My response to 3rd party types
This is my response to Bernie August and any 3rd party types out there who don’t want me to vote for the “lesser of two evils” because that kind of voting is killing America.
Let’s assume you are right. So now I’m not voting for the Lesser Evil, and I’m saying that the Greater Evil is okay, at least for the time being. The Greater Evil will probably be fairly benign evil. The stuff about the Greater Evil being a great evil indeed is probably overblown. So yes..I’m ready to allow the Greater Evil to get in while the Non-Evil gathers up its strength. The Greater Evil will probably allow the Non-Evil to gather up its strength because, like I said, the Greater Evil is pretty cool after all. This all makes sense to you, right?
But wait… what if the Greater Evil isn’t benign, but is a great evil indeed. We are pretty screwed then. Because we’ve given the Greater Evil the green light. It seems risky to me to gamble on the Greater Evil being chill.
Yes because being at the right hand of Tom Carper is better than being in front of him.
Don’t choose the lesser of two evils, vote for Gary Johnson! http://2016election.procon.org/view.source.election.php?sourceID=13898
Jersey this isn’t a parliamentary system. Third Party voting is opting out.
Did someone mention “opting out”?
jason there is opting out and there is opting out.
In Delaware (as in Massachusetts, or California, or several others), where there is zip zero nada chance of Trump coming close to winning (Mitt barely cracked 40% in DE last time around), then voting for Trump is opting out, as these are effectively one-party states. If you want to kill the existing GOP as a party (and who wouldn’t), why not encourage people who cannot vote for Secretary Clinton for a variety of legitimate reasons (militarized foreign policy; links to greater banking system; etc.) to vote for candidates who believe in LGBTQ equality, reducing military spending, de-militarizing foreign policy, eliminating domestic surveillance, or actually dealing with mass incarceration issues, and therefore have an “opposition” with which to have a meaningful political discourse over issues like education, taxation, or social spending?
Since 2000 I sincerely doubt you will find a significant number of people voting third party in any close battleground states, but why tell people in strong R or D states NOT to vote their conscience? How else do you move toward creating a replacement framework for the existing GOP?
Right now between 8.5-13% of voters are answering Gary Johnson, and about 5% are answering Jill Stein in national polling when they are included. This percentage usually drops precipitously in late September, but if Johnson’s ticks up to 15% he ends up in the debates, and you actually have people get to see two socially liberal, fiscally conservative successful former governors on national TV. Maybe we claw our way back to real political discourse in the country despite the odds. Maybe not. We do if the Libertarians manage 5% of the popular vote in the General, which leads to full Federal funding in 2020.
Here’ another thing to consider: Johnson is already polling well above those percentages in both New Mexico and Utah, just because of “favorite son” mechanisms and the utter loathing there of Trump, combined with particularly high negatives for Secretary Clinton open up the possibility of his actually winning a State. Whether that’s good or bad in the long run I’m not sure, but it is certainly a blow to the GOP if it does happen.
And besides, jason, over half of the voting-eligible populace has already opted out of the process.
Every citizen has a duty to vote and vote their conscience, even if its third party or write in. I can see how a lot of people cannot vote for a major party candidate this year for President.
Steve – I have to say, you make some excellent points.
Still, I’d hate for my vote to encourage a Jill Stein and allow Greens to think that someday they can hit the home run ball without party building, and eschewing the kind of consensus building and compromise that is required by our system.
Sure W and Florida loom large in my mind on this topic, but while I give Democrats a ton of shit about not coalition building with other left of center parties – those left of center parties are certainly deserving of a ton of shit for not coalition building with Democrats.
Here’s the narrative I see coming with this conscience voting: Hillary doesn’t have a mandate! Yeah, Rs will say it anyway, but so will some progressives and Rs will quote those Ps all day long – especially given the way some of these Ps spout right-wing talking points.
Here’s another thing I don’t understand… why would people who didn’t vote for the winning candidate think their voices/issues should be heard? After all, if the candidate wins without your votes then do they really need you? That said, if Hillary wins big with this new Progressive platform then she’d pay attention to issues people claim to care about, or face another primary challenge in 2020. Votes matter.
I get where Steve is coming from because – sheesh! 😉 – he actually is a Libertarian. His advocacy for his party makes sense. These “conscience” voters aren’t advocating for anything other than punishing Hillary/Dems. Fine. Whatever. Vote your “conscience” but don’t expect a seat at the table of a candidate you didn’t support or to have any role in setting the agenda. The best way to change an organization is from the inside. That takes work.
@c “Every citizen has a duty to vote and vote their conscience”
Nope. You can vote any way you want and for any reason.
There is nothing at all wrong with a pragmatic vote.
This is the kind of BS people spout to guilt others into making a stupid or worthless vote.
I don’t disagree one bit if you want to cast a pragmatic vote. I just hate all the talk about people only having a binary choice. That’s nonsense.
“The best way to change an organization is from the inside. That takes work.”
It would be nice to see an example of it working. And it seems particularly unlikely when the very ones that hold out this elusive hope are the same ones on other occasions FROM THE VERY ONSET of a campaign argue vehemently that we need to act pragmatically and not hopefully.
@c “I just hate all the talk about people only having a binary choice.”
Yea. That’s wrong, but expect to hear a lot more of that, and very soon.
There will be a desperation for Hillary to win, and it will be an honest and heartfelt desperation… But desperation leads people to say and do stupid things.
@DG “FROM THE VERY ONSET of a campaign argue vehemently that we need to act pragmatically and not hopefully.”
You can hope for things that are virtually impossible
or
You can hope for things that are actually achievable.
Acting pragmatically does NOT mean you give up on hope. It means you don’t waste your time hoping stupidly.
Anyone not voting for Hillary is a Trump voter and I will consider all Trump voters to be disqualified from further involvement in electoral politics or policy-making for the rest of their natural or eternal lives.
@LE It’s so nice to bold blather in the absence of the facts. Like how the pragmatic choice for the Dems have negatives over 50%, how she is incredibly in a fairly close race with the greatest train wreck of a presidential candidate the Republicans have produced in multiple decades, and how she had much higher negatives than the “unrealistic” candidate running for the Dem nomination even when it was clear she had won the nomination.
Face it, “hope” for people like you is just a meaningless word you toss out to distract people from the perception that your really functioning as a tool for the status quo. You don’t have a clue about how hope can be made into real progress by always acting pragmatically. So your talk about how both can be realized is pure smoke.
The choice is bianary. You can’t have your own reality simply because you don’t like actual reality.
Three variations on a theme in a minor key:
Deldem: Anyone not voting for Hillary is a Trump voter and I will consider all Trump voters to be disqualified from further involvement in electoral politics or policy-making for the rest of their natural or eternal lives.
Jason: The choice is binary. You can’t have your own reality simply because you don’t like actual reality.
pandora: Here’s another thing I don’t understand… why would people who didn’t vote for the winning candidate think their voices/issues should be heard? After all, if the candidate wins without your votes then do they really need you?
Except that–in Delaware–you’re all wrong. DD, if I vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein or Oswald the fucking rabbit I am NOT helping elect Trump. It’s really that simple, because Secretary Clinton will receive 60% of the vote here no matter who I vote for. What I would be attempting to do in Delaware is to build something different.
Jason–see above. The choice in Delaware is NOT binary, it’s unitary. I either vote for Secretary Clinton or I might as well stay home. Likewise Carney and whoever wins the Congressional primary (and the Mayoral primary if I lived in Wilmington). In fact, the only contested vote that I can cast in a statewide election that might have some impact would be voting for Jeff Cragg over KWS is enough people finally realize that a completely non-charismatic guy with actual insurance competence could not possibly be worse than four more years of this incumbent (assuming she wins the primary, which I think she will).
pandora–Exactly how have Jack Markell, Tom Carper, John Carney, Chris Coons, and Dennis Williams actually listened to your opinions–because they don’t need your vote in a one-party State, and they know it. On the other hand, I actually ran against Joe Miro, and he takes my phone calls and works with me. I’m not a Democrat, and yet Paul Baumbach, Bryan Townsend, Kim Williams, John Kowalko, Brian Bushweller, and others pay attention to me if I bring up a significant policy point. Likewise, on the GOP side I’ve had Ernie Lopez respond to what I’m saying even though he knows I’m not a Republican. So I think that argument is, on the state level, not accurate.
For accuracy’s sake, I am not involved formally in the Libertarian Party of Delaware any more, though I retain the registration. I am not actually attempting to build such a party. What I am commenting on is the unusual opportunity that exists in America this year to NOT ONLY avoid electing Donald Trump POTUS, but ALSO to change the nature of the “opposition” party.
The posturing I’m seeing here would make sense in Florida, or Ohio, or North Carolina, but this really is Delaware, and as much as I respect all of you, I think you’re all three completely wrong here.
They take your calls because you’re awesome Steve Newton, Duh.
I’m with Steve here. If Delaware was a swing state (or had > 3 electoral votes), maybe there would be a point in saying a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump. He’s right, Delaware will go blue just like it always has, by a landslide.
“Here’s another thing I don’t understand… why would people who didn’t vote for the winning candidate think their voices/issues should be heard? After all, if the candidate wins without your votes then do they really need you?”
Immediately? No. In the future? Yes. You can ignore the fastest growing block of voters for only so long before they’ve had enough. A plurality of voters affiliate with neither party, and that plurality has been steadily growing. It will eventually convert to a majority. The Democratic Party is heading to the November finish line with a busted wheel. It’ll either have to change, or (preferably) we’ll see a new party begin to emerge. The GOP is basically dead at this point.
I generally agree that in states where it matters, a non-Clinton vote is plus for Trump. In Delaware, I agree that you can protest vote (or principle vote) how you please, with the realization that Democratic candidate will win anyway – except if everyone else protest voted. So the strategy is first make sure the Democratic candidate will win and then stick to your principles. In summary, principles come first, except when they don’t. Or instead, pragmatism trumps principles. Or to make everyone feel better – logic, reason, and common sense should have primacy over ideals. Idealism is important, but so is putting food on the table. While there is the implication that principles are often principles of convenience, my main point is that one must really have crux sensitivity to know when to fight for the good instead of the best. Bottom line – pick your battles. You can’t win them all.
Elections in the US, and in Delaware, are binary. By design and through the accretion of tradition, our system is an offshoot of the trial by jury system which is a dialectical inquiry based decision making process. The decisions can only be guilty or not guilty – yes or no. Even in Delaware.
You are voting “yes or no.” While there is some illusion that there are other possible votes, there simple aren’t. A vote for a third party candidate is an abstention that only gives more weight to the other votes.
Even in New York state where there is a viable third party (The Liberal Party), the elections are still binary because New York allows fusion candidacies, the the Liberal Party and Democratic Party have built a tradition of keeping out of each others way.
If I vote for John Carney, that vote won’t give me any more influence with Carney than if I voted for someone else or didn’t vote at all. Attending Democratic meetings and advocating for somebody other than Carney is most likely to get me ostracized rather than gain influence in the party. It’s about machine politics, not individual conscience.
I don’t understand how voting is not an exercise in pragmatism. Voting is meant for you to have a say in the selection of your government. Right now, the selections for governing *are* binary, because at the end of the day, there will be mostly Democrat and Republicans with their hands on the wheel and if a 3rd Party or independent wins a place at the table, that person is caucusing with one of those parties.
Voting your conscience is of a piece with voting for the candidate you’d most like to have a beer with. Neither one of them has anything to do with taking your place in the civic space and working with your fellow citizens to get a government that makes sense for the greatest number of us. Voting your conscience *should* mean choices that you think are in the best interests of your community. It shouldn’t be abit of self-actualizing narcissism or a popularity contest.
I get making a protest vote — which serves only to make you feel better unless enough of us make protest votes to get a better choice elected. Or if there are enough of us to make the margin of winning small enough that the candidate has to rethink a position if he wants to run again.
Voting 3rd Party (and there are some 3rd Party candidates who would certainly represent the kind of government I’d want) functionally lumps you in with the people who stay home and do not vote. You will have exercised your franchise, but you won’t be heard by the people who most need to hear you.
“Voting your conscience is of a piece with voting for the candidate you’d most like to have a beer with. Neither one of them has anything to do with taking your place in the civic space and working with your fellow citizens to get a government that makes sense for the greatest number of us. Voting your conscience *should* mean choices that you think are in the best interests of your community. It shouldn’t be abit of self-actualizing narcissism or a popularity contest.”
When I cast a vote for someone without a D or R behind their name, it isn’t because I want to drink beer with them or that I’m pissy because my preferred candidate didn’t get the bid. That’s more than slightly insulting. It’s because, despite what the Binaries say, the person I am voting for would be the best choice for the greatest number of people, again, despite what the Binaries say.
“Voting 3rd Party (and there are some 3rd Party candidates who would certainly represent the kind of government I’d want) functionally lumps you in with the people who stay home and do not vote. You will have exercised your franchise, but you won’t be heard by the people who most need to hear you.”
Except the people that need to hear me (and others who think similarly) are the people that think voting 3rd party is a wasted vote and feel compelled to cast their vote against someone rather than for someone. They can’t hear me if I issue myself my own gag order.
despite what the Binaries say, the person I am voting for would be the best choice for the greatest number of people, again, despite what the Binaries say.
Which means about as much as staying home and not voting. Because while you may be voting for a better choice for government, the 3rd Party choice is simply not an option for governing. See the Binary thing again.
the people that think voting 3rd party is a wasted vote and feel compelled to cast their vote against someone rather than for someone
Not everyone who is voting is voting *against* someone. But I’ll go back to my point — if you are not voting for a vision of government (not someone, but a vision of government) that is reasonably on offer, then you aren’t being heard anyway.
“Which means about as much as staying home and not voting.” To you, it does. And that’s fine.
I’d like to see a third party choice as an option in the future. Which would require changes to the electoral process. First past the post will always devolve to a 2 party system. And I’d like more people to take notice that perhaps the way we do things now, isn’t the best way to have everyone’s voices heard in government.
I didn’t say everyone is voting against someone, read my sentence again. I said there are those who are doing just that, and I feel like their numbers are (and have been) on the rise. I don’t subscribe to the “Fall in Line or We’ll Stick Our Fingers in Our Ears and Go LALALALALA” method of government. Election turnouts are abysmal except in presidential years and even then they can struggle. I think a large part of the reason isn’t because people don’t care enough/are too lazy to vote, I think it’s because they feel like they’re not heard even when they do vote and to me, that’s not an acceptable form government. Some of the comments here affirm that thought. “Does your voice matter if you don’t vote for the winner”?
It’s all well and good to support in principle the establishment and growth of third parties. But the pragmatist establishmentarians have shown little or no support for them in practical terms. I remember there used to be the practice in DE where parties could nominate as their standard bearers in an election someone who didn’t actually belong to their party. I thought that practice followed naturally from the right of freedom of assembly. It also give citizens an opportunity to vote for someone they actually preferred. But the DE Dem party establishment found that too threatening to their monopoly on power so they successfully got that practice eliminated the second time they sent it through the legislature. And what did many, if not all, of the pragmatist establishmentarians here do? As I recall, they supported the legislation to curb the right of freedom of association. So when they could have kept in place a practice to actually widen the democratic options of Delawareans, they supported limiting their options. The pragmatists have no credibility.
To you, it does. And that’s fine.
Yes and to many others who are working at a civic choice, and not a personal one.
But if you aren’t voting for a government that is reasonably on offer, you aren’t voting for anything besides some self-satisfaction. That’s not even an effort that moves any 3rd Party ball down the field in any real way.
As I recall, they supported the legislation to curb the right of freedom of association.
Links, or it didn’t happen. Because this was the subject of pretty fierce debate here and some of the pragmatists certainly did oppose this.
Again, I didn’t say anything with respect to EVERYONE who votes. I think that’s been clarified enough now.
“Reasonably” is subjective and even then the only way to get something that isn’t reasonably on offer currently, is to keep working at it. I happen to feel that Sanders, the Independent in Democrat’s clothing, was reasonably on offer in the primary. Which is why I voted for him. 4 or 8 years ago he was no where near being “reasonably” on offer.
A respectful point of disagreement: Voting third party in the presidential election carries no negative cost. The Democrat will handily win Delaware with or without your vote. Saying that people “might as well stay home” is at best hyperbole if they intend to cast votes for competitive candidates in local races.
Obama beat Romney by 77,000 votes in Delaware; Clinton could beat Trump by 100,000. So, again with all due respect, those who want to tell others how to vote in the presidential race should kindly STFU.
Voting third party in the presidential election carries no negative cost.
Well this is certainly not my argument. My argument is that you might as well stay home if you are voting 3rd Party. Because no one who is working at being elected to office is interested in these votes.
I happen to feel that Sanders, the Independent in Democrat’s clothing, was reasonably on offer in the primary.
For a period of time, he was. But he wasn’t technically a 3rd Party vote then, right? He was a reasonable choice during a closed primary.
“For a period of time, he was. But he wasn’t technically a 3rd Party vote then, right? He was a reasonable choice during a closed primary.”
In as much as attaching a closing parenthesis bracket to a capital I made him a Democrat, sure. He technically wasn’t a third party vote because of the archaic closed primary system.
Had he run as an Independent or as a Democratic Socialist in an open primary, he would have still received my vote.
Reasonably is not always objective nor subjective. It is subjective when there are personal feelings/opinions and there is no factual basis that result from data. And it is objective when supported by data.
What is clear (and is supported by data) is the Democratic Party has evolved to become more centrist. There are many that think that’s a good thing since it makes the party more competitive in races, which of course is the primary purpose of the party.
Those who oppose what the party is today, have two choices, move the party to where they believe it should be or create a party that embodies the principles they desire. The former is difficult because of internal opposition – from the ones who like where the party is today. The latter is difficult because there is institutional opposition (the two party system).
Overcoming institutional opposition is easier because it’s not personal. The problem parties like the Greens have is that they don’t use their power of block voting very well. They waste it by selecting their own, even when their own has no chance of winning. They would be better served by forming coalitions when and where possible.
For example, the Green Party could have said – We aren’t big fans of Clinton, but she espouses some of the values we hold dear and we can’t stand Trump, so we are going to throw our lot in with Democratic Party this cycle. If there were enough Greens, they might even be able to negotiate a little power sharing for some of their people in one of the agencies. Instead they select their own who have no reasonable chance at winning. Alternatives have to be viable or they aren’t really alternatives.
Sanders tried to do some of that with the D platform, but in my view, he made a fatal mistake by holding out for the nomination too long and having lost, was unable to exact very many concessions. Think about what he might have been able to do if at the height of his ascent, he looked into the crystal ball, saw the outcome and went to Clinton with an offer of full throated endorsement, if she would share power in some fashion.
Knowing when and how to use one’s power is just as important as having power in the first place.
“no one who is working at being elected to office is interested in these votes.”
No one working at being elected is interested in any individual vote, except on the local level. Wilmington’s next mayor will be elected with between 3,000 and 4,000 votes in the Democratic primary, so in that election an individual vote (or a small clutch of them) can make a difference.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, isn’t going to notice your individual vote, no matter whom you cast it for.
If a person intends to vote for Jill Stein and Eugene Young, do you really think he should stay home? I hope not.
@Dave: Under our current system, the most reliable way to influence a party’s behavior is to be a rich donor. Others need not apply.
Dana – On the search box here at DL, you can type “fusion” into the search box and see what various people said about the subject. I think your memory is a little off.
Most of it was painful screeds by WvB and the rest of the IPOD people.
I searched for “fusion” and I can conclusively say that I love my own writing.
If a person intends to vote for Jill Stein and Eugene Young, do you really think he should stay home?
The difference, of course, is that Eugene Young has a shot at winning. Jill Stein does not. The better comparison, here is a vote for Maria Cabrera and Jill Stein. In which case, you are in the position of tossing your vote into a chasm.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, isn’t going to notice your individual vote, no matter whom you cast it for.
Still, this is not about the person. It is about a vision of government. Hillary Clinton doesn’t care about your vote for Jill Stein because she doesn’t have to. Your vote just entered the Not Voting category. This goes back to my argument about progressive activism and politics here in Delaware.
This goes back to the “throw them all out…except my guy” theory. The majority of Americans feel that the system is broken and they blame the “establishment.” Well, guess what, they ARE the establishment. They want term limits. We have them. They are called elections. They want more that two parties to choose from, yet they vote in overwhelming numbers for two parties to hold power. All this outward finger pointing is pure bullshit because the average American is either not willing to take responsibility for creating and maintaining the nuclear dumpster fire of a system, or the do not understand how the process really works. There are, of course, those who wear the tinfoil hats and believe that the “holy triumvirate,” or the free masons, or the Illuminati, or some other mythical circle of power runs the government. Guess what, it’s YOU! You are the puppetmaster.
If you want change (he says while beating a dead horse to the same old drum beat), then show up, participate, and change it from within.
@a “the most reliable way to influence a party’s behavior is to be a rich donor. ”
You are correct – to a point. But numbers can overcome dollars. I don’t know what the tipping point is, but if someone like the Greens had enough voters in battleground states AND the Greens held together as a block, then the impact of money would be lessened. What if Clinton needed the Greens to carry PA? or VA or FL?
Money only translates to power when principles stand up to money. Of course we’ve seen how easily everyone trades off their principles for money. So, theoretically, people have the power, but as in the prisoners dilemma the possibility of a payoff mostly overrules rational behavior.
@Cassandra: I realize you are trying to be consistent, but I think you misunderstood my point: In some elections your vote will carry weight, and in others it won’t. In those where it won’t, voting third party is NOT the same as ‘not voting.’ I don’t care if the party sees it that way or not, as my interest is not in how any party or participant interprets it; that is beyond my control.
I don’t share Hillary’s “vision of government,” so I’m not interested in adding to the margin of victory, which is all a vote for Hillary would do in Delaware. So I would be voting against my interests to vote for Hillary, while failing to do so will not hurt her. So I’ll be voting, as I did in 2012, for the Greens, who share my vision of government.
You can insist all you want that the acts are equivalent. It still will not make them so.
@Dave: I understand what you’re saying, but my interest in politics does not extend beyond voting. I don’t care what their strategy should be, I just give them my presidential vote every four years because I have this crazy idea that I should vote for the party that orders its priorities for policy most closely to my own.
Any one individual’s presidential vote in Delaware is symbolic. Why not treat it as such?
“If you want change (he says while beating a dead horse to the same old drum beat), then show up, participate, and change it from within.”
No thanks. I have spent too much time around politics to waste my time participating at that level. I don’t like most people in the first place, and have a tendency to lash out, as you might already have noticed. It’s not my job to teach a bunch of second-rate, self-interested bullies to act in the public’s interest. My going to local meetings isn’t going to affect the behavior of John Daniello unless I ante up.
You have Stockholm Syndrome. Both parties are ruled by the self-interested, and as I noted to Dave, the only way you’re really going to draw any water is by having money to donate. Joining the system at the bottom isn’t going to change it. It might make you feel good, but it wouldn’t do that for me.
You don’t have to join a local group to participate. Just vote responsibly. Treat your vote like money. Spend it wisely and don’t waste it. 54% voter turnout means that nearly half the country is not participating. You don’t have to be on a committee, or volunteer, or make calls, or… Just.Vote. It would be fantastic if you (the voters, not anyone specific) would read up a little on policy and what the candidate is about, but I would settle for just going to the polls right now.
Here he goes again, folks. No facts, all trash talk.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t care about your vote for Jill Stein because she doesn’t have to. Your vote just entered the Not Voting category. This would be news to Al Gore in Florida in 2000.
The whole underlying idea being advanced by several DL people here has two parts–
1) We have a two-party system; join it or be irrelevant forever.
2) The only way to have your voice heard and participate meaningfully in political change is to follow number one. Shorn of its niceties, this is what everybody has to offer.
The foundational premise is simply wrong, and the fact that between them Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are polling around 18% total is something of an indicator of that. In Delaware it certainly is not true. Green Party organizer Jen Wallace not only co-led the movement that stopped Jack Markell, UD and whatever the Data Center/Power Plant corporation was called dead in their tracks. Then she got elected to Newark City Council. Yes, Newark Council elections are theoretically non-partisan, but everybody in Newark (if not everybody in the State) knows that Jen is a leading Green who has said goodbye to the two-party system, and–oh–she got voted in anyway. It is an open question whether she could go on to other offices, but the chief hurdle is always the first election.
I’ve likewise had considerable success in working on various bills, and getting appointed to State commissions, and being able to be at the table when changes were made in school curricula in the 1990s and more recently in midwives legislation, in sexual assault reporting on campus, and in a number of other areas in which I am personally interested–strangely–contra what’s expressed here, I’ve not been turned away–ever–when I showed up with substantive contributions and a willingness to work, just because I’m a registered Libertarian.
Then we take a look at what this pragmatic allegiance to the Democratic Party in Delaware has gotten us: Jack Markell on education, tax policy, and the environment–check. John Carney who hasn’t got a single position at odds the with Delaware Business Roundtable that anybody could find with the Hubble Space Telescope–check. Dennis Williams–who might still win again–check. Karen Weldin Stewart–seeking another 4 years in which to place the profits of insurance conglomerates ahead of Delaware citizens–check. Pete Schwarzkopf–(D-Law Enforcement)–who makes bones about the fact that he runs the House based purely on his friends and enemies list–check. Patti Blevins–who co-engineered the deal that brought the Highmark Health Insurance debacle to Delaware–and who stands ready to torpedo anything that might scuttle the Highmark monopoly–check. Chip Flowers–’nuff said–check. Matt Denn, who’s really a nice guy and a true progressive, but who couldn’t move fast enough to grab the mortgage settlement money out from under people who’d lost their homes in order to advance his political agenda.
Yeah, yeah, I know … the standard defense of the DE Democratic Party and the supposed two-party system (listen to jason brag fairly often that Democratic primaries really ARE the elections) is that the Delaware GOP is far worse, or that the De Dems are developing a progressive “bench” with Baumbach, Williams, Kowalko, Townsend, etc., but they are still very much an ignored minority in many ways. I remember writing to the Progressives about making Delaware’s EITC refundable, and being told that it couldn’t pass the GA because refunding EITC to poor people in Delaware would take away too much tax revenue from the State. Which makes sense when you realize that top Democrats in this State support Secretary Cook’s plan to lower the corporate income tax and adjust revenues by more heavily taxing seniors and the middle class.
There’s a whole lot people here telling me that voting third party is a waste or a potential help to Donald Trump’s election, but the reality is this seems to be a lot of overcompensating for the fact that Delaware is really run by a Republican Party that happens to like LGBTQ people (and rickrolled the real Democrats by buying their URL), and that for that party Secretary Clinton is the perfect candidate.
sometimes voting for a third party can satisfy your … moral sense? ego? just that crazy fuck you feeling? — and it’s just fine (delaware presidential voting). but sometimes it’s, as they say, cutting off your nose to spite your face (vote for nader, get bush). those protest votes can sometimes bite you in the ass in the aggregate. anything anybody does in this election that might help trump is bad. it’s silly to be a purist about the future of “progressive” politics when trump is a clear and present danger. pragmatism over purity, but pragmatism in the right political direction.
“in a number of other areas in which I am personally interested–strangely–contra what’s expressed here, I’ve not been turned away–ever–when I showed up with substantive contributions and a willingness to work”
I agree. The best way for an individual without money to make a difference is to work on issues — not for the party, but with it sometimes. Joining Common Cause or any of the issue-oriented groups in the political arena is a worthy investment of time, and I apologize if I sounded like I was saying otherwise.
sometimes it’s, as they say, cutting off your nose to spite your face (vote for nader, get bush).
Amazing how easy it is to blame Nader voters for Bush and give Gore a total pass for not campaigning hard enough in Florida to win those folks’ votes.
yeah, gore was weak (maybe). doesn’t matter. folks on the left could vote for gore or nader. enough voted for nader to cost gore the election. so hello bush. is the idea to punish gore for not having perfect politics? is the idea that he didn’t kiss your ass enough to get your vote? nader voters still gave us bush. the very definition of” cutting off your nose to spite your face.”
Gore defeated Bush by 43,000 votes in Delaware. Nader got 8,000. Noses remained on faces throughout the state.
nader voters still gave us bush.
Bullshit. The Florida and US Supreme Courts gave you Bush. Gore gave you Bush when he couldn’t even land the 11 electoral votes in his home state of Tennessee.
Sorry, but that narrative hasn’t been accurate since 2000, and the dog won’t hunt now.
Gore lost because he let Bush get so close to winning that it came down to one State; Nader voters didn’t do this–Gore’s campaign blew the election.
If we’re being literal about it, in Florida in 2000 more than 3,000 people voted for “others,” which means people even more obscure than the candidates for the Natural Law and Constitution parties. And every minor party candidate on the ballot earned more votes than Bush’s eventual margin of “victory.”
second things first. it wasn’t only votes for nader that cost gore. but nader voters didn’t give a shit who won as long as they could make their self-righteous vote.
first things second: you might have been disappointed with gore’s campaign, but that didn’t make him worse than bush. did you vote for nader because you were sulking?
did you vote for nader because you were sulking?
Why do you get to presume I voted for Nader, or anybody else for that matter, simply because I point out that your entire argument is wrong?
You can’t escape the fact that Al Gore himself lost the campaign. It’s really pretty much that simple. It’s convenient, and it makes you feel all self-righteous to blame a small minority of people who actually exercised their Constitutional right to vote for electing Bush–but your injured feelings aside it just didn’t happen that way.
Although I do realize that if this hasn’t penetrated your brain nearly sixteen years later, it’s unlikely to do so at this late date. Still, maybe you want to try it in words of one syllable:
Al Gore lost cause Al Gore did not get more votes than Bush, cause Gore blew it and then Bush stole it, not votes for Ralph made Gore lose.
There, all one syllable for you. If you say it often enough the nightmares will go away.
dude, i’ll presume anything i want. also, if you voted for nader, you (or at least voters outside of delaware, where it doesn’t matter) essentially said you don’t give a shit whether gore won or bush won. and, gee, wouldn’t gore have gotten more votes anyway if some “progressives” hadn’t thought him insufficiently pure?
Hmmm… There’s a lot of blame to go around. Personally, I blame more than one thing. And taking things in context matters.
Gore made a ton of mistakes. He allowed himself to be over-handled, refused to campaign with Bill Clinton, that awful kiss with Tipper, etc.. He was so fake and scripted.
Bush pretended to be a compassionate conservative (I never did know what that meant) and fiercely against nation building. Ah, the good old days when Republicans pretended to be moderate to win elections.
Republicans, after impeaching a President, were ready to do anything to win. Jeb Bush and co. had the wheels in motion in Florida long before any vote was cast.
We can blame that insane butterfly ballot while we’re at it. Remember the large Jewish community that mistakenly voted for Buchanan? Good times. Don’t even get me started on the SCOTUS.
And Nadar ran on “There’s no difference between Bush and Gore!” “Both are awful!” “Both are establishment!” And many people bought that. I remember all the comments like Gush and Bore. People were so clever, weren’t they? And guess what? That had an impact, too. Can we stop pretending otherwise? If you disagree then I guess Ross Perot didn’t have an impact either, right?
Nothing happens in a vacuum. This was a complicated disaster with a ton of moving parts. There’s plenty of blame to go around. So, while I don’t blame Gore, Bush or Nadar equally, I do assign each a share of the blame. I’m actually quite amazed at how easily people blame one thing/person in the 2000 election. To me, it was a perfect storm.
There’s a lot on the line this election. Hello? Anyone watch Trump’s longest speech in history last night? Everyone okay with rolling the dice? I’m not, and you don’t have to agree with me – but I’m really struggling with this “voting my conscience” thing because it implies moral superiority – as in, “I’m voting my conscience, but you’re not.” Sorry, that’s the way it comes across and I know it isn’t really meant that way. Okay, sometimes it is meant that way. Be honest. 🙂
I do not lay all the blame in 2000 at Nadar’s feet (see above), but I’m kinda stunned that people discussing what happened in 2000 are placing the blame on one thing/person. I’m also not telling anyone how to vote, but if Trump wins (doubtful, but anything can happen in a two person race) there will be plenty of blame to go around and no one gets a pass on that.
1) We have a two-party system; join it or be irrelevant forever.
2) The only way to have your voice heard and participate meaningfully in political change is to follow number one. Shorn of its niceties, this is what everybody has to offer.
I have no idea what argument matches item 2 here, but item 1 is not the argument. I am specifically talking about the voting process, which is what Jason’s post started with. Even if you take argument 1 at face value, that does seem to be correct if you look at the history of winners and losers for Electoral Office. 3rd party candidates can and do win offices at a local level, but they are rare and have yet to build a path for more of them to follow behind.
Of course people from 3rd parties participate in government. But since that wasn’t the argument, I’ll leave that strawman alone. I’m specifically talking about electoral office. 538 has the chances of Gary Johnson winning at least one electoral vote at 5%. And since the electoral college is where the game is at this point, this looks like irrelevancy.
The better argument is that there aren’t enough 3rd party votes to be especially meaningful to either major party. Which is a problem for everyone who wants a better government. Since fewer and fewer people participate (and the bar to participate gets raised higher and higher), it is tougher to make electoral change. I’ll go back to pointing out that in a seriously Blue state, we are represented by a Federal Delegation that endorses cuts to Social Security and these people have no real challenge.
Nader was less of a factor in FL than the fact that this was a very close race, with the GOP juking the recount process at every step of the way, coupled with a candidate who did not do a great job at fighting for himself here. No matter who was running, there were going to be Nader voters. Nader spent alot of time trying to convince voters that there was no difference between Bush and Gore and I think plenty of people now know how wrong that was.
The blame is on all of us. We are the electorate that makes the decisions. Let’s face it, we get the government we deserve as a result of our actions/inaction. If we fail to participate in the process, or use our vote to make a point without weighing the consequences, we are all to blame. Third party candidates can be spoilers, so can bad campaigns and good opposition messaging. However, the inability, or willingness of the electorate (us) to move past the rhetoric and understand the issues, or just vote in general, deserves the real blame. Knowing the importance, the gravity of your vote is essential. Until we all understand this, we get what we pay for, unfortunately.
“Nader spent alot of time trying to convince voters that there was no difference between Bush and Gore and I think plenty of people now know how wrong that was.”
“There’s a sucker born every minute,” which is why the IRS scam and various Nigerian scams work so well. Besides letting greed dominate their actions, people lack the critical thinking skills necessary to make judgments and decisions that are grounded in logic, reason, and common sense. I don’t know whether it’s the educational system or just human nature, but for people to buy into the meme that there was no difference between Gore and Bush demonstrates their ignorance and inability to make responsible decisions.
That’s generally why I don’t believe everyone should be allowed to vote without passing a test that validates whether they comprehend what they are voting for. We have a test to be a masseuse; a test to drive a motor vehicle, but no test to select the next Commander In Chief, the leader of the free world? It’s not just silly. It’s dumb.