Generally in presidential elections, voters really aren’t ecstatic over either candidate A or B (yes, even if there were a C and a mythical third party, people still could care less). Instead, they cast their vote based on who will likely not screw it up the most.
This election is no different - if Clinton and Giuliani win out, we will see republicans likely tossing out more than half of their major ideals to vote for a guy who, relative to the emblematic republicans of old - looks like Chairman Mao.
Why in the world do they do this?
The answer is pragmatism. Republicans see Clinton as a rabid, feminist, socialistic… well, Clinton. So even though they are actually voting for an anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-taxer, big spending, illegal immigration supporting, big-government politician - it’s ok because the pragmatic alternative is supporting Hillary. Forget the fact that, for all intents and purposes, they are voting for a democrat in everything but name.
Ironically, these people openly talk about why they are sorely disappointed with George W. Bush’s big-government legacy, as though they totally forgot that Bush openly ran as a big-government conservative. His immigration stance, spending-philosophy, government health care and big-government education program were all out in the open in both 2000 and 2004 - but republicans were terrified of Al Gore and John Kerry. Again, pragmatism.
Where Strategic Thinking Goes to Die
This is the ultimate danger of such a voting philosophy - pragmatism is only good for one battle - one moment in the thousands of moments of A versus B. When we elect a president, for example, we aren’t picking a winner and then everyone goes home. They stay in office for at least four years - and they do all the irresponsible things that we ignorantly hoped they wouldn’t do, but blatantly indicated they would.
As it has been said before - the lesser of two evils is still evil. And pragmatism is not a strategy -it’s suicide. Death by hanging or by jumping off a cliff?
Genuine strategy, the kind that is above base pragmatism, takes into account total wins and losses in each battle, and attempts to gain victory in the end. In other words - it’s not the end of the world if one battle is lost!
The candidate that a voter actually likes may be in tenth place, or in some obscure party which has no chance of winning. Of course, the battle will certainly be lost and the candidate will be soundly defeated - but that is one less person choosing not to play the game when the rules are stacked against them. It’s one more kid picking up their ball, and going home. Eventually, the only ones left are the bullies and thugs, and their threats and lies are exposed for the world to see.
That is the moral victory - and yes, even in amoral politics there are moral victories - the size of both A and B’s electorate and donation base just got smaller. Eventually, and maybe it takes twenty years, the politicians realize that a good number of people are actually voting on principles and not pragmatism and adjust accordingly. Now that would be real change!
The Motivation for Pragmatism is Fear
Are pragmatists afraid? Yes. They get caught up in every election - which is built up by both A and B - that this is the defining battle between the two sides. They and their pundits will say that compromise is essential, because there is just too much at stake. If you don’t vote for A, B will raise your taxes, socialize your health care and make you use lightbulbs that cost $400 a piece. But if you don’t vote for B, A will instate a draft, round up the Muslims and start arresting you for jaywalking.
It’s fear people. The heart of pragmatism exposed.
How to Break the Cycle
In choosing pragmatism, the only safeguard built into the plurality system is neutered: idealism. When democrats, for example, who overwhelmingly oppose the war, pick Clinton who has no qualms about keeping troops in Iraq another five years - they are saying that they don’t really care about ending the war. In the next congressional election, democratic candidates are going to be more moderate on that issue because they know they can win without being an ideologue. Eventually, ending the war gradually fades from the platform.
However, if Giuliani gets elected, then the democrats in the congressional elections react strongly against the war - and win - because that’s what the democratic electorate really wants. In other words, even though it’s only in baby steps, the parties are gradually shaped back into what people actually want them to be, and not what they are willing to settle for to prevent that other crazy party from getting power.
Is all of this even realistic? Probably not. People will go on, voting for their own destruction, until the whole thing breaks (if it isn’t there already). But the vision should be held, because even when this country finally breaks beyond repair, a new one is going to have to be built from scratch.
This article reminds me of why I hate politics. I feel like there are no good choices. I think that even if I had a Ph.D. in Politics and another one in Economics and another one in History, I still wouldn’t be smart enough to vote “intelligently” because the situations are too complicated and the law of unintended consequences is is alive and well in Washington.
However, I do vote based on principles, and I do so consistently, but in a little old lady sort of way. Mine aren’t political principles in the areas of taxes, economics, war. I’m sticking with the few personal things that I understand, and that’s how I determine who to vote for–people whose personal lives I admire, and who support social causes that I think are right. Besides, I think a candidate’s personal life may actually have an effect on their ability to do the job, silly me.
(Based on my own criteria, I’m thinking there may not be anyone to vote for.)
I think that what you describe is the correct attitude. Vote based on your principles - I mean: vote for someone. That is the premise our our system - that you want what you vote for.
Even if your principles aren’t based on history, philosophy blah blah blah - at least be courageous enough to vote them (or not vote, if there isn’t anyone worth it).
Dang it, Colin! I was going to write an article on this exact subject. Now I have to think of something else.
I agree. It doesn’t matter so much to me what criteria you use to evaluate, but only that you vote for someone you really want to see elected. (Although both, ultimately, are important).
hungry - just write it anyway. I’m sure it’s not identical. Just call it “more on voting strategy” or something. The subject is worth a second look.
Although both, ultimately, are important
Gurr8, I agree with your statement. I think that it’s tragic because some of the smartest people, who actually have a good idea of what they believe will so casually throw it away and plug their nose when they vote. It’s really insane if you ask me. But I think we can’t even begin to address values until we’re at least willing to have the courage to support them!
One big problem with your “lessor of two evils is still evil - death by hanging or jumping off a cliff”. That’s not quite the choice. You DON’T GET TO CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT. Neither of the above isn’t an option, and another choice isn’t an option.
In elections, you’re faced with two choices, period. The reasons for that are long (gerrymandering, primaries, etc), but anyone who reads the paper knows the two major parties, in spite of having differences, agree on one thing - consolidating power to themselves.
Likely in the upcoming election, your choice is Hillary or Rudy. That’s it.
Thus, you don’t get to choose what you want, only what the major parties give you. Since that is reality, all you can do is choose the best of the worst.
In the end, voting for a 2nd tier candidate or independent (Ron Paul, et al) has the *real* effect of not voting at all. Sure, it makes you feel good, but in the end you might have well not voted at all, because that’s not really a choice you’ve been given.
Some ideas sound good in theory, but don’t work out in reality. Voting for 2nd tier candidates is one of them.
Hillary is almost a lock for the Presidency. Who can beat her? Rudy has a good chance, and maybe Huckabee (though he can’t win the primary). Romney can’t do it, and Ron Paul vs. Hillary would be ugly. Thus, the real choice you’re facing is Rudy or Hillary. Sure it might change in the next few months, but do you really think any of the 2nd tier can match her fundraising or political machine? Or even (gulp) her qualifications?
Remember, President Clinton won elections without a majority - most of the people wanted someone *else* to be president. But since they were fractured, Clinton won. You’re likely to see history repeat itself. And the one thing we learn from history is man learns nothing from history.
So what to do? You’ve got to work within the system to change it. Get the republicans back to a point where someone like Ron Paul has a chance - back to real conservatism. And the Democrats where Edwards/Clinton ideologies are thought absurd and they’re back to actually fighting for the little guy (the Democrats weren’t always like what you’ve seen the last 15 years - at one point they actually worked for the middle class).
If you’re a Democrat, get Tammy Bruce’s book “The New American Revolution”. Tammy is a lesbian, pro-choice feminist Democrat who is suddenly accused of being too conservative for the Democrats. *That’s* how far the Democrats have moved. When a lesbian, pro-choice, ex-president of NOW is outside the Democratic party looking in, you know how much they’ve changed.
If you’re a Republican, get “Conservatives Betrayed” by Richard Viguerie to see how far the Republicans have moved since Reagan. Today’s Republicans bear little resemblance to 20 years ago.
Both parties are a shadow of what they were, and need to return to their roots. Working within the system (whether you’re a Democrat or Republican) is the only way to get better choices.
That’s the only way we’ll ever get better candidates. Until then, vote for 2nd tier candidates all you want - the two major parties will be laughing all the way to the White House.
I agree with the last commenter, voting for a third party candidate is the definition of stupid (unless they actually stand a chance of winning). Voting Losertarian just to vote that way doesn’t mean a thing. You will still be ignored 20 years from now. If you want change, change the parties. Voting for a different party is like changing the light bulbs in your home to more effecient ones: it may make you feel good, but it won’t help the world.
Until then, vote for 2nd tier candidates all you want - the two major parties will be laughing all the way to the White House.
Funnily enough, if you vote for 1st tier candidates, and for one of the two major-party-candidates in the general election, the two major parties will still be laughing all the way to the White House.
But I do agree about working within the system to a certain extent. I’ll go to the local Republican caucus here in Iowa next year, and possibly the local and state Republican conventions (living in a caucus state = preposterously easy to get all the way up to state party conventions. I have no idea whether or not this is difficult in primary states), but when it comes time to vote in the general election, I’m not going to feel held to vote for the Republican candidate just because I’ve been involved in the process. At that point, if I’m not happy with the result of the process, it’s not going to make any difference anymore, and I might as well cast a vote I won’t be kicking myself over for the next four years, even if it does equate to ‘not actually voting at all’.
oops, efficient, not effecient
When neither candidate represents my values, voting third party is just as good as voting for the Republican or the Democrat. After all, I don’t care which one of the two wins the election. The very least I can do is send a message that I’m dissatisfied with both major parties.
A more effective way to have an impact is to work within the parties to get a good candidate nominated. That’s why it’s so vital to vote in the primaries, and to live in Iowa or South Carolina.
This bandwagon effect of the primaries has got to stop, by the way. Iowa shouldn’t count for more than Texas, but realistically it does. By the time the Texas primary rolls around, the whole thing will be all but decided.
Ardith said: “living in a caucus state = preposterously easy to get all the way up to state party conventions.”
I’m beginning to think that caucuses are better than primaries. I know primaries are supposed to be more democratic, but I’m not convinced that’s a good thing. I believe the parties, not the people, should nominate a candidate. A caucus at least attempts to preserve the idea of a party nominating a candidate.
Closed primaries are at least sort of reasonable, because you have to be registered as a party member. Open primaries are just ridiculous–do we seriously want to let anyone walk in off the street and vote in the party’s primary election? That is so open to abuse it’s not even funny. I know more than one Republican friend who has expressed an intention to cast a sabotage vote in the Democratic primary. Even I’m considering doing so. That’s not how the system should work.
Ardith, the point is, if people think voting for a 2nd tier or 3rd party candidate is going to affect the major parties, you’re mistaken.
You’ve got to work inside the major parties to effect change. Otherwise they’ll just ignore you, since your vote effectively doesn’t matter.
We’ve got to reform the Democrats and the Republicans from inside until we get better candidates. Until that happens, it really is a “lesser of two evils” situation.
Jew, that problem with “send a message that I’m dissatisfied with both major parties” is that they’re not listening. As long as they can maintain power, they don’t really care what you or I think. The reform must come from within, and that only happens by participation.
But you’re correct if we get involved in the primaries, perhaps we can get better candidates.
You’re also right, a few states right now choose the candidates in the general election. By the time primaries are held in most states, the race is over.
Why can’t we have elections similar to Washington? All candidates run in the primary, the top two face off in the general. Both could be Republicans, or Democrats, or 3rd party. Everyone gets to vote in the primary, and all votes count. (Democrats and Republicans united to fight this effort).
Contrast with most races where one party effectively always wins (read: gerrymandering), so whoever wins the primary wins the general.
It’s funny because I would have disagreed with this article at in about 2003 for the exact reasons mentioned. However, I had to go through an exercise where I wrote a voter blog for the Oregonian and had to write my thoughts down on the race.
When I started, I could have applied Darius’ comment verbatum to the libertarian candidates and meant every word of it. However, I was forced to do more research and more contemplation into what voting meant to me, and just how important that single act was.
The first thing that changed in me, was the understanding that the vote was mine. Just like anything I owned, I am free to do what I want with it, even if it means not voting or voting a “loser.” I realized that this was a tremendous asset, and an even greater responsibility.
Nine months later, when it finally came down to it, I voted libertarian - my first ever vote for a non-major party. Even though I declared in print and on national television that I was sure of my vote - it was still very difficult to do, knowing that it did not have a direct effect on Bush vs. Kerry.
But, after sending my vote in - I was liberated. For the first time, I watched the election results with amusement and peace - not in fear of “such such evil candidate” winning. Thereafter, whenever Bush said or did something that I didn’t agree with, I no longer felt shame or the need to justify myself in voting for him.
Have you guys ever heard of people who turn off their tv’s for a month and lose their sense of fear over terrorism, the economy and the end of the world in general? They still use the internet and whatnot, but they get out of this soundbyte-barrage of fear. Well, the first time I voted outside the dotted lines of the mainstream - it was that kind of moment.
People have remarked to me several times since then that I seem less argumentative and a lot more “chill” about politics. It’s because of that moment - when I decided to take responsibility for my own vote - and take it away from the politics of fear. I don’t need to argue or stress over these things, because I’m not part of the problem anymore.
Colin Elliot said: “It’s funny because I would have disagreed with this article at in about 2003 for the exact reasons mentioned.”
Me too, pretty much. My shift in thinking happened during 2002 and 2003. By the time the 2004 election rolled around, I voted Libertarian.
Well, Colin - it’s an interesting point. Two ways to look at voting - as you do, it’s your vote, and you can do as you want. Or, to make an impact on who leads the country.
Most people agree the candidates aren’t very good, and haven’t been for a while. They question is, what to do about it? Vote your conscience, or vote for the best of the worst to avoid the *really* bad guy?
Voting for minor candidates might feel good, but have you made an impact?
Paul reminds us “Here, moreover, it is required of stewards, that they be found faithful.” We (voters) have been given stewardship of this country. I sympathize with people who vote their conscience knowing their guy can’t win.
But with this many people disgruntled with the current situation, we’ve got a chance to turn it around and get quality leadership.
My point is that will never happen from people tuning out the process and voting for people who are irrelevant. Change will only come as (if) the major parties are forced to recognize and respect what the people want. That comes by participation, not dropping out.
Look at what the Democrats ran on last election - Iraq, ethics and so on. Have they done *any* of what they promised? Once in office, it’s so long, voters. (Republicans are no better)
Another thing I’ve noticed, younger people don’t remember a time when the political climate wasn’t such a disaster. Similar to the (now) oxymoron “honest lawyer”, a time did exist when politicians actually listened, and scandals didn’t break every Friday as the President “took out the trash”.
As to the Libertarians, their platform has changed considerably over time. They’ve been more or less corrupted by the legalize-all-the-drugs crowd.
Most people agree the candidates aren’t very good, and haven’t been for a while. They question is, what to do about it? Vote your conscience, or vote for the best of the worst to avoid the *really* bad guy?
And what the latter does is encourage candidates to move closer and closer to the ‘worst’, because they can get away with it. And then the worst get worse, and the least bad take that as a cue to edge a bit worse, ad infinitum.
Voting for minor candidates might feel good, but have you made an impact?
At least as much impact as voting for major candidates. One person’s vote doesn’t automatically multiply upon voting for top-tier candidates.
Another thing I’ve noticed, younger people don’t remember a time when the political climate wasn’t such a disaster. Similar to the (now) oxymoron “honest lawyer”, a time did exist when politicians actually listened, and scandals didn’t break every Friday as the President “took out the trash”.
Actually, no, a time like that never did exist. Politicians have been trawling for and creating scandals since this country started. For more information, see John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, and Alexander Hamilton, among many others.
As to the Libertarians, their platform has changed considerably over time. They’ve been more or less corrupted by the legalize-all-the-drugs crowd.
Or possibly the other parties have been corrupted by the ban-random-substances crowd. It’s all in how you look at it. But from what I’ve seen, drug legalization, or at least decriminalization, is a pretty integral part of both Libertarian and libertarian thought. The platform tends not to change as much as the issues of the day do.
“And what the latter does is encourage candidates to move closer and closer to the ‘worst’, because they can get away with it. And then the worst get worse, and the least bad take that as a cue to edge a bit worse, ad infinitum.”
Actually, it encourages the “worst” candidates to get closer to the “best” one. Voting Libertarian is like not voting at all. Change the parties, don’t make up your own party. Same principle applies to clubs, churches, cliques, etc. If you don’t like the way a church is headed, you don’t go form your own church. You work within the church to fix it to what you feel it should be.
Voting third party is nothing like not voting at all. Third parties that draw significant support often have their positions co-opted by one of the major parties.
Assume we have a Clinton vs. Giuliani general election. What should supporters of Ron Paul do? Voting for one of those two would be voting for someone almost the complete opposite of their views. They had try to change the Republican Party but were unseccesful (at least to this point), voting for Giuliani would just prove to the Republican leadership that they don’t need to change.
If they don’t vote it will be assumed that they don’t care enough about the issues to even vote. If however they vote Libertarian, and the Libertarian has a better than expected showing for a 3rd Party candidate, one or both of the major parties will have to consider adopting some libertarian ideas. Voting third party can be a way to force change in a major party.
Likewise I would advise Christian Conservatives in a Clinton vs. Giuliani to vote for the Constitution Party.
“And what the latter does is encourage candidates to move closer and closer to the ‘worst’, because they can get away with it. And then the worst get worse, and the least bad take that as a cue to edge a bit worse, ad infinitum.”
Actually, it encourages the “worst” candidates to get closer to the “best” one.
That only works if the best of the worst wins. Also we have to be careful not to mix references to party nominations and general elections. For instance, take a theoretical election between Giuliani and Clinton. Loads of Republicans don’t like Giuliani, but vote for him because they see Clinton as worse. Giuliani loses anyway. Come next primary season, do you really think potential Republican candidates are going to think “Wow, Giuliani lost the general. I should move back to core Republican values,” rather than thinking “Hey, lots of Republicans disliked Giuliani, but they voted for him anyway. Also, if I pick up this and this and this issue from the Democratic side of the aisle, I get more centrist votes. I just have to be marginally less offensive than the other guy. Yay me!” Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates are all thinking “Hey, Clinton got elected last time. I wonder if there’s room for me to take positions Clinton did, but more so, and still win the general election?” Ideology comes into play, but generally after electability concerns; considerably further behind electability concerns for the party currently not in power. See also occasional current Democratic frontrunner tendencies to play themselves as more hawkish and current Republican frontrunner tendencies to play themselves as… more hawkish.
Voting Libertarian is like not voting at all.
No, it’s like not voting in a two-party system at all. It is (sort of) like voting in a multi-party system. Not voting at all imparts no extra information to the system than “I don’t like either of the current choices.” Voting third-party clarifies that a little bit more: “I don’t like either of the current choices, but I would like someone a bit more like X.” Of course, the main parties are not guaranteed to use this information, but at least it actually exists.
Anyway, for me it really comes down to breaking points. There is a point at which both the Republican and Democratic candidates are so abhorrent to me that I would consider it a betrayal of my principles to vote for either one. At that point, I vote third-party.
Change the parties, don’t make up your own party.
Again, I actually do think that’s a good idea, up until the national convention. But once party candidates for the general election are decided, there’s no longer any good way for me to change the party during the current election cycle. Ironically, at that point the best way I have of influencing the main parties is to vote third-party.
Same principle applies to clubs, churches, cliques, etc. If you don’t like the way a church is headed, you don’t go form your own church. You work within the church to fix it to what you feel it should be.
Annnd now you’ve lost me. Mostly since clubs, churches, and cliques tend not to fall into strongly dual systems. Also possibly since I’m never as attached to a particular political party as to any of those other things. Political parties are means to an end for me, not ends in and of themselves.
Personally, if it’s Giuliani vs. Clinton, I’m not voting at all except in local races.
To clarify, I’m not “not voting” so much because of my fear of a Giuliani presidency as much as what a Giuliani win would do to the Republican party on social issues. I actually think 4 years of Giuliani wouldn’t be disastrous (we did survive 8 years of Bill Clinton, after all), especially in comparison to Hillary.
“In the end, voting for a 2nd tier candidate or independent (Ron Paul, et al) has the *real* effect of not voting at all. Sure, it makes you feel good, but in the end you might have well not voted at all, because that’s not really a choice you’ve been given.”
I think you’ve confused voting with betting. As a voter, it isn’t your job to choose who you think will win.
We each have ONE vote. Tell me, when was the last time you affected the outcome of an election? Has there been a Presidential election that was won with one vote? No? Then a vote for a power party is as useless as a vote for a third party.
By that defeatist logic, we shouldn’t vote at all.
Ardith-
“Politicians have been trawling for and creating scandals since this country started.”
Sure. But *nothing* like what we’ve seen in the last 10-15 years. Selling White House rooms for campaign contributions, bribes, extortion, etc. If you’ve only become involved recently, you don’t know it hasn’t always been this bad. Remember (in general) when a handshake was good enough to seal a deal? When it was your word and not the size of your lawyer staff that counted?
Let me just try and sum up my point. I understand (and share) the frustration of lackluster candidates. However, voting for a 3rd party or 2nd tier doesn’t accomplish much, because nobody’s listening. Sure, as you say, the data exists, but unless a 3rd party candidate breaks 20% or so, it won’t even register. The news outlets even drop them and round off the Republican/Democrat totals so they’re 100%, and ignore all others.
So if most people agree candidates are bad, we don’t agree on how to get better ones. Voting for a minor candidate won’t influence change, because the system doesn’t allow much outside the two major parties, so they can never break through with enough votes to gain traction.
You’ve got to work with the Democrats/Republicans to enact change and get better people.
Remember, you’re faced with only two choices (of winning). The choice most want (another candidate) isn’t a realistic possibility. The only way to get better leadership in the White House and elsewhere is to work to get two better people facing off in the general election. That comes from being involved in the Democratic and Republican parties.
“There is a point at which both the Republican and Democratic candidates are so abhorrent to me that I would consider it a betrayal of my principles to vote for either one. At that point, I vote third-party.”
So the solution is to work within the parties to get better candidates.
gurr8 -
“I think you’ve confused voting with betting. As a voter, it isn’t your job to choose who you think will win.”
Not choose who will win, but pick one of the two candidates. The others aren’t really options. As an example, in today’s mortgage environment, suppose you try to get a loan, and with points/fees,etc you’ve got a choice: 12% with no down, or 10% with 10% down. That’s what the bank gives you.
But you saw on the Internet you can get 6% if you put 80% down. Is that choice really available to you? (Assuming you’re an average person, not the Donald).
So what you want, even though it appears, isn’t really an option. You’ve got to choose one of the two available to you.
Presidential elections are the same. Sure, lots of names are on the ballot, but only two matter. The actual effect of choosing other than the two main candidates is not voting at all. It may be an ugly truth, but that’s reality.
As to the power of one vote, yes your vote *DOES* matter.
Voting for the lesser of two evils presumes that there is, in fact, a lesser evil. That’s something I no longer believe. Sometimes that’s true, but not always.
For example, if the election comes down to Giuliani or Clinton, neither of those is a lesser evil in my book. They’re both equally undesirable. That’s not to say there aren’t differences between them–there are–but the differences are not ones that are meaningful to me.
There are sometimes when a candidate truly is the lesser of two evils. If Candidate A says “I’ll murder a million innocent children” and Candidate B says “I’ll murder a thousand innocent children,” then maybe Candidate B really is the lesser of two evils. I’d vote for him. (Presuming that the candidates really would carry out their campaign promises, that is.)
But when it comes to the two major parties, there isn’t much difference right now, at least not in ways that are important to me. For some people, the Republican candidate may really be a legitimate lesser of two evils; for others, the Democratic candidate may be the lesser evil. Those people are probably a lot closer to the political center than I am, and that’s why the slight differences between the parties are enough to sway them. I’m pretty far from the American politic center, and the two parties are equally unsatisfactory.
So to ask me to vote for the lesser evil is a meaningless question. There is no lesser evil. Both are bad. I don’t care which one of them wins.
That only works if the best of the worst wins.
Thus, it is your duty to make sure that happens by voting for him/her. If you don’t vote for the best, you are in essence helping the worst win.
Constitutional Conservative said: “So the solution is to work within the parties to get better candidates.”
It’s not an either-or question. I can work within the party to get a better candidate, and then if the candidate who is nominated is still unsuitable for me, I can still vote for a third party in the general election. Voting for a third party candidate does not mean I am completely giving up on the two major parties.
Constitutional Conservative said: “However, voting for a 3rd party or 2nd tier doesn’t accomplish much, because nobody’s listening. Sure, as you say, the data exists, but unless a 3rd party candidate breaks 20% or so, it won’t even register.”
I agree with you here, at least partly. In 1992, Ross Perot was leading in the polls at one point, and ended up with 19% of the popular vote. And what happened? The two-party system is as strong as ever.
I think Ross Perot had an impact in the 1992 election in terms of influencing the debate and the issues, but as far as breaking up the two-party system, he was a non-factor.
“That only works if the best of the worst wins.”
Thus, it is your duty to make sure that happens by voting for him/her. If you don’t vote for the best, you are in essence helping the worst win.
Hee. Here’s where it gets fun and complicated. Ideological changes don’t happen on a one-dimensional line. Instead, candidates attempting to follow up a victory in their party become ‘more-than’ their predecessors. The distinctives that set apart the previous winning candidate are seen as winning issues, even if most votes for the winning candidate were votes against the opponent.
So, according to Ardith’s All-Encompassing Theory of Electoral Politics, the ‘worst’ candidate will move towards the ‘least-worst’ candidate in that situation, but the ‘least-worst’ candidate won’t necessarily move towards more desirable positions on issues.
Thus, you can end up with a situation, like the current one as I see it, where a win by either candidate moves the ‘least bad’ position in a ‘wrong’ direction for the next election cycle. You actually made this exact point when you described why you’re not planning to vote for Giuliani if he makes it to the general election.
“Politicians have been trawling for and creating scandals since this country started.”
Sure. But *nothing* like what we’ve seen in the last 10-15 years. Selling White House rooms for campaign contributions, bribes, extortion, etc. If you’ve only become involved recently, you don’t know it hasn’t always been this bad. Remember (in general) when a handshake was good enough to seal a deal? When it was your word and not the size of your lawyer staff that counted?
No, actually, I don’t. So, there was a point in time when people sealed deals with handshakes and then didn’t follow that up with legal, signed, documents? Regardless, the exclusive use of handshakes has precisely the opposite effect from what you imply, as it’s a lot easier to make underhanded deals sealed with handshakes, than underhanded deals sealed with all that messy paperwork and hordes of nosy lawyers.
I agree that occasionally it IS better to not vote at all than to vote for the least worst. And I am not kidding myself, by not voting for Giuliani, I am helping Hillary win. If it is between those two, I do hope that Giuliani loses. If Romney was the candidate, I would vote for him, as he at least appears to be somewhat pro-life and socially conservative, which Hillary is not. He’s not my ideal candidate, but who is??? Romney, like Giuliani, is the “best of the worst.” However, he at least still falls under the mantel of “conservative” on some issues (especially social ones, which matter to me), while Giuliani does not. A Romney win wouldn’t set socially conservative Republicans back 20 years like a Giuliani win would.
As for your “theory” regarding the move toward the centrist “worst” position, I think you do have some history that might back you up. Look at almost all European countries, their conservative parties are really just right of left of right of left of center, especially on social issues. But I don’t know if this is because of your theory as much as the fact that most Europeans are socialistic liberals, much like the media is in America. So the debate is not framed in conservative values vs. liberal values language, but how to best implement liberal values. Same with the mainstream media in this country… for example, anthropogenic global warming isn’t framed as a debate over the facts between conservatives and liberals, it’s merely a discussion on how to solve it, while anyone who dares to deny it is the same as a Holocaust denier, worthy of contempt as a lunatic.
Ardith said: “So, there was a point in time when people sealed deals with handshakes and then didn’t follow that up with legal, signed, documents?”
I’m an old guy - I remember when we wrote papers on typewriters and there was no Iterweb thingy
It was different just 20 years ago.
Anyway, this is off-topic, so I’ll refrain from further comment.
Ross Perot is a good example of the point I made earlier. After his showing in ‘92 Republicans adopted some of his ideas, especially the need for a balanced budget - which were essential in the Republican Revolution of ‘94.
Constitutional Conservative wrote: “I remember when we wrote papers on typewriters”
I learned to type on a typewriter. And not one of those electric jobs either. It was a manual.