First, is there any fault with the following statements, or do you disagree for any reason?
[ol]
[li]Unless something dramatic happens, Nader has no chance of winning the Presidential election.[/li][li]Automatically voting for your favorite candidate may not be in your own best interest. Your vote should be used in the most effective way possible. The question is not “which candidate is best for the country?” but “how do I use my vote to best benefit the country?”.[/li][/ol]
With that in mind - if you intend to vote for Nader, what is your justification? The only possibilities I can think of are:
[ul]
[li]You think Kerry and Bush are equally qualified (or equally unqualified) so you don’t care which wins, and you’d rather use your vote to express support for a third party candidate[/li][li]Your state is overwhelmingly blue or overwhelmingly red, and your voting for a third party candidate will not make a difference[/li][/ul]
But if there is anyone who doesn’t fit these descriptions and still intend to vote for Nader (or any third party candidate) I’d like to hear the reasoning.
-
Simply don’t like the parties and what they represent. I’m still a registered Republican because I hate the Democratic Party so much.
-
“If everyone thought that way, there will never be a 3rd party” - the idealized thinking that if everyone who liked Nader voted for Nader, he COULD win.
As a side note, Nader knows that he can’t win. But the best chance the Green Party has is in local, grass roots elections, and getting the party name recognized is important.
I know in advance that I’m going to regret jumping into this…it’s a trainwreck waiting to happen…but what the hey:
Yep, I disagree with that. The second sentence, anyway.
There are two results to any given voting process: the selection of a candidate, and the expression of the will of the people. The significance of the latter is very nebulous from the perspective of the country as a whole: who cares if candidate A gets 3% of the vote? But from the significance of an individual voter, the latter result is actually the more important. Even in Florida in 2000, no one voter decided the outcome of the election alone. Which means that no one voter had anything to do with selecting the president in 2000 even if they voted for Bush.
Now suppose you are trying to convince me, a single hypothetical voter, to not vote for Nader. If I truly think that Nader would be the best candidate for president, then you’re asking me to give up what is likely my only opportunity to express my will as to how my country should be run at the presidential level. And the only reason you’re giving me to do that is the ridiculously small chance that my vote will actually affect the outcome of the election.
Now in certain circumstances, say if I live in a swing state, that may be a reasonable argument. But don’t tell me that the reason I shouldn’t vote for Nader is that it doesn’t “benefit my country”. Because I’m pretty damned sure that the purpose of my voting is not for me to serve my country, but to have my say as to how my country can best serve me. There are plenty of opportunities for the former, and damned few enough opportunities for the latter.
scr4 you and I already debated this in another thread, and I expressed my opinon clearly there, and defended it effectively.
Essentially, it is this: “I have the right to vote for the person whose stated platform best agrees with my politics.” To vote for any other candidate, especially because according to you ‘he can’t win,’ is engaging in a popularity contest.
Your argument boils down to: “Your guy can’t win, so you should vote for mine.” That is the essence of a popularity contest, but ironically, that’s what you accused me of.
Haven’t you had enough? You clearly couldn’t support your position then, what else ya got?
If I hear anyone else claim that a 3rd party candidate is going to “cost” anyone the election, I’m going to the pit. The reason 3rd party candidates can act so much the spoiler is due to our electoral system, and the coke vs. pepsi nature of our two party system, not the presence of a third party.
I think you misunderstood me - I’m asking whether you think voting for Nader is best for your country, or for you.
I’m fully aware that an election can be a place to express your opinions. But you only have one vote and you like Nader, you are forced to choose between two possibilities: use your vote to try to influence the choice of candidate, or use your vote to express your opinions. Are you sure that the latter option is in your own best interest, and/or the interest of your country?
I know, but it was a hijack buried under another subject so I wanted to bring it out again. Sorry I didn’t link to it in the OP - I should have.
I didn’t say you don’t have the right. I asked you why you think it’s an effective use of your vote.
Fine, “popularity contest” was a poor metaphor since everyone seems to have a different idea of what that means.
I don’t appreciate threats. In the current possible, isn’t it not only possible but inevitable that a 3rd party candidate becomes a spoiler? Any 3rd party candidate will take away votes from whoever his/her views are closest to. How can it be otherwise? If you want to push towards reforming the electoral system then I have no problem with that, but I just don’t see what voting for a 3rd party candidate in a general election would do.
I thought Nader is running as an independent this time? The Green Party candidate is David Cobb.
Anyway point taken. If you are voting for a third party candidate to help it improve name recognition which in turn helps the party at local elections, that seems like a tangible benefit. I can accept that.
I’m sorry that came across as threatening… it was an attempt to express frustration. And it was unjustified – I think I’m not the only one who assumed less openmindedness than you are actually exhibiting. My apologies.
OK, assuming a) the electoral system is not going to change, and b) the race between the top two candidates in opinon polls is so close as to be potentially affected, your question still sounds like:
“If you hate number 1 so much, why vote for number 3 instead of number 2 when it may well keep number 2 from winning?”
And my answer is:
“If number 1 is so bad, why isn’t number 2 winning by a larger margin? It should be number 2’s race to lose.”
This was especially true in the Bush/Gore race of 2000. And there’s also:
“Why does everybody assume that numbers 1 and 2 are entitled to my vote?”
This is becoming my opinion for 2004, because I don’t think Kerry is going to do anything to address the real problems of corruption, corporate influence, and conflicts of interest that create pathological symptoms like the Bush administration.
In other words, the two-party system is part of the problem, and I am loathe to endorse it. Maybe, just maybe, if the Democratic Party central kommittee had not been choked with fear, jealousy, and bitterness that Dean had done so well, and not sabotaged his primary… in other words, had not acted like a bunch of republicans… then perhaps I’d have some hope for Kerry. And besides, I’m almost looking forwards to four more years of BushCo, just to see how much trouble they can really get into.
And also, finally:
“I live in California. Me and my entire zip code could vote for Nader, and [Gore|Kerry] would still get all of my state’s electoral votes.”
But I don’t like to use this one, because it’s merely circumstantial, and in a way, it’s another “popularity contest” argument.
So you do think numbers 1 and 2 are almost equally bad and you don’t care too much about which one wins? Fair enough, in that I can accept that voting for the 3rd candidate may be a reasonable option.
That’s the crux of the situation. Leaving aside the question of whether a third-party truly steals the votes of the nearest major candidate (I, for one, had considered voting Libertarian, but I would not vote for Bush or Kerry either way), the question boils down to how change is implemented.
You say, and I agree, that currently a third -party has no chance to win. That gives two options: (1)Continue with the status quo, that is, vote for a major party or not vote at all and (2)Vote third-party. The consequences of (1) are that a major party candidate wins this election and the view of the system does not change. The consequences of (2) are that a major party candidate wins this election (this may or may not be the same as with (1)) and perhaps (though I think it likely) more people realize there are other choices.
To move away from the two-party system, whether this entails a change of the electoral process or not, is a long and slow process. This would be a major change and cannot be undertaken quickly or lightly (nor should it). Only by the acceptance of third-party voting by an ever increasing number of people will the situation change.
scr4,
I think you are missing the larger picture. There is more to it than just this single election. I look at it like this: I used to be a liberal Democrat but the Party kept sliding to the right in search of more votes. That was an effective strategy for Clinton but why should I reward a party for moving away from my position? If I continue to vote Democratic even as the Party represents my beliefs less and less then they can ignore my discontent. Instead I have chosen to register my disappointment about the Democratic Party abandoning working people by leaving.
Now I’m Green and I’ll give my vote to our candidate, Mr Cobb. While I think it is unfair for Democrats to place the onus for 2000 squarely on Nader’s shoulders it is hard to deny that one of the reasons Gore isn’t in the Oval Office is because he failed to hold the left. That’s a good thing. It should encourage the Democratic Party to try to reach out to us. Unfortunately President Bush represents such a threat to all that is good in America that the Democrats haven’t had to try to build bridges with progressives. With Bush-hatred so deep on the left the Dems are up to their old tricks of reaching out to centrists. That’s their perogative but if they build a centrist coalition then they have no claim to noncentrist votes. Represent me and I will vote for you. The Dems prefer chasing NASCAR dads and sucking at the corporate tit.
I’m against the duopoly so it doesn’t make sense to give one of them my vote. I’ve never had any trouble telling the 2 major parties apart but there isn’t that much difference from my point of view. The Repugs are Dr Frankenstein while the Dems are merely Igor. Yes, I honestly hope Bush is kicked out of office. Yes, I’m in a battleground state. But that doesn’t mean I will vote for Kerry. He’s bound to be better than Bush but he won’t address what I feel are the problems of America. If enough of the progressives and populists would do as I am then the Dems would have no choice: move to the left or get used to being out of power. And don’t give me any of that, “But if the Dems move to the left they will lose anyways as centrists jump to the GOP.” That might happen in the short term but in a 2 party system where are people to go if they are dissatisfied with the party in power?
In almost all circumstances, yes. If I were eligible to vote in the U.S. (which I’m not, BTW) and if I lived in, say, Ohio (which I don’t), and if I really, really thought that Bush and his administration needed the boot (which I do), then maybe I’d consider voting strategically.
But even in Ohio, I’d have to sit down and think about the likely outcome of my vote. Let’s add one more hypothetical: suppose I truly thought that Nader was the person I wanted to be president. (I don’t.) If I vote for Nader, then the possible adverse consequence is that my single vote tips the scales and lets Bush take the lead over Kerry in that state. But even in Ohio, the possibility that my vote alone tips the scales is very, very slim. On the other hand, if I vote for Kerry then there’s still only a miniscule chance that my vote will actually decide the race, but at the same time there’s are additional definite adverse consequences: I’ve lost my chance to express my wishes as to how the country should be run, and in so doing I’ve undermined the very purpose of the democratic process, which is to give me the chance to express those very wishes.
Ohio is a state with lots of electoral college votes, and the polls there currently suggest that the race is effectively a tie. Even there, it would take a lot of convincing to get me to believe that the chance of my vote affecting the outcome is high enough to outweigh the definite adverse consequences of not voting my conscience. If I lived in California or Texas I wouldn’t consider strategic voting for a millisecond.
So yes, in almost all circumstances I feel the latter option would be in my best interest. Regarding “the best interests of my country”: this is one of the few circumstances in which the two are one and the same.
While I don’t think that a vote for Nader would do much, if one doesn’t believe in either of the two major parties I don’t want to be telling them “Vote for what you don’t believe in.”
This election is MAJOR and every vote for either Bush or Kerry will be extremely important, but unless you’re just dedicated to having the current administration out and don’t mind doing whatever you’ve gotta do to get that, why vote for something you don’t believe in? I mean, they’re not “stealing” votes (even if their movement may be counterproductive to their goal) if people believe in them and their views.
I understand your view, but don’t you think maybe this is the wrong time to be taking a stand? If your views really are to the left of the Democratic party, then what Bush is doing right now as president ought to really frighten you, I would think. Aren’t you scared of what he might do in a second term, unfettered by concerns of getting re-elected? Since the stakes are so high right now, wouldn’t it make more sense to maybe wait 4 years and then take your stand against the 2-party system?
This argument, while popular, makes no real sense. If Kerry and the Democrat party will not meet the principles and demands of a left-leaning voter then they are fools to vote Democrat if there is another candidate who will support those views. You can talk all you want about the stakes being high, but they really are not. Bush is bad (to a leftist) and Kerry is only moderately more palatable.
In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau wrote, “It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.” This is just the point that many are at today. We (as I am most definitely one of them) find the major parties to be the cause of much of what is wrong in America. To vote for one of them, even if they might be the lesser of two evils, is still providing support and even tacit approval to evil. Only by going outside the system, even if it is only to vote for a third party, is the only means of expressing discontent. To not vote, one only gets counted among those who do not care, which is quite the wrong message.
Let’s say a voter who wants to vote Nader as a protest that the Dems have gone too centrist takes your advice. They vote for Kerry as the lesser of two evils. Two results are possible - Kerry wins or Bush wins. Either way, let us assume that in four years the race for the White House is extremely tight again (as their is no reason to believe that it won’t be). Will you then stnad by your advice of today and encourage that voter to vote third party? Or will you change your tune and again urge them to vote for the lesser of two evils and postpone their protest? How about four years after that? Where does it end?
The only way to effect change is to act for it. Massive numbers of third party voters would send a chilling message to the major parties and their candidates. This is not likely to happen this election, but if a few more such votes are cast this year, and more the next election cycle, and so on, the message will be just as loud and just as clear. However, if the advice you give wins out, no message is sent, third party voters are denegrated as lunatic fringe, and nothing will ever change.
I love this board because GDers are as likely to challenge your view as they are to accept it. They ask the questions I don’t think to ask myself.
You know what? Now that I think about it, no. No I’m not afraid of another term for Bush. Before I had just assumed that it must be terribly awful but confronted by the question it seems to me that we are almost assuredly over the hump. Barring unforeseen circumstances I would say that Bush has already done more damage than he can possibly do in the future. That idea seems worthy of a thread of its own. I think I’ll go start one.
Of course it does. It makes perfect sense. You may disagree as to whether the stakes are high, but you can’t say it makes no sense. Take an extreme hypothetical. Say a Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, or Hussein (take your pick) is running against a moderate candidate, and you know that if they win, they will undoubtedly cause great evil. But let’s also say that you don’t particularly care for the moderate candidate, but concede that he wouldn’t do nearly the damage that Hitler would do. Would you vote for a 3rd-party spoiler candidate if there were a strong chance of Hitler winning? Now, that’s a silly, extreme example, but you have to concede that it is at least conceivable that there might exist a condition where the stakes were high enough to justify voting for the lesser of 2 evils. So all that remains is whether one thinks the stakes are high enough. You may disagree with the conditions of the argument, but not the argument itself.
I disagree. It’s a very pragmatic course of action. If you know Nader can’t win, why waste a vote on him?
I disagree. Kerry is much, much more palatable to the left on almost every issue: foreign policy, gay civil unions, the environment, education, tax structure, fiscal responsibility, you name it.
It would be nice if we could just wash our hands of Bush, but unfortunately we have to live in this country as he takes it over a waterfall. Let’s get out of the rapids first, then think about grand gestures like protesting the 2-party system.
The same 2 results that are possible if you vote for Nader.
If another republican, like McCain, for instance, were running, I really don’t think there would be so much at stake. I don’t think it would be so horrible to have someone like that as president. In 4 years, I imagine the republicans will have a candidate who isn’t as stupid and dangerous as Bush. You seem to be implying that 4 more years of Dubya wouldn’t be so bad. I disagree; I think it would be very, very bad.
We’ve had a 2-party system for 200-something years. Why is it all of a sudden so all-fired important to send a message that it can’t wait 4 years?
I take issue with your characterisation of a vote for a candidate who “can’t win” as a “waste.”
First of all, why can’t he win? Because of the two-party lock on the debates and campaign finance, and the winner-take-all electoral college, that’s why.
Secondly, why is voting for someone who doesn’t win a “waste?” It’s not a popularity contest, dammit! I’m not a loser for not voting for the winner. And most importantly, I don’t decide who to vote for just to be on the winning team.
I think a lot of people do that these days, where politics has turned into a spectator sport with a level of discourse somewhere between WWW RAW trash talk and NASCAR winner’s circle antics. They try to predict who is going to win, and then vote for that candidate just so they can later say that they voted for the winner.
The very idea of it makes me ill inside. Look what we have turned the birthplace of modern democracy into. 
To someone really on the left, he’s a centrist mainstream Democrat, who talks the talk just enough to appeal to the left, but threatens to do the same crap as Clinton. That is, co-opt republican, right-of-center policy in order to appeal to the center.
What Clinton did to health care is a perfect example. We got sold a bill for “Health Care Reform,” vaguely promising something that sounded like universal coverage – without the socialism, of course, because of the knee-jerk right wing faction that just can’t tolerate government money going to the less fortunate anymore despite demonstrably admirable programs in Europe and elsewhere.
What we really got was a complete rape of the regulations by the insurance industry. The rules were basically rewritten to shift almost all of the profit in health care to the biggest lobbyists: insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and HMOs. Patients, providers, and all got the short end of the stick.
It wasn’t reform, it was a complete hijack of policy. And no one yet will talk about it in the press.
That’s not the only way to do it.
I really like the idea of voting a democratic majority into the Senate, reforming the judiciary, and then blowing the lid off of all of the BushCo cronyism and abuse of power while he’s still in office.
My wet dream is to see such a shitstorm in Washington that no one will tolerate the kind of neoconservativism and corporateering again, for a long, long time. If we vote Bush out, I sincerely doubt Kerry will have the cojones to prosecute the BushCo Central Committee for things they did in office.
Dude, we’re not all-of-a-sudden protesting the two party system. And we’re not under any illusions that we’re going to make any grand sweeping changes in 2004.
The point is, we have principles. And we stand by them, even when it’s difficult. If we abandoned our principles when it became inconvenient, then we’d be just like, well… Mr. Bush for one.
I say don’t blame Nader voters. Blame the nearly half of the electorate that thinks George W. Bush is the most qualified person to run the United States.