voting strategically

[cellio]

I've been thinking about this November's election, and the presumption that PA is a swing state and That Matters, and voting for the lesser plausible evil versus voting one's conscience. I started to write about this in comments in someone else's journal (where it was arguably off-topic), so I figured I should bring it here.
Most of the time we

Comments

Two Party system

[anonymous]

Yes, the system is rigged to favor the major party candidates, and has been since the early days of the republic. Having 40 candidates may be intellectually appealing, but practically it ensures the winner receives only a minority of the vote. The Australian weighted system tries to overcome this weakness, but has never really caught on in this country.

The problem with a "long term" approach is that you ensure the party furthest from your beliefs will win -- hopefully not your intended result. An example of this was Ralph Nader in the 2004 election, and potentially Ron Paul if he decides to run in this election.

Living here in CA where my vote truly doesn't matter, I would hate to see your vote in a swing state "wasted" on a third party. This is not to say a third party never works -- witness the Bull Moose party of Theodor Roosevelt.

Re: Two Party system

[cellio]

The preference (Australian) ballot is in fact the mechanism I prefer. Having a dozen names on the ballot (I'd be very surprised to see more than that) would not be particularly burdensome. (The people who push the "vote party line" button today will just vote for their major-party candidates and be done with it.)

I'm not sure my one vote is going to cost the less-bad candidate to lose. Ralph Nader was trying to win (which was delusional). I know we can't win the election; "winning" would be making enough of an impact to influence future elections. So I guess I'm trading the possible win of impact against the possible win of this election. One vote doesn't matter either way, but I think it does proportionally more good when cast for the minor party.

(I sure hope Ron Paul doesn't run; that won't accomplish anything. It would be better for him to throw his weight behind Bob Barr.)

Re: Two Party system

[byronhaverford]

Yay! Australian ballot! We loves it, precious.

That's why I'm trying to ram it down the Barony's throat (over a surprising amount of resistance).

Re: Two Party system

[tangerinpenguin]

Why? And what sort of resistance are you seeing?

That's curiosity, mind you, not (necessarily) prelude to a counter-argument. I can see two schools of resistance: one, if the proposed system is viewed as more hassle than the current one. That's probably harmless in the long run. The second, though, would be if they don't have as much confidence in a different system to get the "right" answer compared to the status quo. In that case, you have to balance the pluses and minuses of "theoretically valid" election results that are perceived as somehow suspect.

[alice_curiouser]

I think you know how I feel about this - both parties are corrupt, IMO.

The other thing is, both parties seem increasingly hell-bent on throwing out the most extreme examples of their party line. When this happens, at least half the country feels alienated, because their interests aren't being recognized by their government.

Rusty and I joke that we wouldn't want to be president because at least half the country is gonna hate you right off the bat, but that wouldn't be the case if just once the parties offered some moderation. I'm not sure I'll be voting for either party until they do.

[baron_steffan]

I don't (ever) have the energy to compose a detailed political analysis, but I will say that this time is not the time to be doing this. I've known you long and well enough to have more than a strong suspicion regarding how you stand on the issues that divide Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin, and I have zero doubt about your understanding of the consequences should the evangelicals and jingoists of the Red side be energized and empowered even more than they have been the past eight years. This is not the time, and we need every vote we can get, including yours, to absolutely, literally, save the republic. You know what's at stake here. Don't try to tell me you don't. Do the right thing.

[zevabe]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html

Quinnipiac, Rasmussen & Opinion R, the three polls taken within the last week in PA show Obama leading 47-42. Plus the fact that if every tie and PA went to McCain, the electoral count would still be 280-258 in Obama's favor.

[grouchyoldcoot]

I hope that holds up- there is a sense that McCain may have fumbled in picking a nutjob for VP. I don't think like the folks in Central PA, though. If the numbers look similar in a month, maybe Cellio can cast her vote with a clear conscience.

[zevabe]

It's been that way for a long while.

[nsingman]

I won't vote, but I won't try to dissuade you from exercising your franchise. That said, I see no reason why you shouldn't express your displeasure with the de facto two party system by supporting a third party (or party-free write-in) candidate.

[byronhaverford]

I completely agree with the philsophy of voting for the candidate you like best, regardless of party backing, and I use exactly the same logic you have outlined.

Having said that, do you really feel that the Libertarian candidate, if elected, would do a better job of running the country? I don't mean theoretically, based on his political posture; I mean practically, given the existing political infrastructure. If you can answer "yes", then by all means, vote for him.

Remember that you're not voting for a party; you're voting for a pair of individuals (who happen to be backed by a party). The Libertarians haven't put forth any pleasing candidates that I can remember. Like most modern presidential candidates, they get their votes as either "least of the evils" or "party-line voting". Feel free to make me better informed about the current candidate; my disappointment in previous years has prevented me from properly researching this year's candidate.

[cellio]

Having said that, do you really feel that the Libertarian candidate, if elected, would do a better job of running the country? I don't mean theoretically, based on his political posture; I mean practically, given the existing political infrastructure.Bob Barr has more (applicable) experience than many past and present candidates (including one of the big two, actually) -- he's been in Congress long enough to have some clue how Washington works. Would he do a better job? This leads me to the question of what are the best-case and worst-case scenarios under the three candidates we've been discussing

Gridlock

[tc_tick]

If you like gridlock, you should live in CA -- the state has been w/o a budget for over 2 months and things are starting to get testy with the creditors, threats to pay state workers federal minimum wages (which is less than CA minimum), etc. One side has been absolutely intransigent and the other side is not willing to go that far. Neither side has enough votes to solve the impasse.

I have a feeling we are going to see this continuing on the national level regardless of who is elected president, however the impact of the president will be on the war, justice and other federal agencies, the supreme court, and our civil liberties.

Re: Gridlock

[cellio]

I don't like gridlock (remember, this was on my worst-case list, not best-case). But I prefer inaction to the wrong action. I want the parties to be forced to work together, rather than having one side get enough votes to say "neener neener, we don't care about you" to the other. Obviously this doesn't always work as well as it could.