Are we running out of reasons to vote Democrat?

[Jimmy Higgins]

People need to give this whole "if Nader hadn't run thing" a rest.

Nader did run, as was his right and voters voted for him as was their right and the only purpose I can see for this line of complaint is to say that anyone not voting for the DP is a loon or a destroyer of worlds, unless they vote rightist, in which case that's perfectly fine.

The point was that voting third party can lose an election.

so it's a dangerous thing that should never be done? The risks are just too high? Doesn't matter what you believe to be right, you should choose to path of least harm because that is the best we ever do?

That is the question the OP is asking. There certainly does appear to be risks. Do you think the nation was in a better place in 2008 than in 2000?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

People need to give this whole "if Nader hadn't run thing" a rest.

Nader did run, as was his right and voters voted for him as was their right and the only purpose I can see for this line of complaint is to say that anyone not voting for the DP is a loon or a destroyer of worlds, unless they vote rightist, in which case that's perfectly fine.

The point was that voting third party can lose an election.

so it's a dangerous thing that should never be done? The risks are just too high? Doesn't matter what you believe to be right, you should choose to path of least harm because that is the best we ever do?

That is the question the OP is asking. There certainly does appear to be risks. Do you think the nation was in a better place in 2008 than in 2000?

whether I think the country was better, worse, or made of jello pudding isn't the point and you know it. George Bush president for eight years and your argument appears to be that third party voting caused this to happen. I say that Gore's inability to care his home state, evidence that he didn't run a good enough campaign, was the cause. I argue that a rightwing supreme court was the cause. I argue that a democratic party determined to ignore its left of center base was the cause. One meeting and tweaking a plank or two in the democratic platform thus conceding the existence of left wing in the DP, and Nader ends his run.

Straight up

Do you or do you not believe that third party is a dangerous thing that should never be done? The risks are just too high? Doesn't matter what you believe to be right, you should choose to path of least harm because that is the best we ever do?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People need to give this whole "if Nader hadn't run thing" a rest.

Nader did run, as was his right and voters voted for him as was their right and the only purpose I can see for this line of complaint is to say that anyone not voting for the DP is a loon or a destroyer of worlds, unless they vote rightist, in which case that's perfectly fine.

The point was that voting third party can lose an election.

so it's a dangerous thing that should never be done? The risks are just too high? Doesn't matter what you believe to be right, you should choose to path of least harm because that is the best we ever do?

That is the question the OP is asking. There certainly does appear to be risks. Do you think the nation was in a better place in 2008 than in 2000?

whether I think the country was better, worse, or made of jello pudding isn't the point and you know it.

Actually, it is very much is the point. If siphoning off a vote from a candidate that can very well win an election by voting per one's conscience on a third party candidate who doesn't have a shot in heck can change the result of an election, then choosing to vote a third party and the consequences of such is a big deal.

George Bush president for eight years and your argument appears to be that third party voting caused this to happen.

The math supports it.

I say that Gore's inability to care his home state...

No Democrat has carried Tennessee since Clinton. Tennessee got very red during the Clinton years.

Evidence that he didn't run a good enough campaign, was the cause.

That is such a vague charge. How did Gore run a bad campaign? That he tried to step away from Clinton? Seeing that Gore won the plurality, he couldn't have waged that bad a campaign.

I argue that a rightwing supreme court was the cause.

Interesting. Because in voting for Nader in Florida, that helped push the court further to the right.

I argue that a democratic party determined to ignore its left of center base was the cause.

Except that I still voted for Gore despite having ill feelings towards to the Democrat Party. Fact of the matter was, W couldn't be trusted to run the country in time of war. I knew it before he even took the oath.

Do you or do you not believe that third party is a dangerous thing that should never be done? The risks are just too high? Doesn't matter what you believe to be right, you should choose to path of least harm because that is the best we ever do?

I go back and forth over it. And I keep coming back to one critical issue (ignoring the whole the Democrats helped stop an imploding economy thing). SCOTUS. Everything that ever matters in this country typically has to go through SCOTUS at some point. A third party candidate will never win and won't nominate any Supreme Court justices.

Voting for Nader didn't "send a message" to the Democrats to liberal up. If anything, they are more conservative now! We now have a more conservative court that has ruled that Corporations have the right to free speech, that nearly overrode the ACA, can't commit to gay marriage (Prop 8 case), cut back on Civil Right voting laws, how about Affirmative Action case.

You tell me, this all cool? Is voting your conscience worth having what you think matters nullified?

 

[fromderinside]

With the recent Net "Neutrality" proposal coming out, a potential merger of Comcast and Time Warner that should have made the Regulators laugh, and now AT&T looking to buy Directv, on top of the already well settled national surveillance program, CIA fiddling in the Middle East, among other things...

...are liberals running out of reasons to look the other way on Election Day? I posted likewise prior to '12. And as things still stand the only thing we seem to be able to depend on the Democrats for is trying to help the economy from imploding and nominating justices to the Supreme Court that don't make up things like the "Unitary Executive".

While Obama has had a ton of obstruction interfering his actions in protecting consumers, the latest Net "Neutrality" proposal seems to be just another straw placed on the already buckling back of the camel.

Seems to me the way its worded that you're looking for whether one should consider not voting. To that I respond never should one consider not voting. It matters not whether one should hold one's nose. It only matters that your vote, on balance, objects to that which you are against, or, put another way, tilts toward your overall views on what is good governance.

We live in a democratic republic where every citizen has the right to vote. If your opinion is not explicitly expressed it is not expressed at all.

 

[dismal]

To that I respond never should one consider not voting.

Nonsense. If one understands basic math one does not vote. Unless one succumbs to dubious emotional arguments.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

People need to give this whole "if Nader hadn't run thing" a rest.

Nader did run, as was his right and voters voted for him as was their right and the only purpose I can see for this line of complaint is to say that anyone not voting for the DP is a loon or a destroyer of worlds, unless they vote rightist, in which case that's perfectly fine.

The point was that voting third party can lose an election.

so it's a dangerous thing that should never be done? The risks are just too high? Doesn't matter what you believe to be right, you should choose to path of least harm because that is the best we ever do?

That is the question the OP is asking. There certainly does appear to be risks. Do you think the nation was in a better place in 2008 than in 2000?

whether I think the country was better, worse, or made of jello pudding isn't the point and you know it.

Actually, it is very much is the point.

no it isn't. You would like it to be, but what I do with my vote is my business and what you do with your vote is your business and trying to blame me or anyone else because your guy didn't win seems to me whiny and childish. In an election, candidates run against each other and sometimes there are more than two candidates and every vote is not only within his or her right to vote, but to vote for whomever he or she pleases. The major parties have not legal, moral, or ethical hold on any vote and voters are obliged to no one but their own consciences.

If siphoning off a vote from a candidate that can very well win an election by voting per one's conscience on a third party candidate who doesn't have a shot in heck can change the result of an election, then choosing to vote a third party and the consequences of such is a big deal.

votes are not siphoned off. They are won and lost. Nader did not go to ballots boxes with a rubber hose and suck votes out of one box and put them into another. People made their own choices for their own reasons and beating up on them for not marching in line behind the "right and proper people" won't get them on your side.

George Bush president for eight years and your argument appears to be that third party voting caused this to happen.

The math supports it.

I say that Gore's inability to care his home state...

No Democrat has carried Tennessee since Clinton. Tennessee got very red during the Clinton years.

this is the 2000 election we are talking about, the one immediately after the Clinton presidency. Al Gore had a history of winning the state while running for national office. By your own admission Gore had won the state before, after all, Clinton wasn't on the ballot alone; and do you think Gore would have been picked for VP if he couldn't bring TN?

Evidence that he didn't run a good enough campaign, was the cause.

That is such a vague charge. How did Gore run a bad campaign? That he tried to step away from Clinton? Seeing that Gore won the plurality, he couldn't have waged that bad a campaign.

evidently he did run that bad a campaign because he lost a state, his home state, which he had won previously when running of the senate and the vice presidency.

I argue that a rightwing supreme court was the cause.

Interesting. Because in voting for Nader in Florida, that helped push the court further to the right.

did the court or did not the court decide in favor of GB? Was this or was it not a deciding factor in the election? If so, why not blame them? Why are you trying to beat up on your fellow citizens? And since Bush got the presidency, why not spend more time beating up on people who voted FOR HIM? Seems to me they are more responsible for gore not winning than anyone else.

I argue that a democratic party determined to ignore its left of center base was the cause.

Except that I still voted for Gore despite having ill feelings towards to the Democrat Party.

that's you. Everybody isn't you and they don't have to be. I voted for Gore and was glad to do so, and I respect the right of people (friend, foe, and stranger) who voted for Nader to have voted for Nader.

Fact of the matter was, W couldn't be trusted to run the country in time of war. I knew it before he even took the oath.

and? What are you saying? Nader voters thought Bush could be trusted?

Do you or do you not believe that third party is a dangerous thing that should never be done? The risks are just too high? Doesn't matter what you believe to be right, you should choose to path of least harm because that is the best we ever do?

I go back and forth over it. And I keep coming back to one critical issue (ignoring the whole the Democrats helped stop an imploding economy thing). SCOTUS. Everything that ever matters in this country typically has to go through SCOTUS at some point. A third party candidate will never win and won't nominate any Supreme Court justices.

Voting for Nader didn't "send a message" to the Democrats to liberal up.

oh they sent the message, but the DP chose to ignore it. The DLC liked its new rich friends and donors and when the money talks, why bother hearing anything else?

If anything, they are more conservative now! We now have a more conservative court that has ruled that Corporations have the right to free speech, that nearly overrode the ACA, can't commit to gay marriage (Prop 8 case), cut back on Civil Right voting laws, how about Affirmative Action case.

You tell me, this all cool? Is voting your conscience worth having what you think matters nullified?

is taking away the will or the right to vote my conscience a good thing? If we give up the right to our own will, what do we have have left to vote for or against?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To that I respond never should one consider not voting.

Nonsense. If one understands basic math one does not vote. Unless one succumbs to dubious emotional arguments.

Unless, of course, you aren't a sociopath and understand that everyone is allowed to vote and Democracy works by giving all people a voice. The likelihood of any one vote tipping the balance is unlikely, however, margins of victory do help in determining mandates.

Honestly, though, I'm stunned you don't think corporations should be able to vote.

 

[dismal]

To that I respond never should one consider not voting.

Nonsense. If one understands basic math one does not vote. Unless one succumbs to dubious emotional arguments.

Unless, of course, you aren't a sociopath and understand that everyone is allowed to vote and Democracy works by giving all people a voice. The likelihood of any one vote tipping the balance is unlikely, however, margins of victory do help in determining mandates.

Honestly, though, I'm stunned you don't think corporations should be able to vote.

Those emotional arguments didn't even rise to the level of "dubious".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If anything, they are more conservative now! We now have a more conservative court that has ruled that Corporations have the right to free speech, that nearly overrode the ACA, can't commit to gay marriage (Prop 8 case), cut back on Civil Right voting laws, how about Affirmative Action case.

You tell me, this all cool? Is voting your conscience worth having what you think matters nullified?

is taking away the will or the right to vote my conscience a good thing? If we give up the right to our own will, what do we have have left to vote for or against?

And I'm being told I'm being childish.

The crux of the matter is pragmatism. What good is voting third party in a situation where such a vote can lead to the other party (which it turns out to be rather insane) that will appoint people to the Supreme Court that believe in Constitutional stuff that isn't in the Constitution (Unitary Executive), which creates an even more partisan Supreme Court which will pick off the important stuff, like I raised above.

A liberal person voted their conscience, but the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations should be allowed to talk now. Their conscience feeling better or worse? Supreme Court rules that the Civil Rights legislation for voting just isn't needed any more. How is the liberal conscience going now? One short moment of righteousness verses decades of lost progress?

Pragmatism can really suck (it isn't as much fun), but it is what helps tell us what the big picture is. And in politics, SCOTUS is the big picture.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To that I respond never should one consider not voting.

Nonsense. If one understands basic math one does not vote. Unless one succumbs to dubious emotional arguments.

Unless, of course, you aren't a sociopath and understand that everyone is allowed to vote and Democracy works by giving all people a voice. The likelihood of any one vote tipping the balance is unlikely, however, margins of victory do help in determining mandates.

Honestly, though, I'm stunned you don't think corporations should be able to vote.

Those emotional arguments didn't even rise to the level of "dubious".

Probably because they weren't "emotional" arguments. You do realize just calling something "emotional" doesn't mean it actually is emotional. Emotional would have coming to tears about how people died on the beaches of France to help defeat tyranny and not voting is spitting on the grave of the soldiers that gave their lives so we wouldn't be living under the flag of the Nazis. Or saying that if you don't vote means you don't care about your country and you are heartless.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If anything, they are more conservative now! We now have a more conservative court that has ruled that Corporations have the right to free speech, that nearly overrode the ACA, can't commit to gay marriage (Prop 8 case), cut back on Civil Right voting laws, how about Affirmative Action case.

You tell me, this all cool? Is voting your conscience worth having what you think matters nullified?

is taking away the will or the right to vote my conscience a good thing? If we give up the right to our own will, what do we have have left to vote for or against?

And I'm being told I'm being childish.

The crux of the matter is pragmatism. What good is voting third party in a situation where such a vote can lead to the other party (which it turns out to be rather insane) that will appoint people to the Supreme Court that believe in Constitutional stuff that isn't in the Constitution (Unitary Executive), which creates an even more partisan Supreme Court which will pick off the important stuff, like I raised above.

A liberal person voted their conscience, but the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations should be allowed to talk now. Their conscience feeling better or worse? Pragmatism can really suck, but it is what helps tell us what the big picture is. And in politics, SCOTUS is the big picture.

the day after the first day of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, MLK and the rest of the Montgomery Improvement Association delegation sat down with the city fathers and the bus company and made this proposal: that black riders load from the back and white riders load from the front and upon meeting in the "middle" additional riders would strap hang in their respective still segregated sections. This was thought of as a pragmatic solution, a more humane segregation. Now the only reason this didn't happen was because the segregationists turned it down. Humane segregation wasn't on their list of things to do that day.

After that the MIA was made aware fo this feeling, they decided to go for broke, and won. Other days they would go for broke and lose, but that day a year later, they won.

I don't think they were childish.

Pragmatism, so far, has move the DP to the right. Not my goal. And people are now celebrating unemployment under 7% instead of demanding jobs to get it down to half that, and battling for a MW increase to where MW was in 1968 (adj. For inflation of course). And that's just one thing. We are in a swing toward marriage equality, which is a good thing, but that was prompted more by the Right attacking Queer communities with draconian state constitutional amendments and those communities fighting back, and well, going for broke. (pragmatism got us DADT which made no sense and made no one happy and now is a relegated to the dust bin of history, thank goodness).

Tell me, what political issues would you not be pragmatic about, where you find right to be right and wrong to be wrong and that's that.

 

[dismal]

To that I respond never should one consider not voting.

Nonsense. If one understands basic math one does not vote. Unless one succumbs to dubious emotional arguments.

Unless, of course, you aren't a sociopath and understand that everyone is allowed to vote and Democracy works by giving all people a voice. The likelihood of any one vote tipping the balance is unlikely, however, margins of victory do help in determining mandates.

Honestly, though, I'm stunned you don't think corporations should be able to vote.

Those emotional arguments didn't even rise to the level of "dubious".

Probably because they weren't "emotional" arguments. You do realize just calling something "emotional" doesn't mean it actually is emotional. Emotional would have coming to tears about how people died on the beaches of France to help defeat tyranny and not voting is spitting on the grave of the soldiers that gave their lives so we wouldn't be living under the flag of the Nazis. Or saying that if you don't vote means you don't care about your country and you are heartless.

Sorry, I don't suffer from the delusion that my voting or not voting has much effect one way or another on any of that.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

From my blog.

Ayn R. Key: On Voting

On the "wasted vote" argument, a "sour grapes" argument by Republicans and Democrats when they lose.

There are three common arguments made about voting by libertarians. The first is made by those who are too ready to sacrifice principle; that a person must vote for the lesser of two evils. This is a wasted vote. Voting for a Republican or a Democrat on the premise that the candidate from the other major party is worse really makes no difference. First of all most districts are safe districts and the winner of the general election is really determined in the primary. For state-wide races, such as senators or the president, most states are safe states as well.

Voting for the lesser of two evils doesn’t send the message the voter generally assumes will be sent. If a person votes against candidate A by voting for candidate B, all the vote totals show is another vote for candidate B. Votes do not come with labels saying "this is actually a vote against the other candidate", it is counted as a positive endorsement of all the flaws of candidate B.

Maybe in some particular races the counter argument could be made. In Minnesota, for example, the margin of victory in the 2008 senate race was less than the third party total, and Republicans bitterly complained about Libertarians allowing a Democrat to win the office - but Republicans forgot that the votes do not belong to the Republican Party, that they had not earned them, and in fact had acted in such a way as to guarantee that those voters will vote Libertarian. In attempting to make the lesser of two evils argument in that particular case, defenders of lesser of two evils not only undermine their own case, they support showing that the case is the exception and that most races are not nearly that close.

Except for the very extreme case, the vote for a third party will not decide the race between the major party candidates. In Texas, a voter trying to choose between Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party or Barack Obama of the Democratic Party will not swing that state. In California, a voter trying to choose between Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party or John McCain of the Republican Party will not swing that state. Also, a voter choosing between McKinney or Obama in California or Baldwin or McCain in Texas will not change the outcome.

But put it another way, take a theoretical voter trying to decide between Cynthia McKinney as his first choice or Barack Obama as the lesser of two evils candidate. If he votes for McKinney he increases her vote total from 161,603 to 161,604 (a percentage increase of 0.0006), but if he votes for Obama he increases his vote total from 64,639,738 to 64,639,739 (a percentage increase of 0.000000015). Clearly voting for McKinney would have a greater impact.

On the "witholding consent" argument, a popular one among non-voting libertarians.

The two arguments on effective voting center on whether or not someone should vote at all. Well reasoned arguments are made on both sides of the issue. Those against voting are attempting to withhold consent from the state, consent that the state claims to have from participation in the system. Theoretically if someone votes, the person agrees to abide by the outcome of the election. Those in favor of voting, and not for the lesser of two evils, say that only by voting can the voice of the voter be heard, however faintly, alerting those in power to the wishes of the voter.

On the consent issue, the state has constructed an inherently contradictory case. If a person does vote the person is said to have given consent through participation; however, if a person does not vote the person is said to have given consent through not bothering to participate by expressing that the voter is content with any outcome. The two arguments contradict each other, but that is no concern to those who support gaining the illusion of consent. Whether or not someone votes, it is counted as consent, so therefore there is no reason to not vote; better to vote in a way that sends a clear message on the voter’s preference.

It is true that if there is no good candidate then there is no point in voting, but if there is actually a good candidate then by voting for that person it does increase, in however small a number, the chances that said candidate would win and does relay the message of who the voter actually supports and what the voter actually wishes of the government. Since the leaders of the major parties seem to believe that the votes belong to the major parties, by voting outside the two party framework a voter sends a disproportionately loud message by not "giving" to the parties that which "belongs" to them. The more voters fail to "deliver the goods" the more the parties start to work on how they can adjust to cause those voters to return. It is even possible, though unlikely, that the major parties could move towards greater liberty without ever attracting a pro-liberty vote. They will never move in that direction if they can get the pro-liberty vote without effort, or if they do not know that the vote is out there.

"Since the leaders of the major parties seem to believe that the votes belong to the major parties" ... tell me again how Nader "stole" Gore's votes.

It is true that the Democrats have not been moving in a direction more friendly to Nader voters, but that may be only a short-term reaction. If the Nader voters consistently resist the siren song of "wasted vote" then the Democrats will have to move to recapture them. Instead they've been told, over and over, that Bush is their fault. No, Bush is Gore's fault.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To that I respond never should one consider not voting.

Nonsense. If one understands basic math one does not vote. Unless one succumbs to dubious emotional arguments.

Unless, of course, you aren't a sociopath and understand that everyone is allowed to vote and Democracy works by giving all people a voice. The likelihood of any one vote tipping the balance is unlikely, however, margins of victory do help in determining mandates.

Honestly, though, I'm stunned you don't think corporations should be able to vote.

Those emotional arguments didn't even rise to the level of "dubious".

Probably because they weren't "emotional" arguments. You do realize just calling something "emotional" doesn't mean it actually is emotional. Emotional would have coming to tears about how people died on the beaches of France to help defeat tyranny and not voting is spitting on the grave of the soldiers that gave their lives so we wouldn't be living under the flag of the Nazis. Or saying that if you don't vote means you don't care about your country and you are heartless.

Sorry, I don't suffer from the delusion that my voting or not voting has much effect one way or another on any of that.

That's nice and all. You apparently either didn't read my post or you have this large urge to brag about how you don't vote.

 

[dismal]

To that I respond never should one consider not voting.

Nonsense. If one understands basic math one does not vote. Unless one succumbs to dubious emotional arguments.

Unless, of course, you aren't a sociopath and understand that everyone is allowed to vote and Democracy works by giving all people a voice. The likelihood of any one vote tipping the balance is unlikely, however, margins of victory do help in determining mandates.

Honestly, though, I'm stunned you don't think corporations should be able to vote.

Those emotional arguments didn't even rise to the level of "dubious".

Probably because they weren't "emotional" arguments. You do realize just calling something "emotional" doesn't mean it actually is emotional. Emotional would have coming to tears about how people died on the beaches of France to help defeat tyranny and not voting is spitting on the grave of the soldiers that gave their lives so we wouldn't be living under the flag of the Nazis. Or saying that if you don't vote means you don't care about your country and you are heartless.

Sorry, I don't suffer from the delusion that my voting or not voting has much effect one way or another on any of that.

That's nice and all. You apparently either didn't read my post or you have this large urge to brag about how you don't vote.

If anything I'm bragging I don't suffer from delusions about voting. And can handle basic math.

 

[dismal]

If he votes for McKinney he increases her vote total from 161,603 to 161,604 (a percentage increase of 0.0006), but if he votes for Obama he increases his vote total from 64,639,738 to 64,639,739 (a percentage increase of 0.000000015). Clearly voting for McKinney would have a greater impact.

In both cases the impact is immaterially different from zero. This is math, not ideology.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's nice and all. You apparently either didn't read my post or you have this large urge to brag about how you don't vote.

If anything I'm bragging I don't suffer from delusions about voting. And can handle basic math.

And you've really mastered the passive aggressive thing too. Good for you. *pat on back*

 

[dismal]

That's nice and all. You apparently either didn't read my post or you have this large urge to brag about how you don't vote.

If anything I'm bragging I don't suffer from delusions about voting. And can handle basic math.

And you've really mastered the passive aggressive thing too. Good for you. *pat on back*

Facts obviously make you uncomfortable Jimmy. Feel free to cling to your little stories about how the very foundations of democracy depend on your single vote, as absurd as they may be.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's nice and all. You apparently either didn't read my post or you have this large urge to brag about how you don't vote.

If anything I'm bragging I don't suffer from delusions about voting. And can handle basic math.

And you've really mastered the passive aggressive thing too. Good for you. *pat on back*

Facts obviously make you uncomfortable Jimmy. Feel free to cling to your little stories about how the very foundations of democracy depend on your single vote, as absurd as they may be.

You haven't read a single word I've written in this thread, have you... especially the posts aimed towards you. Stop trolling against a strawman.

 

[ZiprHead]

I always vote for the lesser of two evils. When the lesser of two evils wins, you get less evil.