2012 Presidential Election

Originally posted by red g jacks
i like how the phrase "doing the right thing" is used, as if the choice were that cut and dry.

on the one hand i can be more or less certain that if i vote for ralph nader he will lose the election and the republicans will be one vote closer to winning.

on the other hand if i vote for obama his policies might not completely fit my point of view but at least i've got decent odds, and i definitely prefer him to romney.

i don't think the nader vote is so clearly the 'right' move.

I understand the calculus, the point is that this type of behaviour empowers the very individuals you disagree with and is essentially counter-democratic. Major parties deliberately feed on the fears their base has of the "other party", if you vote by that fear, you entrench the tactics.

Romney might be the least unattractive choice to you, but you are still capitulating to the fear of a Republican president that prevents the people you would want to vote for from ever being a major contender.

Try this: In what situation, if not an election where you disagree with both major candidates, would you vote for Nader? There will never be a time when the Democrats wont try to scare you about how bad the Republicans are, so when would your calculus ever allow you to vote your conscience rather than some cynical "pragmatism"? If you treat democracy like a team sport, how will you ever actually cast a vote you believe in?

i understand the scare tactics as well, but i'm mostly voting from a point of view of what i think is in my best interest. it's not pure fear mongering. there's a noticeable difference between the two parties, as far as i'm concerned.

as to your question, i would vote for nader or some other third party candidate i liked if i saw they had any serious momentum. even if it wasn't enough to win, if i thought it could be built upon and possibly turned into something viable at some point in the future, then i'd want to spur that momentum on. but i don't see that in anyone, and i don't personally have the means/time/know-how to try and create that kind of momentum for the obscure candidates i might take a shining to.

so i weigh the options i'm presented. i don't honestly think a candidate has ever existed, 3rd party or otherwise, who i've agreed with 100% of the time, or who i thought would make an absolutely perfect leader. so there's always some measure of compromise involved. i'd just like to actually get something out of my compromise.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I understand the calculus, the point is that this type of behaviour empowers the very individuals you disagree with and is essentially counter-democratic.

But if everyone voted for the person who best matched their beliefs we'd all just vote for ourselves every time, all candidates represent a compromise. Democracy is built on that kind of calculus.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i like how the phrase "doing the right thing" is used, as if the choice were that cut and dry.

on the one hand i can be more or less certain that if i vote for ralph nader he will lose the election and the republicans will be one vote closer to winning.

on the other hand if i vote for obama his policies might not completely fit my point of view but at least i've got decent odds, and i definitely prefer him to romney.

i don't think the nader vote is so clearly the 'right' move.

Well would you rather vote for what you want and not get it or would you rather vote for what you don't want and get it?

Why choose between a sellout corporatist Democrat who's too much of a pussy to do anything right and a mealy-mouthed reptilian psychopath who represents a party that proves that the Nuremberg Trials missed a few?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well would you rather vote for what you want and not get it or would you rather vote for what you don't want and get it?

as an imperfect analogy: say you have 5 dollars which have to be spent gambling. 5 dollars is enough for 1 lotto ticket, or enough for 1 game of blackjack. the jackpot for the lotto is obviously much better. but the odds are such that you might as well throw your money into the nearest sewer.

Why choose between a sellout corporatist Democrat who's too much of a pussy to do anything right and a mealy-mouthed reptilian psychopath who represents a party that proves that the Nuremberg Trials missed a few?

Originally posted by red g jacks
as to your question, i would vote for nader or some other third party candidate i liked if i saw they had any serious momentum. even if it wasn't enough to win, if i thought it could be built upon and possibly turned into something viable at some point in the future, then i'd want to spur that momentum on. but i don't see that in anyone, and i don't personally have the means/time/know-how to try and create that kind of momentum for the obscure candidates i might take a shining to.

so you wont vote for and give momentum to a person you'd want to win because nobody has voted for them to give them the momentum they need to be viable.

This is conceptually what is known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

or, maybe...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But if everyone voted for the person who best matched their beliefs we'd all just vote for ourselves every time

If you extend a small part of the logic I was using to a ludicrous point, sure.

Though, I'm fairly confident there is a wealth of ideological space between "vote against the person you don't like most" and "only vote for yourself".

it takes more than me or a handful of other people deciding to vote for a 3rd party candidate to gain the sort of momentum i'm talking about. so if you're talking about the work necessary to mount a serious political campaign capable of both reaching many and speaking to many, then yes, somebody else will have to do it.

you should put that on a bumper sticker

in all all seriousness though i would have probably agreed with you only a year ago. i used to spend a fair amount of time thinking about if there was a way for any 3rd party to tap into the general cynicism and disillusion that defines how many americans think about the 2 party system.

but it seems to me there's no forseeable unity among the disenfranchised, no one single message that speaks to most of them other than a dissatisfaction with the current system. each 3rd party has their series of pet interests, and i don't think there's one overarching message that most of them can unite under as a political platform, so it almost seems inevitable that they will remain fringe parties.

so in reality i'm somewhat dissatisfied with the current system, but not necessarily dedicated to any one fringe party's message. thus i'm only actually interested in viable solutions.

how do you justify willful participation in such a broken system then?

like, I tend to agree with all of that, but I would say the logical conclusion is either voting for a party whose special interests are important to you (in my case, I'd vote for the Pirate party if they ran candidates here) or total non-involvement. otherwise don't you just entrench the system you oppose?

because the system falls short of what i'd like it to be, but i still prefer having limited political sway to having no political sway.

i tried to edit this in but the time limit expired.

as for just picking an obscure candidate i like: let's look at that with a broader goal in mind, since your argument is mostly based on the broader implications of people like me using pragmatic reasoning to support one of the two major parties.

say i decide to vote nader, and each other disillusioned voter decides to pick either their ideal candidate or not vote at all. what we then would seemingly end up with is many fringe parties along with the two major ones, rather than any one strong contender for a 'third option.'

since our system is based on winning elections alone, and we have no parliament to help give representation to the smaller parties that still have a somewhat sizable turnout, this result seems more or less indistinguishable from the way things currently are.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i tried to edit this in but the time limit expired.

as for just picking an obscure candidate i like: let's look at that with a broader goal in mind, since your argument is mostly based on the broader implications of people like me using pragmatic reasoning to support one of the two major parties.

say i decide to vote nader, and each other disillusioned voter decides to pick either their ideal candidate or not vote at all. what we then would seemingly end up with is many fringe parties along with the two major ones, rather than any one strong contender for a 'third option.'

since our system is based on winning elections alone, and we have no parliament to help give representation to the smaller parties that still have a somewhat sizable turnout, this result seems more or less indistinguishable from the way things currently are.

Having read through your arguments your arguments your logic is flawed. You are assuming that by voting for Nader (who isn't runnung) you are taking away a vote from Obama. Looking at his track record Obama is hardly distinguishable from Bush...or as one pundit put it "under Obama all the change we've had is lack of hope" Therefore if there were no third party candidates and my only choices were Obama and Romney I wouldn't bother to vote.

he's afraid of a Romney white house though. he sees non-participation as a vote for Romney.

Originally posted by Oliver North
If you extend a small part of the logic I was using to a ludicrous point, sure.

Though, I'm fairly confident there is a wealth of ideological space between "vote against the person you don't like most" and "only vote for yourself".

You don't have to take it that far. In an all or nothing race like a presidential election the compromise party will always beat a dozen fragmented parties. Do you believe there will every be as many people who believe that the Pirate Party is the perfect match for their beliefs as there are people who believe the Liberal Democrats are a good match for their beliefs?

By not voting for yourself you've already start making compromises both ideologically and practically. I can understand not wanting to make extreme ideological compromises but why shoot yourself in the foot for no reason?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You don't have to take it that far. In an all or nothing race like a presidential election the compromise party will always beat a dozen fragmented parties. Do you believe there will every be as many people who believe that the Pirate Party is the perfect match for their beliefs as there are people who believe the Liberal Democrats are a good match for their beliefs?

By not voting for yourself you've already start making compromises both ideologically and practically. I can understand not wanting to make extreme ideological compromises but why shoot yourself in the foot for no reason?

I guess I would say that voting for someone you don't support, just to prevent someone else you don't support from winning, is exactly shooting yourself in the foot.

Especially in the current context. How many times would one have to vote Democrat before the Pirate party is relevant politically? If you think the system is broken and biased against outside views and opinions, it seems to me, that falling into the partisan politics of "OMG the other guy will be so much worse" ensures that you will never do anything to challenge the system. It will remain broken specifically because of the actions you take.

Even in a straight winner-take-all vote like this, special interest parties taking large amounts of votes in a riding, especially a key one, will force the major parties to at least address the issues that party represents. If the people of Ohio suddenly felt like IP reform was the most pressing issue of the day and therefore voted 10-15% in favor of the Pirate party, during the next election cycle, the mainstream parties would not be able to ignore the issue.

Originally posted by red g jacks
say i decide to vote nader, and each other disillusioned voter decides to pick either their ideal candidate or not vote at all. what we then would seemingly end up with is many fringe parties along with the two major ones, rather than any one strong contender for a 'third option.'

just so I don't feel like I am making a strawman of your opinion, you are saying:

1) you wont vote for a third party until it has momentum
2) even if everyone who was disillusioned voted for third parties, this would not be enough momentum for you to consider voting for them

Can you explain how you aren't propping up the system you admitted was broken?

Originally posted by red g jacks
since our system is based on winning elections alone, and we have no parliament to help give representation to the smaller parties that still have a somewhat sizable turnout, this result seems more or less indistinguishable from the way things currently are.

how many times do you have to vote for Obama before he grants more parliamentary-like powers that allow third parties full participation in the American political process?

Originally posted by red g jacks
why assume that your interpretation of the candidates = my interpretation?

What interpretation? There's interpretation and there's reality. Obama could have passed every piece of legislation he wanted by putting pressure on the senate and house via legitimate threats of f investigation by feds. He could have proposed a simple healthcare reform by folding every government health program under Medicare and then removing the age requirement. He could've have started from a position of strength by having the entire previous administration either at the Hague or at the gallows for treason and war crimes.
Instead he sat back and hired back the worst of the Clinton years and enacted the worst agendas of the Heritage Foundation and the Reagan/Bush/Clinton regime of globalization while folding to every complaint from the other party.

You're basically telling me to vote for Mussolini because if Hitler gets elected we'll be much worse.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Having read through your arguments your arguments your logic is flawed. You are assuming that by voting for Nader (who isn't runnung) you are taking away a vote from Obama. Looking at his track record Obama is hardly distinguishable from Bush...or as one pundit put it "under Obama all the change we've had is lack of hope" Therefore if there were no third party candidates and my only choices were Obama and Romney I wouldn't bother to vote.

when i talked about how others might vote in the post you quoted, i'm not assuming that each vote for nader would otherwise go to obama or romney. i'm just assuming that the more specific people are about their political candidates the more splintering there would be.

Originally posted by Oliver North
he's afraid of a Romney white house though. he sees non-participation as a vote for Romney.

Originally posted by Oliver North
just so I don't feel like I am making a strawman of your opinion, you are saying:

1) you wont vote for a third party until it has momentum
2) even if everyone who was disillusioned voted for third parties, this would not be enough momentum for you to consider voting for them

Can you explain how you aren't propping up the system you admitted was broken?

otherwise, i might be doing my small part to prop up the system by being part of a large group of people who vote mainstream. but since i don't really see an effective alternative to that, it's not a very compelling allegation.

how many times do you have to vote for Obama before he grants more parliamentary-like powers that allow third parties full participation in the American political process?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
What interpretation? There's interpretation and there's reality. Obama could have passed every piece of legislation he wanted by putting pressure on the senate and house via legitimate threats of f investigation by feds. He could have proposed a simple healthcare reform by folding every government health program under Medicare and then removing the age requirement. He could've have started from a position of strength by having the entire previous administration either at the Hague or at the gallows for treason and war crimes.
Instead he sat back and hired back the worst of the Clinton years and enacted the worst agendas of the Heritage Foundation and the Reagan/Bush/Clinton regime of globalization while folding to every complaint from the other party.

You're basically telling me to vote for Mussolini because if Hitler gets elected we'll be much worse.

The difference is how much the rich cheat you out of your wealth and your health and how much a bunch of Bronze Age religious Jew hating child ****ers tell you how to live.
The problem is the fact that we have to decide "how much" rather than not at all.