Is a 3rd party vote "thrown away"? Different perspective.

Nader in '04!
By Keith Burgess-Jackson

The silly season -- i.e., the 2004 presidential campaign -- is upon us, so let me provide a public service by helping you spot (and encouraging you to disregard) a particularly insidious but strangely alluring argument. It is an argument that you will hear and read many times in the next fifteen months. It is an argument that even intelligent, well-educated people find appealing. But it is a bad argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with the thrown-away vote argument is that it rests on a false assumption. Saying that you throw your vote away if you vote for Nader, Buchanan, or some other third-party candidate implies that you do not throw your vote away if you vote for one of the other (major-party) candidates. The concept of throwing a vote away makes sense, in other words, only if the concept of not throwing a vote away makes sense. This is what we need to explore.

In what sense, if any, does one not throw one's vote away if one votes for Gore or Bush? It might be said that since, realistically speaking, one of them is going to win the election, one does not throw one's vote away by voting for either of them. But this is strange. Does one's voting for either of them make a difference to the outcome? Paul Meehl has estimated that the chance of one's vote making a difference in a national election is one in one hundred million -- about the same as one's chance of being killed on the way to the polling place. (See Paul E. Meehl, "The Selfish Voter Paradox and the Thrown-Away Vote Argument," The American Political Science Review 71 : 11-30.)

More here:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-080403C

Makes sense to me. Any thoughts?

third-party candidates have no chance of winning? If so, there is an interesting corollary: voting Democratic in elections where the Democrat has no chance of winning is also throwing one's vote away. So, for example, my vote in 1984 was thrown away, because Reagan was guaranteed to win, likewise my vote in 1972. By that logic, Dems in majority-Republican states should vote Republican, so as to not 'throw their votes away.'

Of course, such a 'throw-your-vote-away' argument is a crock. One throws one's vote away only if one votes for someone who does not represent their views, or if one votes for one pol who represents one's view when another who also does has a better chance of winning. Personally, had I voted Nader rather than Gore in 2000, I would have seen this as throwing my vote away. However, were Lieberman to be the Dem candidate in 2004, to vote FOR Lieberman would be to throw my vote away, while voting Green would not. In fact, voting for someone whose views one finds antithetical is much worse than throwing one's vote away or failing to vote -- and that would be the case were I to vote for either Dubya or Lieberman. Putting a 'Democratic' label on a candidate does not make that candidate worthy of a vote, nor does the lack of that label make a candidate unworthy (although I do feel that a GOP label on a candidate tends to make that candidate unworthy of my vote).

The election in 2004, assuming that it is allowed to proceed in a fair-enough manner, will be a critical one. We NEED to get rid of Dubya. But a Lieberman candidacy would represent betrayal of this trust on part of the Democratic Party; and I would certainly not help in that process.

by voting for a third party, like i did in 2000 with nader, it shows your displeasure at the two major parties candidates. furthermore it can influence the major parties to adopt some of the third partys ideas. the populist party at the turn of the century is an excellent example of this.

many voted for this third party, even though they couldnt win, and eventually a great number of their progressive ideals were adopted by both the republicans (under TR and Taft with their trust busting) and with the democrats, particularly with wilson)


if the polls in New york were close in 2000, i would have held my nose and voted for Gore, but i instead was able to show my displeasure at him and voted for Nader.

the only vote that is ever thrown away is the one not cast.

peace
david
:hippie:

To my regret, and I live in Florida. I don't reckon I was the only one. And look what it got us.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

and concluded your vote would not have made any difference. If the article is right, you can stop kicking yourself.

actively harmful

Essentially, this person is arguing that one vote only matters if it changes the outcome of the election. And, I guess on some level it's true. One vote doesn't really matter in the whole scheme of things.

But we all know that elections are won and lost based on large numbers of individual votes. So, if one person chooses to vote third party, it won't really matter. But if lots of people vote third party it can have a significant impact on the outcome of an election (see Florida, circa 2000).

In other words: It doesn't matter if one person "throws their vote away". But it does matter if 70,000 people "throw their votes away".

I believe that the point of the article is that since your vote is incredibly unlikely to actually have an effect, you should be true to yourself in the voting booth.

Of course, the author doesn't address the issue of actually doing something that could affect a number of votes, as many who frequent this site will surely do.

such a vote is not "thrown away." It is actively a vote (or a partial vote) FOR EVIL.

It is true (though not for the author's reason) that a Floridian's vote for Nader was irrelevant. I'm convinced we would have had a judiciary-enabled coup regardless of the precise outcome in Florida.

Voting for a 3rd party candidate like the high-minded
Ralph Nader is act of principle, a statement of courage
& conviction of the deepest & highest form of pure action
that sees the world in the highest ideals. Voting third
party for a man such as Mr. Nader sends a message to
America & the world that here I am, a person who is
willing to take on the corp evildoers of both parties and
speak truth to all who have ears. There is no act greater or
finer than voting third party for a hero and a superior
being like Ralph Nader that a person can do.

That it got Bush elected is an unfortunate & unpleasant by-product.

that no single Nader voter had ANY effect on the election whatsoever. Hard to argue.

but the point of voting for Nader was to feel good
about yourself and to hell with the election. If
you are living up to your high ideals it doesnt matter
what happens to the nation or the world.

Was that in Nader's platform, or did you happen to perform a mindmeld with every Nader voter?

Is it possible that people voted for the person whom they most agreed with policywise?

from http://www.damnedbigdifference.org/quotes

Regarding Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Nader said that he is willing to sacrifice them because "that's the price they're going to have to bear for letting their party go astray."
In an interview with In the Times, 10-30-2000

In a recent Time magazine interview, when asked if he felt any regret about the 2000 election, Nader responded, "No, because it could have been worse. You could have had a Republican Congress with Gore and Lieberman." -- Time magazine, 8-05-02

Nader said that a Gore presidency "wouldn't have been any different in terms of military and foreign policy, soft on corporate crime. It wouldn't have been any different in ignoring the need to transfer our country to renewable energy and organic agriculture and protecting the small farmer. And it wouldn't have been any different on GATT and NAFTA and the increasing trade deficits and exporting American jobs." -- Green Party USA 1-14/02

"Let's see what really happens. Ashcroft is going to be a prisoner of bureaucracy." -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001

"I'm just amazed that people think I should be concerned about this stuff. It's absolutely amazing. Not a minute's sleep do I lose, about something like this - because I feel sorry for them. It's just so foolish, the way they have been behaving. Why should I worry?" -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001

of Nader voters. Ooooo.
Why do these words come to me?:
"Applewhite"
"meteor"
"spaceship"
???

'For some time now, Nader has made it perfectly clear that his campaign isn't about trying to pull the Democrats back to the left. Rather, his strategy is the Leninist one of "heightening the contradictions". It's not just that Nader is willing to take a chance of being personally responsible for electing Bush. It's that he's actively trying to elect Bush because he thinks that social conditions in American need to get worse before they can better.

Nader often makes this "the worse, the better" point on the stump in relation to Republicans and the environment. He says that the Reagan-era interior secretary James Watt was useful because he was a "provocateur" for change, noting that Watt spurred a massive boost in the Sierra Club's membership. More recently, Nader applied the same logic to Bush himself. Here's the Los Angeles Times' account of a speech Nader gave at Chapman University in Orange, California, last week: "After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said, 'If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anaesthetiser, I'd rather have a provocateur. It would mobilise us.'"

Lest this remark be considered an aberration, Nader has said similar things before. "When {the Democrats} lose, they say it's because they are not appealing to the Republican voters," Nader told an audience in Madison, Wisconsin, a few months ago, according to a story in the Nation. "We want them to say they lost because a progressive movement took away votes."'

That might make it sound like Nader's goal is to defeat Gore in order to shift the Democratic party to the left. But in a more recent interview with David Moberg in the socialist paper In These Times, Nader made it clear that his real mission is to destroy and then replace the Democratic party altogether. According to Moberg, Nader talked "about leading the Greens into a 'death struggle' with the Democratic party to determine which will be the majority party". Nader further and shockingly explained that he hopes in the future to run Green party candidates around the country, including against such progressive Democrats as Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, and Representative Henry Waxman of California. "I hate to use military analogies," Nader said, "but this is war on the two parties."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,393674,00.html

'Last Thursday morning CNN showed Nader voters ecstatic and unapologetic about their part in the election mess. "I'm a part of history," burbled one woman.'
'Along with that woman CNN showed another Naderite who shrugged off the prospect of a Bush presidency with the following: "I believe things have to get worse before they get better."'
'That seems to me to adequately sum up the belief of Ellen Willis who, in a Salon piece supporting Nader last week, wrote: "More and more I am coming to the conviction that Roe vs. Wade, in the guise of a great victory, has been in some respects a disaster for feminism. We might be better off today if it had never happened, and we had had to continue a state-by-state political fight. Roe vs. Wade resulted in a lot of women declaring victory and going home."'
Source: http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/15/nader/

'When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush."'
"If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win." - Nader
http://www.outsidemag.com/magazine/200008/200008camp_nader1.html

The only prominent Democrat who Nader seems to believe offers the party any chance for redemption is Russ Feingold, the maverick senator from Wisconsin who cast a lonely vote against the Bush Administration's antiterrorism legislation. Feingold is a rare Democrat who consistently says things like, "Ralph Nader is talking about issues Democrats should be talking about." But the mutual admiration goes only so far. Nader rejects the idea of backing a Feingold run for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. "I'll say a lot of good things about him, but we're not trying to build the same party," he says.

Nader admits he experiences "lots" of frustration with the Greens. He warns that the party is not running enough candidates to achieve critical mass at election time, and he says it must do so--even where that means challenging relatively liberal Democrats.

Does Nader worry, even just a little bit, that another candidacy might divide progressives and produce another Bush presidency? "Look, I'd rather be engaged in the nonpartisan work of building a civil society. For me, there has been a gradual commitment to getting involved in the electoral process, and I still cling to this civic, nonpartisan vision of how to do things," Nader says. "But if you do an acute analysis of why things don't change in this country, you come back to what has happened to the Democratic Party. When I look at how the Democrats have responded to Enron so far, it seems to me that we all have a responsibility to try to jolt them into an understanding of what is at stake. If Democrats respond effectively, there will not be much point to me or anyone else challenging them. But if they do not, something has to give. People realize that. People know what the Enron scandal means. This is a test. Are Democrats capable of addressing massive corporate crimes effectively? If Democrats cannot, if they are in such a routinized rut that they are incapable of responding, then how could anyone make a case that they should be given deference at the ballot box?"
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020225&s=nichols

Regarding Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Nader said that he is willing to sacrifice them because "that's the price they're going to have to bear for letting their party go astray."
In an interview with In the Times, 10-30-2000

In a recent Time magazine interview, when asked if he felt any regret about the 2000 election, Nader responded, "No, because it could have been worse. You could have had a Republican Congress with Gore and Lieberman." -- Time magazine, 8-05-02

"Let's see what really happens. Ashcroft is going to be a prisoner of bureaucracy." -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001

"I'm just amazed that people think I should be concerned about this stuff. It's absolutely amazing. Not a minute's sleep do I lose, about something like this - because I feel sorry for them. It's just so foolish, the way they have been behaving. Why should I worry?" -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001
http://www.damnedbigdifference.org/quotes

Contrast his statements above with some information on the two pre-Nazi Germany liberal parties:
In 1930 the parliamentary coalition that governed Germany fell apart, and new elections were held. The biggest winner in these elections was Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party. From twelve seats in parliament they increased their seats to 107, becoming Germany's second largest political party. The largest party was still the Social Democrats, and this party won 143 seats and 24.5 percent of the vote. Communist Party candidates won 13.1 percent of the vote (roughly 50 times better than the U.S. Communist Party did in the 1932 elections), and together the Social Democrats and the Communists were large enough to claim the right to make a government. But Communists and the Social Democrats remained hostile toward one another. The Comintern at this time was opposed to Communists working with reformers, and the Communists believed that a collapse of parliamentary government would hasten the revolutionary crisis that would propel them to power.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm

election.

So what?

You describe the destruction of American Democracy and freedom as an "unfortunate by-product" of expressing your ideals? You and your ilk are going to succeed in ending the greatest experiment in governance in the history of civilization and it's an "unfortunate by-product" of an act of "principle"? I hope your rationalization is of comfort to your kids when they are forced to join the "Young Neocons for Freedom". Oh, I forgot. It can't happen here. Well, it is happening here.

as I most certainly do, I can say that it is better
to feel good about yourself by voting for a high idealist
who will never win than to care about the country, freedom,
democracy, the world, etc., etc., etc.

In '68 a lot of us voted 3rd party far to the left of the Democratic nominee - Humphrey. We didn't expect to "win". In '72 the Democrats sought to recapture our votes and moved to the left. McGovern lost, but the party stayed to the left for quite awhile and society moved to the left. Despite Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush, just look at society today as opposed to what it was in '72.

Women's rights
Civil rights
The numerous protections in the workplace
Environmental law
etc

Most of this accomplished by "left" Democrats who were nominated and elected because the party had moved to the left to recapture it's base.

I may vote Green this time around because the DLC/DNC "moderates" are trying to shift the party even farther to the right in a hopeless attempt to capture people who voted Republican last time around.

The Democratic Party needs a good 3rd Party shove to the left if it remains nothing but the "me too" party.

But when the uppity-ups in the Democratic party start complaining that some of us are "too liberal," it can make even the most cautious liberal, like me, want to throw in the towel and vote Green. I figure if they don't want me, why stick around?

a vote for a third party is a vote for fascism. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

I have been a fan of Nader since I first read "Unsafe At Any Speed" back when it first came out. I've been a tree hugging environmentalist, feminist, radical left winger since I was 18 but I absolutely reject any apologists for Nader's role in elevating the fascists to power. You guys seriously fucked up.

If they do it again in 2004 I will assume they are neocon plants like Lieberman.

"Vote as we dictate or else you abet fascism."

Good grief, that doesn't even have the sheen of seriousness! Where did you get that idea, from the Senate Dems who sold out the Congressional Black Caucus or someplace else? Hypocrite.

But the world would not be on the brink of disaster if Gore had won a decisive victory. No hipocrisy here, just pragmatism. Even Clinton did many things I think were wrong, especially NAFTA.

What I'm saying, and it's undeniable, is a vote for a third party candidate is a vote that enables the fascist/corporatist/military-industrial takeover of America and the world.

You cannot artifically reduce the alternatives to two without it being a false dichotomy. That is what you have done.

I reject your dichotomy, especially since it implies that a vote for a conservative Democrat does not do what you say you want to avoid. The element of hypocrisy is in the selective argument that condemns a third party but gives a free pass to Democrats for the same thing, except, oh yeah, you "hold them responsible too," just not to the point where you sling terms like "fascism" at them.

I use it in it's most pristine definition, not as an insult or perjorative. I'm not happy with having to choose between stupid "Republican light" Dems or fascists, but I'm aware that this is the choice I have to make. Were I to vote for the Greens-which I would sincerely like to- I know I am just making it easier for the fascists to tighten their stranglehold on democracy.

Do you think Gore would have appointed Rumsfield or Ashcroft clones? Do you think we'd have a Democratic equivalent to the Patriot Act? I know the asshole Dems voted for it and the war for oil and all that and I'm not happy with them. As I said, sometimes you have to be more against something than for something.

A little more NAFTA here, snip a few civil rights there, gently bring the pot to a boil.

And the result would have been the same goddamn thing we have today, an unholy mix of goverenment and corporate power. Hell that's what the Great God Clinton was doing, you don't think that Gore wouldn't have followed his lead?

And please don't tell me that Gore wouldn't have gotten us into Iraq. There are PNACers on both sides of the aisle, and between them and Gore's oily corporate masters(OP anyone), Gore would have gotten into Iraq sooner or later. Hell with the 500,000 Iraqi deaths since the first Gulf War(between sanctions and thrice weekly bomblings) Clinton was doing a hell of a warmup act.

What is needed in this country is a shift away from this corporate/goverenment merger. And since BOTH major parties are pretty much bought and paid for, then the obvious answer is a third party, one that isn't beholden to corporate money.

Quite frankly my feeling on this is that if you are voting for either major party candidate then you are voting to keep those corporate shackles on yourself. Me, I prefer true freedom rather than just a slower boil.

You're right, but you are howling into the wind. There are few ears open to this.

And sometimes somebody listens. It looks like you are! Now, let us move on to the next person.

rather than for something. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

I've never voted Green even though I agree with them on every issue. I'll never vote any way but against fascism, even if it means voting for a corrupt asshole Democrat like Davis. I'll even vote for Lieberman if he gets the nod but I certainly won't like it.

No one is "Dictating" anything. You are being misleading by suggesting that there is any "dictating" going on here.

I don't really think that I need to explain the terms "paraphrase" or "summary" or even "extend from a principle" to you. Don't pose as if I do. Thanks.

look up the word "realpolitik"

any vote for a non-fascist Democrat is in effect aiding and abetting the rise of fascism.

But at least you "feel good" about it.

Why don't you curse the many Dems who voted for Bush, instead? Why don't you curse Jeb and whatsername, who purged tens of thousands of Black people from the voter rolls? What about the ex-repuke designer of the Camp-Survivors-for-Buchanan ballot?

Huh? What about them? Why do they get a break from you?

Your song makes me tired.

if you don't follow the DLC!

so I don't know whether they mention who Paul Meehl was (he just died this year). He was one of the most distinguished academic psychologists in the world, and an absolutely outstanding methodologist.

RIP Paul.

There is little more repulsive than the eternal whining and gnashing of teeth of supporters of the two major parties who think that supporters of policies espoused by candidates of other parties are magically, mystically beholden to voting for the candidate who doesn't respresent either their viewpoints or principles.

Whaaaaaaaaaaa!

I vote according to my principles and my conscience, and see absolutely zero reason why I should vote otherwise.

have nothing to do with what's best for the country.

It isn't clear from that sentence fragment what exactly you were trying to say.

If your principles are based on feeling good about yourself, then voting 3rd-party is consistent with that principle.

But if your principles have anything to do with what's best for others, then voting 3rd-party is not consistent with your principles because voting 3rd-party does nothing for those people.

If your principles are based on feeling good about yourself, then voting 3rd-party is consistent with that principle.

Feeling good about oneself doesn't necessarily have anything to do with political principles. My principles, for example, have to do with non-initiation of force, equal treatment under the law and maximum promulgation of the responsible exercise of personal liberty. I could hold to those principles and still be one miserable bastard, but I'm not.

But if your principles have anything to do with what's best for others, then voting 3rd-party is not consistent with your principles because voting 3rd-party does nothing for those people.

That only works if one goes under the assumption that the gov't is the best vector for addressing, to say nothing of determining, "What's best for others".

I don't make that assumption, and I understand that it's a conceit, at best, to maintain that one of the major parties has some exclusive patent on it.

The problem is candidates who throw their principles away in an effort to appeal to more centrist voters.

This is a sophism to tell those who helped W come to power that they are no guilty - so feel free to repeat the idiocy (check under "definition of insanity")
Noone is ordering anyone to vote one way or another. However EVERY VOTE COUNTS and every individual's actions on election day have consequences (including not voting). So, don't try to put yourself above all others. No matter what stratospheric thin area you may think you inhabit, your vote is as likely as mine to bring about fascism or hope in the future. You are perfectly free to chose which, but FULLY RESPONSIBLE for your action.

The point was that any one individuals actions on election day do not have consequences.

And half a vote against the Republican candidate. As long as people understand the math I have no problem with them voting for third parties as a statement of dissatisfaction with the major parties.

Lets say your house is on fire.
Three firemen are standing outside at the curb.
You can only pick one to help you fight the fire.

The first firemen has a truckful of gasoline
he wants to use to put the fire out.

The second fireman has a truckful of water,
but it's real dirty water.

The third fireman has a glassful of water,
but it is REAL PURE & PRISTINE.

Obviously if you have ANY PRINCIPLES AT ALL
you are going to pick the fireman
with the GLASS of PURE & PRISTINE water to
put your burning house out with, neh?

Any vote for a non-Democrat is positively EVIL.

It helps to perpetuate the tenure of the evil empire.