Seriously, every 4 years I get pretty disgusted at people for allowing themselves to be manipulated into voting as if we have a 2-party system. I am reminded of the episode of The Simpsons where the evil aliens Kang and Kodos take over the 2 presidential candidates. Humans all realize this, and one human shouts — “We’ll just vote for a 3rd party then.” Kang then shouts out: “Go ahead. Throw away your vote!” Later, Kang has won, but Homer says, “Don’t blame me; I voted for Kodos” — as if that absolves him of any responsibility whatsoever for voting like an idiot.
Take this to heart. The “evil aliens” would have you believe that by voting incorrectly, you are somehow “throwing away” your vote. What does “throwing away” mean exactly?
Is your vote not counted? No, it’s still counted.
Do you lose a mulitplier bonus for voting for the winner? No, this isn’t a video game. You don’t get bonus points, and you don’t lose bonus points. Your vote is always just that: One vote.
Is the election going to be decided by one vote? No. And if it was: Your vote is STILL no more important than every other vote in your state. ANY person could have decided the vote by changing it, and this could be true no matter how you vote.
BUT IN REALITY, an election that close is going to be decided by arbitrary factors such as hanging chads, voting machines, and obscure court rulings. (The Florida recount was stopped; Kerry would have won.) Oh, and of course the electoral college can ignore your vote completely, and vote for McCain even if the majority of the state votes for Obama. While not a common practice, it’s happened in America before. Funny, that.
And don’t give me the “Nader handed Florida to Bush!” argument. Bush won by 537 votes, but only because the recount was stopped. Oh, and the fact that 12 percent of Democrats in Florida in 2000 voted for George W. Bush! That’s 200,000. If just ONE percent of these traitor democrats had decided not to do that, Kerry would have been president.
The irony of all this was that they probably voted Republican because they hated Kerry, not because they thought a Republican leader would be the best leader! They were probably choosing the perceived “lesser of 2 evils” themselves — and look where it got us. To me, A 2-party system is actually the cause of the problem, and then proponents of the system say that those who voted 3rd party were the ones who caused Bush to be elected. BULLSHIT! You can place the blame on any 537 people randomly selected out of non-Kerry voters — and this blame squarely falls on the people who voted for the lesser-of-two-evils using “2-party thinking”.
In the end, you can vote for change, or you can vote for the same old party simply because it claims “change”.
This country is at rock bottom. “Change” is the least I would expect from any president. It’s really not promising that much.
Don’t read this as an endorsement of McCain.
You really have to be morally broken in several different ways to think there’s anything acceptible whatsoever in voting for McCain. You have to be so fucking retarded as to ignore the last 8 years; to ignore the fact that the bank collapse was due to Republicans voting for relaxed baking rules; to ignore the fact that BIN LADEN WON, and Bush played right into his hands by taking away our rights with the Patriot Act; to ignore the culture of fear perpetrated by the republicans (and supported by the democrats), the wholesale violation of the rights of Americans as well as non-Americans; the suspension of due process and the creation of a war with no known end or terms for victory.
If you vote for McCain, you pretty much deserve to have your teeth knocked out.
But at the same time — If you think the Democrats are here to save the day, you’re just voting like a scared child put in a corner. You’ve been whipped by the Republican party for 8 years, and you’re so scared of this continuing that you’ll side with the first stooge who comes up to you and offers protection. This is vastly different from electing someone who shares your actual beliefs.
I wonder how many people who think the war on drugs is a failure are still going to vote for the 2 parties that have perpetrated it? The War On Drugs is a big issue, completely ignored in the political race. Yet, it has wasted more American money than the War On Terror; it has directly taken away the rights of more Americans than the War On Terror; it has led to military interventions abroad, but in public and in secret, just like the War On Terror, and it has led the laws which effectively take away even more rights (asset forfeiture, anyone?) (What about No-knock raids? Raids where the cops are justified in shooting you to death, even if you don’t have drugs and are legally defending your family from masked intruders breaking in in the middle of the night? Last I checked, it shouldn’t be legal to kill someone for excercising their constitutional rights.)
There are lots of problems in America, and they are getting worse.
But hey — spank some voters with the shittiest president of our lives for 8 years, and they’ll willingly vote for a party that has done all kinds of damage to our nation. The lesser of two evils is just that: Still an evil.
Read on for part two.
PART TWO
Are the bleeding-heart liberals really too young to remember the shitty things the Democratic party has done? Not all of them were in the 1900s.
The Democrats have brought us expensive military action that doesn’t directly affect the people (Clinton bombed Yugoslavia; not many will remember that Clinton instituted an official policy of “regime change” in Iraq, followed by a 4-day Iraq bombing campaign; our actions in Somalia failed).
The Democrats have worked closely with the RIAA (the enemy), including supporting bills that take away federal aid to colleges if they don’t fight piracy (which actually costs $100K+/yr and is passed on to students in tuition cost). Joe Biden has supported fullscale surveillance of all filesharing traffic in the names of helping the corporations’ profit (and hurting citizens’ privacy), and a Democrat-controlled congress passed a bill letting the record companies essentially take away your house if you download music.
The Democrats helped support the Patriot Act, and have often generally supported more surveillance of the american public (remember: Obama voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act after claiming to be against it, AND voted for immunity for the telecom corporations that illegally spied on Americans after claming to be against THAT as well! Is it really “Change” when he doesn’t live up to his own word and changes nothing?).
Nevermind Democrat Chris Dodd’s proposed bill to send detailed financial transaction info directly to the government, Joe Biden’s ridiculous attitudes about sexuality and censorship, or the fact that he would support a national smoking ban in all public places. (Gee, what if I WANT to run a bar made for smokers? I guess consenting adults can’t gather in MY place to do something that is legal? Next up: Closing swinger clubs, bondage clubs, and anywhere else where adults gather to do LEGAL activities together. Nevermind the fact that these are PRIVATE PROPERTY and I could kick you out for not liking your shirt if I wanted.)
Biden also supports the 21 drinking age, spearheaded the creation of the national Drug Czar office, which now routinely uses taxpayer money to spread outright lies and capaign against state initiatives in ways that are often illegal. (ONDCP is currently being sued for this and will likely lose.)
And Obama? I’m going to start a new post for Obama. Coming in a few minutes.
Mood: waiting for Carolyn to come home so I can borrow her car and go vote
Music: The Church – Unified Field
November 4, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I encourage everyone to vote. Unlike in past elections, I can find things I like about both major party candidates in this presidential election. There will never be a politican that represents all of what is important to me so it’s always picking someone who represents what is MOST important to me. Sometimes it’s a third party, and in those cases I have voted for a third party.
Your vote is never wasted, unless you choose not to cast a ballot! Go vote.
November 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
I just voted for two Democrats, one Republican, and three Statehood Green party candidates.
November 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM
I just voted for 2 Independents and a Libertarian :)
November 4, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Third parties can make the most impact – making strong inroads in regional contests. Sometimes, the fight for national office can make a third-party-candidate look downright quixotic. (See Ralph Nader, 2004). But for Chicago’s Water Reclamation District, I voted for the Green Party candidate that the IVI-IPO endorsed. An environmentalist cleaning our water? Go for it.
The parties other than Republicans and Democrats have one thing in common — they all want to reform the voting system to allow for third parties to get an equal shot. While instant runoff isn’t the best option, it’s the easiest one to implement because plenty of state and regional elections already have it.
There’s an opportunity there — the third-parties could work together to form their own PAC to push citizens and elected officials for election reform. Sure, a tough road, but surely worth the effort. And it may at least start educating the public that it’s okay to vote for something other than Democratic or Republican sometimes. Our electoral system encourages playing the percentages, i.e., the perception that you’re throwing your vote away. Making your vote — ANY vote — count is a cause everyone can get behind, and if you can’t, then it’s safe to say that you really truly don’t believe in democracy. Libertarians and Greens standing side-by-side on an issue that’s pretty much impossible to argue against could get a lot of attention.
Finally, I’d just like to point out that I voted for Obama. I feel he is still the best choice among the candidates, and I include the Ralph Naders and Bob Barrs and write-ins for Ron Paul. I guess you could say I disagree with him less than I disagree with the rest of them.
November 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I agree and disagree with some of the statements. In my belief, at this point in time, I think voting third party for president is “throwing away your vote”. While it would be nice to see some change, I’m a realist, and it’s not going to happen overnight. And right now, a third party candidate has no chance of winning, so I’d rather influence the actual election, rather than being an idealist.
Now when it comes to senate votes, that’s a different story. If we move from the bottom up, as opposed to the top down, it may very well make a difference. Get enough third party congressmen in there, and eventually a third party will become a viable option for president. But it will take time. So I voted Libertarian for the senate seat.
November 4, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Chriggy, you’re failing to understand that you voting 2nd party versus you voting 3rd party does not increase or decrease the amount you influenced the election. How did the change increase your influence? How did you influence it more than previous, exactly?
November 4, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Because even if you disagree with some issues of both parties, you are still voting for(or most likely against) one of the candidates. That one extra vote COULD make a difference. Collectively. So it counts.
Voting third party only influences whether they get 2 or 3% of the vote. Meaningless. At least during this election. But it won’t influence who becomes our president. Ok, it may, but only as much as someone who didn’t vote at all.
Now if we had a candidate who was actually viable, and showed support of the people, and had a chance, that would be a different story.
November 4, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I think I pretty adequately covered how one vote doesn’t make a difference.
Not any more than any other vote.
And I do mean any.
For example, let’s just say that it comes down to one vote, and there’s no administrative bungling whatsoever because it’s a perfect world.
In that case, a Democrat changing his mind and voting 3rd party instead of Obama, causing Obama to lose by 1 vote, holds just as much influence in the elction as you do, even though they exercised that influence by voting 3rd party.
You’ve failed to convince me that your vote is somehow worth more than 1 vote by virtue of how you voted.
November 4, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Hence, I used the word collectively. My one vote might not by itself influence things. But collectively, everyones 1 vote adds up. 10000 third party votes(while still not enough to elect a third party president) will still not influence the election in any other way than not voting at all.
November 4, 2008 at 4:02 PM
But in your own “what if it comes down to 1 vote” scenario, a 3rd party CAN still influence the election with just ONE vote, let alone 10,000. Just ONE defector from, for example, the Democrats.
(Sort of like how in Florida in 2000, if just 537 of the Democrat defectors had decided not to, Kerry would be president. People want to blame the 90,000 Nader voters, but that 537 distributed randomly against the non-Bush voters would hit more Democrats than Nader voters.)
So it can, and it has. Collectively, even.
November 4, 2008 at 4:03 PM
My point is that right now, voting for a third party president may as well be not voting. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s also a choice, one I myself have taken in the past.
November 4, 2008 at 4:08 PM
You’re entitled to your opinion, but I don’t find any basis of real logic in it. “May as well not be voting” is a meaningless phrase. Your vote is still 1 vote just like mine was. For every person who votes like me, it still takes another person to vote for McCain to offset me.
Anyway, here’s an alarmist article that goes a lot farther than I do, but makes some good points nonetheless, including a UK comparison:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same.html
November 4, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Third parties are a more or less a prisoner’s dilemma for voters, basically because of the winner-take-all election system. Voting third party means effectively contributing to the election of the major party you like least. If many people can agree to make the jump together, then a third party can win a national election. But each individual person has an incentive to defect and vote for a major party in order to prevent the other major party from winning.
A system of runoff elections would fix the problem, not least because the people who care least about the outcome would tend to drop out by the 2nd, 3rd etc elections.
November 5, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Stacy is right. Plurality voting does not record preference, which, mathematically, means a third-party vote often is detrimental to the ideals the voter holds.
If you only had two parties to choose from yesterday, you would not have voted for Nader; you would have voted for Obama. Thus, while McCain still has to gain a vote to offset yours, McCain still gains because your political preference is not taken into account by our current system of plurality voting. Sure, 90,000 Nader voters didn’t want to vote for Kerry, but they certainly would have preferred Kerry over George Bush, am I right?
With instant runoffs in close elections or some form of Condorcet voting (which is very complicated, but probably the most accurate), voters could feel safer about casting the ballot they truly believe in without worrying that the simple mathematics of the vote could undermine their ideals.
As always, I admire your enthusiasm, and I agree with you that third-parties deserve respect. But we have to fundamentally change the system to do it.
here’s a great article on election math:
http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_11_04.html
November 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM
BTW, I wrote about this on my old blog almost four years ago:
http://likeyoureallycare.arlodesign.com/2005/01/third-parties-as-political-issue.shtml
November 6, 2008 at 3:47 PM
“Voting third party means effectively contributing to the election of the major party you like least”.
Disagree! The definition of contributing to a candidate’s election is … voting for them.
“each individual person has an incentive to defect and vote for a major party in order to prevent the other major party from winning”
Disagree. You can’t go around defining everyone’s incentives. I certainly don’t feel the incentive.
“Plurality voting does not record preference, which, mathematically, means a third-party vote often is detrimental to the ideals the voter holds.”
Elections aren’t math, and even the math is suspect. If the 2 major candidates want to do 20% and 30% of what I want, and another candidate wants to do 80% of what I want — arguing that I should vote for one who only supports 30% of what I want simply because there is a large group of voters doing the same … IS CONFORMITY.
In fact, I find all the arguments above (and at the URLs you posted) to basically be arguments for conformity.
(Holds a baton in hand, smacks it into palm repeatedly) “Now, you wouldn’t want anything to happen to this election, would you. Bad things happen. The enemies of your enemy don’t all share the same ideals. You might lose. You wouldn’t want that to happen, would you? You better join our group, even if we for the most part don’t agree with you.”
Truly, that is a definition of conformity and peer pressure: Compromising to meet a group’s standards so that you can retain more acceptance and influence. Joining others because you lack the independence to strike out on your own. Thinking nothing can be done without others, and that it is futile to try.
I also find your arguments to be using the symptoms of the system as a reason to participate in such system. “It fucks you if you don’t play within it’s rules, therefore we should.” Personally, I find that offensive. Anything that fucks me will not be a system I participate in. Nor do I believe that said “fucking” actually occurs, as my vote counted just as much as anyone else’s.
Nevermind the fact that when 3rd parties become popular, both in politics AND religion, that the prevailing parties have to incorporate their platform if they have any hope to survive. (For a religious instance, a good example is Christianity adopting the celebration of Easter, Candlemass, and Christmas, to help foster acceptance amongst the pagans they forcefully converted and genocided.)
As pointed out in Florida, the 3rd party swing vote COULD have changed the election either way.
So both the prevailing parties have to actually listen to what the 3rd party voters want, if they truly care about swing states.
And guess what that results in? Your ideals being adopted, even by parties you didn’t vote for. It happens.
Vote for what you believe in.
Don’t vote based on conformity, even if you think your mathematical formulas account for all variables.
They don’t.
They don’t account for how parties adopt other parties platforms when their fate is in question.
They don’t account for how little many of us care about our “least favorte of the two” being elected, and the fact that the threat of a republican president is not that big of a threat to people who truly hate both parties.
They don’t account for the fact that not everyone who votes 3rd party is a Democratic voter. A lot of Libertarians are closer to Republicans; it depends on whether the individual cares more about his fiscal conservatism than his social conservatism. But, in general, no political party is going to somehow be statistically immune from people defecting to a 3rd party. Just because democratic politics make more sense to most people I speak with doesn’t mean that 3rd party voters are taking away more from democrats. (And even if it did, that shouldn’t matter.)
I should probably stop here, but as one small example: If 2 parties want to put me in jail for my personal choices, voting for neither of them is not going to keep that from happening, or help that from happening.
And I’d also rather see the Americans thrashed by Republicans for an other 8 years, than to vote for someone I don’t support. I’d like them to be punished for their groupthink and inability to have a 3rd viewpoint to anything. The threat of a republican president is not going to intimidate my ideals. I survived Reagan, Bush, and I’ll survive the next Republican president. It’s always business as usual.
(But Obama may surprise me in the end anyway. We’ll see.)