OT - Gas to hit 4.00 - Vote for Ron Paul - dropping out?

Levi Pearson levi at cold.org
Thu Jun 19 10:52:22 MDT 2008


Von Fugal <von at fugal.net> 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.

> 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.

>> Again, nobody's mind is going to change because of how *you* vote.
>> And if nobody's mind changes, then there will be no change.
>
> It is a voice, and for you to sit there and say my voice is useless
> because of what I choose to say with it is arrogant, rude, poppycock
> rubbish!

Exaggerate much?  Your email here is a voice.  Your vote (and are we
talking about write-in for Ron Paul here, or a Republican primary
vote, or what?) is an anonymous tally mark in a box.  It means
*something*, but that something is hightly dependant on the mechanics
of the voting system.  It makes sense to consider those mechanics
before casting the vote.

> 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.

> 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.

> '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.

> 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.

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.

                --Levi



More information about the PLUG mailing list