November 6, 2002
2:27 PM Subscribe
Third parties spoil elections for some guys trying to run for office. It seems that from reading CNN election results, some people were able to get votes while not running with a D or R. Some of the notables (not including Bernie Sanders (I-VT)) include Gary Richardson (I-OK) who might have cost Steve Largent the election, Tim Penny (I-MN) couldn't replace Jesse, Tom Golisano (I-NY) will need to try again in 2006, Jim Mahoney (I-AZ) fared well, Ed Thompson (Libertarian-WI) got over 10%, not bad for being Tommy Thompson's brother, the MT Senate results were (in order) Baucus/Teddy Roosevelt Look-a-like/Blue Guy/Green Guy and in the most dubious of all good news for Third Parties, Jim Traficant loses from behind bars but he got 15%, showing some people like their politicans imprisoned
Three cheers to the third parties!
Three cheers to the third parties!
yeah.. I didn't note the third party people who ran in races with just one person.
Or else I could mention the following..
the Libertarian and Reform guy in Kansas (9 & 8 percent) against Pat Roberts. [Stunning how not one Dem, not even Fred Phelps, could bother to run against Pat]
Or Jerry Hickman, who got 7% against Tom Osbourne.
On issues like this.. one thought: look at the results in Louisana and laugh at the GOP there. I think they could have recieved 51% if they didn't split their votes so many ways to force a run off. Louisana's system is screwed up anyways
posted by RobbieFal at 3:16 PM on November 6, 2002
Or else I could mention the following..
the Libertarian and Reform guy in Kansas (9 & 8 percent) against Pat Roberts. [Stunning how not one Dem, not even Fred Phelps, could bother to run against Pat]
Or Jerry Hickman, who got 7% against Tom Osbourne.
On issues like this.. one thought: look at the results in Louisana and laugh at the GOP there. I think they could have recieved 51% if they didn't split their votes so many ways to force a run off. Louisana's system is screwed up anyways
posted by RobbieFal at 3:16 PM on November 6, 2002
I'm glad I didn't through my California governor vote away by voting for either the Democrat or the Republican.
posted by Nelson at 3:23 PM on November 6, 2002
posted by Nelson at 3:23 PM on November 6, 2002
I really hope sometime in my lifetime I get to see a voting system that allows 1st and 2nd choice style voting. Then we might actually get something accomplished and people could quit bickering about 'throwing away' votes. I'm still voting for who i actually want to win for the time being though.
posted by soplerfo at 3:28 PM on November 6, 2002
posted by soplerfo at 3:28 PM on November 6, 2002
RobbieFal: Suzanne Terrel came in second. She'll get another shot at Landrieu on Dec. 7.
FWIW, Tom Cox, the Oregon Libertarian (so far) has around 56,000 votes (5%), quite possibly spoiling election of the Republican, Kevin Mannix, who lost by only 18,000 votes or so.
posted by turbodog at 3:40 PM on November 6, 2002
FWIW, Tom Cox, the Oregon Libertarian (so far) has around 56,000 votes (5%), quite possibly spoiling election of the Republican, Kevin Mannix, who lost by only 18,000 votes or so.
posted by turbodog at 3:40 PM on November 6, 2002
I really hope sometime in my lifetime I get to see a voting system that allows 1st and 2nd choice style voting.
Anyone know what it would take to make this happen? Would it take a consitutional amendment?
posted by 4easypayments at 4:04 PM on November 6, 2002
Anyone know what it would take to make this happen? Would it take a consitutional amendment?
posted by 4easypayments at 4:04 PM on November 6, 2002
Allowing three parties is just an awful idea. There are just too many choices, and it becomes possible that a candidate who would otherwise have won, will come in second place!
Obviously, it is better to have a one-party system, to end the confusion.
We wouldn't, of course, want anyone to "throw" their vote away by choosing the candidate they believe in.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:05 PM on November 6, 2002
Obviously, it is better to have a one-party system, to end the confusion.
We wouldn't, of course, want anyone to "throw" their vote away by choosing the candidate they believe in.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:05 PM on November 6, 2002
If a candidate loses, the third party candidate isn't at fault. It's because more people voted for someone else. Blaming third party candidates for the loss of one of the dominant two just contributes to the problem of (personal view) lack of choice when it comes to voting.
The way I looked at it, instead of trying to choose the least worst, I just said no to both, and didn't vote, because as it stood, they both made eachother look pretty bad, not only from the list of offenses they provided for eachother, but for the stigma that comes with mudslinging.
posted by angry modem at 4:06 PM on November 6, 2002
The way I looked at it, instead of trying to choose the least worst, I just said no to both, and didn't vote, because as it stood, they both made eachother look pretty bad, not only from the list of offenses they provided for eachother, but for the stigma that comes with mudslinging.
posted by angry modem at 4:06 PM on November 6, 2002
Yes it would.
(should have checked Google before asking questions...)
posted by 4easypayments at 4:06 PM on November 6, 2002
(should have checked Google before asking questions...)
posted by 4easypayments at 4:06 PM on November 6, 2002
Blaming third party candidates for the loss of one of the dominant two just contributes to the problem of (personal view) lack of choice when it comes to voting
This statement is just plain wrong or at least not supported by history or logic. Suppose A beats B in an election. Suppose A gets a plurality. Suppose A beats B by 5%. Suppose a third party candidate, C, gets 10%. If all of the people who voted for C would have voted for B (or prefers B to A), save for the fact that C ran, it is clear that C helped A win.
angry modem, are you your forgetting a Man named Nader in Florida in ’00? Or a Man named Ross in ’92?
Simply put, if the people who voted C didn’t what A in office (and A happens to a pro-oil, racism, anti-Semitic, Hawk from Texas) perhaps it’s best to vote for B (if C doesn’t have a real shot at winning).
Yes, you should vote for whom you want to win, but you must also take into consideration the static impact of your vote.
I really hope sometime in my lifetime I get to see a voting system that allows 1st and 2nd choice style voting.
This just plain dumb. Do you want a perosn got more second place votes to beat someone who got more first place votes?
posted by Bag Man at 5:11 PM on November 6, 2002
This statement is just plain wrong or at least not supported by history or logic. Suppose A beats B in an election. Suppose A gets a plurality. Suppose A beats B by 5%. Suppose a third party candidate, C, gets 10%. If all of the people who voted for C would have voted for B (or prefers B to A), save for the fact that C ran, it is clear that C helped A win.
angry modem, are you your forgetting a Man named Nader in Florida in ’00? Or a Man named Ross in ’92?
Simply put, if the people who voted C didn’t what A in office (and A happens to a pro-oil, racism, anti-Semitic, Hawk from Texas) perhaps it’s best to vote for B (if C doesn’t have a real shot at winning).
Yes, you should vote for whom you want to win, but you must also take into consideration the static impact of your vote.
I really hope sometime in my lifetime I get to see a voting system that allows 1st and 2nd choice style voting.
This just plain dumb. Do you want a perosn got more second place votes to beat someone who got more first place votes?
posted by Bag Man at 5:11 PM on November 6, 2002
Bag Man --
You only consider that people who voted for C would have voted for B if C hadn't run. It's just as likely that they would have voted for A.
And hold off on calling peoples' remarks "just plain dumb." That "just ain't right."
My opinion is that any vote cast for any person is not a wasted vote. A wasted vote is someone who didn't vote at all. If everyone "wasted" their vote on Bagman's "C," then C would come out a winner. Simple as that.
The "static impact" of voting for whomever you think should win ultimately is having a say in who gets elected. This isn't "Survivor." Strategy isn't the point of voting.
posted by mychai at 5:21 PM on November 6, 2002
You only consider that people who voted for C would have voted for B if C hadn't run. It's just as likely that they would have voted for A.
And hold off on calling peoples' remarks "just plain dumb." That "just ain't right."
My opinion is that any vote cast for any person is not a wasted vote. A wasted vote is someone who didn't vote at all. If everyone "wasted" their vote on Bagman's "C," then C would come out a winner. Simple as that.
The "static impact" of voting for whomever you think should win ultimately is having a say in who gets elected. This isn't "Survivor." Strategy isn't the point of voting.
posted by mychai at 5:21 PM on November 6, 2002
This statement is just plain wrong or at least not supported by history or logic. Suppose A beats B in an election. Suppose A gets a plurality. Suppose A beats B by 5%. Suppose a third party candidate, C, gets 10%. If all of the people who voted for C would have voted for B (or prefers B to A), save for the fact that C ran, it is clear that C helped A win.
The point of the instant runoff style of voting is to eliminate this "spoiler effect".
Besides, try this one on. Imagining a world were people didn't fear "wasting" their vote.
A gets 35% B gets20% C gets40% and D gets 5%. Who spoiled who?
posted by kayjay at 5:30 PM on November 6, 2002
The point of the instant runoff style of voting is to eliminate this "spoiler effect".
Besides, try this one on. Imagining a world were people didn't fear "wasting" their vote.
A gets 35% B gets20% C gets40% and D gets 5%. Who spoiled who?
posted by kayjay at 5:30 PM on November 6, 2002
Bag Man wrote:This just plain dumb. Do you want a perosn got more second place votes to beat someone who got more first place votes?
this makes absolutely no sense
first place votes would "count" for more
I thought this much was obvious, sorry if I was unclear.
In your ABC scenerio I'd vote for C then vote for A or B as secondary if I thought I could live with either choice - otherwise I'd write in my second choice.
I'd really love to be proven wrong about this idea. If I were proven wrong and made to believe that the way the voting system works now is really the best way, I'm sure I'd be a much happier person.
posted by soplerfo at 5:34 PM on November 6, 2002
this makes absolutely no sense
first place votes would "count" for more
I thought this much was obvious, sorry if I was unclear.
In your ABC scenerio I'd vote for C then vote for A or B as secondary if I thought I could live with either choice - otherwise I'd write in my second choice.
I'd really love to be proven wrong about this idea. If I were proven wrong and made to believe that the way the voting system works now is really the best way, I'm sure I'd be a much happier person.
posted by soplerfo at 5:34 PM on November 6, 2002
Alex Sandell wrote a great piece about this sort of thing during the last presidential election. You can find it here.
posted by Lusy P Hur at 5:35 PM on November 6, 2002
posted by Lusy P Hur at 5:35 PM on November 6, 2002
The thing is, Bag Man, pretending third parties cost elections assumes you know where those votes would have gone. Already a post in this thread assumes Libs would otherwise vote Republican, but I myself would vote Dem if not Lib, or not at all, rather than Republican.
The assumption is that no matter how many "parties" there are, there are really only two real choices, so more parties means more division among that "choice," and more chance the vote will split. This is wrong.
posted by Nothing at 5:37 PM on November 6, 2002
The assumption is that no matter how many "parties" there are, there are really only two real choices, so more parties means more division among that "choice," and more chance the vote will split. This is wrong.
posted by Nothing at 5:37 PM on November 6, 2002
From Lusy P Hur's link: Both major parties pretend that they want to attract the young, the poor and the minorities, but neither of them do. Why? Because, if the young, the poor, and the minorities came out, in full- force, they would recreate the world, and the world that would be created by them would not be a world that welcomes people like Gore and Bush as its leaders.
Ain't that the truth.
It's a meme that should be spread. The disaffected need to be returned to the voting population. They could change the nation.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:49 PM on November 6, 2002
Ain't that the truth.
It's a meme that should be spread. The disaffected need to be returned to the voting population. They could change the nation.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:49 PM on November 6, 2002
You only consider that people who voted for C would have voted for B if C hadn't run. It's just as likely that they would have voted for A
Realistically, how people who voted Nader would have gone over to the ideological opposite and voted for Bush?
this makes absolutely no sense
first place votes would "count" for more
I thought this much was obvious, sorry if I was unclear.
I know that one's first choice would get more "points," but regardless it is mathematically possible in certain schemes to produce the scenario I illuminated.
posted by Bag Man at 6:42 PM on November 6, 2002
Realistically, how people who voted Nader would have gone over to the ideological opposite and voted for Bush?
this makes absolutely no sense
first place votes would "count" for more
I thought this much was obvious, sorry if I was unclear.
I know that one's first choice would get more "points," but regardless it is mathematically possible in certain schemes to produce the scenario I illuminated.
posted by Bag Man at 6:42 PM on November 6, 2002
I voted third party where I didn't care for either D or R choice. In fact, that was most. I voted libertarian for Governor, knowing Spear Lancaster (MD) would lose, but I want the Libertarian Party to receive federal funding (which it won't with only .67% of the vote). I wrote in a Green Party candidate for Comptroller.
I never like the "lesser of two evils" approach. In most areas on the ballot I didn't vote for anyone. I didn't know enough about their platforms nor did I care, choosing instead to believe that my vote is probably worthless regardless of whom I choose.
I voted against the incumbent Representative because on his pamphlet he's got more religious organizations listed than others.
I did choose carefully with regards to fund allocation and borrowing. All the money for schools and education and none for prisons (or libraries, which is bundled in with prisons, isn't that nice?)
posted by wolfgangnorton at 8:18 PM on November 6, 2002
I never like the "lesser of two evils" approach. In most areas on the ballot I didn't vote for anyone. I didn't know enough about their platforms nor did I care, choosing instead to believe that my vote is probably worthless regardless of whom I choose.
I voted against the incumbent Representative because on his pamphlet he's got more religious organizations listed than others.
I did choose carefully with regards to fund allocation and borrowing. All the money for schools and education and none for prisons (or libraries, which is bundled in with prisons, isn't that nice?)
posted by wolfgangnorton at 8:18 PM on November 6, 2002
Foreword: I'm drunk and from Minnesota.
That said, Tim Penny, the independence candidate for Governor of Minnesota, is one of two politicians I've ever admired. He's just a good, good man. Paul Wellstone was the other. A good man, even though I didn't always agree with him.
Granted, I'm drunk, so I may just be overlooking something, but can someone tell me how Tim Penny went from a three-way tie with three weeks until election, to 16% (or so) on election day? Granted, that's number is huge for a third party candidate, but it's also an awful lot of votes to lose in three weeks. Anyone have any theories?
posted by hootch at 9:23 PM on November 6, 2002
That said, Tim Penny, the independence candidate for Governor of Minnesota, is one of two politicians I've ever admired. He's just a good, good man. Paul Wellstone was the other. A good man, even though I didn't always agree with him.
Granted, I'm drunk, so I may just be overlooking something, but can someone tell me how Tim Penny went from a three-way tie with three weeks until election, to 16% (or so) on election day? Granted, that's number is huge for a third party candidate, but it's also an awful lot of votes to lose in three weeks. Anyone have any theories?
posted by hootch at 9:23 PM on November 6, 2002
can someone tell me how Tim Penny went from a three-way tie with three weeks until election, to 16% (or so) on election day? Granted, that's number is huge for a third party candidate, but it's also an awful lot of votes to lose in three weeks. Anyone have any theories?
hootch: Votescam?
I don't really know..
posted by RobbieFal at 9:45 PM on November 6, 2002
hootch: Votescam?
I don't really know..
posted by RobbieFal at 9:45 PM on November 6, 2002
I want the Libertarian Party to receive federal funding
I do not think they want federal funding.
posted by thirteen at 10:02 PM on November 6, 2002
I do not think they want federal funding.
posted by thirteen at 10:02 PM on November 6, 2002
I thought we just chewed over why there is no perfect election system yesterday. Silly me ....
hootch: Probably because the poll you're talking about failed to accurately discern likely voters.
4easy: IRV could actually be implemented for most purposes at the state or local level. In fact, the constitution does not specify how presidential electors must be chosen -- and 2 states use proportional methods rather than winner-take-all. The constitution only specifies some things about the manner of voting. Although I'm dubious about IRV in general, I see no problem with trying it on a smaller scale first. Keep in mind that change can be very slow to occur and simple WTA elections are very entrenched. But examples such as Louisiana's 50% runoff show, by their rarity, how little states vary from the norm.
posted by dhartung at 11:12 PM on November 6, 2002
hootch: Probably because the poll you're talking about failed to accurately discern likely voters.
4easy: IRV could actually be implemented for most purposes at the state or local level. In fact, the constitution does not specify how presidential electors must be chosen -- and 2 states use proportional methods rather than winner-take-all. The constitution only specifies some things about the manner of voting. Although I'm dubious about IRV in general, I see no problem with trying it on a smaller scale first. Keep in mind that change can be very slow to occur and simple WTA elections are very entrenched. But examples such as Louisiana's 50% runoff show, by their rarity, how little states vary from the norm.
posted by dhartung at 11:12 PM on November 6, 2002
can someone tell me how Tim Penny went from a three-way tie with three weeks until election, to 16% (or so) on election day?
I don't know much about Penny, but it is very typical for 3rd party support to evaporate when the voters actually go to the polls. The fear of voting for a "spoiler" is deeply ingrained in American culture. It's also typical for 3rd party candidates to pick up a lot of votes when recanvassing is done. Four years ago, Al Lewis of the Green Party picked up something like 7,000 votes between the initial returns and the final tally.
posted by maurice at 6:20 AM on November 7, 2002
I don't know much about Penny, but it is very typical for 3rd party support to evaporate when the voters actually go to the polls. The fear of voting for a "spoiler" is deeply ingrained in American culture. It's also typical for 3rd party candidates to pick up a lot of votes when recanvassing is done. Four years ago, Al Lewis of the Green Party picked up something like 7,000 votes between the initial returns and the final tally.
posted by maurice at 6:20 AM on November 7, 2002
re: richardson playing spoiler in oklahoma. Largent kicked himself in the ass by saying he would never be in favor of a lottery to support education. Kansas and texas both have lotteries and there are towns in oklahoma getting rid of teachers and entire programs because of lack of funding. I am sure Richardson got votes that would have gone to largent, but largent lost his fair share all by himself.
posted by domino at 7:32 AM on November 7, 2002
posted by domino at 7:32 AM on November 7, 2002
Simply put, if the people who voted C didn’t what A in office (and A happens to a pro-oil, racism, anti-Semitic, Hawk from Texas) perhaps it’s best to vote for B (if C doesn’t have a real shot at winning).
You assume that that I, voting for C, care whether A or B win. I didn't care whether Gore or Bush won, and in this election I didn't care whether Bowles or Dole won for State Senate (NC). So I voted Libertarian. Now, if you care that it might affected the election, well, that's your problem.
but I want the Libertarian Party to receive federal funding (which it won't with only .67% of the vote).
The LP, unless they renege on their public promises, will not receive federal funding regardless, because they don't believe in it and will refuse to accept it.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:27 AM on November 7, 2002
You assume that that I, voting for C, care whether A or B win. I didn't care whether Gore or Bush won, and in this election I didn't care whether Bowles or Dole won for State Senate (NC). So I voted Libertarian. Now, if you care that it might affected the election, well, that's your problem.
but I want the Libertarian Party to receive federal funding (which it won't with only .67% of the vote).
The LP, unless they renege on their public promises, will not receive federal funding regardless, because they don't believe in it and will refuse to accept it.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:27 AM on November 7, 2002
IshmaelGraves,
Who would you rather not win? That's the real question. In the case Bush v. Gore, all of the Nader voters I know (yes, I even know some who voted in Florida) would rather not have Bush for our president. Their 3rd choice would have been Gore. The realistic 2nd choice was Gore. Hence, their choice of Nader allowed the person who they least wanted to become president to, in fact, become president.
posted by Bag Man at 12:51 PM on November 7, 2002
Who would you rather not win? That's the real question. In the case Bush v. Gore, all of the Nader voters I know (yes, I even know some who voted in Florida) would rather not have Bush for our president. Their 3rd choice would have been Gore. The realistic 2nd choice was Gore. Hence, their choice of Nader allowed the person who they least wanted to become president to, in fact, become president.
posted by Bag Man at 12:51 PM on November 7, 2002
If you limit your voting based on fear of "the other guy", then there is no democracy at all.
To evoke Godwin: "Ooohhh, I don't want Hitler to win -- so I guess I'll vote for Stalin, not Ghandi!"
posted by five fresh fish at 5:50 PM on November 7, 2002
To evoke Godwin: "Ooohhh, I don't want Hitler to win -- so I guess I'll vote for Stalin, not Ghandi!"
posted by five fresh fish at 5:50 PM on November 7, 2002
If you limit your voting based on fear of "the other guy", then there is no democracy at all.
To evoke Godwin: "Ooohhh, I don't want Hitler to win -- so I guess I'll vote for Stalin, not Ghandi!"
five fresh fish,
This is a gross over generalization of what I said and the example is foolish. I said that you should understand the consequences of voting for a third party. You should understand that if your candidate realistically won’t be winning, then understand that your vote may help a candidate you don't want to win. If you are cool with that, than fine. At very least use that information to inform your vote and know your vote can screw over your ultimate and realistic goals. Nader votes, thank you once again for the Bush, I knew all along that you’d rather have him as our president than Al Gore. I also hope you know see that Bush’s racism, ant-Semitism, fear of the progression of technology, conservative social and religious views and views on the environment are different for the views of Gore. Both candidates are the same, indeed. You all have done a fine service for the protection freedom, the Constitution and liberty.
You are free to vote any way want, even if it is for fear of "the other guy." Voting is an essential part of any democracy, no matter why the cast a vote.
posted by Bag Man at 2:45 PM on November 10, 2002
To evoke Godwin: "Ooohhh, I don't want Hitler to win -- so I guess I'll vote for Stalin, not Ghandi!"
five fresh fish,
This is a gross over generalization of what I said and the example is foolish. I said that you should understand the consequences of voting for a third party. You should understand that if your candidate realistically won’t be winning, then understand that your vote may help a candidate you don't want to win. If you are cool with that, than fine. At very least use that information to inform your vote and know your vote can screw over your ultimate and realistic goals. Nader votes, thank you once again for the Bush, I knew all along that you’d rather have him as our president than Al Gore. I also hope you know see that Bush’s racism, ant-Semitism, fear of the progression of technology, conservative social and religious views and views on the environment are different for the views of Gore. Both candidates are the same, indeed. You all have done a fine service for the protection freedom, the Constitution and liberty.
You are free to vote any way want, even if it is for fear of "the other guy." Voting is an essential part of any democracy, no matter why the cast a vote.
posted by Bag Man at 2:45 PM on November 10, 2002
If it's "no matter why cast a vote" then I suppose Iraq is a good example of a well-run democracy. 100% support for Saddam -- no matter why.
You don't know from democracy.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:35 PM on November 10, 2002
You don't know from democracy.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:35 PM on November 10, 2002
If it's "no matter why cast a vote" then I suppose Iraq is a good example of a well-run democracy. 100% support for Saddam -- no matter why.
You don't know from democracy.
I say again, one can cast a vote for any reason, absent fraud or duress (but then again, that goes without saying. However those that know democracy implicitly know this.). Since voting Saddam usually involves voting at the barrel of gun, I'd say voting for Saddam involves a lot of duress. Thus, your point is off mark.
five fresh fish, your flippant comment is insulting and has no point.
posted by Bag Man at 8:37 PM on November 10, 2002
You don't know from democracy.
I say again, one can cast a vote for any reason, absent fraud or duress (but then again, that goes without saying. However those that know democracy implicitly know this.). Since voting Saddam usually involves voting at the barrel of gun, I'd say voting for Saddam involves a lot of duress. Thus, your point is off mark.
five fresh fish, your flippant comment is insulting and has no point.
posted by Bag Man at 8:37 PM on November 10, 2002
And the fear-mongering of "ooh, if you vote for a third party, you're giving away the election!" doesn't qualify as fraud and duress?
Pah.
You're only helping to push electoral fraud on the public, bagman. The USA is not, and should not be, a two-party system. Your attempts to scare people into voting for one of two evils, instead of voting for the candidate that best represents their interests, is distasteful.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:22 PM on November 10, 2002
Pah.
You're only helping to push electoral fraud on the public, bagman. The USA is not, and should not be, a two-party system. Your attempts to scare people into voting for one of two evils, instead of voting for the candidate that best represents their interests, is distasteful.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:22 PM on November 10, 2002
And the fear-mongering of "ooh, if you vote for a third party, you're giving away the election!" doesn't qualify as fraud and duress?
If one votes for a candidate of their own free will then there is no duress. If one knows who they are voting for and does so willingly then there is no fraud.
Pah.
You're only helping to push electoral fraud on the public, bagman.
How am I causing fraud? I am asserting that one should vote however one wants to. How is that fraudulent? I can’t think of anything more democratic (or more lacking fraud) than taking the whole of the impact of one’s vote into consideration before casting it. FFF, you advocate ignorance, nows that's "helping to push electoral fraud on the public…"
The USA is not, and should not be, a two-party system.
Why? Because you say so. Who made you king of America? I AM NOT advocating a strict two party system FFF, do you even read want I write or are you fighting a straw man? I simply said (*trying to make myself more clear*): If a third party candidate has no hope of winning, you can really hurt a candidate that also supports your views by voting for that third party candidate. You see the difference FFF? I NEVER SAID you should never vote for third party. In fact, I don’t care if the "spoiler" was a Democrat or Republican, the impact would be the same and my argument would be the same. I only said in certain specific incidences (which I cited) voting for who you least hate can bring you closer to your goals or at lest further from the goals of those you despise.
Your attempts to scare people into voting for one of two evils, instead of voting for the candidate that best represents their interests, is distasteful
How am I scaring people? I am just pointing out how logic and history support my argument. I SUPPORT THIRD PARTIES, but not to the detriment of our country. Not when the net effect is to allow people like George W. Bush to get elected. Also, it does not take a genius to figure out that when one votes, one can vote stargeicly. It's done all the time. Why is that an any less way to vote. I know why, because FFF says so.
I NOT AM STOPPING ANY ONE FROM VOTING THE WAY THEY WANT, I AM ONLY LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THAT THEIR VOTE HAS AM IMPACT BEYOND THE CADIDATE THEY VOTE FOR. And, realizing this makes one a more informed voter. Being a more informed voter helps a person to vote better.
If one can stomach Bush for the sake of voting for Nader, than that's fine. I for one, hate Bush, and wish he were not our president. If you like Bush, then fine this does not apply to you. But if you also hate Bush, then you must realize the factors that allowed him to win Florida and the election. One of those factors is voting for Nader. All the Nader would voted for Gore over Bush had Nader not been in the race (This includes my friend from Florida who voted for Nader). To ignore this is foolish. Vote your consonance, but part of that is voting for your favorite candidate, but part of it is also knowing the practical impact of your vote. We don’t vote in a vacuum, that’s just not the real world. In some races it won't make a difference either way, but in some it will. In one very import recent race, it meant the world, literally.
FFF, the only "hate mongering" here is from you. You are forcing an agenda on people with realizing its realistic consequences.
FFF, do you have point or just more insults? I make my argument and you call me hate monger? Let me guess, because I don’t agree with you I am oppressing you. Please. I am on left with you; we simply disagree on how to go about things.
posted by Bag Man at 12:51 PM on November 11, 2002
If one votes for a candidate of their own free will then there is no duress. If one knows who they are voting for and does so willingly then there is no fraud.
Pah.
You're only helping to push electoral fraud on the public, bagman.
How am I causing fraud? I am asserting that one should vote however one wants to. How is that fraudulent? I can’t think of anything more democratic (or more lacking fraud) than taking the whole of the impact of one’s vote into consideration before casting it. FFF, you advocate ignorance, nows that's "helping to push electoral fraud on the public…"
The USA is not, and should not be, a two-party system.
Why? Because you say so. Who made you king of America? I AM NOT advocating a strict two party system FFF, do you even read want I write or are you fighting a straw man? I simply said (*trying to make myself more clear*): If a third party candidate has no hope of winning, you can really hurt a candidate that also supports your views by voting for that third party candidate. You see the difference FFF? I NEVER SAID you should never vote for third party. In fact, I don’t care if the "spoiler" was a Democrat or Republican, the impact would be the same and my argument would be the same. I only said in certain specific incidences (which I cited) voting for who you least hate can bring you closer to your goals or at lest further from the goals of those you despise.
Your attempts to scare people into voting for one of two evils, instead of voting for the candidate that best represents their interests, is distasteful
How am I scaring people? I am just pointing out how logic and history support my argument. I SUPPORT THIRD PARTIES, but not to the detriment of our country. Not when the net effect is to allow people like George W. Bush to get elected. Also, it does not take a genius to figure out that when one votes, one can vote stargeicly. It's done all the time. Why is that an any less way to vote. I know why, because FFF says so.
I NOT AM STOPPING ANY ONE FROM VOTING THE WAY THEY WANT, I AM ONLY LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THAT THEIR VOTE HAS AM IMPACT BEYOND THE CADIDATE THEY VOTE FOR. And, realizing this makes one a more informed voter. Being a more informed voter helps a person to vote better.
If one can stomach Bush for the sake of voting for Nader, than that's fine. I for one, hate Bush, and wish he were not our president. If you like Bush, then fine this does not apply to you. But if you also hate Bush, then you must realize the factors that allowed him to win Florida and the election. One of those factors is voting for Nader. All the Nader would voted for Gore over Bush had Nader not been in the race (This includes my friend from Florida who voted for Nader). To ignore this is foolish. Vote your consonance, but part of that is voting for your favorite candidate, but part of it is also knowing the practical impact of your vote. We don’t vote in a vacuum, that’s just not the real world. In some races it won't make a difference either way, but in some it will. In one very import recent race, it meant the world, literally.
FFF, the only "hate mongering" here is from you. You are forcing an agenda on people with realizing its realistic consequences.
FFF, do you have point or just more insults? I make my argument and you call me hate monger? Let me guess, because I don’t agree with you I am oppressing you. Please. I am on left with you; we simply disagree on how to go about things.
posted by Bag Man at 12:51 PM on November 11, 2002
ah, I'll quit riling you up now. I'm still appalled that you feel voting for the lessor of two evils is better than voting for the good, and I firmly believe that sort of attitude is exactly what got the US into the position of having two piss-poor nearly-cloned parties in constant power, but whatever. It's your country; abuse it how you wish.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:39 PM on November 11, 2002
posted by five fresh fish at 2:39 PM on November 11, 2002
I'm still appalled that you feel voting for the lesser(sic)of two evils is better than voting for the good
Apparently you have utterly failed to read or comprehend anything I have wrote. This is not the point I was making. Only sometimes I advocate taking such action (perhaps only in extreme situations), but the vast majority of the time I do not endorse or condone such conduct. FFF, you whish I was such a radical statement, but I am not. Your efforts are in vein as you are fighting a straw man and not me.
I firmly believe that sort of attitude is exactly what got the US into the position of having two piss-poor nearly-cloned parties in constant power, but whatever. It's your country; abuse it how you wish.
This is the type of rhetoric that holds "third parties" back. I can't believe that you buy into that claptrap. The quicker "third parties" realize this, the faster they will gain support from more Americans. Bush=Gore? Please, as I state before: I also hope you know see that Bush’s racism, ant-Semitism, fear of the progression of technology, conservative social and religious views and views on the environment are different for the views of Gore. Please FFF, if you opened your mind and got beyond your claptrap for a second you'd see that the Democratic Party and Republican party stand for two very viewpoints. It's sad that my lefty brethren can be as stubborn and ignorant as those we despise on the right.
posted by Bag Man at 5:14 PM on November 11, 2002
Apparently you have utterly failed to read or comprehend anything I have wrote. This is not the point I was making. Only sometimes I advocate taking such action (perhaps only in extreme situations), but the vast majority of the time I do not endorse or condone such conduct. FFF, you whish I was such a radical statement, but I am not. Your efforts are in vein as you are fighting a straw man and not me.
I firmly believe that sort of attitude is exactly what got the US into the position of having two piss-poor nearly-cloned parties in constant power, but whatever. It's your country; abuse it how you wish.
This is the type of rhetoric that holds "third parties" back. I can't believe that you buy into that claptrap. The quicker "third parties" realize this, the faster they will gain support from more Americans. Bush=Gore? Please, as I state before: I also hope you know see that Bush’s racism, ant-Semitism, fear of the progression of technology, conservative social and religious views and views on the environment are different for the views of Gore. Please FFF, if you opened your mind and got beyond your claptrap for a second you'd see that the Democratic Party and Republican party stand for two very viewpoints. It's sad that my lefty brethren can be as stubborn and ignorant as those we despise on the right.
posted by Bag Man at 5:14 PM on November 11, 2002
« Older When in doubt, blame the software. | Jacob Langvad. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mathowie at 3:08 PM on November 6, 2002