Tactical voting for Bush?

Here's a question that Noam Chomsky replied to 2 days ago:

Dr. Chomsky,

At times I wonder if it actually wouldn't be better if Bush were reelected in November. My thought is that if Kerry is elected, nothing will change much. Sure, we probably won't be invading innocent nations and killing innocent civilians (at least not as much), but will very much really change?  It will still be politics controlled and designed for the benefit of the rich and the status quo will continue onward.  

However, I often think that if Bush had another four years in office things would get SO bad that people might start to wake up. Maybe it's just what the United States needs to make us more responsible citizens and really change the status quo.  Bush would continue with his neo-consevative agenda and things like security, economy, poverty, environment, anti-american feelings, and so much more would get so much worse.  The world would hate us even more than they already do, and the resistance movement would really grow.  People would wake up to the reality of this type of politics.  

Do you think this is a reasonable thought? Should we root for George Bush?  Or is it more morally responsible to vote for Kerry, who will obviously do less damage?

Here's his reply:

Reply from NC,

Conceivable, but I think unlikely. There have been such arguments in the past, in the early 1930s, for example. I'm old enough to remember the slogan "the worse the better" from the left. It led to Hitler. That doesn't prove the argument is wrong now, but it's very hazardous to take the chance.

Noam Chomsky

Links: first log in as guest here, then it's possible to list the replies - i also added that in the external links of the wikipedia chomsky article (btw, if anyone have an idea whether it's possible with this forum to make a one-click link that automatically logs you in as a guest and lists the search results?)

It seems that there isn't much info on the internet about this shameful historical slogan, but i do find one-line comments such as:

Professor Lunch at Oregon State notes ironically that this "the worse, the better" strategy was followed by the German Communist Party in 1932 before Adolf Hitler came to power. (from this csmonitor article)

Assuming we agree with the above, not voting for Kerry can be justified either by people who think that Kerry would be even worse than Bush, or people who don't see a significant difference between Kerry and Bush.

Personally, I recommend voting for Kerry (in swing states), because otherwise I think that the rest of the world would view the American people in a very bad light.

However, I suspect that kerry and his admin will be horrible. Specifically, his proposed secretary of state is not a nice person. But we'll have to wait and see... here's one hint:

America must always be the world's paramount military power. --John Kerry, May 27, 2004 (link)

In case it'd indeed become clear during 2005 that Kerry is similar to Bush, I wonder if progressive movements might want to start a Kucinich 2008 campaign, or an intense campaign to change the voting system (see wikipedia:voting systems, dkosopedia:votings systems, and specifically wikipedia:IRV), as discussed for example in the Dean-Nader NPR debate.

Comments are welcomed... thanks for reading...

•  The problem with popular elections

  is that there is no way that we will elect an avowed ultraprogressive or whatever to the presidency. People are pretty up in arms about Bush, but I don't think they would take the next step (something people proposing the "worse is better" scenario never seem to take into acount) of moving radically in the other direction. They will take to the streets until they get back to the status quo, basically.

  Your best chance of enacting change, really, is "sneaking" it in. In a way, that's what W did himself. He appeared "reasonable" (to some anyway) during the election, then went and did his damage. We would have to get a Democrat (it's not going to be someone from a third party) elected who seemed moderate and nonthreatening, but once in office was able to pass more progressive policies.

  by JMS on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 06:16:05 AM PDT

•  I hate the need for a military at all;

  But saying "America must always be the world's paramount military power," is merely telling the truth. In a world where he who has the best military power is the one who gets fucked up the least, it's a truism.

  It's a weird and dangerous world out there. We live in the nicest house on the block. There are plenty of people who would like to loot it, destroy it or kick us out and live in it themselves. Keeping up our overwhelming military might is one big ass deterrent to those people.

  Now, leaving our nice house and heading across town to loot, destroy and occupy someone else's house because it has better cable reception is another thing altogether.

  by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 06:16:55 AM PDT

  •  Didja Ever Think

    That if we helped everyone else make their "house" nicer--like with clean water, human rights, education and health care, and support for microbusiness and agriculture--they wouldn't want to tear our nice house down so much.

    It is a truism that we could get probably 10 times the bang for our buck if we spent it on health, education and grassroots economic development in other countries rather than on a bloated military to intimidate and invade other coutnries.

    The founders of the U.S. were wise not to support a standing army and we would do well to reduce ours and focus on humanitarian aid as much as possible.

    by bramish on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:09:46 AM PDT

    •  I'm going to kind of disagree with

      both of you. The only military threat (I'm not talking about terrorism or economic sparring--more like missles and tanks) out there comes from countries that are not so much envious or wanting our house because it's nice, but have military ambitions. (Russia and China? I can't think of anyone else) Our military isn't going to be going on humanitarian missions to those countries anytime soon.

      Anyway, the military isn't really well trained or well suited for humanitarian missions. It would be better to maintain a smallish standing army to deal with countries with actual military ambitions as well as "hot spots" where genocide or whatever is going on that can only be stopped by force. As for the humanitarian part, a beefed up Peace corps type organization (one that included people with useful skills, or would train people in such skills) would be better.

      by JMS on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:25:50 AM PDT

      •  That Was the Idea

        I'm not suggesting the military be sent on humanitarian and Peace Corps type work (shudder). Your idea, much smaller military and a good deal of the savings directed to environment, education, health and grassroots econonmic development in poor countries.

        It won't help with Russia and China, but it could make a difference in the middle East.

        by bramish on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 09:09:22 AM PDT

    •  Yes... and no.

      Jefferson was anti-federal military. Hamilton was pro. And so on.

      But, yes, of course I've thought that -- as has any reasonable humanist.

      Y'know what? JMS said it so well, I'm just going to go with ditto on his post.

      by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:30:22 AM PDT

•  Swing states/Safe states

  No such thing as a "safe" state.

  If a state is "safe" at all, though, it's because of the number of people over whose backs one will be climbing when casting one's "intellectually strategic" protest vote. Yes, the reality of the electoral college may mask the effects of such aberrant votes (which itself calls their protest value into question), but it's worth considering that it's also not a particularly becoming position for egalitarians concerned with the plight of the poor to be in -- "free riding" on the "safety" of their numbers so that you can be "intellectually honest."

  What's "intellectually honest" about protest voting only where you know it won't result in anything, anyway?

  I am, however, in agreement that the rest of the world would view the American people in a very bad light if George Bush were re-elected. However, I also wonder how the rest of the world would view the American people if the popular vote for Kerry weren't overwhelming, because of the number of "intellectually honest" votes cast.

  by Kagro X on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 06:18:18 AM PDT

  •  Well, for myself...

    ...if Kerry wins, and the popular vote is overwhelmingly anti-Bush, then I'll be pretty happy. Don't know why you'd think the rest of the world is looking for an overwhelming pro-Kerry vote though. Globally, I suppose I count as centre-left, and if Kerry wins while the Greens get a substantial share of the popular vote, then to me that would be pretty damn good.

    by gong on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 06:26:11 AM PDT

  •  swing states

    Well... Chomsky is in Massachusetts, which is probably the safest state there is. See this 1972 map for example, though they did vote for Reagan hmm...

    As for the phrase 'protest vote', probably the way to look at it is that if your vote actually swings the elections result, it'd put more pressure on the DNC people to support changing the elections system. But that is true for swing states - in safe states it's just in order to demonstrate your discontent with the 2-party system, no practical chances that it'd change results in safe states this year, same as in 2000 etc.

    by nimc on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 06:47:59 AM PDT

    •  Don't consider Massachusetts safe.

      The Secret Service harrassment of Boston-area workers under the excuse of "Democratic convention security" is already creating a backlash in favor of Bush.

      by Jon Meltzer on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:17:04 AM PDT

      •  perhaps

        people are grumbling now, but when was the last time someone currently representing a state lost it during a presidential election? seems unlikely.

        by JMS on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:27:04 AM PDT

      •  No f-ing

        way that's going to happen.  Take some valium and relax.  ;->

        by KingGeorgetheLesser on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:41:08 AM PDT

        •  Okay, maybe this is too pessimistic for Mass.

          But there is one part of New England where an anti-Democratic convention backlash will help Bush - southern NH, that state's population center. Lots there commute to metro Boston and the roads and mass transit they use are the ones that are most adversely affected by the "security" madness. They won't be able to get to work with all major highways shut down and trains stopping ten miles outside the city. Remember, in 2000 the NH vote count was so close that Nader was a factor.

          by Jon Meltzer on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 09:34:49 AM PDT

      •  How much of a backlash?

        Is he becoming more popular in the state? Will this help Romney and the other MA bigots as they come close to taking over the entire state and pushing hate all over people?

        How stupid are MA residents if they vote for lunatics based on this?

        by JamesB3 on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 08:55:34 AM PDT

    •  Yes, Massachusetts.

      Reagan. Yeah.

      And don't they have some Mormon Republican guy from Michigan as their governor? Yeah.

      My point isn't really that the outcome of the vote in Massachusetts is in question, it's that I'm more than a little put off by people like Chomsky, who think the "little people" of Massachusetts should put their votes together to support his giant, superpowerful brain on its way into the voting booth, so he can cast the Ballot Heard 'Round the World^TM, and thereby clear up for us grubby folk what the true "intellectual" ought to be doing with his vote -- wasting it, but in a "principled" way.

      I just don't see much "principle" in making the rest of Massachusetts do the real work for you, just so you can indulge your fantasies about how wonderful your deep understanding of the electoral college system is.

      I know it's not supposed to affect the outcome, but to me, that's all the more reason not to shirk the heavy lifting and pretend the great unwashed will do it for you.

      Sort of from left field, I should also mention that I believe that fear generated by the ongoing "War on Terrorism" will be used as a pretext for unprecedented voter intimidation and disruption operations targeted at heavily Democratic urban centers this year, something you can read about in my comment here, if you're interested. My top concern is that this will happen in urban centers in swing states. But if it's more generalized, how much more will we have to pay for the fantasies and clarity of vision of people like Chomsky who thought what they were doing was "safe" because other people were taking care of their states -- people who may turn out to have less of an opportunity to do the grunt work Chomsky is counting on than he thinks.

      by Kagro X on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:23:45 AM PDT

•  Once again

  Noam Chomsky, hero of the American Left, understands things better than much of the Left.  He has also said that he plans to vote for Nader, but he makes clear that he feels free to do this only because he lives in a safe state (Massachusetts).  Chomsky sees that even though both Bush and Kerry are far from ideal, there's a significant difference between the two.  Why don't Nader and his supporters get it?  

  by dtj on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 06:35:20 AM PDT

  •  Question

    Do you know if Chomsky has explained why he would vote Nader over Green? I'd be curious to know what rationale he has, if any. (The article you're linking is from before the Green convention where they selected Cobb, and decided not to endorse Nader, so that might have changed things.)

    by gong on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 06:51:58 AM PDT

    •  I'm not sure

      I'm curious about that too.  I can't see any justification for a Nader vote in any state, given the fact that Cobb has been endorsed by a real party and has promised not to campaign in swing states.  I'll keep my eyes open for follow-ups from Chomsky.

      by dtj on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 06:57:33 AM PDT

      •  greens

        If I remember correctly, he recently said on his forum something like "vote for Nader (or greens if they're on the ballot in your state)." Check the link I posted for the replies there if you want.

        The point is that there're no real differences on the issues between Nader and the greens, so it's just tactics. But I guess it's a little hard to tell people to vote for the green candidate, because even the green VP candidate said she probably won't vote for herself.

        by nimc on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:23:08 AM PDT

  •  chomsky's position

    Yes, Chomsky keeps saying exactly the same thing since before the 2000 elections about tactical voting. Though in 2004 he sounds more decisive in the way he describes the damage that the neocons are causing, actually managed to get him to use the words 'voting' and 'Kerry' in the same sentence... Funny how the Guardian used the headline "Chomsky endorses Kerry", and Counterpunch used the headline "Chomsky plans to vote for Nader", even though he was telling them exactly the same thing.

    Though if I remember correctly, he described 1996 as a meaningless elections betweeen 2 moderate Republicans.

    by nimc on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:16:23 AM PDT

    •  asdf

      Though if I remember correctly, he described 1996 as a meaningless elections betweeen 2 moderate Republicans.

      I don't remember Chomsky's exact position in 1996, but this sounds like something he would have said.  Maybe living under George W. for four years has reminded him how bad right-wingers can be.  After all, Bush Senior wasn't as bad as Bush Junior.  Senior showed at least some interest in building coalitions and maintaining alliances, and he also was more willing than Junior to put pressure on a right-wing Israeli prime minister.

      by dtj on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:31:39 AM PDT

•  From a sociological standpoint....

  the argument that making things worse will push things to the point where people will become so pissed that they become really motivated to change things in a radical direction doesn't hold up.

  Usually when things become so bad, people tend to settle into despair rather than action as progress begins to seem hopeless. Revolutionary and reformist movements take off when hope is up and expectations are high.

  Thus in Russia, when Stalin was in power, the resistance was weak and demoralized. Revolutionary progress instead flourished under less repressive leaders like Gorbachev.

  In our history great progress was made as radicals demanded more and more of LBJ. When the left unleashed the "wake the barking dogs on the right strategy" and allowed Nixon  to take power in the hopes that it would make things so bad we would have a revolution--the counter-revolution gained a firm foothold which it has never relinquished since.

  If you want radical progressive change vote for Kerry and as expecatations and hopes rise, pressure to move left will follow. If you vote for Bush in the hopes of radical change, you will only firmly entrench the reactionaries in power. The middle will become quiet and complacent, hoping not to draw attention to themselves in a climate of repression. The left will become cynical, disillusioned and wallow in self-pity. And the right-wing will march on unimpeded, thinking it has a mandate to make minced meat of our Constitution.

  A vote for Bush is a vote for a repressive and reactionary future. A vote for Kerry is a vote for keeping hope alive, and giving us avenues to challenge power head on and create a boisterous, viable left that holds Kerry's feat to the fire. A vote for Kerry recognizes that given the choice between a crypto-Fascist and a corporate liberal, you should pick the liberal everytime, but you need never forfeit your right to criticize the person you help elect.

  by Keith Brekhus on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 06:53:23 AM PDT

  •  voting for kerry

    Let's assume that everyone votes for Kerry, and he'll win in a landslide. Question is, how'd he interpret this? For example, he might think: "I behaved like a warmonger, and still all these suckers voted for me... I have them in my pocket and now I can do whatever I want..."

    Note: the above has nothing do with the question about tactical voting for Bush, since we all (including Nader) agree that it's a bad idea. It was meant with regard to whether people who don't like Kerry should vote for Nader or not vote for either candidate (in safe states).

    by nimc on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:45:05 AM PDT

    •  In my opinion....

      a vote for David Cobb in a truly safe state like Rhode Island or Wyoming is an appropriate choice. Preferably Cobb rather than Nader in my opinion.

      I would resist the temptation to vote third party in states that are winnable, even if only remotely--such as Colorado, North Carolina, Tennessee or Lousisiana.

      I would also resist the temptation in any swing state, or in states like Maine, Washington, and even perhaps New Jersey and California, if polls show Kerry's lead at 8 points or less.

      As for Texas, Utah, District of Columbia, North Dakota, Hawaii, New York and Massachusetts--feel free to vote for Cobb by all means if you are a Green or leftist who is not enamored of Kerry.

      by Keith Brekhus on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 09:02:25 AM PDT

  •  This is one of the great comments

    I don't agree though.  I think progressives need to make their demands clear before the election (because Kerry is hard to pin down--if he's president, it'll be even harder, esp., if he feels he doesn't owe you anything), but your points will definitely be percolating in my noggin' for a while.

    by KingGeorgetheLesser on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:45:21 AM PDT

•  Paradoxical

  Does the questions line of reasoning seem a little paradoxical to anyone else?  "I don't want to vote for Kerry because nothing will change, but if Bush stays in office, things will be much worse."  Isn't that, in fact, implying that things will not be the same under a Kerry administration?

  by GCentrone on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:07:04 AM PDT

  •  it's a tactical question

    Yes, the question takes it as a premise that things will be better under Kerry than under Bush, but then asks if tactically it might be better to actually make things worse.

    Same logic that the communist party in Germany used in 1932, apparently.

    by nimc on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:30:15 AM PDT

  •  on this point

    I recall Chomsky saying - and I can't help but agree - that there are sometimes indeed only small differences between the two candidates.  I think that might be the case in this race.  But, Chomsky points out, small differences can translate into huge impacts when so many millions of people are affected.  it's for this reason that as he and others say, you "hold your nose" and vote for Kerry - and continue to push for progressive issues after he (hopefully) takes office.

    and to this I add, we need to continue our pressure on the media.  I think it's having effect (thank you, Al Gore, for the internet!) but will only continue this trend if this pressure continues.  

    by LegalSpice on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:07:55 AM PDT

•  uh, no...

  it really boils my blood whenever i hear shit like, "However, I often think that if Bush had another four years in office things would get SO bad that people might start to wake up.", or any other diatribe about how we should just corporate hegemony destroy the world economy, all in order to "wake people up".

  this attitude shows as much disregard for people's well being and suffering as the neocons have for Iraqi citizens.  I want progressive change in this country as much as the next lefty, but I'm not willing to knowingly allow innocent people to be murdered by Bush, or have their lives destroyed by unchecked corporate greed.

  the "worse, the better" mode of thinking is just plain lazy and dangerous.
  

  by beedee on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:38:37 AM PDT

  •  suffering iraqis

    People like Bill Clinton, and presumably Kerry, also show much disregard for the suffering of the Iraqi people - "the price is worth it", in Albright's words.

    But you're right that if the Bush admin would decide to invade more countries, it'd cause more suffering that might not have happened otherwise.

    by nimc on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:57:36 AM PDT

    •  People right here

      are going to suffer, too. We don't have to invade anyone else to get that job done.

      I think a larger part of his point is that the "let's let things get so bad that everyone will see our point" argument is literally dismissive of your neighbor's well being.

      I guess a Nader or other protest voter might think that it's fairly noble, since they'll be suffering too. But as long as we're willing to indulge demographic realities as justification for our position, we might as well recognize that the demographic reality may well be that Nader voters aren't likely to be the most immediate targets of the downward pressure four more years of Bush domestic policy would create. No, those victims will be the folks who made all those states "safe" for Noam Chomsky to satisfy his intellect.

      by Kagro X on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 08:12:57 AM PDT

•  let em just add...

  I think even the "vote Nader in non-competitive states" strategy is pointless, if not counter-productive.  As long as the Dems fail to accumulate a substantial national majority, the party wusses from the South and midwest are going to say "See...we need to be careful", and progressive legislation will be stifled.  It was Reagan's surprisingly wide margin in 1980 (and the unexpected Senate victories) that emboldened the right's agenda (an emboldening that lasts to this day -- they were even willing to push it after losing in 2000!).  

  Dems need the same to free themselves from the loser's mentality they've built up -- a mentality that's left them feeling persecuted and unloved after three straight popular vote victories.  This mindset will only be shaken by a thumping win -- say, Kerry 53-55%.  If he ends up 50.7%, with Nader/Green getting 2-3%, I guarantee the Dem response will not be "oh, we should be more progressive to court those holdouts" -- they'll draw the lesson that they're still a minority party, that they need to keep to "the center" (i.e., half-right) to hold what gains they've managed.  This progressive strategy is a classic "bite off your nose to spite your face".

  by demtom on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:49:44 AM PDT

  •  progressive dems

    To get Dems to think "oh, we should be more progressive to court those holdouts" won't happen and shouldn't be the objective. The objective should be to change the elections system to IRV or run-offs or proportional representation. About 50% of eligible voters don't vote in the current system.

    by nimc on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 08:13:04 AM PDT

    •  I'm curious.

      For what percentage of those 50% is the lack of innovative voting systems the problem, and for what percentage is it a pathological addiction to The Bachelorette?

      by Kagro X on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 08:17:50 AM PDT

      •  voters

        First of all, even if these 50% would vote under the current conditions, it wouldn't matter much if the choice is between Kerry and Bush. I think that unlike the U.S., on average about 75% vote in other countries... not sure though. The point is that only, say 20%, would vote for republicans under another elections system... The republicans just keep coming up with unimportant issues in order to spilt the vote under the current system (e.g. abortions, which Reagan and Bush Sr. were in favor of in the past, before it was decided to be used as a political weapon). Plus they control the media...

        by nimc on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 08:33:07 AM PDT

        •  ermmm

          Ermm... re-reading what I wrote, it's a little off. I didn't mean to say that only republicans don't want to change the elections system, and that only republicans control the media. It's mostly the corporate system, that has control on the power centers of the dem party as well. The dems and the repubs seem to enjoy the idea of swapping admins every several years between themselves... they don't want to change the system.

          by nimc on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 08:44:53 AM PDT

        •  That's what you think.

          But let's face it, you don't have much in common with people who have the right to vote, are registered to vote, but would rather watch TV than vote.

          On average, I'm sure a larger percentage of people in other countries do vote. That's something I've seen written about in a number of places. But I've never actually seen anything that proves it's directly related to the voting system, the type of representation, or anything of the sort. There's a correlation, but nothing else. Maybe they watch less television. Maybe they're better educated. Maybe they get election day off from work. Maybe they're... a different culture. We don't know. We can't assume anything.

          I also don't know that only 20% of the electorate would vote for Republicans under another election system. I'd like to think that's true, but the "beauty" of the "unimportant issues" that Republicans come up with to split the vote is that as unimportant as you may think they are, they resonate. Not with you, maybe, but you certainly have no basis on which to seriously conclude that it resonates with 20% of the nation and not one person more.

          No, my bet is that even with the novelty of a new election system, voter turnout stays low. Maybe it spikes out of curiousity at first, but my guess is that it'd sink straight back down to the bottom where it is today. No proof, of course. And I'm willing to try it anyway, but let's not bet the farm on it.

          The only bet I'm willing to put serious cash on is that the voters of the nation enthralled by Fear Factor is going to find Ralph Nader as stultifying and inscrutable as any major party candidate you'd care to name.

          That, and the probability that under the first several elections under IRV, more than 20% of ballots nationwide are either spoiled or carry bullet votes that defeat the whole purpose.

          by Kagro X on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 08:51:52 AM PDT

          •  hmm

            I'm not sure I understand you. You seem to more or less admit that there are no important differences between the 2 parties, but still claim that no one would want to vote for a party that is not dominated by warmongers? Take Iraq for example, you don't think that under IRV or proportional representation a party could succeed if it'd run with a platform to pull out American troops from Iraq and replace them with peace keepers from other countries?

            I didn't understand your last comment, could you elaborate?

            by nimc on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 09:26:30 AM PDT

            •  Whoa.

              No, I absolutely do not admit that there are no important differences between the two parties. Let's get that out of the way immediately.

              Secondly, IRV and proportional representation are two entirely different things.

              Thirdly, I think it's entirely possible that some substantial percentage of registered voters still wouldn't turn out even if they did have the opportunity to vote for a party that is not "dominated by warmongers." What does it really mean when a registered voter would rather watch Survivor than vote? What makes us think that it's really a passive-aggressive way of decrying warmongering, as opposed to just simple boredom? Do you really think that "not being a warmonger" is going to make Ralph Nader in particular, or voting in general, so much more interesting to people who couldn't be bothered one way or another?

              The last comment means this: I'm willing to bet that under an IRV system, a significant portion of the ballots cast will either be:

              1. "Spoiled" -- that is, voided -- because they are uninterpretable. This may only be a danger (ironically) with paper ballots, though, and how they get spoiled will depend entirely on the mechanics of IRV on a given county's ballot.

              As I understand IRV, voters will have to rank their candidates in some order. Will they write their numbers in a blank alongside a pre-printed list? Will they write in the names in order on a pre-printed series of blanks? I don't know.

              But a ballot with two number ones on it (or any other number in duplicate) would have to be considered spoiled, because you won't be able to accurately determine the voter's intent. (Think ballots with two or more "dimpled chads.") Similarly, ballots with illegible handwriting may be spoiled.

              2. "Bullet" votes are votes cast for a single candidate and only a single candidate, despite having the opportunity to vote for more than one. In municipal elections for Council in my old town, we used to get a selection of sometimes seven or more candidates for two or three seats. So you were allowed to vote for as many candidates as there were seats being contested. Hardcore supporters of one candidate or another would cast "bullet" votes for their candidate, and forego the use of the second vote, so as not to inadvertently supplement the totals of other rivals, even though they may support some of those other rivals.

              I see this as a very distinct possibility for IRV ballots, even by people who do it out of confusion rather than overzealous partisanship (of whom there will also doubtless be plenty).

              It's also worth mentioning that these municipal ballots were spoiled at an alarming rate by people who either didn't understand, forgot, or just slipped and voted for more candidates than there were seats available.

              But the key thing about bullet voting was that it was widely understood in my town that to maximize the chances of your favorite candidate (and you could just as easily replace "favorite" with "the one with the best chance of defeating the bad guy"), you had to forego your opportunity to vote your conscience and support both your candidates in favor of going with one top choice.

              Now, that's admittedly different from IRV elections in which there is only one seat available, and your second choice gets your vote if your first choice doesn't garner enough support. But my point is that bullet votes can be cast on IRV ballots both by zealous partisans and just generally confused individuals, and we won't know what to do with them if the one vote that's on them isn't for a leading candidate.

              by Kagro X on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 09:52:41 AM PDT

              •  re whoa

                You seem to focus on your claim that many people would prefer to watch tv instead of voting, even under another elections system. Well, hard to know if your prediction is correct... maybe for example out of the missing ~50% an extra 25% would vote, raising the total to 75%. But even if we assume you're correct, and still overall only 50% would vote, you didn't argue why those 50% should vote for the dems and the repubs, and not to the greens or other parties? Anyway, these are all speculations, with nothing to back them up. Will you at least admit that there's no difference between the 2 parties with regard to Iraq? You don't think that a party that will run on a platform to pull out of Iraq can get a majority or a significant % of the vote?

                As for IRV spoiled votes, it seems that unlike for the current elections system, e-voting with paper trail is actually useful for IRV (with random manual checks of paper trails on certain % of the votes.) For the current system, the only reason for e-voting as far as I can see is to give the republican controlled companies who run the machines a way to cheat. Other than that, it seems pretty much useless to me, because voting using paper is simple enough.

                by nimc on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 10:33:27 AM PDT

                •  No.

                  No, I won't admit that there's no difference between the two parties on Iraq. There will likely be some difference, albeit a matter of degree, in the party platforms. But those anachronistic exercises haven't had anything of real substance to do with candidate positions and/or policy for ages. Candidates now routinely publicly disavow "their" platforms.

                  And that's because they're still individuals, not bound by all aspects of party affiliation. Is a pro-choice Republican a Republican? Is a pro-life Democrat a Democrat? Was there ever anything that Ralph Nader differed from the Green Party platform on? Of course. In fact, campaigning actively in swing states is only the very latest split -- this one leading to the Greens' refusal to nominate the man.

                  Why must the labels of major parties be so difficult to shed, while Ralph Nader and Peter Comejo are permitted to wear three or more in a single decade -- or even run under two or more banners in a single election?

                  So, is there no difference between the two parties? Let's define our terms. Who are these parties? Are the Democrats Joe Lieberman, or are they Cynthia McKinney? Are they Charlie Stenholm, or are they Barney Frank? Are the Republicans Tom DeLay, or are they Christopher Shays? Are they J.D. Hayworth, or are they Richard Lugar? I don't know, and neither do you. But your argument insists that you make up your mind, and likely that you make up my mind for me, as well.

                  IRV or no IRV, nothing's stopping our television-enjoying brothers and sisters from joining us at the polls, even if it's to write in Ryan Seacrest. I agree that it's all speculation that changing the voting system will or won't change voting motivations, but don't you see that that is exactly the problem? You're proposing a major overhaul to everything we know about democracy, and you know next to nothing about what it will really do. It's the SDI of electoral reform.

                  In the end, I think there are very few people who are regular non-voters who will become so energized about the prospect of voting under a different methodology that they'll drop their remotes and come out, unless there's a porn star on the ballot, which seems relatively likely, actually. I really just don't see any indication anywhere that people who can't get motivated to understand two-party politics will get religion by offering them multi-party politics. It might work for you, but I bet you don't like spending as much time watching My Big, Fat, Obnoxious Fiance as they do, either.

                  by Kagro X on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 11:53:34 AM PDT

                  •  re no

                    I didn't notice any difference in the rhetoric between Kerry and Bush with regard to Iraq. Do you claim that there will be differences in practice? What would these differences be? They both seem to want to send more troops to Iraq, and build 14 military bases there.

                    You didn't comment on whether you think a party with a platform that calls to pull out the troops and oil contracts (the Kucinich platform) could succeed in the 2004 elections under IRV or proportional representation.

                    I really just don't see any indication anywhere that people who can't get motivated to understand two-party politics will get religion by offering them multi-party politics.

                    The above implies that people should be motivated by the 2-parties? May I ask why? Why should they be motivated to choose between 2 candidates if they don't see important differences between them? The dems and repubs have been doing about the same things throughout the years, though the current admin is more extreme than usual. But after we get rid of this admin, do you want once again to let people choose between moderate-repub and dem admins? Why don't you want to try to let other voices a fair chance to compete? The dems and repubs don't need to struggle for ballot access like Nader, they control the media and tv debates, and the winner-takes-all system makes people say that they choose a candidate (in the dems primaries etc) according to his 'electability' skills, and prevents people from taking the risk to vote to someone else, because their vote would just be lost. Do you think this is fair?

                    by nimc on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 07:54:02 PM PDT

                    •  That's not what you asked.

                      And you need to be careful about that. You asked me, "Will you at least admit that there's no difference between the 2 parties with regard to Iraq?"

                      I reminded you that it's my view that it's positively ridiculous to argue that "the parties" and their positions can be represented either through the now-irrelevent exercises in platform writing, or by assigning globally to all Democrats the positions taken by some. Why isn't the "Democratic" position on Iraq Kucinich's rather than Kerry's? Both are Democrats. Is it because Kerry is the Democratic nominee, and therefore his position must, ex officio, be that of the Democrats?

                      Ralph Nader is the nominee of the Reform Party, but Nader's positions on immigration, and likely abortion rights, are not those of the Reform Party. Why are positions transitive for Democrats, but not for Reform Party members or Ralph Nader?

                      Do I claim there will be differences in practice? Yes I do. Will it necessarily be on the specific points of policy you've chosen to highlight? Not necessarily. But do I think that the Bush policy on Iraq is fantasy-based and aims at a larger, more expansive and less realistic agenda, while Kerry's, though perhaps ill-considered, is aimed at a more measured role and hopefully one day, an extraction from the region? Yes I do.

                      In other words, I believe there is "dime's worth of difference" between what the candidates want to do next in Iraq. I believe Bush wants to use it as a base to expand his war into Syria and Iran, while I believe Kerry wants to stabilize the cities as a precursor to at least a minimized presence. Do I think Kerry's course is the wisest possible? No. Is there a difference? Yes.

                      Next, do I think a party with a platform that calls for a troop pullout and a cancellation of oil contracts could succedd in the 2004 elections under IRV or proportional representation?

                      What does "succeed" mean? Win the presidency? No. Garner some votes? Yes. Make a difference? Under IRV, no. Under proportional representation (which is hardly worth discussing, as it's light years away from reality), a qualified no. What's the qualification? It is conceivable that such a party could send some small number of Representatives to Congress, where I imagine they'd likely replace Democrats on a one-for-one basis, and join a working minority which our system leaves nearly powerless to control or even influence the agenda.

                      My statement regarding the lack of interest in the two party system should not be taken to imply anything other than what it says. Your entire follow-up commits to that error. What the statement means is that people are not interested in politics, even when there are tremendous differences between the parties involved.

                      You next make the presumption that I don't "want to try to let other voices [have] a fair chance to compete?" I'm happy to have them compete, but again, we need to define our terms. The Democrats and Republicans don't need to struggle for ballot access for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that through whatever magic, they enjoy relatively widespread popularity. I know all about what factors skew this, but I don't accept that fair "competition" means lowering the bar for weaker parties. I'm not afraid of them, and I welcome their ideas, but I don't accept the premise that competition means that stronger competitors must stoop to give a boost to those who can't muster the allegience of the people for whom they claim to advocate, especially when it turns out that they'd rather watch reality television.

                      If third parties want to compete, then let them compete.

                      Do I think it is "fair" for the winner-takes-all system to make people say that they chose a candidate according to his 'electability' skills, and that it prevents people from taking the risk to vote [for] someone else, because their vote would just be lost?

                      Yes.

                      It is also sad? Yes. But if it's not "fair" for people to be given the opportunity to vote for whomever they wish AND to have to think strategically about the future of their country rather than just closing their eyes and wishing on a star, I don't know what is.

                      "Fair" implies a lot. Is it "fair" that the country should scrap its current voting system in favor of IRV, at God knows what expense, even when it might be just as likely to result in the lection of a major party candidate, just to assuage the angst that having to make a yes or no decision creates in certain overly sensitive people? I don't know. I'd even be willing to try it. But I don't know that it's necessarily "fair" to do it. It won't be "fair" to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of citizens who are confused by the first IRV ballot they see, but I suppose it will be a breath of fresh air for the scattered, hard-core protest voters, who now will be able to vote frivolously and flippantly rather than flat-out wastefully.

                      by Kagro X on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 09:50:47 AM PDT

                      •  thanks

                        I don't agree with the way you characterize some of these issues, but our differences are not that big it seems to me.

                        With regard to IRV, I personally think that if the progressive camp could unite, say under Kucinich, and campaign to withdraw from Iraq, it can win the elections. But even if, say 25%, mark them as first choice, it still might have an effect because it'd show the size of the opposition, and therefore maybe shift the platform of the dem party etc.

                        Anyway, thanks for your replies. I appreciate it.

                        by nimc on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 07:46:34 PM PDT

    •  forgive me...

      I don't see any connection between your two sentences ("Change to IRV" and "50% don't vote").  I think it's a fantasy of the left (maybe the far right also, but they don't talk about it) that all those voters just want a plethora of candidates and suddenly we'll be up to 80% turnout.  As far back as 1960 (when no one grumbled about how poor a showing it was) we only had 60%...and a lot of the decline since came with the introduction the 18 year old vote, suggesting youthful apathy is most responsible for low voter participation.

      The whole IRV issue seems really parochial -- mainly, tiny parties want it to increase their power, and I don't see the major parties giving in to something that will dilute their own influence.  And why should they?: third parties have managed to get significant chunks of the national vote in the past without such a gimmick -- in 1912, 1924, 1968 and 1992 (and, most spectacularly, 1860).  If the need were as compelling as Greens seem to think, voters would be floating their way without changes to the ground-rules.

      by demtom on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 08:33:42 AM PDT

      •  irv

        Well, with IRV, all the hysteric anti-Nader bashing won't be necessary. People could mark Nader as first choice, and Kerry as second choice, and no votes would be lost.

        There are in fact some studies that show that the profile of people who don't vote is similar to that of people who vote for social dem parties in Europe, etc.

        The way you put it implies that almost everyone agrees with the Bush and Kerry position on Iraq and Afghan and Israel etc., while in fact the polls show otherwise...

        I'm curious, how much % do you think the greens would get under proportional representation system, if it was used for the 2004 elections?

        by nimc on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 09:05:43 AM PDT