dagblog - Comments for "A third-party candidate in 2012? It's going to happen, pollster says"

I have to say that the

Elusive Trope — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:45:25 +0000

I have to say that the preferential approach does make more sense the more I think about it (although the issues of counting voting ballots seems to be a big hurdle). Part of kgb's response seems to also be built on the premise that there is very little difference between A, B and C. An attitude that has been growing stronger in this country that is partly based on the facts - there is not much difference in the big scheme of things between Mitt and Obama (Perry and Bachmann) that is another matter. But this no-difference-between-politicians (which includes all-politicians-are-corrupt meme) can be seen as an outcome of the winner take all approach. If we had three or four or even five serious candidates for the presidency and Congress over the past three decades, where people could rate them in order of preference, then we might not have so many with the attitude of what we face is a voting decision "which at that point really becomes largely a matter of taste on what types of policy you'd more prefer to see get all fucked up for the next four years - as opposed to just marginally fucked up or flat-out ignored."

On one hand, we disagree

Verified Atheist — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:55:56 +0000

In reply to Assuming there is someone on

On one hand, we disagree about how to best use our "one choice". Given candidates A, B, and C where it's clear that C is not going to get more than 20% of the vote, I like to use my vote to specify my preference for A over B (or B over A). You think it's better to use that vote to specify C over A or B. Reasonable people can disagree, preferably politely, but many here have expressed a feeling that politeness is limiting or something like that.

However, my primary point is that we shouldn't be forced into that limited choice. We should both be able to say that we prefer C over A or B, but that we prefer A over B. That's my point, and that's the point of the video I embedded.

Assuming there is someone on

kgb999 — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 05:44:50 +0000

In reply to Reposting a video I embedded

Assuming there is someone on the ballot next November you agree could better represent your objectives in the office than Obama (not necessarily assured at this point I am guessing) then you are the one who would be wasting your vote ... and expressly agreeing you support the system exactly as it is.

I don't care really, it's your vote. But your decision matrix seems simple-minded to me. In every instance the decision is carried based on a strong chance that something you have been conditioned to fear most of all may or may not occur supposedly based solely on your vote. So you knowingly vote against your own self interests if voting such has the "best chance" of not realizing your conditioned fear. Ironically, everyone who is knowingly voting against their own self interests on the other side in support of that which you fear most are doing so because that person represents the "best chance" of not realizing that which they have been conditioned to fear most of all.

And of course, neither of you are technically wrong when you holler that the other side has someone who's probably going to act against our best interests ... the only thing you really disagree on is that the candidate you've totally agreed to support despite recognizing doing so is against your own self interest isn't quite as against everyone's self interest as their guy who they are supporting despite recognizing doing so is against their self interest - which at that point really becomes largely a matter of taste on what types of policy you'd more prefer to see get all fucked up for the next four years - as opposed to just marginally fucked up or flat-out ignored.

The net result is that everyone gets an assured outcome that will always be against our own self interests. And then y'all do it again next time.

Fucking brilliant. Yup. Genius, that. Couldn't ever just stop being stupid ... im-possible. They don't even have to pretend anymore, they've got you guys on autopilot.

If only we had a Queen

Elusive Trope — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:24:12 +0000

In reply to Reposting a video I embedded

If only we had a Queen Lioness, rather than hoping that Gorilla and Tiger would change the system in order to lessen their grip on power.

See below for a non-clipped

Verified Atheist — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:15:37 +0000

In reply to Wouldn't it be easier to just

See below for a non-clipped version of this video.

Reposting a video I embedded

Verified Atheist — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:15:04 +0000

In reply to A third-party candidate in 2012? It's going to happen, pollster says

Reposting a video I embedded above since that one seemed to get cut off by the margin:

Wouldn't it be easier to just

Verified Atheist — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:11:41 +0000

In reply to Wouldn't it be easier to just

Wouldn't it be easier to just stop exhibiting the behavior you describe?

No, because I can either vote for a third party candidate or I can express my preference for Obama over a Republican-to-be-named-later, but I can't do both. That's the meaningful origin of the vicious circle. Over time, it just gets amplified. Watch this video to see why:

Wouldn't it be easier to just

kgb999 — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:27:34 +0000

In reply to It's a vicious circle. We see

Wouldn't it be easier to just stop exhibiting the behavior you describe?

I think people stay home because they perceive that it doesn't matter which one of the people wins ... nobody offers anything worth a shit. Not that their vote might be cast for the person who doesn't win and therefore "would not matter."

The voting scheme minutiae doesn't seem to really make a difference as far as excluded political ideas go. The media decides what to disseminate through the mass media. Howie Kurtz put it bluntly not long ago (I think in relation to Ron Paul ... too lazy to check) and said the Media's role is to discern who is not worthy and kick them out of the race. The two parties negotiate with the television networks over who will be allowed to participate in every debate that goes on national broadcast. And they set arbitrary fundraising or poll-number bars to "prove" a candidate is serious enough to participate (because getting the support to qualify for the ballot is apparently not "serious" anymore). Without equal ability to present ideas to the bulk of Americans through mass media, any person hoping to run is already irreparably hobbled no matter how you re-jigger the voting.

I think by and large when many Democrats look at reforming the voting system aren't trying to fix that part - or very specifically don't think there is anything wrong with that part at all. For a person who accepts as given that "America is a two party system" and is totally stoked with that, reforms are focused at trying to make sure something like Florida 2000 never happens to them again.

I like the idea and think it could make a big difference with the state and congressional representation ... just don't think any of them would change much when it comes to presidential politics (I *am* very skeptical of some of the replacement ideas suggested along with doing away with the electoral college though).

FYI: My sources have just

Elusive Trope — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:14:32 +0000

In reply to That's exactly what the

FYI: My sources have just told me you are a blasphemer and must be ignored.

Under the circumstances I

EmmaZahn — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:14:21 +0000

In reply to Don't know much about Georgia

Under the circumstances I think Jim Martin did as well as he was ever going to in the 2008 general. Since only voters in the general election can vote in runoffs, the percentage spread there is much more representative of straight party line voting.

2008 is maybe not the best year to use to make your point. It is difficult to imagine a third party candidate who would have increased turnout more than Obama did.

And on the House side, you know what happens when you assume. Of the six Democrats, four are black, two white. The two uncontested Democratic seats are the result of extreme gerrymandering along racial lines.. Of the two you would consider Blue Dogs, Jim Marshall lost his seat in 2010 and John Barrow's district is being carved up in the redistricting after the 2010 census in which Georgia picked up a new seat in the house. It will be filled in the 2012 elections. The new 14th district proposed by the Georgia legislature is pending approval by the Justice Department. It is a reliably Republican region.

In fewer words, the percentages of votes in extremely gerrymandered districts really do not mean that much. For more on that:

Southern white Democrats are becoming an endangered political species by Vernon Jones