Subject:
|
Re: It's All Over...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:39:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
346 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Miller writes:
> > Jeremiah VanderMark <doggybot_37@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> > > everything. Who'd have thought that a vote for Nader really *was* a vote for
> > > Bush...
> >
> > No it's not. Although there is some difference between Gore and Bush,
> > they're both corporatists, they both want to increase military spending,
> > they both support the death penalty, etc., etc., etc.
> >
> > A vote for Nader is *not* chosing the lesser of two evils.
>
> Well, it's choosing a totally different sort of evil, one could say. :-)
>
> But the basic point that a vote for a third party candidate is a thrown away
> vote is VERY entrenched in certain circles, and it's wrong. It's extremely
> unfortunate that it's such a widespread viewpoint, because it keeps us stuck
> in a duopoly. And not just any duopoly, but an amazingly broken one, which
> gives us candidates of the stunningly low quality of Bush and Gore (or was
> it Gush and Bore, I forget)...
>
> (that was satire, in case you were wondering)
>
> ++Lar
The system the way it is set up (winner takes all - I'm refering to
virtually all political elections in the U.S.) encourages just two parties,
and the blandifying of positions. Say the Green party gains momentum and
strips liberal votes away from the Democratic party. Let's use the
following scenario as an example: in area X (oh, let's say California) the
democratic candidate gets 54% of the vote, the republican gets 43% and the
green gets 3%. Meaningless. Say the Greens gain a lot of support cause
they are sick of the almost-Republicans masquerading as Democrats that keep
getting nominated (Clinton, Gore, Lieberman, etc.) Now they capture 20% of
the vote - but it all came from the Democratic candidate. Now it stands at
43% Republican, 37% Democrat, and 20% Green. Winner takes all. Instead of
getting in someone more liberal, they got in someone more conservative.
Did they get their message across: no compromise? Or did they cut off their
nose to spite their face? Will their message win out in the long run? Or
would the best thing they could do is find some way to bleed off the
solidarity of the Republican party by starting a strict conservative party?
The Orange County Register loves to describe itself as Libertarian, but it's
all lip service: they always recommend the stock Republicans.
Getting other viewpoints is important, be it Green, Libertarian, or Reform
(one might argue that the Reform party doesn't seem to have a viewpoint of
its own, but that's beside the point). Question the status quo. But
actually getting anywhere with a third party may be hopeless as it stands.
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: It's All Over...
|
| (...) Well, it's choosing a totally different sort of evil, one could say. :-) But the basic point that a vote for a third party candidate is a thrown away vote is VERY entrenched in certain circles, and it's wrong. It's extremely unfortunate that (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
