Why vote for Nader?

[akennett]

@erislover

Yes. I genenerally feel that, if asked, most Nader voters would answer “yes” to the question, “Do you prefer Kerry to Bush?”

That is not the same as would a Nader voter vote for Kerry. Some would refrain from voting. Some would vote for “Mickey Mouse” or “John Doe.” I have not seen, nor do I think you can produce, any evidence to suggest that all or even a majority of Nader votes would go to Kerry – let alone enough to make a difference in the electoral college.

What? No one “deserves” a vote. If you don’t like your candidates then don’t vote. But if you prefer any candidates to other candidates, then you should vote and think about what you’re doing.

And I maintain that you should vote for the candidate that you most prefer, regardless of party.

The spoiler effect is called so because of how the voting system works. Let’s take a very simple example. Suppose there are 13 people. Six have already voted for Bush, four have voted for Kerry, and the three remaining people are Nader supporters on their way to the booth (of course, they don’t know the tally). If these three voters prefer Kerry to Bush, then voting for Nader spoiled the election: the outcome failed to match the preferences of the voters. I don’t believe that all Nader voters prefer Kerry to Bush, that’s so. But I feel quite comfortable suggesting that quite a few do.
How’s that working out for you?

First, your example fails to account for the Electoral College. Second, the numbers in your example are hardly representative of the current situation. Third, suppose two Nader voters vote for Kerry and one stays home? Suppose all three vote for Bush because Kerry’s supporters have denigrated them throughout the campaign? We can bat hypotheticals around for as long as you want and they will show nothing.

Again, to the example above: those three voters vote for Nader. Who wins because of that? Practically speaking, they might as well have voted for Bush, because in either case Bush wins.

And if two or all three stay home because they have no candidate they like? Bush wins. If one stays home and the others vote Kerry, it’s a tie and all hell breaks loose. If one stays home, one votes for Kerry, and the other votes for Mickey Mouse? Bush wins. You are only seeing a binary system, when there are a multitude of choices.

Enough people won’t do this, you see, because enough people aren’t on the fringes of political views.

It’s not necessarily about political fringes. It’s about the will of the people and the popular perception of our government. If enough people become disillusioned enough with the way things are working, then change will occur. I do not think that there will be massive change after this election, or the next, but that will not stop me from working so that my children or their children can live under a better system.

---

@blowero

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?

To add to my earlier reply to this point: the idea of throwing elections that do not have a majority vote by the Electoral College into the House of Representatives was created to account for the fact that the founders did not envision a two party system. They felt that the rival factions would not be able to unite into consolidated parties (something they feared) and that multiple candidates would be narrowed by the Electoral College and the president would ultimately be selected in the House.

The nature of parties has always been an evolution and parties have sprung up, died out, and slid in and out of major party status. A solid system of two national and fairly stable parties did not arise until after Reconstruction. Your contention that we have lived under a two party system during the entire span of the republic is quite false.

---

@blowero

Amazing! I put in caveats up the wazoo, and it’s like you just didn’t read them at all.

No, you said it was a silly extreme scenario, but that one must admit that it, or one like it, is conceivable. I was contesting that assertion – arguing that such a scenario is not even conceivable. I am arguing that someone who is so evil that a “lesser-of-two-evil” voting strategy makes sense would not be a viable presidential candidate – ever.

Ha ha ha. Man, I wish it were that simple. Oh, yeah - we’ll just convince them. Short of Bush raping his mom, some people aren’t ever going to be convinced.

Yes, and when asked to show proof you dismiss such an inquiry out of hand. Those who will not respond to real proof, rather than blind partisan mudslinging, are in a very small minority. Bring out the proof, and we’ll see.

Huh? That’s like the opposite of my point. The point is to pick the lesser of 2 evils, not the greater of 2 evils. Duh.

No, the possible election of Hitler, Jr. is exactly a consequence of your voting mentality. Just as there will be those who find Mr. Moderate a lesser evil, there will be those, because of the moderate’s stance on some hot-button issue(s), who find Hitler, Jr. the more attractive of the two. If they can’t vote third party (because that is a wasted, spoiler vote) then they will vote Hitler, Jr. possibly throwing him the election.

Of course, on the other hand, if you like Bush, or if you think Bush and Kerry are equivalent, then there’s no point in even having this conversation.

I think that you will have a hard time finding recent statements from me to support such a contention. I dislike Bush (hate is a strong word). I think Kerry is slime. I do not think that either candidate represents my interests or ideas. I don’t think they are equivalent, but they are both part of the same power structure that is focused more on maintaining the status quo than on effecting real change.

I don’t follow that reasoning at all. If you got the guy you hate out of office, then it’s not a waste.

It is a waste if you could have voted for the guy you actually like. You continue to assert that Nader voters love Kerry and really strongly approve of him over Bush and would vote for him if Nader were not running. You have offered no evidence to support this view. I maintain that many Nader voters would stay home rather than vote for Kerry if Nader were not running. I would refrain from voting for president if there was not a candidate I could honestly say I support.

As it is, I am currently looking at voting Libertarian, but I need to examine their platform a little more closely. I would love to see Bush out of office, but that does not mean I will vote for Kerry.

The purpose of voting is to determine who gets elected. If the guy you voted for doesn’t get elected, then your voice wasn’t heard anyway. The votes that went to the loser don’t go into some “heard voices” storage facility for later use.

If this were true, then no one would mention the voting results from 2000 after they were tallied and Bush became the President-Elect. No one would argue over whether, if all the unsealed absentee ballots (which wouldn’t have effected the electoral outcome) where opened did Bush eke out the popular win or did Gore still manage to hang on to a tenuous lead. No one would mention the small percentage of votes that Nader received in 2000. But they do, and this is evidence that your voice is heard, even if your candidate does not win. If you need another example, examine the platforms and speeches of progressive candidates from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These men were not elected, but they had a huge impact on our country.

Then that’s a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT. If you see absolutely no difference betwen Bush and Kerry, and the point is moot to you, then by all means, vote however you like.

No, this is exactly the argument to be had. I did not say no difference, I merely said that they do not see the huge difference you keep asserting.

Neither do you. What the hell is your point?

My point was that you said we have to live here. I was correcting your glaringly obvious misstatement of fact.

Look - you are completely missing the point of this discussion. If you LIKE Bush, then this has nothing to do with you.

See above for my feelings on Bush. However, your statement is wrong even if I do like Bush. If (and that’s a mighty big if) I prefer Bush to Kerry, but think a third party represents my interests more closely then I am in the same dilemma as a Nader voter (though, perhaps, for a different candidate). I prefer to keep the argument as non-partisan as possible for exactly that reason.

1. If you hate Bush, and think Kerry wouldn’t be as bad as Bush, but still aren’t 100% satisfied with Kerry, and you vote for Nader, then it’s a “spoiler vote”.

Not if you are 100% satisfied with Nader. Or 75% satisfied with Nader, 50% satisfied with Kerry and 5% satisfied with Bush.

2. No, it’s important to vote for Nader out of principle. There’s no such thing as a “spoiler vote”.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Vote for the candidate who most clearly matches your desired platform.

If you LIKE Bush, or you think Bush and Kerry are exactly equivalent, YOU DON’T BELONG IN THIS DISCUSSION AT ALL. Neither argument would apply to you.

Blah, blah, blah…keep repeating the same thing over and over again, maybe I’ll begin to believe that it reflects how I feel.

Sorry, but I’m not going to start in on what’s wrong with Bush. We’ve done it TO DEATH.

No, actually, no one has done it. Whether it is hatred for the man personally or blind partisan loyalty, the attacks on Bush fail to account for the fact that he must work with congressional Democrats to really do anything of consequence.

Reflect on that, and you may just begin to see that the current two party system is not bent on change, but the continuance of the status quo. Change brings uncertainty, and party officials do not want this – it may be their party that gets demolished when the change occurs. Status quo brings stability, it ensures that there will always be a steady stream of power, influence, and (most importantly) money to those who rise to the top in the party.

[akennett]

One additional premutation to your hypothetical erislover:

13 voters:
6 want Bush
4 want Kerry
3 want Nader

Let’s say that the Bush voters have already voted. So too have the Nader voters.

Who, then, should the Kerry voters vote for? Would you really have them vote for Nader to rid themselves of Bush? If so, why shouldn’t real Kerry voters do so?

If they all, or a large enough majority of them, would do so you get the same net effect of removing Bush (assuming you have enough votes to do so).

Why shouldn’t this figure prominently in Kerry voters’ minds?

Why should it only be the Nader voters who compromise their principles?

[akennett]

@akennett

If they all, or a large enough majority of them, would do so you get the same net effect of removing Bush (assuming you have enough votes to do so).

Sorry, that parenthetical should read “(assuming you have enough combined votes to do so at the outset).”

[2sense]

@Apos

I understand that it might seem that way to you, but the reality is, this is exactly what campaigns and political parties spend the majority of their time doing: trying to fire up their base to vote for them.

I’m glad you understand that it might seem to me that there is no point in trying to convince someone to vote for you that you already trust to vote for you. Do you understand that it would seem the same to the entire English-speaking world with the possible exception of you? I hope so because I don’t intend to explain what the word “trust” means to the rest of us.

Once you get that straight notice that you were the one who brought up the party base. I said nothing about them and judging from your experience the people parties trust to vote for them and a party’s base are 2 seperate groups.

You basically jumped out of this discussion with a quip. Politically, in terms of what they will or will not support, the bulk of people are moderates.

If you define “moderate” as someone somewhat close to the median political view of the American population then sure, most people are moderates. If instead you define “moderate” as someone close to the median political view of members of Congress then I would be more skeptical.

The reasons people don’t vote are varied, but they mostly border satisfied indifference, disinterest, and the feeling that there is no real urgency to vote when polls show that one guy or the other is going to win (which is why we expect a huge turnout this year).

Another unsupported assertion. Again I will ask for a cite. And it had better be a good one because I’ve got a book by Dr Thomas Patterson based on his work with Harvard’s Vanishing Voter Project that says different.

Which, in a national election, will be to fight it out for votes in the center. Even if we had more regional, broken up platforms that swayed this way or that, the end result would still have to be fighting over the center of all these views.

The average American can’t tell you how a Democratic or Republican presidential nominee stands on any given issue. ( And yes, I can cite that from the aforementioned book. ) To the extent that issues, rather than intangibles, drive a campaign it’s not a matter of creating a group of policy positions that as a whole place a candidate in the middle. That doesn’t work because politics are so complex that few of us devote enough time to grasp the whole. The most most people can hope to do is pay attention to those few issues that matter most to them. So campaigners need to approach policy piecemeal. They seek to create not a centrist whole but a collection of positions that each please enough individuals without turning off too many other potential supporters. This is why we have things like our Cuba policy, for instance. The exiles are vehemently anti-Castro and the rest of us mostly don’t care much about it. There is no great popular feeling against electoral reform so there is no electoral reason it won’t become part of a party platform.

For goodness sakes, do you really think that any majority of Americans support taxes that are even higher than even Kerry is being slammed hard for supporting, cutting back on our military drastically, all sorts of workplace laws that crush small businesses, full featured gay rights, free abortions for everyone, abolishing gun ownership, and so on?

It doesn’t matter what I think about that since it has nothing to do with your assertion that my “boilerplate” would send most of America running for the door. I specifically mentioned “good jobs, a safe work environment, or a government that serves people first and corporations 2nd”. Please back up your claim that most Americans would reject policies based on these positions.

*In other words, you don’t really care about the issues, just saying that you care about them? I don’t get it. *

I was responding to your claim that the Repubs would run everything if we had proportional representation. I think you are wrong but even if you are right I would still support proportional representation because that’s the right thing to do. I wouldn’t reject a more fair system just because it would be likely to produce outcomes that I oppose.

If you want greater access to healthcare for all Americans, why would you support behavior that makes it less likely to happen as opposed to behavior that makes it more likely to happen? And don’t tell me that it makes it more likely to happen in the long run. First of all, in the long run, we’re all dead, and the people that suffer in the meantime can’t unsuffer. Second of all, I don’t see HOW it will make any difference to the long run, because it’s going nowhere, and the country is steadily heading to the right due to Republican domination of the government.

Perhaps it is that I, being liberal, am just naturally more optimistic than you. Or, to be less cute, I believe that you are being overly pessimistic about Republican domination. They don’t command the consistent support of more than half of the electorate let alone half of the general population. They control the House, Senate, and White House only because the electoral system is so messed up. ( I can back that assertion up as well if you are prepared for a Byzantine discussion of gerrymandering, malaportionment, and the electoral college. )

And lastly let me point out that there is a long term where the results of what we do today play out but before we are all dead. I, for one, don’t propose we allow our mortality to justify ignoring the future.

[blowero]

@akennett

First, your example fails to account for the Electoral College. Second, the numbers in your example are hardly representative of the current situation. Third, suppose two Nader voters vote for Kerry and one stays home? Suppose all three vote for Bush because Kerry’s supporters have denigrated them throughout the campaign? We can bat hypotheticals around for as long as you want and they will show nothing.

You seem to have a problem comprehending the nature of an example. An example is used to explain a general principle. The example does not have to be identical to the actual situation that currently exists. That’s why it’s called an example. Please stop dismissing all examples out-of-hand. It makes it very hard to have an intelligent discussion without using examples.

[quote]

The nature of parties has always been an evolution and parties have sprung up, died out, and slid in and out of major party status. A solid system of two national and fairly stable parties did not arise until after Reconstruction. Your contention that we have lived under a two party system during the entire span of the republic is quite false.

You’re right. I should have said 135 years. But my point still stands.

No, you said it was a silly extreme scenario, but that one must admit that it, or one like it, is conceivable. I was contesting that assertion – arguing that such a scenario is not even conceivable. I am arguing that someone who is so evil that a “lesser-of-two-evil” voting strategy makes sense would not be a viable presidential candidate – ever.

Which was my original point. You can argue the factual matter of whether the stakes are high enough to warrant a “lesser of 2 evils” vote, but you can’t say the logic of the argument itself isn’t valid; it is. Do you understand the difference between an invalid argument, and a valid argument for which the factual premises are false, or unlikely? You incorrectly declared that my argument “makes no real sense”, when what you meant to say was that you disagree as to whether the stakes are high enough.

I’ll give you an example. It’s an example, and I’m using it to demonstrate a general principle of logic, so it doesn’t have to be exactly the same as the topic of the thread, O.K? Imagine I say, “If the sun explodes, we will all die”, and you say, “That argument makes no sense, because it’s very unlikely that the sun will explode”. You would be wrong. Get it? The argument makes sense; you just disagree with the likelihood of the premise.

Yes, and when asked to show proof you dismiss such an inquiry out of hand. Those who will not respond to real proof, rather than blind partisan mudslinging, are in a very small minority. Bring out the proof, and we’ll see.

No, the possible election of Hitler, Jr. is exactly a consequence of your voting mentality. Just as there will be those who find Mr. Moderate a lesser evil, there will be those, because of the moderate’s stance on some hot-button issue(s), who find Hitler, Jr. the more attractive of the two. If they can’t vote third party (because that is a wasted, spoiler vote) then they will vote Hitler, Jr. possibly throwing him the election.

I never said you can’t vote third party. Where’d you get that crazy idea? We’re not suggesting that third parties be outlawed. In fact, I would be more than happy for there to be more than 2 mainstream parties. All I’m saying is that in THIS particular election (Bush v. Kerry), IN MY OPINION, the stakes are too high to be thinking about casting a vote solely for the purpose of making a statement about the 2-party system.

So your example doesn’t work. If I, as a hypothetical liberal voter in the hypothetical election, cast my vote for Mr. Moderate, it has no effect on whether another individual might vote for Hitler. You have no cause to connect those two events.

I think that you will have a hard time finding recent statements from me to support such a contention. I dislike Bush (hate is a strong word). I think Kerry is slime. I do not think that either candidate represents my interests or ideas. I don’t think they are equivalent, but they are both part of the same power structure that is focused more on maintaining the status quo than on effecting real change.

Uh, you do know what “if” means, don’t you? I made no contention. But in light of what you just wrote, it seems to me that you don’t particularly think Kerry would be any better than Bush. Would you say that’s a fair characterization? I’m asking you, so try not to get all upset and pretend that I am putting words in your mouth. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I’m just trying to get at what your political position is. Because if (notice the word “if”) you don’t think Kerry would be any better than Bush, then you might as well vote for Nader. My argument wouldn’t apply to you in that case. Can you understand that? This is really an argument only for people who believe Kerry would be a much better president than Bush, but vote for Nader because they like Nader better than Kerry. It’s NOT an argument for people who think Kerry and Bush are 6 of one and a half-dozen of the other, and vote for Nader simply because they are ambivalent about Bush v. Kerry. I hope this is clear now.

It is a waste if you could have voted for the guy you actually like.

No it’s not.

You continue to assert that Nader voters love Kerry and really strongly approve of him over Bush and would vote for him if Nader were not running.

No, I made no such assertion. What I did do was suggest to 2sense, “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.” If 2sense would like to address that, that would be fine, but please don’t mutate it into this “Nader voters love Kerry and really strongly approve of him over Bush” strawman. I never said that. Don’t make up strawmen; it’s really annoying.

I maintain that many Nader voters would stay home rather than vote for Kerry if Nader were not running.

So give us the evidence to support this view.

I would refrain from voting for president if there was not a candidate I could honestly say I support.

As it is, I am currently looking at voting Libertarian, but I need to examine their platform a little more closely. I would love to see Bush out of office, but that does not mean I will vote for Kerry.

Yes, I understand your beliefs, but it’s irrelevant to the argument I was making. My argument is predicated on the idea that one thinks Kerry would be a better president than Bush. If you don’t think so, then there’s no reason to be in this discussion.

If this were true, then no one would mention the voting results from 2000 after they were tallied and Bush became the President-Elect. No one would argue over whether, if all the unsealed absentee ballots (which wouldn’t have effected the electoral outcome) where opened did Bush eke out the popular win or did Gore still manage to hang on to a tenuous lead. No one would mention the small percentage of votes that Nader received in 2000. But they do, and this is evidence that your voice is heard, even if your candidate does not win. If you need another example, examine the platforms and speeches of progressive candidates from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These men were not elected, but they had a huge impact on our country.

No, this is exactly the argument to be had. I did not say no difference, I merely said that they do not see the huge difference you keep asserting.

No, it’s NOT the argument to be had. THAT argument would take the form of a NEW thread entitled: “Do you think Kerry would be a better president than Bush?” But you seem to want to be deliberately obtuse, and pretend that debate hasn’t already been had 1,000 times over.

Look, I don’t even know why I’m trying to explain this to you. I think you’re just playing games here and pretending not to understand what we’re talking about.

AND THE CLINCHER:

As it is, I am currently looking at voting Libertarian, but I need to examine their platform a little more closely.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! This guy’s arguing about whether to vote for Nader, and he’s a fucking LIBERTARIAN, who isn’t even PLANNING to vote for Nader! Jesus, are you ever in the wrong thread.

I’ve wasted too much time on you already. Good bye.

Oh, wait, one more thing:

My point was that you said we have to live here. I was correcting your glaringly obvious misstatement of fact.

Could you have possibly picked a more trivial, less germane point to argue about? Who gives a flying fuck if we have to live here? It was just a toss-off phrase. You’re just arguing for the sake of argument, and I’ve had enough of it.

[erislover]

@2sense

Yes, if we accept your limitation that we should only consider which candidate a single election then you are right, a voting for minor candidates is little different than voting for the major candidate we dislike more.

You only vote in one election at a time.

And speaking of ignoring arguments, should I take your silence on the matter as a tacit admission that my plan to make the Democratic Party more democratic is more practical than your idea of all independents somehow coming together to do it themselves?

None of it is essentially practical. It surprises me that you can recognize the absurdity of third parties banding together, but can’t stare results in the face: if you prefer Kerry, a vastly more popular candidate than Nader, to GWB, then the sensible vote is for Kerry, for reasons I’ve already illustrated.

And speaking still further of ignoring arguments, how about noticing that I have already argued that many liberal views aren’t “on the fringes of political views”?

Then Nader would be in Kerry’s position, and Kerry, Nader’s… none of which would change essential arguments.

[erislover]

@akennett

One additional premutation to your hypothetical erislover:

13 voters:
6 want Bush
4 want Kerry
3 want Nader

Let’s say that the Bush voters have already voted. So too have the Nader voters.

Who, then, should the Kerry voters vote for? Would you really have them vote for Nader to rid themselves of Bush? If so, why shouldn’t real Kerry voters do so?

Well, as usual voters have no way of knowing the current results. But, if they’re paying attention, they’ve seen the court of public opinion cast its eyes on a candidate. The advice I’ve given in a million threads like these is that, in first-past-the-post elections, the most sensible vote is for the most popular candidate that you prefer to other popular candidates. If those numbers I gave above were accurate, then in principle Nader would have 23% of the popular vote–more than double what he pulled in a “safe to vote for independent lefties” election. In such a case, I’d have no problem with people voting for Nader. This is not such a case, however, and Nader is not such a candidate.

Why should it only be the Nader voters who compromise their principles?

What makes you think no one else is, really?

[Apos]

@akennett

Why should it only be the Nader voters who compromise their principles?

Good grief. The entire PURPOSE of our political system is to FORCE people to compromise on their principles. The whole point is that no one can simply get whatever they want: to do so would mean stepping all over someone else’s desires. EVERYONE has to compromise, in every election. In fact, it is impossible to have a system of democratic election that does not, at some point, force either the electors or the elected to make the exact same compromises. At least the American system is honest about it.

[Apos]

@2sense

I’m glad you understand that it might seem to me that there is no point in trying to convince someone to vote for you that you already trust to vote for you. Do you understand that it would seem the same to the entire English-speaking world with the possible exception of you? I hope so because I don’t intend to explain what the word “trust” means to the rest of us.

Oh give it a rest. You know exactly what I mean. Democrats can trust that union guys and gay right people will in general vote Democrat. But that doesn’t mean they will vote in large enough numbers to matter. That’s why the party spends so much time trying to re-sell itself to people that, from your understanding, it already has in the bag.

Once you get that straight notice that you were the one who brought up the party base. I said nothing about them and judging from your experience the people parties trust to vote for them and a party’s base are 2 seperate groups.

Exactly the same people. Democratic percentage is not the same thing as turnout.

Another unsupported assertion. Again I will ask for a cite. And it had better be a good one because I’ve got a book by Dr Thomas Patterson based on his work with Harvard’s Vanishing Voter Project that says different.

Lol, you sure you actually read the book, or are you just citing it’s title?

The average American can’t tell you how a Democratic or Republican presidential nominee stands on any given issue. ( And yes, I can cite that from the aforementioned book. )

Can you also cite the fact that, by and large, they also don’t care?

To the extent that issues, rather than intangibles, drive a campaign it’s not a matter of creating a group of policy positions that as a whole place a candidate in the middle. That doesn’t work because politics are so complex that few of us devote enough time to grasp the whole. The most most people can hope to do is pay attention to those few issues that matter most to them. So campaigners need to approach policy piecemeal. They seek to create not a centrist whole but a collection of positions that each please enough individuals without turning off too many other potential supporters. This is why we have things like our Cuba policy, for instance. The exiles are vehemently anti-Castro and the rest of us mostly don’t care much about it. There is no great popular feeling against electoral reform so there is no electoral reason it won’t become part of a party platform.

Indeed, this is the classic matrix of majority feeling vs. interest group feeling for or against some issue.

It doesn’t matter what I think about that since it has nothing to do with your assertion that my “boilerplate” would send most of America running for the door. I specifically mentioned “good jobs, a safe work environment, or a government that serves people first and corporations 2nd”. Please back up your claim that most Americans would reject policies based on these positions.

I think you missed the point. That slogan could just as easily come from Kerry. Or even from Bush. It’s meaningless: the reality is what the candidates actually propose to do about acheiving those things. What make its so laughable is that Kerry has a hard enough time trying to sell his fairly moderate policies on these issues without being painted as a liberal whackjob who wants big government and socialist programs. You seem to be telling me that Nader’s policies, which seem to many Americans to be a much more outright nod of socialism, would be much more popular. I can’t even comprehend what sort of disconnect from the reality of the American voting public could lead someone to think that. Have you actually BEEN to any of the current major battleground states? Talked to the voters there that are on the fence? And I’m talking the masses: the working poor, the out of work, the farmers, etc.

I was responding to your claim that the Repubs would run everything if we had proportional representation. I think you are wrong but even if you are right I would still support proportional representation because that’s the right thing to do. I wouldn’t reject a more fair system just because it would be likely to produce outcomes that I oppose.

There is no reason why a) it would be any more or less fair, or b) that we would expect it to be all that different in terms of political power. We’d still have a majority coalition and a minority one.

Perhaps it is that I, being liberal, am just naturally more optimistic than you.

Well, aside from entirely dodging the point (which was Nader’s primary debate tactic against Dean, that or senile rambling out of the point), in other words, you are happy to watch the continued non-existence of healthcare coverage for all Americans and call that an optomisitic stance because of some magical dream that sitting on the sidelines will somehow make those things more likely to appear in the future.

And lastly let me point out that there is a long term where the results of what we do today play out but before we are all dead. I, for one, don’t propose we allow our mortality to justify ignoring the future.

Oh, wonderful. So, instead of working towards healthcare that works, education that isn’t a edad end, and foriegn policy that won’t get us all killed, you are happy with the status quo as long as you get to cast a vote who’s only affect is to have the exact opposite of your own stated goals. If there is any mechanism by which voting for Nader could possibly bring about the future you imagine, I might believe you had at least some case to argue for. But where is that mechanism? And if it’s all purely about principle, why compromise on Nader? Why not just vote for yourself, since you have all the bright ideas and correct values?

[Apos]

And, just a note: if the Dems lose this election, they will re-organize and come out as more right wing. If they win, they’ll be able to push further left. If the Republicans lose, they will do some soul-searching and come out more moderate. If they win, Bush paleo-conservatism will be vindicated. The idea that by denying the Democrats votes (the onyl thing even NADER believes his candidacy can accomplish) will move the Democrats to the left is simply beyond the realm of political possibility. Democrats are ALREADY worrying that we are still too far to left to win.

[akennett]

@blowero

You seem to have a problem comprehending the nature of an example. An example is used to explain a general principle. The example does not have to be identical to the actual situation that currently exists. That’s why it’s called an example. Please stop dismissing all examples out-of-hand. It makes it very hard to have an intelligent discussion without using examples.

I see, so pointing out where an example fails to make sense in relation to the discussion of the actual situation being discussed is not a legitimate means of debate. I see, so I can make up a completely off-the-wall example that in no way mimics real life and everyone else must accept that as being a valid point of argument? Right.

You’re right. I should have said 135 years. But my point still stands.

No, your point does not stand. The two party system is not what our political structures were set up for, is not inherent in the nature of the spread of Americans’ political views, and has not been set in stone for our history (not even for the past 135 years, really). Your point has not been made on any level.

I’ll give you an example. It’s an example, and I’m using it to demonstrate a general principle of logic, so it doesn’t have to be exactly the same as the topic of the thread, O.K? Imagine I say, “If the sun explodes, we will all die”, and you say, “That argument makes no sense, because it’s very unlikely that the sun will explode”. You would be wrong. Get it? The argument makes sense; you just disagree with the likelihood of the premise.

If you are only interested in arguing hypotheticals, then yes, your sun explosion will win out. However, when you take that example, that hypothetical situation and want people to base their real actions on it then you leave the realm of theory and enter into the realm of practicality. Your argument becomes, when you try to apply it to the real behaviors: “If the sun explodes tomorrow, we will all die, so we should do X.” In this realm, if (see, I can use that word too) the sun cannot explode tomorrow, then your argument (which is carried farther than you explicitely state) is invalid.

I never said you can’t vote third party.

Yes, you never said that, nor did I say you said it. However, that is the logical conclusion to your “lesser-of-two-evils” voting strategy. As you can plainly see, I said that the voters would feel that they can’t because their voted would be wasted or spoilers – not because someone would ban third parties.

So your example doesn’t work. If I, as a hypothetical liberal voter in the hypothetical election, cast my vote for Mr. Moderate, it has no effect on whether another individual might vote for Hitler. You have no cause to connect those two events.

No, your vote has no effect on others, but your railing against those who would vote for a third party out of principle might. It is this that I am arguing against. If you want to give your vote to a candidate who doesn’t support your views, but you feel is better than the other major candidate, that’s fine. I honestly have no problem with you doing so. I will, however, continue to argue against anyone who argues that voting third party is a waste.

Uh, you do know what “if” means, don’t you? I made no contention. But in light of what you just wrote, it seems to me that you don’t particularly think Kerry would be any better than Bush. Would you say that’s a fair characterization? I’m asking you, so try not to get all upset and pretend that I am putting words in your mouth. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I’m just trying to get at what your political position is. Because if (notice the word “if”) you don’t think Kerry would be any better than Bush, then you might as well vote for Nader. My argument wouldn’t apply to you in that case. Can you understand that? This is really an argument only for people who believe Kerry would be a much better president than Bush, but vote for Nader because they like Nader better than Kerry. It’s NOT an argument for people who think Kerry and Bush are 6 of one and a half-dozen of the other, and vote for Nader simply because they are ambivalent about Bush v. Kerry. I hope this is clear now.

I fully understand your argument. It is the same argument those on the “right” use to try to convince people that they should vote for Bush, even if they like the libertarian/constitution/etc party candidate. I am not addressing my arguments to those who do not differentiate between Bush and Kerry either. No one has provided a real argument as to why anyone should vote for any candidate besides the one that most closely matches their views.

Any question of how evil Bush is, which has been brought up first by those trying to cower Nader voters into acting against their consciences, is irrelevant to this debate. I only ask for evidence for this assertion to show that those making it cannot back up their claim. So far, no one has.

Don’t make up strawmen; it’s really annoying.

Yes, you did not say that Nader voters love Kerry, that was added to show that your position is open to ridicule. You did assert that Nader voters would greatly prefer Kerry over Bush. I asked for your evidence of that assertion.

@blowero

we’re talking about people who believe Kerry would be much more palatable than Bush.

@blowero

if Kerry is such poison to the extreme left, surely Bush is 10 TIMES WORSE.

@blowero

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.

I would think that “10 TIMES WORSE” and “much more palatable” would indicate a very strong preference.

This guy’s arguing about whether to vote for Nader, and he’s a fucking LIBERTARIAN, who isn’t even PLANNING to vote for Nader! Jesus, are you ever in the wrong thread.

I see, so someone who is not planning to vote for Nader cannot have a strong view on whether or not another voter who supports Nader should vote for him or a more popular canddiate? Oh, and though it’s not relevant, no I am not a Libertarian - just considering voting that way for pres this year.

Could you have possibly picked a more trivial, less germane point to argue about? Who gives a flying fuck if we have to live here? It was just a toss-off phrase. You’re just arguing for the sake of argument, and I’ve had enough of it.

Interesting. So, you dismiss an argument made against your position with an assertion of neccessity, you get called on that assertion, you cannot defend that assertion, so it’s just a toss-off and anyone who would question it is just arguing for the sake of argument. Got ya.

I’ve wasted too much time on you already. Good bye.

Good Riddance.

---

@erislover

If those numbers I gave above were accurate, then in principle Nader would have 23% of the popular vote–more than double what he pulled in a “safe to vote for independent lefties” election. In such a case, I’d have no problem with people voting for Nader. This is not such a case, however, and Nader is not such a candidate.

Wait a minute, those were your numbers from your hypothetical. Now you want to abandon it? Why even post it then?

---

@Apos

The entire PURPOSE of our political system is to FORCE people to compromise on their principles. The whole point is that no one can simply get whatever they want: to do so would mean stepping all over someone else’s desires. EVERYONE has to compromise, in every election.

Not exactly. You should vote your principle in the elections, trying to elect the candidate that most closely matches your views. The elected governemnt officials must then compromise in order to get things done. They should, however, try to work to enact, as much as possible, the goals they campaigned for. If you compromise in the election, you support candidates who do not support you. You are invitng the worst possible outcome.

[Apos]

Not exactly. You should vote your principle in the elections, trying to elect the candidate that most closely matches your views.

Well, yes. But you can’t play poker when the game is baseball. Only two teams are actually playing for real. If Nader was even doing some of the things involved in winning a national election, I might be more sympathetic. But he’s not. His campaign exists almost entirely in the media, not on the ground.

The elected governemnt officials must then compromise in order to get things done. They should, however, try to work to enact, as much as possible, the goals they campaigned for. If you compromise in the election, you support candidates who do not support you. You are invitng the worst possible outcome.

There are a whole series of runups to the election that whittle down the candidates into the two you choose. Getting into a primary is not hard, and it’s not “rigged” by anything other than skill and moxie in most cases. But the bottom line is that no matter what, anyone who lives in the real world is at some point going to have to support compromise positions. In the U.S. that just happens to be the general national election, and instead of politicians, it involves the people. What could be more democratic than that?

[Tigers2B1]

According to the Kerry campaign a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Here’s the break-down –

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush

A vote for Bush is a vote for Hillary (who hopes to run in 2008)

Hence - A vote for Nader is in fact two votes — one for Bush in 2004 and one for Hillary in 2008.

A vote for Badnarik (Libertarian) is probably a vote for Kerry

A vote for Kerry is, of course, just a vote for Kerry.

Conclusion — I’m voting for Nader to vote for Bush even though that is a vote for Hillary in 2008 —

[scotandrsn]

@scr4

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?

Not inevitable at all, unless you assume that the people who vote for the 3rd party candidate would have cast their vote for one of the other two, rather than simply not voting. Given that 40-50%* of the voting age population doesn’t even vote in a given election, that’s a rather large leap to make.

How do you know the third party candidate didn’t inspire otherwise non-voters in a way the other two simply didn’t?

*Extrapolated using data from this page

[Zagadka]

@Tigers2B1

A vote for Bush is a vote for Hillary (who hopes to run in 2008)

lmao

Good one

[2sense]

@Apos

Oh give it a rest. You know exactly what I mean. Democrats can trust that union guys and gay right people will in general vote Democrat. But that doesn’t mean they will vote in large enough numbers to matter. That’s why the party spends so much time trying to re-sell itself to people that, from your understanding, it already has in the bag.

No, I have no idea what you mean. From the time you started talking about people who could be trusted this part of your posts has made no sense. I don’t understand you and you certainly have no idea of what my understanding is so stop pretending you do and explain yourself.

*Exactly the same people. Democratic percentage is not the same thing as turnout. *

Again: if a party spends time trying to convince their base to vote for them then clearly they don’t trust their base to vote for them. No one has mentioned “democratic percentage” or “turnout” and since you are having enough trouble following the conversation as it is I would say adding more stuff to confuse yourself is probably not a good idea.

Lol, you sure you actually read the book, or are you just citing it’s title?

Do you know what a cite is? I assure you that the proper way to respond to a request for you to substantiate a claim is definitely NOT an insulting suggestion that the person is dishonest. The words came out of your mouth and it is your job to back them up or withdraw them. Or more simply: Put up or shut up.

Can you also cite the fact that, by and large, they also don’t care?

I have no need to cite this since I have not made the claim that people don’t care about a politicians’ views on any given issue. If this is an indirect attempt on your part to make such a claim then it is up to you to cite it on request. And given your uneven posting so far in this thread I would ask.

Indeed, this is the classic matrix of majority feeling vs. interest group feeling for or against some issue.

I have never heard of this matrix nor does Google return any hits from +“matrix” +“majority feeling” +“interest group feeling”. Still, since we seem to agree on something for a change I won’t ask for a cite.

I think you missed the point. That slogan could just as easily come from Kerry. Or even from Bush. It’s meaningless: the reality is what the candidates actually propose to do about acheiving those things. What make its so laughable is that Kerry has a hard enough time trying to sell his fairly moderate policies on these issues without being painted as a liberal whackjob who wants big government and socialist programs.

The point is that I have asked you to cite yet another claim. And again you refuse. I have questioned a statement and by extension the person who made it. If it were me I would care enough about my credibility to not want people to think I was full of shit. Your millage seems to vary. I said nothing about slogans or spin. I merely asked what I thought was a rhetorical question, “Who isn’t for good jobs, a safe work environment, or a government that serves people first and corporations 2nd?” You jumped into say that policies based on these ideas would be extremely unpopular. I am asking you to back up this ridiculous claim. Not to try to change the subject but show that you know what you are talking about. Can you do so?

You seem to be telling me that Nader’s policies, which seem to many Americans to be a much more outright nod of socialism, would be much more popular. I can’t even comprehend what sort of disconnect from the reality of the American voting public could lead someone to think that.

I didn’t compare these ideas of Nader to any others. I just said they were popular.

Have you actually BEEN to any of the current major battleground states? Talked to the voters there that are on the fence? And I’m talking the masses: the working poor, the out of work, the farmers, etc.

I work as a waiter in a resturant near Pittsburgh International, the airport the candidates use when they come to pander to Western Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio, or West Virginia. I’m at battlegound central and I am one of the masses. Now, don’t you feel silly for asking?

*There is no reason why a) it would be any more or less fair, or b) that we would expect it to be all that different in terms of political power. We’d still have a majority coalition and a minority one. *

I disagee. Proportional representation allows for more views a place at the table. That seems more fair to me. And yes, there would be a majority coalition of some sort but it certainly wouldn’t be exclusivly led by Republicans or their sucessors. The majority position in coalition governmental systems changes hands just like in our system.

Well, aside from entirely dodging the point (which was Nader’s primary debate tactic against Dean, that or senile rambling out of the point), in other words, you are happy to watch the continued non-existence of healthcare coverage for all Americans and call that an optomisitic stance because of some magical dream that sitting on the sidelines will somehow make those things more likely to appear in the future.

I didn’t dodge the point. I made my quip and went on to give a real answer. Are you really pretending the rest of the paragraph doesn’t exist?

Oh, wonderful. So, instead of working towards healthcare that works, education that isn’t a edad end, and foriegn policy that won’t get us all killed, you are happy with the status quo as long as you get to cast a vote who’s only affect is to have the exact opposite of your own stated goals.

What I am saying is that I am willing to sacrifice in the short term for long term goals.

If there is any mechanism by which voting for Nader could possibly bring about the future you imagine, I might believe you had at least some case to argue for. But where is that mechanism? And if it’s all purely about principle, why compromise on Nader? Why not just vote for yourself, since you have all the bright ideas and correct values?

If you had read this thread you would note that I already have provided an argument about how if enough people stand up for electoral reform by denying the Democratic Party our votes until they represent our view then they will start standing up for electoral reform. Or they won’t get elected.

And if you had read the thread you would also note that I don’t intend to vote for Nader. I am Green and David Cobb is our nominee.

[erislover]

@akennett

Wait a minute, those were your numbers from your hypothetical. Now you want to abandon it? Why even post it then?

I didn’t abandon them at all. The numbers were illustrative of why some candidates “spoil” an election without resorting to this rather silly rhetoric that “only dems deserve our votes? :rolleyes: yeah right!” The election is spoiled because the outcome failed to represent the preferences of the voters. Simple as that, and I illustrated it with small numbers in an attempt to make the point more clear. A more realistic example for further discussion on the point would have included right-wing independents and tighter Pub-Dem numbers.

[erislover]

@scotandrsn

Not inevitable at all [that a third party candidate is a spoiler], unless you assume that the people who vote for the 3rd party candidate would have cast their vote for one of the other two, rather than simply not voting.

And you also have to assume that the third-party voters didn’t prefer one of the two PubDems to the other… a bit larger stretch.

How do you know the third party candidate didn’t inspire otherwise non-voters in a way the other two simply didn’t?

This would not change the fact that the election was spoiled, something thrid-party and independent voters deny even exists. “I wouldn’t have voted otherwise!” does not translate to “I have absolutely no preference between the two major candidates” which is what would be necessary for an unspoiled election.

[2sense]

@erislover

You only vote in one election at a time.

True but this isn’t an election. This is a discussion of electoral strategy. Some of us are positing a multi-election strategy and you are continually refusing to look beyond a single election. It seems to me that you are denying reality in order to avoid discussing the merits of the opposing plan. If you have some logical reason to discount multi-election strategies then please let us know. Otherwise I repeat my earlier advice to stop ignoring the counterargument.

None of it is essentially practical.

I have said nothing of the essence of either plan. I am asking you to make a comparison. I feel my plan is more practical than the one you have offered. Do you agree?

It surprises me that you can recognize the absurdity of third parties banding together, but can’t stare results in the face: if you prefer Kerry, a vastly more popular candidate than Nader, to GWB, then the sensible vote is for Kerry, for reasons I’ve already illustrated.

Again I point out that this only makes sense if you ignore the fact that future elections will occur.

Then Nader would be in Kerry’s position, and Kerry, Nader’s… none of which would change essential arguments.

You lost me. What are you trying to say here?

[Apos]

@2sense

Again: if a party spends time trying to convince their base to vote for them then clearly they don’t trust their base to vote for them.

You, like Nader, don’t seem to know squat about politics. The people I’m talking about are the ones who mostly agree with us on the issues, but who may not vote as much as we’d need to win. You claimed that Dems simply take for granted whatever group votes for them consistently. On the contrary: these are the people we spend the MOST time doting over and trying to woo, not th least. If Greens stop voting for Dems, Dems aren’t going to waste time trying to appeal to them. They are going to spend their limited time and resources trying to appeal to the base and the omnipresent center, where the bulk of the votes are to be had.

Do you know what a cite is?

It doesn’t involve citing the TITLE of a book and then misrepresenting its contents.

I have no need to cite this since I have not made the claim that people don’t care about a politicians’ views on any given issue. If this is an indirect attempt on your part to make such a claim then it is up to you to cite it on request. And given your uneven posting so far in this thread I would ask.

A lot of people just don’t care very much about politics. They prefer baseball. If you don’t know this, no cite can establish it as well as coming out of your ivory tower and actually meeting with real people.

I merely asked what I thought was a rhetorical question, “Who isn’t for good jobs, a safe work environment, or a government that serves people first and corporations 2nd?”

It is a rhetorical quesiton, which is exactly why it’s so dumb. It’s like saying that Nader is against infanticide, therefore there is broad support for his candidacy and he should win. EVERY candidate says that they are for good jobs, safe work, and against corporate greed and rule. That’s exactly why I called it boilerplate.

You jumped into say that policies based on these ideas would be extremely unpopular. I am asking you to back up this ridiculous claim. Not to try to change the subject but show that you know what you are talking about. Can you do so?

Let’s see…

Kerry can’t make headway on minor taxcut rollbacks… but you think that Nader’s giant tax hikes and massive expansion of the tax base will be a big win

Kerry, a veteran, can barely make any headway on the issue of security and being for a strong military, but Ralph’s plan to eliminate nuclear weapons and drastically cut back the size of our military will be a big win.

And so on. And yet you demand cites. How about you show me a poll, any poll, that shows that Americans want to cut back the military, drastically increase tax rates, socialize healthcare, and so on? How can anyone still breathing who has been watching the current national debates think that those are nationally viable positions? They are complete and utter political suicide in a general election.

What I am saying is that I am willing to sacrifice in the short term for long term goals.

But you’ve yet to seriously outline how voting for a tiny majority candidate even accomplishes the long term goals. I understand you idea about “enough” people standing up, but until you actually have that “enough”… what’s the point? Dems care enough about your vote to argue with you since you claim to support all the things we are actually fighting for instead of just mouthing it, but we certainly aren’t going to jeopardize electoral success just to try and pick up an extra 2% of the vote at the expense of losing 10% or more from the center.

If you had read this thread you would note that I already have provided an argument about how if enough people stand up for electoral reform by denying the Democratic Party our votes until they represent our view then they will start standing up for electoral reform. Or they won’t get elected.

Except that they will. By co-opting the Republican party and the votes of people who actually vote for winning coalitions. It’s not like the Democrats face an impossible road right now without Nader/Greens/Natural Law people. Why, why, why, would they go left if they can’t pick up the fringes? If the Greens or Nader people or whoever had shown that they could pull in any appreciable amount of the votes, then maybe you might have a case. But Perot-type voters made a far far better showing than left wing parties ever have. Makes a heck of a lot more sense to go after them.

And if you had read the thread you would also note that I don’t intend to vote for Nader. I am Green and David Cobb is our nominee.

Ah. The people who aren’t even sure if they are going to vote for themselves in this election!