A Thought Experiment

[unixronin]

Go read the Republican Bush/Rove platform.  Think about it in relation to your political views.  How close a match is it?  How much do you agree with, and how much do you disagree with?

Now go read the Democrat Kerry/Edwards platform.  Think about it in relation to your political views.  How close a match is it?  How much do you agree with, and how much do you disagree with?

Now go read this.

 

Discuss.  There is no quiz, but there will be a final in November.

Comments

Another thought experiment

[jmkelly.livejournal.com]

Your political positions: You favor A, B, and C; are neutral on D and E; and fervently oppose F and G.

The Lemming Party and its candidate agree with you on A; they disagree with you on everything else.

The Sheep Party and its candidate agree with you on B and F; they disagree with you on everything else.

The Pigeon Party and its candidate agree with you on everything.

So you vote for the Pigeon Party's candidate. So does your friend Fudge.

However, nobody else does. The Lemming and Sheep Parties are both large and well-established; in the last ten elections neither has received less than 35% of the vote. The Pigeon Party is tiny; it has never received more than 1% of the vote in a national election, though it has done better in local elections.

As it happens, this is a very close election. The final tally comes out like this:



"Oh Fudge!" you exclaim. "The candidate with whom we agreed the least has won! If we had voted for the Sheep Party candidate, we would have done somewhat better--the one we disagree with less often would have won. As it is, those disgusting Lemmings have won, and will now commence their loathsome and deleterious work. We might as well have voted for the Easter Bunny. "

"The Sheep and their guy were disgusting too," says Fudge.

"Yes, but slightly less disgusting."

"But we at least can claim that our consciences are clear," says Fudge. "We didn't vote for the Lemmings."

"But we didn't vote for the people who could have stopped them," you say.

"I don't care about that," says Fudge. "I voted my conscience."

"But what good does that do outside the voting booth?" you cry. "Wouldn't we do better to work for the Pigeon Party in races where they had a chance? You build a political movement by winning elections, not losing them; if getting into elections you're sure to lose were a way to build a movement, Harold Stassen would have been President at least twice."

"Who?" asks Fudge.

"Exactly!" you reply. (Readers under 45 may have to look up Harold Stassen (http://www.who2.com/haroldstassen.html).) "It is evident that we must take into account not only whether a candidate agrees with us, but whether he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning."

"Shut up," Fudge explains*. "My conscience is clear. The Pigeon Party and their candidate were the best match for me."

"Pah!" you reply, and quote Voltaire: "The best is the enemy of the good."

EXTRA CREDIT: Same parameters, but the Lemming Party also favors the extermination of all life forms. Is it moral to "vote your conscience" in this case?

*I owe this wonderful locution to William Saroyan.

Re: Another thought experiment

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

While your point is taken (and has long been clearly understood), the Pigeon party will continue to have no chance as long as the majority of voters are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils to defeat the greater. In this case, "Not quite as bad" is the enemy of "Better."
The Sheep and the Lemmings have the voters suckered -- they're one statist monster holding up two sock-puppets, and they will remain in power as long as they can keep convincing a majority of us that it makes any long-term difference which sock-puppet we vote for this time around.

Re: Another thought experiment

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

I've commented (http://www.livejournal.com/community/_discussion/35619.html?thread=371235#t371235) elsewhere (http://www.livejournal.com/community/_discussion/35619.html?thread=372003#t372003) in _discussion on how the United States voting system is inherently two party, and on how actual voting is not the way to change the system.

I'll note here that one causes the other. So long as the American national voting system is a winner take all system, we will only have "best" and "second best" have any significance. "Third best" will be a distant third, at best. (Sorry, had to.) This won't change unless the US changes to a Parliamentary type voting system.

So, to apply what I said in my second link above, and, of course, in my opinion, you'd be much better off giving the Libertarian party your time and money, than you would in giving them your vote. If they truly have the right ideas (and I like some of them), then more voters need to be exposed to those ideas. That can't happen without resources.

And, if their ideas do become popular, look to the dems or the reps adopting them. They're not stupid; they know not to come in third.