Final Thought Before Election Day - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aliali · 11-01-2004, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Ok, then vote for another third party. The Libertarian party is just one of many.

Is any third party or write in candidate o.k. to prove that I am not engineered by the man or to weak to proudly stand up as a human?

Socialist?
Green?
Reform?
Constitution?
Personal Choice?
America First?
American Nazi?
Christian Falangist Party of America?
Light Party?

What happens when any of these get big enough to wield influence through corporations and the media?

Sorry to get practical.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

daswig, intelligence doesn't make you smart. Even if you're on top of what the parties are all about, you've been engineered in some way to accept these things as the most important issues. You're saying, "Yes big brother, I agree completely and thus I will vote for you." I apologize for arguing on a psychological and philosophical level in the politics forum, but when the parties incorporate both into their campaigns, there has to be someone to stand up and tell people not to buy into it.

Social psychology is one of my favorite subjects. It's an amaingly powerful tool that people in power use to influence those who are not. When you wise up to these schemes, perhaps you'll stand up for your rights as a human.

Please give me a LITTLE bit of credit. I know what's important to me. I know the positions both sides take. And I am not generally swayed by what either side says are the "big issues". I am NOT saying "Yes Big Brother, I agree completely and thus I will vote for you" any more than by your voting Libertarian you are saying "Yes Little Brother,I agree completely and thus I will vote for you." I'm voting for the party I'm voting for because the other party is far too dangerous to the things that I actually hold dear.

And as for the "tool that people in power use", you have NO clue who I am and what I do, what positions I hold, what my entire educational background is, and what I've done on the course of my life. I've lived an officially "frowned upon" existence (YOU try selling machineguns to the population at large, and watch how fast your ass lands in jail. I did it PUBLICLY for SIX YEARS under Janet Reno's DoJ, moved over ten MILLION dollars worth of total inventory, and was never indicted, much less convicted.) The Government doesn't like what I've done, but they have never been able to get charges to stick, because I KNOW the law, and how to use those levers of power.

aliali · 11-01-2004, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Well then, before I leave to get stuff done today, I'll just say one more thing.

When I don't agree with something, I am not going to give it my endorsement. Not for any amount of money.

When I do agree with something, I criticize it just as much as I do it's counter-statement.

When I finally decide, I feel like I made a more spiritual choice than the most pious god-fearing christian.

Ahh, now its a spiritual thing. And we don't like christians, do we. Or is it the pious? or God fearing? Anyone else you are more spiritual than? The jews, muslims?

Let's hear the criticisms of the Liberatarian Party.

Empty_One · 11-01-2004, 07:33 PM

I am living in a swing state. Wisconsin is pretty much 50/50, depending on who I listen to. The man that is currently President scares me, and has in the past made me seriously consider leaving the country. There is no way in hell I would vote for somebody I know won't win this state.

I will be voting for Kerry, and hoping to all hell that others who would normally vote for a third party candidate will also.

roachboy · 11-01-2004, 07:39 PM

well....while the present system might be little more than voting for which faction within the oligarchy will hold power for 4 years, this time the usual argument simply does not hold--there are significant distinctions between the factions. getting bush out of power would also push the conservative media apparatus (which is an empirical formation, the outlines of which are obvious, and which has nothing symmetrical to it on the "left") back into opposition--if you want to seriously work for third party options, you absolutely need to work to get these people out of power--if only because it would be simpler to mobilize third party spaces if the dominant discourse was at least rational, at least referred to the empirical world and did not retreat into a self-reinforcing rhetoric of the Will within which the vacant become resolute, the incompetent become heroic---a very christian, very moral context in which it is ok to lie about war, in which one can talk about the sanctity of life while supporting the wasting of life, military and civilian, in a pointless misguided adventure in iraq...

and these are only the tip of a very long list.

i support the creation of more political options, more political parties.
i have heard arguments like hal's over and over from nader folk.
i understand them and to an extent agree with them

but in this election, i find that it is not only possible but necessary to suck it up and vote tactically.

DelayedReaction · 11-01-2004, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

These are all valid arguments and good reasons to vote Libertarian. I agree with most of them, but they are not reasons why anyone who disagrees with you and chooses to vote Rep. or Dem. has no dignity or self-respect or has been blinded and woozyified by the big mediapolitical machine. If I actually disagree with what the Liberatarian candidate stands for, should I vote for him just so I don't vote for a major party?

I apologize if I implied that I feel that disagreeing with me indicates you've been brainwashed. I wanted to counter some of the arguments that had been presented against the Libertarian party, and put the party into a more positive light. Who you vote for is your choice, and so long as you've made an attempt to stay informed I respect whatever decision you make.

This is going to be my first Presidential election ever. I've voted in local elections, but I just missed the 2000 elections by four days. I don't want my first presidential vote to be for the lesser of two evils; I want it to be for the party that I agree with the most. And that vote is for Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party.

tecoyah · 11-01-2004, 08:15 PM

A good friend said this to me yesterday:

" I wont vote the lesser of two evils....unless one happens to be Satan"

clinched it for me

MSD · 11-01-2004, 08:36 PM

I'll be voting for the candidate who best represents me on the most issues and the most important issues to me. Even so, I only agree with him on about 65% of the issues. It's far better than the 30% and 25% on which the two main candidates agree with me. I agree with the party lines on the majority of the issues, so a vote for my candidate is really a vote for what I believe in.

The only way to get a better representation of what I believe on the ballot is to run for office. I'll be doing that next year. I hope that enough people in my district agree with me that they choose me to represent them. If not, I hope they choose someone who does.

lukethebandgeek · 11-01-2004, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

So, is there no difference between the two major candidates? If there is, it would make sense for anyone for whom those differences are important to try to defeat the side they disagree with. Voting for Nader or anyone else doesn't help you beat Bush or Kerry. That's reality.

Achieving a candidate who doesn't lie and cheat is the job of the primarys and caucuses. Most of the time, however, that doesn't work.

I'm voting for Kerry because I don't like how many deceptions the Bush administration has tried to get away with. I'm also afraid of moral legislation, such as the banning of gay marriage, and the banning of abortion. This is an election for the Supreme Court. As a future educator, I detest the small minded No Child Left Behind Act.

Kerry is a douchebag, but I'm voting for him, because I fear Bush's domestic policy.

smooth · 11-01-2004, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

well....while the present system might be little more than voting for which faction within the oligarchy will hold power for 4 years, this time the usual argument simply does not hold--there are significant distinctions between the factions. getting bush out of power would also push the conservative media apparatus (which is an empirical formation, the outlines of which are obvious, and which has nothing symmetrical to it on the "left") back into opposition--if you want to seriously work for third party options, you absolutely need to work to get these people out of power--if only because it would be simpler to mobilize third party spaces if the dominant discourse was at least rational, at least referred to the empirical world and did not retreat into a self-reinforcing rhetoric of the Will within which the vacant become resolute, the incompetent become heroic---a very christian, very moral context in which it is ok to lie about war, in which one can talk about the sanctity of life while supporting the wasting of life, military and civilian, in a pointless misguided adventure in iraq...

and these are only the tip of a very long list.

i support the creation of more political options, more political parties.
i have heard arguments like hal's over and over from nader folk.
i understand them and to an extent agree with them

but in this election, i find that it is not only possible but necessary to suck it up and vote tactically.

I live in California, but I have considered voting for kerry since the debates. I'm not a supporter of his, nor am I a democrat, but too many people I respect hold similar opinions as the one above for me to discount.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

but too many people I respect hold similar opinions as the one above for me to discount.

So, what you're saying is that you're sacrificing your own opinions to fit in? Thass no gooood... God (the Great Pumpkin, evolution, or whatever you think created you) gave you a brain. You should use it to make up your own mind, not just to copy others.

seep · 11-01-2004, 09:51 PM

I think Bush is an imbecile, but I live in a Republican state. Voting "against Bush" would be useless, so third party it is.

smooth · 11-01-2004, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

So, what you're saying is that you're sacrificing your own opinions to fit in?

That's not what I'm saying.

Quote:

Thass no gooood... God (the Great Pumpkin, evolution, or whatever you think created you) gave you a brain. You should use it to make up your own mind, not just to copy others.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

That's not what I'm saying.

Quote:

but too many people I respect hold similar opinions as the one above for me to discount.

So what exactly are you saying? I'm trying to figure out how the second statement could be read as anything other than "people I respect have this opinion, so I'm going to follow their lead."

Xenomorph · 11-01-2004, 10:32 PM

As a student of political science and history, and as a generally aware human being, I can vote Democrat or Republican and have a fairly clear idea of what I'm going to get without shedding a tear when Bush hugs a girl who lost her father in front of the camera or when Kerry stands up as the would-be savior of countless lives with his medicine-beefing and war-reducing master plans.

I would rather get 4 more years of Bush than see Kerry take even one term. This is because of what they've both done rather than what either has said. I've thoroughly reviewed the third parties that represent some of my views, and would not hesitate to vote for a Libertarian or Constitution candidate that I felt would most accurately represent my views. As neither ideological extremists do so in the way that the professional centrist Bush does, Bush gets my vote.

This idea of "...the corporations! the corporations!" and the almost teenage need to declare rebellion with a third party vote is ridiculous. If you are fortunate enough to fall within the tight ideological constraints of the relatively major American third parties, then you have your decision cut out for you. The rest of us need to do our best to pick one of the two moderates that best reflect our views.

loganmule · 11-01-2004, 11:08 PM

We are stuck with a two party system, for better or worse, Halx, and for that reason your Libertarian vote is meaningless. Republicans and Democrats disagree on lots of things, but they share a desire to keep third parties out of the game, much less fourth or fifth parties, and they have the money and political power to have their way. At most, a third party candidate can be a spoiler in a close race, eg, 2000.

I would be the first to concede that our political system is flawed, but until a better system can be proposed and peacefully implemented to fairly govern and preserve the freedoms of our 280 million plus population , I'll go cast my vote and accept the result, whether or not we end up with the guy I voted for.

SecretMethod70 · 11-02-2004, 01:31 AM

One may easily guess by my avatar that I generally agree with Halx. One thing I think needs to be understood is this argument that one is voting for a candidate who can't win and/or that the small amount of support one's vote gives that party does not amount to much.

I'll put it this way: I don't believe voting for a third party candidate is something that simply takes place on Nov. 2. Third party supporters have a bit more work than that. What I mean to say is that I don't believe one can reasonably vote for a third party candidate tomorrow and not also push for voting reform.

I believe votes should be cast based on one's conscience, not on the lesser of two evils. Now, of those people who recognize that their conscience is most in line with a third party candidate, I believe that being guided by one's conscience in this regard requires further action. People are right to say that it is essentially impossible for a third party candidate to win this election. That doesn't mean I shouldn't vote for him though. It means I should vote for him and CONTINUE to push for voting reform so that, one day, we have a voting system that does not adhere to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_Law">Duverger's Law</a> and, furthermore, that eliminates most possibilities of tactical voting.

Listen, if you've looked at ALL the significant party candidates and their views objectively (I define "significant party" to be any party on enough ballots to win the election) and you find that one of the major party candidates best represents your views, then ote for that person. I think what Halx is getting at though is that there is an underlying reason why you end up supporting one of the major parties more often than not. One is because of the manipulation by them on the general public through numerous means. The other is due to various sources of socialization. However, I think that to any person who seriously looks at the stances available, the Green party is the natural progression of the ideals of the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party is the natural progression of the ideals of the original Republican Party (more than 50-100 years ago, especially before the Christian Fundamentalists took it over).

aliali It's about not voting for 1) someone who is simply "not someone else" and 2) someone who is simply duping you in the hopes of gaining more power. If you honestly don't agree with any of the third parties more than the democrats or republicans, then don't vote for them. From my perspective though, I can't support candidates who are so blatently dishonest, not to mention that I really don't think the republican or democratic parties take their philosophies to their logical conclusions.

roachboy · 11-02-2004, 05:58 AM

what enables you to think that there is a distinction in this situation between voting one's "conscience" and voting tactically?
do you somehow imagine that the decision to vote tactically is easy?
on what basis?

i do not see where any of the pseudo-psychological statements about voting tactically come from...it seems naieve in the extreme to imagine that you can abstract your vote from tactical considerations.
maybe the problem works like this: for people inclined to vote nader, the prospect of another bush term is obviously, a priori, something to be rejected out of hand--which opens the way to tactical consideration.

i am not sure about libertarian politics--supporters of that position do not have a real problem with another bush term insofar as it is more likely to advance some of thier overall goals--say the dismantling of a coherent relation between the state and the economy--but they do not like bushrhetoric and other elements of his policies--but they do not feel as though they really loose either way.

maybe that explains the sanctimoniousness that sometimes appears here.

it is a function of their assessment of the tactical situation.

flstf · 11-02-2004, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i am not sure about libertarian politics--supporters of that position do not have a real problem with another bush term insofar as it is more likely to advance some of thier overall goals--say the dismantling of a coherent relation between the state and the economy--but they do not like bushrhetoric and other elements of his policies--but they do not feel as though they really loose either way.
maybe that explains the sanctimoniousness that sometimes appears here.
it is a function of their assessment of the tactical situation.

I think you may have hit on something there. Some of us think that the biggest problem in America today is the tremendous growth of the federal government into all walks of our lives. Heck, some of us even think that if it continues it will lead to revolution. The Democrats/Republicans are both falling all over themselves to grow the government larger. The difference between the two are minor compared to this.

aliali · 11-02-2004, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

aliali It's about not voting for 1) someone who is simply "not someone else" and 2) someone who is simply duping you in the hopes of gaining more power. If you honestly don't agree with any of the third parties more than the democrats or republicans, then don't vote for them. From my perspective though, I can't support candidates who are so blatently dishonest, not to mention that I really don't think the republican or democratic parties take their philosophies to their logical conclusions.

I believe it can be about voting for the best person, or voting against the best person, or sending a protest vote, or finding that third party that fits your way of thinking. I hope the Libertarian party gets a lot of votes today and some press, too, but we all know that isn't likely. I agree that working for a third party is more than just hoping and voting. It's more than one day every four years. I'm all for the major party vote and the third party vote.

I don't agree that every third party should be elevated above the major parties just because they are smaller.

I also do not agree that people who vote rep. or dem. either for their guy or against the other guy have thrown away their self-respect or lack any dignity. I'm sorry, that is just insulting to millions of people. It's small-minded, self-important garbage.

Halx · 11-02-2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

I also do not agree that people who vote rep. or dem. either for their guy or against the other guy have thrown away their self-respect or lack any dignity. I'm sorry, that is just insulting to millions of people. It's small-minded, self-important garbage.

A person is smart. People are dumb.

Electioneering is social engineering on a group of people. It's easier to sway many at one time than it is one by one. People who vote for the 'popular' choices are simply being sheep.

analog · 11-02-2004, 10:47 AM

The fact that some simply state that voting for a "third party" is a throwaway, or "won't make a difference" is a large part of the reason why the country- both politically and otherwise- is in the sad state it is today. There are more than two parties for a reason. You are not a sheep. If everyone voted their own voice, and not relied on the two-party bullshit, then maybe we'd see some change. As it stands, the dem's and rep's don't even see them as competition, and do no work to be better for it.

That is sad.

smooth · 11-02-2004, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

You are not a sheep.

If everyone voted their own voice, and not relied on the two-party bullshit, then maybe we'd see some change.

Maybe it needs pointing out--most of the people voting for one or the other major party aren't necessarily sheep.

It's more than possible that those people don't want change in the way some here envision it.

alto92 · 11-02-2004, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

And Kerry is any better?

This is a case of the lesser of two evils.

kerry will do LESS damage to this country. yes, kerry is a bit better. my post was in response to platypus's, where the topic was gwb's "sincerity, dignity, and deep moral convictions...i'm just trying to offset that here-nor-there statement..

powerclown · 11-02-2004, 11:04 AM

Voting independent out of protest against the other two candidates is not going to have an impact on the election. The way I see it, voting independent is more pertinent as a political statement than as an earnest vote for President.

flstf · 11-02-2004, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Voting independent out of protest against the other two candidates is not going to have an impact on the election. The way I see it, voting independent is more pertinent as a political statement than as an earnest vote for President.

Unfortunately you are absolutely right. And things will probably never change (at least peacefully) until we vote the way we truly believe. Of course it's always possible that one of the majors could morph into something (I find acceptable) but I doubt it as long as we keep voting for them.

aliali · 11-02-2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

A person is smart. People are dumb.

Electioneering is social engineering on a group of people. It's easier to sway many at one time than it is one by one. People who vote for the 'popular' choices are simply being sheep.

Now I get it. You can only be smart and special if your choice is unpopular.

Once people (who are dumb) make a choice, you, a person (and therefore smart) now are forced to choose a less popular option even if you disagree with it. So a smart person is a single sheep forced to choose an unpopular choice by the dumb herd. I wonder if all the dumb, popular-thinking sheep know how they manipulate the smart individual sheep into throwing away their votes on someone who cannot win.

I feel sorry for all those smart third party voters who may get cursed with popularity some day if significant numbers of people (now dumb) start to join them. I'll bet they all felt like idiots when Lincoln won as a third party in 1860. Or when the third party got almost 20% in '92.

I proudly joined the sheep about an hour ago for several races and voted Libertarian in several others.

ShaniFaye · 11-02-2004, 01:39 PM

I have never had a problem voting Lib if I believed in the person running....I've never been "strictly" republican.....I still stand by my earlier statement ... if the Libs had a candidate I wanted to vote for for pres I would have...but Im not voting for the Lib party just "to vote for a Lib"

Halx · 11-02-2004, 02:04 PM

I'm just saying.. when everybody thinks alike, nobody thinks.

I've come to the logical conclusion that the unprecedented propaganda and deception going on between the two main parties is enough to disqualify them from the list of practical choices. Unfortunately humans in a giant mass are quite impractical and irrational.

filtherton · 11-02-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

I've come to the logical conclusion that the unprecedented propaganda and deception going on between the two main parties is enough to disqualify them from the list of practical choices. Unfortunately humans in a giant mass are quite impractical and irrational.

I don't think voting third party could be considered practical in any sense either. What are you practically accomplishing? The bold statement that you send in voting third party will fall on deaf ears. The fact is that the two major parties would have to fuck things up really badly for a third party to ever be relevant in a national election. The self destruction of one of the parties seems like only a matter of time, but until it actually happens, voting third party is purely a masturbatory exercise.

FoolThemAll · 11-02-2004, 02:32 PM

I don't think I'd vote lesser of two evils. For me, it came down to Badnarik, Petrouka, or Bush. And out of those three, I preferred Bush.

It was most certainly a dignified choice, even if it incidentally conforms to half of the voting populace.

mml · 11-02-2004, 02:44 PM

First, let me just say that regardless of who you vote for, be sure to vote. I am a believer in the two party system, (I have written about this before and don't have the time to rehash it now) but I would never fault someone for voting with their conscience. I do have to say that Hal's comments are more that a little condescending. Stating that those who do not agree with your general outlook are "unthinking" or simply being herded by some form of socio-political brainwashing movements is truly painting with a big brush. I am guessing that you have recently studied the concepts of "Group Think" and are simply caught up in a whirl of social engineering yourself. That being said, I am glad you have made your comments since they (as they usually do) have sparked some interesting debate.

I, as many of you can guess, proudly voted for John Kerry. I have been a staunch Kerry supporter from just about the time he announced. I have worked with his campiagn and have had the opportunity to meet the Senator twice. I am enthusiastic in my support of the Senator and truly believe he will make an exemplary President.

He is a deep thinker and strategist. He has a commanding grasp of international and domestic issues. He brings to the table a desire to promote the environment and science and has advanced an intriguing (though not perfect) idea for a way to help increase health care coverage in America. He has a history of working well with foreign leaders and is known in Washington as one of the Senators who can work with either party to get things done. I hear all the time that President Bush is a good and sincere man. I actually agree with that assessment, and believe that John Kerry possesses those same qualities. He is not as "open" or "folksy" as President Bush, but he cares about America, its citizens and our future. John Kerry regardless of how the Bush Campaign and the GOP want to paint him, is not weak on the military. He actually has a strong record of voting to promote sensible (ie not-wasteful) military spending. His record is not nearly as "liberal" as it is being portrayed. I firmly believe that he will govern from the middle, with an even hand, keen insight and with a belief that we can make this country even stronger and certainly more respected.

I also voted for John McCain for Senate, so don't think I am just a Dem party hack.

SecretMethod70 · 11-02-2004, 02:48 PM

From elsewhere. I didn't bother to preserve links and such.

Quote:

FERRIS: Are you going to be as impractical as that?
REARDEN: The evaluation of an action as "practical," Dr. Ferris, depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
FERRIS: Haven't you always placed your self-interest above all else?
REARDEN: That is what I am doing right now.

-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

While I hear a lot about "undecided voters" on the news, I don't personally know anybody who is undecided between Bush and Kerry. I do, however, know quite a few people who are undecided between Kerry and Badnarik. I certainly can't blame anybody who ends up choosing Kerry as a means to unseating the most dangerous president of my lifetime. But as the last grains of pre-electoral sand are running out, I think it's worth explaining once more why I'm voting for Badnarik rather than Kerry.

Two recent posts from Robert Bidinotto offer a convenient foil. Bidinotto argues that those who support Michael Badnarik (or, as Bidinotto mistakenly calls him, "John" Badnarik) are forgetting that "the 'perfect' is the enemy of the 'good'." (Whenever anybody invokes that phrase, some compromise of principle always seems to be in the offing.)

Bidonotto aims to be making a case for Bush over Badnarik, rather than for Kerry over Badnarik. That’s because Bidinotto assumes, first, that a Bush victory would promote libertarian values better than would a Kerry victory, and second, that a vote for Badnarik "is a de facto vote for Kerry." I think the first assumption is clearly false; if we look at results rather than rhetoric, Bush comes out as objectively far more anti-liberty than Kerry. I'm not sure the second is true either; certainly I would vote for Kerry over Bush if I had to choose between the two, and this is likewise true of most of the Badnarik supporters I know -- so it's not obvious that most Badnarik votes would otherwise have gone to Bush. (It's true, though, that Badnarik, bless him, is specifically targeting Republican voters in an attempt to hurt Bush.)

But Bidinotto's argument is worth addressing apart from these two assumptions. For if his argument, with those assumptions, makes a case for supporting Bush over Badnarik, then the same argument, without those assumptions, makes a case for supporting Kerry over Badnarik. Thus Bidinotto's argument counts, objectively, as an argument on behalf of Kerry; those of us who plan to vote Libertarian tomorrow thus need a reply to Bidinotto's argument in order to justify voting for Badnarik rather than Kerry.

Bidinotto's argument, briefly, is this: When faced with a choice between voting for a lesser evil (whether you think that's Bush or Kerry) who can win, or endangering that candidate's chances by voting for a principled libertarian (which describes Badnarik, whatever his personal eccentricities) who cannot win, Bidinotto thinks that the principled choice is to vote for the lesser evil, whereas to risk hurting the lesser-evil candidate by supporting the one who can't win is moral fanaticism. For Bidinotto, "the difference between a man of principle and a fanatic .... comes down to whether you primarily view moral principles as means to your ends (values), or whether you primarily view moral principles as ends in themselves." Badnarik supporters, he suggests, are moral fanatics who "cast purely symbolic votes for Principle," thereby expressing their "moral commitment to the platonic Ideal" -- but insofar as this choice helps to get the worse of the two viable candidates elected, it counts as "an objective sell-out of our lives, our security and all we hold dear, for the sake of a subjective feeling of smug self-righteousness." Those who hold principles, not as ends in themselves, but as means to achieving values in real life as far as possible, will vote for the least bad viable candidate.

This argument doesn't sway me, for two reasons. First, as an Aristotelean I cannot accept Bidinotto's dichotomy between principles as means and principles as ends. And I'm surprised that Bidinotto accepts it; for he himself has previously argued (see his article Survive or Flourish? A Reconciliation) that principles adopted as means to maintaining our lives become constitutive parts of the kind of life we aim to maintain. Hence on Bidinotto's own neo-Aristotelean view, the principled person cannot regard her principles merely as strategies for advancing some independently specifiable mode of life, but must regard adherence to those principles as part of the mode of life to be advanced. (The quotation from Rand at the top of this post arguably expresses the same idea; Bidinotto is in effect condemning Badnarik supporters as impractical, and the proper reply is Rearden's: that depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.)

Second, even if one were to adopt a purely strategic attitude toward one's principles, Bidinotto's conclusion still does not follow. The strategic point of acting on principle is to think long-range, rather than sacrificing significant longterm gain for the sake of some slight but immediate advantage. As I wrote in a piece titled Thinking Beyond the Next Election: A Strategy for Victory:

In playing chess, a sure way to lose is to spend your first few moves capturing as many of the opponent's pieces as possible. It’s much more important to let those juicy-looking pieces go than to allow them to distract you from your main mission of building a strong presence at the center of the board.

I think the same lesson applies in politics. In crafting our strategy we need to plan several elections ahead, not just one. ... If we plan ahead only as far as the next election, then it's absolutely true that a vote for a candidate who loses is an ineffective vote.

But if we think ahead four years, or eight years, or twelve years, then a vote can do more than just elect a candidate. A vote can help to build a vote total which, even if it is a losing vote total, can, if it's big enough, draw more attention and support to the losing candidate and his party or cause.

This has two beneficial effects: First, it increases the good guys' chance of winning in the future. Second, it forces the major candidates to move in our direction in order to avoid precisely that.

Bidinotto considers this sort of argument, but only to dismiss it by asking: "Does anyone believe that Ross Perot had any enduring impact on the major parties, or on ensuing debates about economic policy? And will anyone be talking about Ralph Nader's views two weeks from now?"

Well, who cares what anybody is talking about two weeks from now? That’s short-term thinking again. What matters is what gets talked about four years from now; 2000 could be dismissed as a fluke, but if Nader makes the Democrats lose two presidential races in a row, I find it hard to believe that they won't scramble their hardest to win back Nader voters in 2008. Indeed, fear of Nader may already have influenced the Democratic nomination process by making more conservative candidates like Lieberman, Gephardt, and Clarke too risky. (As for Perot, he sacrificed much of the influence he could have had through his own erratic behaviour, and through not running [seriously] a second time.)

Indeed, Perot DID have an effect and significantly shaped the Clinton presidency by bringing so much attention to deficit spending, etc.

Quote:

There is historical precedent for the strategy I favour. As David Friedman points out in his book The Machinery of Freedom:

I believe the answer is that we should learn from our enemies; we should imitate the strategy of the Socialist party of 60 years ago. Its presidential vote never reached a million, but it may have been the most successful political party in American history. It never gained control of anything larger than the city of Milwaukee but it succeeded in enacting into law virtually every economic proposal in its 1928 platform -- a list of radical proposals ranging from minimum wages to social security.

And it did this precisely by forcing the Democrats to move leftward in order to keep voters away from the Socialists. No doubt there were, in every election year, left-wingers who told the Socialists "This election is too important! You must support the Democratic candidate to prevent the even-less-socialistic Republican from getting in." If the Socialists had listened, their influence would have been zero; there would have been nowhere for socialistically inclined voters to go, and so the Democratic Party would have gone on taking such voters' support for granted and never thrown them so much as a bone.

My argument is not intended as a criticism of those who think, not unreasonably, that the Prince President is so egregiously horrific that this election really is a case where preventing his re-election immediately is worth the setback to any longterm LP strategy (especially if they have doubts about the LP's longterm viability anyway). These are trade-offs that each individual must judge for herself. (I would note, however, that those who do not live in a swing state still have no good reason to vote for a major-party candidate.) It's also not intended as a criticism of those who are so disgusted with the electoral process that they prefer not to vote at all. [...] My argument aims merely to explain my reasons for supporting Badnarik, and to show that Bidinotto's arguments against those reasons do not succeed. (And Bidinotto should be relieved that I'm not persuaded by his arguments, since if I were, I would be voting for Kerry.)

One final topic: Bidinotto also condemns the Libertarian Party for promoting "a philosophical package-deal that links free-market economics with absolutely [loathsome], Leftist positions on other vital issues, such as criminal justice and foreign policy -- positions which the L. P. now insists are integral aspects of 'libertarianism.'" I won't take the time now to defend those particular positions (I've defended the anti-punishment position here and here, and the military non-interventionist position passim), but I do want to make two points.

First, there is nothing specifically "Leftist" (in Bidinotto’s sense) about these positions, which were being defended by libertarians and classical liberals long before being borrowed (and mangled) by statist socialists. William Graham Sumner, for example, analysed the connection between imperialism and plutocracy in such articles as "War" and "The Conquest of the United States by Spain"; does Bidinotto think Sumner was a "Leftist"? (For that matter, as Chris Sciabarra reminds us, Ayn Rand adopted an anti-interventionist position with regard to Korea, Vietnam, and both World Wars. Was she a "Leftist"?)

Second, the LP does not enforce any "party line" with regard to these positions. They may be in the LP Platform (actually the anti-punishment position isn't, strictly speaking), but Libertarian candidates have never been, and are not now, bound by the Platform; Badnarik's own running mate, for example, is (regrettably) a pro-interventionist and a supporter of the "war on terror."

Halx · 11-02-2004, 04:29 PM

Voting third party would be practical if not for the impractical actions of many others. However, just because most everyone is doing it doesn't make it right.

11-01-2004, 07:39 PM	#45 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well....while the present system might be little more than voting for which faction within the oligarchy will hold power for 4 years, this time the usual argument simply does not hold--there are significant distinctions between the factions. getting bush out of power would also push the conservative media apparatus (which is an empirical formation, the outlines of which are obvious, and which has nothing symmetrical to it on the "left") back into opposition--if you want to seriously work for third party options, you absolutely need to work to get these people out of power--if only because it would be simpler to mobilize third party spaces if the dominant discourse was at least rational, at least referred to the empirical world and did not retreat into a self-reinforcing rhetoric of the Will within which the vacant become resolute, the incompetent become heroic---a very christian, very moral context in which it is ok to lie about war, in which one can talk about the sanctity of life while supporting the wasting of life, military and civilian, in a pointless misguided adventure in iraq... and these are only the tip of a very long list. i support the creation of more political options, more political parties. i have heard arguments like hal's over and over from nader folk. i understand them and to an extent agree with them but in this election, i find that it is not only possible but necessary to suck it up and vote tactically. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-01-2004, 08:15 PM	#47 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	A good friend said this to me yesterday: " I wont vote the lesser of two evils....unless one happens to be Satan" clinched it for me __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-01-2004, 10:32 PM	#55 (permalink)
Xenomorph Crazy Location: St. Louis, MO	As a student of political science and history, and as a generally aware human being, I can vote Democrat or Republican and have a fairly clear idea of what I'm going to get without shedding a tear when Bush hugs a girl who lost her father in front of the camera or when Kerry stands up as the would-be savior of countless lives with his medicine-beefing and war-reducing master plans. I would rather get 4 more years of Bush than see Kerry take even one term. This is because of what they've both done rather than what either has said. I've thoroughly reviewed the third parties that represent some of my views, and would not hesitate to vote for a Libertarian or Constitution candidate that I felt would most accurately represent my views. As neither ideological extremists do so in the way that the professional centrist Bush does, Bush gets my vote. This idea of "...the corporations! the corporations!" and the almost teenage need to declare rebellion with a third party vote is ridiculous. If you are fortunate enough to fall within the tight ideological constraints of the relatively major American third parties, then you have your decision cut out for you. The rest of us need to do our best to pick one of the two moderates that best reflect our views. __________________ The facehugger is short-lived outside the egg which normally protects it. Armed with a long grasping tail, a spray of highly-concentrated acid and the single-minded desire to impregnate a single selected prey using its extending probe, it will fearlessly pursue and attack a single selected target until it has succeeded in attachment or it or its target is dead

11-01-2004, 11:08 PM	#56 (permalink)
loganmule Junkie Location: midwest	We are stuck with a two party system, for better or worse, Halx, and for that reason your Libertarian vote is meaningless. Republicans and Democrats disagree on lots of things, but they share a desire to keep third parties out of the game, much less fourth or fifth parties, and they have the money and political power to have their way. At most, a third party candidate can be a spoiler in a close race, eg, 2000. I would be the first to concede that our political system is flawed, but until a better system can be proposed and peacefully implemented to fairly govern and preserve the freedoms of our 280 million plus population , I'll go cast my vote and accept the result, whether or not we end up with the guy I voted for. Last edited by loganmule; 11-01-2004 at 11:11 PM..

11-02-2004, 01:31 AM	#57 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	One may easily guess by my avatar that I generally agree with Halx. One thing I think needs to be understood is this argument that one is voting for a candidate who can't win and/or that the small amount of support one's vote gives that party does not amount to much. I'll put it this way: I don't believe voting for a third party candidate is something that simply takes place on Nov. 2. Third party supporters have a bit more work than that. What I mean to say is that I don't believe one can reasonably vote for a third party candidate tomorrow and not also push for voting reform. I believe votes should be cast based on one's conscience, not on the lesser of two evils. Now, of those people who recognize that their conscience is most in line with a third party candidate, I believe that being guided by one's conscience in this regard requires further action. People are right to say that it is essentially impossible for a third party candidate to win this election. That doesn't mean I shouldn't vote for him though. It means I should vote for him and CONTINUE to push for voting reform so that, one day, we have a voting system that does not adhere to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_Law">Duverger's Law</a> and, furthermore, that eliminates most possibilities of tactical voting. Listen, if you've looked at ALL the significant party candidates and their views objectively (I define "significant party" to be any party on enough ballots to win the election) and you find that one of the major party candidates best represents your views, then ote for that person. I think what Halx is getting at though is that there is an underlying reason why you end up supporting one of the major parties more often than not. One is because of the manipulation by them on the general public through numerous means. The other is due to various sources of socialization. However, I think that to any person who seriously looks at the stances available, the Green party is the natural progression of the ideals of the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party is the natural progression of the ideals of the original Republican Party (more than 50-100 years ago, especially before the Christian Fundamentalists took it over). aliali It's about not voting for 1) someone who is simply "not someone else" and 2) someone who is simply duping you in the hopes of gaining more power. If you honestly don't agree with any of the third parties more than the democrats or republicans, then don't vote for them. From my perspective though, I can't support candidates who are so blatently dishonest, not to mention that I really don't think the republican or democratic parties take their philosophies to their logical conclusions. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 11-02-2004 at 01:47 AM..

11-01-2004, 07:33 PM	#44 (permalink)
Empty_One Addict Location: Milwaukee, WI	I am living in a swing state. Wisconsin is pretty much 50/50, depending on who I listen to. The man that is currently President scares me, and has in the past made me seriously consider leaving the country. There is no way in hell I would vote for somebody I know won't win this state. I will be voting for Kerry, and hoping to all hell that others who would normally vote for a third party candidate will also.

11-01-2004, 08:36 PM	#48 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I'll be voting for the candidate who best represents me on the most issues and the most important issues to me. Even so, I only agree with him on about 65% of the issues. It's far better than the 30% and 25% on which the two main candidates agree with me. I agree with the party lines on the majority of the issues, so a vote for my candidate is really a vote for what I believe in. The only way to get a better representation of what I believe on the ballot is to run for office. I'll be doing that next year. I hope that enough people in my district agree with me that they choose me to represent them. If not, I hope they choose someone who does.

11-01-2004, 09:51 PM	#52 (permalink)
seep Tilted	I think Bush is an imbecile, but I live in a Republican state. Voting "against Bush" would be useless, so third party it is.

11-02-2004, 05:58 AM	#58 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what enables you to think that there is a distinction in this situation between voting one's "conscience" and voting tactically? do you somehow imagine that the decision to vote tactically is easy? on what basis? i do not see where any of the pseudo-psychological statements about voting tactically come from...it seems naieve in the extreme to imagine that you can abstract your vote from tactical considerations. maybe the problem works like this: for people inclined to vote nader, the prospect of another bush term is obviously, a priori, something to be rejected out of hand--which opens the way to tactical consideration. i am not sure about libertarian politics--supporters of that position do not have a real problem with another bush term insofar as it is more likely to advance some of thier overall goals--say the dismantling of a coherent relation between the state and the economy--but they do not like bushrhetoric and other elements of his policies--but they do not feel as though they really loose either way. maybe that explains the sanctimoniousness that sometimes appears here. it is a function of their assessment of the tactical situation. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-02-2004, 10:47 AM	#62 (permalink)
analog Banned	The fact that some simply state that voting for a "third party" is a throwaway, or "won't make a difference" is a large part of the reason why the country- both politically and otherwise- is in the sad state it is today. There are more than two parties for a reason. You are not a sheep. If everyone voted their own voice, and not relied on the two-party bullshit, then maybe we'd see some change. As it stands, the dem's and rep's don't even see them as competition, and do no work to be better for it. That is sad.

11-02-2004, 11:04 AM	#65 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Voting independent out of protest against the other two candidates is not going to have an impact on the election. The way I see it, voting independent is more pertinent as a political statement than as an earnest vote for President.

11-02-2004, 01:39 PM	#68 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	I have never had a problem voting Lib if I believed in the person running....I've never been "strictly" republican.....I still stand by my earlier statement ... if the Libs had a candidate I wanted to vote for for pres I would have...but Im not voting for the Lib party just "to vote for a Lib" __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

11-02-2004, 02:04 PM	#69 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	I'm just saying.. when everybody thinks alike, nobody thinks. I've come to the logical conclusion that the unprecedented propaganda and deception going on between the two main parties is enough to disqualify them from the list of practical choices. Unfortunately humans in a giant mass are quite impractical and irrational. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

11-02-2004, 02:32 PM	#71 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	I don't think I'd vote lesser of two evils. For me, it came down to Badnarik, Petrouka, or Bush. And out of those three, I preferred Bush. It was most certainly a dignified choice, even if it incidentally conforms to half of the voting populace. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

11-02-2004, 02:44 PM	#72 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	First, let me just say that regardless of who you vote for, be sure to vote. I am a believer in the two party system, (I have written about this before and don't have the time to rehash it now) but I would never fault someone for voting with their conscience. I do have to say that Hal's comments are more that a little condescending. Stating that those who do not agree with your general outlook are "unthinking" or simply being herded by some form of socio-political brainwashing movements is truly painting with a big brush. I am guessing that you have recently studied the concepts of "Group Think" and are simply caught up in a whirl of social engineering yourself. That being said, I am glad you have made your comments since they (as they usually do) have sparked some interesting debate. I, as many of you can guess, proudly voted for John Kerry. I have been a staunch Kerry supporter from just about the time he announced. I have worked with his campiagn and have had the opportunity to meet the Senator twice. I am enthusiastic in my support of the Senator and truly believe he will make an exemplary President. He is a deep thinker and strategist. He has a commanding grasp of international and domestic issues. He brings to the table a desire to promote the environment and science and has advanced an intriguing (though not perfect) idea for a way to help increase health care coverage in America. He has a history of working well with foreign leaders and is known in Washington as one of the Senators who can work with either party to get things done. I hear all the time that President Bush is a good and sincere man. I actually agree with that assessment, and believe that John Kerry possesses those same qualities. He is not as "open" or "folksy" as President Bush, but he cares about America, its citizens and our future. John Kerry regardless of how the Bush Campaign and the GOP want to paint him, is not weak on the military. He actually has a strong record of voting to promote sensible (ie not-wasteful) military spending. His record is not nearly as "liberal" as it is being portrayed. I firmly believe that he will govern from the middle, with an even hand, keen insight and with a belief that we can make this country even stronger and certainly more respected. I also voted for John McCain for Senate, so don't think I am just a Dem party hack. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

11-02-2004, 04:29 PM	#74 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Voting third party would be practical if not for the impractical actions of many others. However, just because most everyone is doing it doesn't make it right. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]