The pit bull in lipstick

quote:

he could win by less than 10 percentage points in the popular vote, but depending on which states those votes came from, could very well win an electoral landslide

... or lose the popular vote and, well, you know the rest.

John Anderson's run was in 1980 ( with Carter, Reagan and Ed Clark), Mondale's in 1984 so I can't answer your question directly.
I have, and will again likely, held my nose and voted for the least of the "evils". When there is a good 3rd party candidate I'll vote that way (thought Perot could have done us some good in comparison to the Clinton/Bush choices, for example).
I don't subscribe to the "you're throwing your vote away" by voting for the 3rd or 4th party theory. A vote is a vote and expresses your choice. I realize that this can upset the Electoral apple cart since the 3rd party hasn't a chance in hell of winning here, but is this not one of the best ways of making your wishes known?
On the other hand, if I really don't want candidate A to win I'll vote for B.
** McCain's choice for VP has all but cemented my vote for Obama, in large part to keep her the hell away from the most powerful position on the planet. No 3rd party for me this time.**

quote:

the reality is that a vote for a third party candidate is often a proxy vote for the major party candidate you least want to win

Not necessarily - depends on who is going to take your state, right?
Happy Voting,
David

quote:

There has been (premature) talk of an Electoral landslide, not unlike Reagan's back in 1984.

Sorry, meant to refer to 1980.
David

Yes, of course, 1980, not 1984.

It's not that a vote is ever thrown away, but sometimes its power is robbed.

Of course, the electoral votes in one's state are a big factor. In Illinois, I could safely write in Jimi Hendrix for president and Obama will still win, both popular and electoral votes.

And I do often yearn for more choices than just Democrats and Republicans, and wonder how we would ever be able to break the vicious cycle of fearing to vote for a marginal third party in a hotly contested state, in a race between two major party candidates, one of whom one considers to be evil.

Here's the thing (and I do realize this is purely hypothetical as well as a gross reduction) ... what if President Sarah Palin (oh god ... gives me chills just to type that phrase) has not only continued to wreak the disastrous havoc of the Bush regime, but goes on to destroy every last thing good about the USA, and one lives in, let's say, Ohio, and one casts a vote for a third party candidate, and then Palin wins Ohio by one single vote, and then Ohio puts Palin over by one electoral vote.

You could have stopped her with your vote, but your vote went to Jimi Hendrix. How would you feel? Not very groovy, I suspect.

Best,
Fred

Hey Fred,

There is a system (as used in Australia) that attempts to address your perfectly valid concern. With so-called preferential voting, you select all the candidates in order of your preference. It varies from system to system whether you must select them all for a valid vote, and also how complex the process is. Basically however, what then happens (if there isn't a candidate without a clear majority) is that the lowest polling candidate, based on 1st preferences is eliminated and those that voted for them have their second preference "promoted". The next lowest polling candidate, based on the surviving 1st preferences and the promoted 2nd preferences is then eliminated and so on until one candidate is left, or one emerges with a clear (unassailable) majority.

Say you wanted to vote for Mary Poppins on the off-chance she would get elected, you could do so, safe in the knowledge that should she fail (likely, perhaps), your vote would not be wasted but that your second choice of Eric Cartman would then receive your vote (Promoted second preference). Should Eric inexplicably also fail to gain a majority, your third preference of Obama would then come into effect for the next round. You get the chance to vote for whomever you like without the risk of your vote being "wasted" by that choice.

Voting Method - Instant Run-off

"Minor" or "alternative" candidates arguably have slightly better chances under this system, but there are downsides:

1) The marginal/minor candidates sometimes get elected out of "protest" and end up with deciding votes in finely balanced legislative houses. These votes are powerful in disproportion to their mandate. The crazies can run the funny farm. Google "Brian Harradine" in Australian politics for an example. This independent senile nut-job was responsible for a great deal of frictional/transactional cost and delays to worthwhile legislation whilst he was in a position to obfuscate the system.

2) The major parties sometimes can't figure out how nasty to be to each other when recommending preferences. The "gentlemen's agreement" is that your major opposition candidate is placed about second or third on your "how to vote" card (~80% of people vote in accordance with these party-based recommendations). Sometimes it doesn't work this way and results can be very skewed by minor candidates getting major preferences due to "spite". There's a whole game theory discussion to be had around this issue - but is beyond the scope etc.

In Australia where this system is standard, we are perhaps somewhat bemused by the US system and consequently how entrenched the 2-party system is. An associated issue, not to be ignored, is that in Australia, voting is technically compulsory. This arguably damps the increased variability that comes from preferential voting. I'm not sure one would work well without the other - but I'm obviously not a political scientist.

Since we are now talking hypothetical......

A) you have compulsory voting
B) the last vote on every card is "none of the above candidates"

If "none of the above candidates" is elected, you have a re-run.

The long-term aim would be that the "Main-stream" parties improve the calibre of their candidates so that we, the electorate, actual WANT to vote for them.

Cheers

Don

quote:

You could have stopped her with your vote, but your vote went to Jimi Hendrix. How would you feel? Not very groovy, I suspect.

Not groovy.
In GWB's first election, Ohio was won with very heavy Republican voting in my corner of the state. Polls had to stay open several hours after official close to accomodate all the voting. How that was legit is beyond my understanding of the rules, though it seems the rule book was used as a door prop all over the country.
The right to vote enjoyed by the "free world" was given to us through great sacrifice over many generations of visionaries. Trivializing it or abusing it is a slap in the face to those that gave so much so we could have it.
David

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
You mean, as opposed to the resounding successes in foreign policy and economics of the right-wing's reign during the last eight years?

All best,
Fred

I'm with you, Fred; the Bush Gang has been a disaster, particularly in the foreign arena. And I fervently hope I'm wrong about Obama's tax policy, and that someone intervenes to modify his proposals. I believe the stock market is (in part) already discounting President-elect Obamas' tax effect - but raising taxes in a recession is almost always a bad idea, particularly for capital investment. Which drives our system, like it or not.

Would she go on 'Have I got news for you'? I wonder how she would get on with Merton and Hislop?

I thought she already had

............... and if she manages to get the oven chip magnate elected....................

If you wanted W to win in 00, your third party vote wasn't wasted. If you didn't want him to win, well, then it was. And sadly you screwed the rest of us, so that you could feel good about your vote. Isn't that real nice. Rationalizations prior to the fact and after the fact remain-rationalizations, and don't honestly assess the damage this sort of act has brought upon our country. Kant's writings regarding the spectrum of the finite to the infinite regarding a system of ethics come to mind here. We have a responsibility to ourselves, our family, and our community. It is a series of relationships that move both inward and outward. When one only takes into account the needs ofthe self, they are acting immorally, even when they are convinced the high road is being taken.

quote:

Originally posted by csl:
If you wanted W to win in 00, your third party vote wasn't wasted. If you didn't want him to win, well, then it was. And sadly you screwed the rest of us, so that you could feel good about your vote. Isn't that real nice. Rationalizations prior to the fact and after the fact remain-rationalizations, and don't honestly assess the damage this sort of act has brought upon our country. Kant's writings regarding the spectrum of the finite to the infinite regarding a system of ethics come to mind here. We have a responsibility to ourselves, our family, and our community. It is a series of relationships that move both inward and outward. When one only takes into account the needs of the self, they are acting immorally, even when they are convinced the high road is being taken.

I agree with your basic point here, especially as it applies to the motives of those who voted for Nader in 2000; I guess now we have a pretty good idea that, indeed, there was a huge difference between Bush and Gore after all, despite claims to the contrary by Nader and his supporters. However, I think we should recognize that it wasn't the votes for Nader per se that put W in the White House.

There's the 10,000+ elderly Jews confused by the butterfly ballots and mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan instead of Gore ... not even Buchanan himself believes those votes were actually for him.

Then there's the purging of the voter rolls in Florida prior to the election of anyone whose name happened to be the same as that of a felon; felons in some states, like Florida, are prohibited from ever voting again, even after rehabilitation. They were purged from the rolls even if their social security numbers and/or addresses were different than that of the felon. Lots of people who were legitimately eligible voters were denied their right to vote at the polling booth, thousands and thousands of them (and most of them were black ... imagine that! I wonder who most of them would have voted for? Bush?) And who instigated this unconstitutional denial of voting rights? Florida's then secretary of state, Katherine Harris, a Republican who was also ... guess what? The head of Bush's campaign in Florida! Conflict of interest? Of course not.

And, gee, do you suppose maybe Gore could have spent less time distancing himself from Clinton and more time making sure he won his home state of Tennessee? That would have obviated the whole Florida mess.

A reversal of any one of the above would have resulted in a Gore presidency.

And don't even get me started on the unconstitutionality of the US Supreme Court's anointment of Bush as president.

So while, yes, those who voted for Nader had a hand in it, they alone were not culpable.

All best,
Fred

fred,

if you look at the numbers, the argument can be made that the nader voters are entirely culpable. if the nader voters went for gore in florida, gore would have won. the 96,000 nader voters in florida dwarfs all the voter infringement, faulty ballots etc. if you just stick with the reported numbers, it is the nader voter's fault. when you through in your examples, that is just icing on the cake. ultimately we are left with the numbers on the table, crying about the supreme court this, voter suppression that is just complaining about the cost of doing business. the system is not perfect and there are going to be problems both intentional and unintentional. Crying about the nader voters is crying about spilt milk, but it is something that can be avoided in the present. as individuals it is not always possible to control how your vote is going to be counted, but it is possible to control how you vote.

quote:

Originally posted by csl:

as individuals it is not always possible to control how your vote is going to be counted, but it is possible to control how you vote.

Yes, and given the "cost of doing business" in the electoral process, as you put it so well, it's more important than ever to cast one's vote effectively.

It's no single factor, though -- it's Nader, and the Supreme Court, and confused elderly voters, and institutionalized voter suppression -- and one could say that if the electoral process was more efficient, more transparent, and more fair, and people weren't trying to steal elections, then it could withstand a healthy third party protest without consequence.

But human nature being what it is, your point is well taken.

Best,
Fred

Fred, I find it immensely amusing that the Republicans and Faux News have their panties in a wad about alleged ACORN "voter fraud" in, of all places, Ohio.

Where were they in 2004?

quote:

Where were they in 2004?

Or '00 for that matter.
Seems the Reps and Dems moan about 3rd party candidates "stealing" the electorate, voter registration, fraud, etc. only when it suits them. No surprise there, politics is the height of self-servitude.

quote:

And sadly you screwed the rest of us, so that you could feel good about your vote. Isn't that real nice.

I assume you mean the third person "you", csl.
It has been many elections since I felt compelled to vote for the drastically less popular fellow, and I can't think of a time since that I really wanted the person I voted for to be running my country (just didn't want the other guy in charge).
We need 3rd party candidates to remind us that there are shades of gray (and sometimes a colorful spectrum) between the polarizing parties.
If voting for a 3rd party is such a crime against humanity then is would surely be outlawed, making us one step from a one party country. Then where would we be?
David

naimdropper,

yes, the third party "you" is assumed correctly. i never said we don't need third party candidates. in fact my personal beliefs typically align with the third party candidates. I typically agree with Nader's positions more than Obama's, however I feel Obama will be a much more effective leader, and has far greater potential to implement policies that are more closely aligned with my views than anyone else in the game. My opinion is that cutting off your nose to spite your face is inherently poor judgement. Usually I could care less about an individual's poor judgment, except in this case, poor judgment has a direct effect on my life.

Nader's continued insertion of himself into the fray merely showcases his megalomania rather than elevating the discourse. Really what is the point of putting himself on the ballot? Why doesn't he just meet with the candidate that he is most closely aligned with, and attempt to influence policy at the top? Seems much more effective than jeapordizing any chance of seeing his ideas put to work.

there are many crimes against humanity that are perfectly legal.

quote:

Originally posted by csl:
And sadly you screwed the rest of us, so that you could feel good about your vote. Isn't that real nice.....When one only takes into account the needs of the self, they are acting immorally, even when they are convinced the high road is being taken.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by csi:
.....but it is something that can be avoided in the present. as individuals it is not always possible to control how your vote is going to be counted, but it is possible to control how you vote.[QUOTE]

[QUOTE}Originally posted by csi:
....Usually I could care less about an individual's poor judgment, except in this case, poor judgment has a direct effect on my life.
[QUOTE}

Pretty much speaks for itself .... have a seat next to the piano player.

Jeff A

elaborate

quote:

Originally posted by csl:
elaborate

adjective - not unlike architecture

or

verb - "pretty much speaks for itself" pretty much says it all.

Nadar voters = selfish
Gore voters = seeking only what is best for society at large (as long as you agree with them)

Nadar voters should (have) change(d) their votes to candidate Gore, for the greater good of society (ie: Fred, csi)

Gore voters - open minded except when it affects their life = selfish

substitute McCain or any independent for Nadar above. substitute Obama for Gore above

it is not possible to state a preference for a candidate, past or present, without disparaging other possibilities.

judgements other than mine are poor and may have a direct effect on my life = selfish

two-handed piano, anyone

if i was trying to be witty, i would have said obtuse?

I think the state of the country currently is what "speaks for itself". the judgment has already proven to be poor. Therefore in retrospect, it's selfishness is all the more obvious. I am plenty open minded but i prefer logic to rhetoric. what exactly is disparaging about observing the country would be better off if those you had voted for Nader, had instead, voted for Gore. I wasn't all that keen on Gore, but I was confident he wouldn't start illegal wars and attempt to subvert entire branches of the government.

architecture need not be elaborate.

quote:

I think the state of the country currently is what "speaks for itself".

Given that most of Europe is in the same sorry state (and many other countries to boot) I doubt if you could seriously pin the blame for your current economic problems on one party or another.

The banking system has been rotten to the core for some considerable time. Many European countries are run by socialist governments and they haven't fared any better than the others.

Best thing to do is vote the party that you think will deliver best prospects for future prosperity and global harmony

Cheers

Don

There is more to the state of the country than the current fluxuations of the economy.

Perhaps we will have the opportunity to observe if we are better off and still confident in four years. I sincerely hope Obama gets the chance, but that hope is in spite of what his supporters, here and elsewhere, have said. Gore would have been different, no way of knowing if that would have been all inclusive better. That is a judgement each individual would/should ultimately make.

It seems a bit simplistic to ascribe the state of the world or country to one man and his policies. I see far more potential causes of the state of the world when I look in the mirror. Beyond that moment, I have little influence.

Jeff A