Ralph Nader declares his candidacy again.
I confess, I've never really understood the appeal of figures like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul. I vote for candidates who can't possibly win--but only when I am genuinely unable to muster a preference between the major-party candidates. Ralph Nader voters clearly have a preference for Democrats over Republicans, and Ron Paul voters, at least those who have graduated from college already, probably mostly prefer the reverse. So why vote for the guy you know can't win?
I know, I know--you want to move the party in the direction of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. But this is wishful thinking. The reason that those of us on the fringe--libertarians, Greens, socialist workers, or what have you--do not have more representation in government is not because there is some structural problem with the American political system, like a lack of IRV or minority party candidates. The reason we don't have more representation is that most people just don't agree with us. Oh, I know you can find a poll that says that voters want national health care, a guaranteed income, a carbon tax, or lower government spending. But voters like lots of things in the abstract. When you get down to the specifics of raising their taxes and restricting their choices, they tend to get balky. The Democrats cannot move significantly closer to Nader, nor the Republicans to Ron Paul, without losing more voters in the center than they gain on the fringe.
That's not to say that you should have a preference between Democrats and Republicans--frankly, these days, it feels a lot like "So, by which of the plagues of Egypt would you like to be consumed?" But if you do, you should vote for that candidate, rather than making an expressive vote which could put your last choice into office.
If you always vote third party even though you clearly prefer one major party to the other, clearly you hurt yourself -- you make the median voter one further away from your position. But what if you vote third party (or don't vote at all) conditionally? Doesn't that mean that the major party you like most (dislike least) doesn't get a free lunch when it moves to the center?
This is the classic protest vote. Those who vote this way hope that the protest votes are large enough that somebody in power says: "Whoa! Look at that! I'll bet there are ten times as many people who support this candidate. Maybe we should listen to their concerns." The only possible reason this hasn't worked is because the protest votes have been only 1 or 2% too low or because the supporters just haven't been vocal enough to make those in power understand!
Look, I consider myself left-Libertarian, whatever that means. And I voted for Nader in 2000 in WI, a state that was very close on Election Night, in a district where Nader came in 2nd, (tho WI wound up blue anyway).
Here was my thinking then... As a gay, pot smoker, I couldn't vote in good conscience for the guy who wouldn't do anything to stop the record number of pot arrests throughout the Clinton administration.
Nor could I vote for the guy who did lots of drugs when he was young and drinking but lied about it later in life.
So what was I to do? Bradley, my preferred Dem in 2000, was out. And Gore insulted him (and his supporters) throughout the primary process. Sound framiliar, Hillary?
And at no time did anyone on the left of the Democratic Party ever do anything to try to get my vote. I mean, the GOP is at least smart enough to throw their rabid right-wing base a bone every 4 years. (Although the union guys who acted like thugs and beat up the Green Party kids at the Gore rally at the capital in Madison days before the election, was a nice touch!)
Is it too much to ask that the DNC throw a bone to their 1-3% of the body politic who has the chance at costing them an electoral victory?
I don't expect gay marriage or undocumented immigrants or pot to be legal anytime soon, but it would be nice if some politician actively tried to win my vote on (admitedly obscure) policy issues, rather than just suggest that I "owe" my vote and my political allegiance to the candidate I hate the least.
If you are in a state that you know will go either democrat or republican you are wasting your vote to either candidate under the electorial college system. A large enough protest vote will be noted by the losers and victors.
What difference does it make? Why vote at all?
In the immortal words of George Wallace, "Aint a dimes worth a difference 'tween em". We're going to be in the same sorry mess we're headed for, it's just a matter of whether we get there 5 years sooner or later.
To be fair, Rick, that 5 years could be a rather large deal to someone who has to wait for something important (like health insurance, or the Iraq war to end.)
In the words of Utah Phillips: "If elections could change the system they wouldn't be allowed." No viable candidate talks about our real problems and none of them will do anything but keep digging the hole deeper. If the choice of allowed winners makes no difference then why not at least make a statement with a protest vote?
Megan, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on not voting as opposed to trying to muster up a preference for one of the major candidates. I haven't been able to do the latter (yet), while you have somehow convinced yourself that Obama is worth supporting. But in your post on why, one of the big reasons seemed to be that there were no better alternatives. In short, you seem to be settling. Do you think settling for the least offensive candidate is better than not voting?
Similar to Fritz, above, I have never lived in a state where the electoral outcome was in any doubt on election day. A third party vote makes the most sense for me under that circumstance.
I think your colleague Matt Yglesias favors a solution - transition to a parliamentary democracy. At first blush, it seems attractive. Not only would it be possible to accommodate smaller and/or regional parties (which might be able to elect some members to the legislature). Such parties might have also greater influence on policy when the larger parties can't cobble together a sufficient majority on their own (which seems likely the way the country evenly splits between democrats and republicans).
However, I am sure the parliamentary system has its own drawbacks.
"The reason that those of us on the fringe...do not have more representation in government is not because there is some structural problem with the American political system..."
I disagree. The winner-take all system encourages people to gravitate toward bigger parties. Subsequently, the smaller parties get diminished.
Voters like a lot of things in abstract but if they've never heard of it, they can't like it. I'm sure that if libertarians or the greens get the same type of exposure in the mainstream media, you'll find that a lot of voters support those ideas.
MM wrote: I vote for candidates who can't possibly win--but only when I am genuinely unable to muster a preference between the major-party candidates.
Huh. Sounds vaguely like third-party candidates might have a collective action problem.
Tim,
You are exactly right. Media coverage will rule the day. Political Scientists generally disagree as to how many parties is "too many" if they are all represented in government and have seats in legislatures relative to their popular support, but to think that our two party system works because there are a paltry few individuals who would and do support third parties is hogwash. The two parties enjoy things just the way they are. Would the country crunble to its knees of thirty percent of congress was Green for example? Once Obama or McCain wins, the debate over one payer health care, job loss, deceptive and immoral credit practices, defense waste, and real environmentl issues and solutions will end. Is that really the "American Way?"
Third parties in congress and local and state legistaltures and executive positions will bring attention to the issues important to many americans and force the two parties to respond or face further losses of support. That is in fact "the American Way."
Obama calls himself a progressive and gets away with it. Where is the media coverage of the falsity of that statement. Where is the education concerning what a true liberal or progressive stands for?
I vote in Washington state, where the vote always goes democratic, so I can vote republican or democrat, and the outcome will be the same. A lot of American's are in this situation. So would voting for Nader really be wasting my vote any more than voting for a McCain or Obama?
The idea that your vote makes a difference is nice, but not based in reality (unless you're on the supreme court).
Brett,
I guess the hope is that over the course of many years our voting numbers will grow and a third party could gain prominence, even if the only real affect on the system is that is makes one of the major more responsive to the concerns of the third party. There are so many issues that are important to Americans that having only two parties speaking on only a handful of issues does a disservice to us all.
Megan, why do you think the Ron Paul derives most of his support from people who would otherwise vote Republican? as far as i can tell there are three groups of Paulians, the racists, the truthers, and the economic illiterates. none of those is a core group of Republicans. i remember someone writing that in New Hampshire, the guys with big Ron Paul signs on their front yards were the same people who had Howard Dean signs up last time. i also used to frequent the local and DC activist web sites and i saw a lot of "hey all you rethugs, the only REAL conservative in the race is Ron Paul." i really think that the majority of his support comes from people who will eventually vote for Obama in the general election.
We should at least give good old Ralph credit for bringing Universal Health Care to the table once again. With no real difference between Obama and Clinton and in reality McCain on this matter, other than the few that will be without coverage under Obama's plan, why not let the man speak if he is able to get himself on that ballot.
There are only five types of people who believe Universal Single Payer Health Care is a bad idea:
1. The rich, who will be just fine under any system.
2. The uneducated (not necessarily through fault on their part), who really believe that Kaiser is health care and will cover them should they actually get very ill (over and above their contract cap).
3. Corporate directirs of HMOs and the so called doctors who manage the care.
4. The brainwashed, who believe Universal Health Care some how equates to communist rule. Look out every other indusrtialized nation with Universal Health Care, you'll be fascist any day now don't ya know?
5. People who like earning less money at their job because their employers are paying higher health care premiums than they have to for substandard care, and risking bankruptcy every day should they actually get sick and exhaust their coverage.
Doesn't it bother anyone that Doctors who work for many HMOs actually have a binding fiduciary duty to the corporate entity that trumps the hypocratic oath?
Brett makes an important point. I live in California, and only in 1992 was the outcome of the presidential election in doubt, and that was because of a third-party candidate. So, in the general election, why should I not vote Libertarian?
Votes in the primaries are a different matter. Had Giuliani remained viable through super tuesday, I would likely have voted for him. As it was, I didn't have a strong preference between McCain and Romney, and knew that Romney would only be a possible contender in a few congressional districts way to the south of me, so I had no strong reason to vote for anyone in particular. (Huckabee didn't stand a chance here; California is too Catholic.)
My calculation whether to vote for one of the mainstream candidates or a third-party candidate is based on whether I think my vote will make a difference between the mainstream candidates. If Hillary ends up as the nominee, I'll probably vote for McCain, because McCain might actually carry California against the Wicked Witch of the East. If it's Obama, I'll look at the Libertarian, because my vote won't make any difference - Obama will sweep California.
No, the reason most people pull the lever for one of the MSM preselected idiots is not because they don't agree with the policies of the lessor known candidates, it is because the media ignores--what should be--newsworthy events and policy differences to focus on the irrelevant while chanting the names of their anointed front runners a thousand times an hour. So instead of asking questions like "how can Iran be a threat to world peace if they don't have a Navy or Air Force?", or "why do Americans pay 10 times more for prescription drugs than the rest of the world and why we are not permitted to import them?", they engage in journalistic malpractice and require viewers/readers to do their own investigation just to determine who else is running.
I also live where my vote doesn't count. The states' usurpation of the Electoral College has ensured that. At least when I vote Libertarian there is some slight chance it will have an eventual effect, voting for the Dem. is truly a wasted vote. With the gerrymandered districts we have now, my vote for Congress is a waste too. I moved a few blocks, as it so happened across the district line, and went from a locked Dem. district to a locked Republican district. So I ALWAYS vote 3rd party, even if I completely disagree with the available candidate. At least it keeps a little bit of pressure on the system.
I'm a born Canadian now in California, and have been intrigued by the idea of a third party. However, it seems like everyone goes about it the absolute wrong way.
Running for president is way too expensive and has almost no chance of succeeding. Sure, it's a great way to generate a ton of press, but it's also a way to blow through your party's cash quickly.
Instead, why not start small? Find some state races that are contestable and go after those. Heck, you might even be able to find a congressional district where you can win a seat... certainly independents have won before, so why not those from an organized party?
Megan provides one such problem... that most of the third parties are outside what most Americans want. But something more mainstream... socially liberal and economically conservative (but not extreme) would seem to match up nicely.
Yes, it would take 20 years to get to the point of being able to contest senate and presidential campaigns... but are we that impatient? (or has it really been tried before?)
From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation
I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:
1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder);
2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder);
3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever";
4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for one's actions;
5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President";
6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office;
Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:
Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me";
Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me";
Severe: Announces campaign for president.
Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html
per
"The Democrats cannot move significantly closer to Nader, nor the Republicans to Ron Paul, without losing more voters in the center than they gain on the fringe. "
Ya sure.
If Juan McCain accepted Paul's ideas of fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, and protected our borders and soveignty, ohhh ya that would drive away the center voters, in droves.
So why vote for the guy you know can't win?
Why vote for the guy you know can win? That vote won't make any difference either.
Is there a rational argument for voting at all, that does not work for the unlikely candidates?
If Juan McCain accepted Paul's ideas of fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, and protected our borders and soveignty, ohhh ya that would drive away the center voters, in droves.
McCain already pays lip service to all those positions (even borders now), and those aren't the reason Paul lost. If McCain started talking about leaving the UN, returning to the gold standard and other far-out stuff, he would either alienate Republicans (i.e. by advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq) or Democrats (orthodox free-market economics).
It is because voting for Ron Paul represents a protest vote against the neocons who have done what they have down to America -- Remember that it was Kennedy that said those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable...
People should be allowed to voice their disagreement with the US Establishment...
Let the Paulites speak and vote the way they want...
The Ron Paul run was what is called an emergent phenomenon. A lot of us on the web (as a Canadian I certainly wasn't a Paul activist) saw big problems coming that weren't being addressed by the mainstream candidates or the media. About equally urgent were the war's affordability and the looming economic and financial crisis.
Paul was, at least, touching on these issues. Unfortunately his candidacy ended before most Americans woke up to the seriousness of those issues. Now the mice will have a choice among three sound cats when they do realize how grave the present crisis is.
Given that the time, effort and expense of an individual voting is ever likely to change the outcome of an election, the fundamentally interesting thing is that people are still motivated to do it. Given the disjunction between effort and utility, it will always be hard to make a 'rational' case for an individual to wake up on election day, struggle out of bed, ignore the TV, fuel the car, give up an hour's pay and go vote for anyone, let alone vote for a particular person.
The multitude of psychological motives for voting (identity, amusement, boredom, protest, moral obligation,civic duty) are way more interesting, and logical, than arguments about why voting democrat rather than Nader is more likey to give a return to the individual voting.
It is remarkable that so many people want to make an argument for individuals to be motivated by some aspect of the idea that their vote may change the outcome of the election, rather than what really motivates people to vote.
I kept reading and all I heard was a wet fart sound.
Ron Paul is right. I know I know.. Im just a silly internet geek sitting in my moms basement.
4 more years of this crap and people will be flocking to Ron Paul. Maybe Im wrong... more than likely after this election the GOP is going to be in shambles. Ron Paul is going to rebuild it. How do I know? I dont. BUT if the Republicans expect to grow.. they cant possibly keep advocating the crap coming out of the White House now.
If you think the 100K people that worked on this campaign are going away, you are mistaken. This is our learning curve and we will be back.
I do know that.
I kept reading and all I heard was a wet fart sound.
Ron Paul is right. I know I know.. Im just a silly internet geek sitting in my moms basement.
4 more years of this crap and people will be flocking to Ron Paul. Maybe Im wrong... more than likely after this election the GOP is going to be in shambles. Ron Paul is going to rebuild it. How do I know? I dont. BUT if the Republicans expect to grow.. they cant possibly keep advocating the crap coming out of the White House now.
If you think the 100K people that worked on this campaign are going away, you are mistaken. This is our learning curve and we will be back.
I do know that.
It is a self-sustaining predetermination. The only reason we can't change things is because enough people are convinced we can't. The natural tendancy of power is to accumulate and our system of government attempts to disperse it. To be successful each citizen must retain and acknowledge their own power and responsibility over the circumstances of their own life and government. Each citizen who ignores what they believe is right because it is not popular has surrendered their individual share of ownership and power, thus allowing power to accumulate and darkening the future of our republic.
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE