<quote name="Levi Pearson" date="Thu, 19 Jun 2008 at 10:52 -0600"> > Von Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > And how the hell do you know how many people are or aren't doing > > "strategic" voting?? Second guessing, I rest my case. > > > > They make these things called 'opinion polls', and they do a pretty > good job of measuring the opinions of the general populace. They're > not perfect, but they're not too far off.
They do a pretty good job of telling people what to do as well. > > The point of voting is to elect. Exactly. If I don't want to elect > > McCain then why the hell should I vote for him?!??! Same goes for Obama. > > I DON'T WANT TO ELECT THEM. Yet you insist that I must choose one of > > them because they're the only 'viable' ones. Worse yet, you have > > convinced yourself that you must do so, far more detrimental because you > > actually do it whereas I don't, whatever you might say. You ARE the > > problem. You are the very embodiment of the reason we have so little > > choice. > > You are the very embodiment of political fanaticism. I'm just being > rational, and advocating rationality. I never said you shouldn't vote > for sure losers, just that you shouldn't feel morally obligated to > vote for them, and there might be rational reasons not to. I'm > arguing against your impassioned plea for people to stop voting > strategically, I'm most certainly not saying that you *shouldn't* vote > however you'd like, if you've got good reason to vote that way. I see where you're coming from, and I've already conceded that sometimes it can make sense *if* you actually wouldn't mind who you're voting for in office (as apposed to _not_ that other guy). You should understand my context in this argument which is that both major candidates are very distasteful to me, and I believe they should be distasteful to most people. So distasteful as to not warrant a vote either way. It is against this I plea that citizens not vote out of fear for one or the other, but with a mind towards real change. If you want to argue that one or both the main candidates aren't that bad, go right ahead, but don't tell anyone to consider compromise between two bad choices when there are other choices. > > And a lot of those minds were made up based on who was "viable". There's > > the circular crap again. Nobody thought he was viable, why? because > > nobody voted for him, why? because nobody thought he was viable. As I > > said, I don't care if anyone votes Ron Paul anymore, he's not on the > > ballot, I accept that. But that doesn't mean I concede you should chose > > Obama or McCain! > > You seem to be under the impression that he *was* viable, and that he > did stand some chance of winning the Republican nomination if only all > the people who wanted him to win voted for him. Is that an accurate > assessment of your feelings? Becuase if it is, then I can understand > all your frustration here. I simply don't think that was the case, > though I'd be willing to consider evidence to the contrary. I don't think I ever did think he was viable. I dared to hope at times. I dared to dream. Neither of those is the reason I voted for him though. In the end I voted knowing full well I would be drowned in a sea of Romney lemmings. I did it anyway because he deserves my support, and no one else does IMHO. If everyone who liked Ron Paul voted for him in the primaries regardless would he have won? Who knows, probably not. Would he have stopped McCain from winning the delegation outright? Perhaps, but maybe not, some still think there will be quite a stir at the convention, again I can hope, but I don't think so. > > Voting only for people you don't strongly agree with so your vote can > > make a 'difference' is irrational. In the end you make no difference at > > all because you just flow with the status quo. > > So, what am I supposed to do if there's no one I strongly agree with, > eh? No, voting for the viable candidate I prefer is perfectly > rational. If I have no preference in the viable candidates, then it > becomes rational to vote for someone else. If you had to chose to eat between a dry turd and a wet turd, or a long shot ice cream pie, well then the ice cream pie wouldn't be a long shot becaues everybody loves ice cream. Now it's a dry turd, a wet turd, or a long shot bowl of broccoli. I'm sure a lot of people would rather have broccoli over a turd, but here's what people think... "People don't really like broccoli, even though it's good for you, so just in case I better pick the less gross of the turds." You may have a preference over which turd grosses you out more, but unless you are truly OK with eating a turd, I suggest you try the broccoli. Neither turd is going to kill you, both would be gross to varying degrees. Now, if you thought one turd would surely kill you and another wouldn't, then maybe pick the benign turd. If one would kill you more slowly, I don't think that's much of a choice, maybe you do. Anyway levi, how do you rate the turds? Are they both benign (not the end of the world) or both fatal, or is one benign and one fatal? Please explain your reasons and I shall stop telling you not to rationalize a bad choice. > > 'Polls' for any purpose but for the actual election, in which nobody > > knows who anybody voted for, are the bane of this political system. I > > would erradicate them all right now if I were able. > > The unpopular candidates would still lose, but rational actors would > have less information to work with. This doesn't seem beneficial to > me. The 'information' is counter productive. > > Just because you fail to come full circle doesn't mean the circle isn't > > there. > > You're not looking at my argument properly, then. I'm not saying that > voting for unpopular candidates is *bad*. I'm not saying that it's > *always* useless. I'm saying that because of our voting system, it > can make sense to vote for a candidate you don't like as much if you > prefer them to the other viable candidate in a close election. Only if you think the the one you voted for would do a decent job. If it's merely a 'less bad' job than the other, that's where I dissagree. > You are saying that one should *always* vote precisely for the > candidate that you prefer, whether or not that candidate has any > popular support. I disagree, and my arguments have been against this > one assertion, and not any other. *Always* vote for a candidate you can agree with. Anything less is selling short. If you can agree with one of the viables, then go ahead. Go out on a limb once a while and shoot for the moon, even if you miss you'll land among the stars. No really, if I thought there was a compelling reason to vote for one over the other, I would consider it. I thought there was a compelling reason to vote bush over gore, and then bush over kerry. I was burned. I'm not playing with fire anymore. Von Fugal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
