Changing my mind: Capuano

[in_parentheses]

You know what? I'm changing my mind. When I get home tonight, I'm voting for Capuano. I thought more about experience vs. ideals, and proven record vs. nebulous "hope." Some of my friends made good points -- like martini_corona's that Khazei should start smaller if he really wants to get into elected office.

And then I read this story, which sealed the deal

Comments

[dpg178]

I got on the train this morning with the idea of voting for Khazei gradually solidifying in my mind. In the seats across the aisle from me, two people were talking about the election -- one indicated that he couldn't really tell the difference but would probably vote for Coakley because that's who his wife was supporting. The other indicated that he was leaning toward Capuano because that's who his wife was for... They then discussed the various candidates, including "that guy who started the charity or something." It quickly became clear to me that if this is what the average voter is like, Khazei has no chance. And I would much prefer Capuano to Coakley

[dpg178]

good story. dpg. I guess I'll go vote for Capuano this afternoon. Khazei seems nice but I don't think he has much chance of winning.

[in_parentheses]

Oh, I'm well aware that Khazei has no chance. But sometimes it's worth voting for the guy with no chance so that he'll get 25% of the vote instead of 10% (or whatever) and people will hear his points.

This notion that one should only vote for the horse out front really, really bothers me. (Not that that's what you were saying, but the commenter below seems to be.) Voting shouldn't be about guessing the winner so you can say your vote "counted."

Good sweet lord, do we need to get instant-runoff voting or something similar in this country already.

[dpg178]

Don't get me started on IRV... Or actually, do get me started, but in person sometime, not with a keyboard. What bothers me the most on that are the people who say it's too complicated for people to understand. It's used by illiterate tribes in Papua New Guinea, for god's sake! But the poor American voter can't handle rank order?

Anyway, if I didn't care very much between Capuano and Coakley, I would vote for Khazei. But I do, so Capuano it is.

[cos]

Sometimes it is worth voting for someone who has no chance to boost their percentage, but the main reason to vote is to elect someone, not to voice an opinion. Given the flaws of our current voting system, if you're faced with a 3+ candidate race where someone you don't like has a good chance of winning and there are 2 or more candidates you like better, trying to guess which one of those has the best chance and choosing to vote for them is undoubtedly the best strategy. Doing otherwise means you care more about voicing your opinion than about who gets elected - but there are so many other ways to voice an opinion, and only one way to decide who gets to hold public office. You're right, it is unfortunate, and yes, we very much need a better voting system

[in_parentheses]

I totally agree. The difference is that I'm actually fine with Coakley. I like Capuano better (and as I realized how much better, I decided to vote for him for the reasons above), but the scenario "someone [I] don't like has a good chance of winning" didn't actually apply here.

This wasn't, in other words, Bush vs. Gore vs. Nader.