from history that '68 was a pretty turbulent year on the homefront, and at least one strong favorite, Robert Kennedy, didn’t even make it to the party nomination. So maybe Wallace’s showing should be written off as a fluke achieved under extremely unusual circumstances. But that wasn’t my point. My point was, if everyone who won’t vote this year voted for a “fringe” candidate, it would have a profound effect on the election, and quite possible sweep one of them into office. And if this happened every election, it absolutely would shatter all the myths about third parties having no chance.

On a related note, do you actually WANT opposing viewpoints and candidates who could make a difference to be shut out of the process for good? Because that’s the message I got, and frankly, it sounds like an extremely strange thing to wish for.

Edlyn - If someone switches from Gore to Nader, Buchanan, or Browne (again, I stress that I did not), that person still isn’t voting for Bush, meaning that he only gains half a vote on Gore. (Actually, he gains nothing, but if you’re counting this as a lost vote for Gore then it technically is half a vote.) At any rate, only a vote actually cast for Bush counts as a full vote for Bush. Sorry if this is a little hard for you to swallow, but, as Cecil himself once said, you can’t take votes on the facts. To elaborate on my sports example (which I thought was pretty clear the first time, but never mind), when the Packers beat the Vikings yesterday, they gained a full game on the Vikings but only half a game on the Lions, Bears, and Buccaneers, who didn’t lose that night. Clear now?

But that’s not important…what is important (and extremely so) is that it’s the Bush supporters who are to blame if Bush wins. And frankly, I’m astonished that voting for a third-party candidate has been villified to no end, whereas voting for Bush (possibly the weakest Republican presidential candidate ever, and that’s saying a lot) has received no condemnation.

Jeff_42 - It’s a risky ploy, to be sure, but sometimes that’s what it takes. If Bush running the nation into the ground is what buries the Republican party and prompts a serious reassessment of our two-party system…well, necessary evil. Now, hopefully it won’t come to that, and I’m certainly not asking for it, but seeing as how vehemently villified the third parties have been this election…not simply trivialized, but villified…I’m not optimistic.

Positive change is possible only when people stop being complacent. Nader giving Bush a narrow victory would do that. Handing Gore the election on a gold platter won’t.

UnEasyRider - Perfect. Finally, someone gets it. If Tuesday’s a bad day, take an absentee vote (like I did). If you can’t leave the house at all for some reason, vote by phone or online. If you have trouble deciding, watch the news, search for information online, or ask a friend. If you still have trouble deciding, just follow your conscience. In any event, not participating is simply wrong.