A little learning, indeed, may be a dangerous thing, but the want of learning is a calamity to any people.

- Frederick Douglas

Wishful Thinking?

Watching the Electoral College polls can be entertaining, as the results are interpreted through the eyes of the partisan.

At Electoral-Vote, the results change daily, and it is getting closer, but Kerry still wins. At Rasmussen Reports, the President is leading. Does any of this make a difference? It should not, but it does.

There are those who will not vote for third party candidates because they believe they are throwing away their votes. Following this unsound reasoning, voting for anyone except the candidate who is expected to win is throwing away your vote, so in order to make your vote count, you must have a good estimate as to who will win, so you can vote for the winner, and have your vote count.

No, you are right, it sounds stupid. It is stupid, but, hey, you are probably one of those fools who would throw away your vote on a third party candidate because you believe in what they have to offer. If you are really lucky, you can vote for one of the main party candidates because you believe in what they have to say… if you are lucky.

BTW: Voting against a candidate is not voting for something. With all of the candidates out there

posted at 15:24:50 on 10/21/04 by clearpolitics - Category: The Cause - [Permalink]

Previous | Next

Comments

JimD wrote:

With all due respect, I think you miss the point. It is not determining who will win so you can vote with a winner -- in fact the opposite would be the case. If the most likely winner will in fact do the most damage to the country (in your opinion), you vote for the presumptive loser for your own (and the collective) good.

I would respectfully suggest that that is not stupid but rather wise. If that reasoning had been followed, we would have clearly avoided 8 years of Clinton as President (and now possibly head of the UN?) and perhaps all of Hillary Clinton as well.

Reasonable minds can certainly disagree, but I object to the characterizaton that it is "stupid".

The efforts should probably be directed at having a greater voice in the major parties. (This is what the Liberals have done in the Democratic Party, and they are virtually dragging that Party out of the corridors of power.)
10/21/04 22:43:21

clearpolitics wrote:

Yes, you make perfect sense, but that is part of the problem. For many people, “alternative” candidates are more in line with their thinking, yet they will not vote for them. Your point is well taken, and “stupid” is a bit harsh, but change will not come from the status quo.

There are many (L)ibertarians who have given up the LP because they know it will not get them anywhere, so they leave, and for the most part go to the (R)epublicans--hoping to make changes there, from within. I suggest/hope that the major parties come to philosophies that other parties can embrace.

Ross Perot changed the outcome of an election. Ralph Nader changed the outcome of an election, and may do so again. If a party, and it is better a party than an individual, can affect an election, then that party has clout, and perhaps can more affectively bring change.

You are absolutely correct, though. The (D)emocrat’s pandering to fringes is and should be destroying their party, because there is no core set of principals based in fundamental truths, reason, just pandering. Pandering is destructive, where principals have purpose that can be carried forward.

To vote for a party whose principals you believe is the wisest thing to do, even if that party does win. If enough people did this, the party would win by causing changes in other parties.

Clinton worked out alright, because of the prosperity gifted him. The government gets in the way, and he, for the most part, stayed out of the way. We are facing significant problems now, and will in the near future, both economically and with war/terrorism. This would have been a huge problem for Clinton, and will be an even bigger problem for Kerry, or, if we are honest, for most everyone but Kerry.

(Do you think Clinton wanted to head the UN before or after he heard how much could be made on graft?)

As a side note: I hate that the left have turned “liberal” into a pejorative.

Again, your point is well taken. Let’s hope for the best.

Thanks.
10/21/04 23:51:22

CancelKerry wrote:

I agree with clearpolitics in principal, but I agree with JimD when I walk into the booth this year. I am not voting for a third party, it would be throwing away my vote.

I live in Pennsylvania. The race is so close it could change the outcome of the election, and I am not going to have Kerry on my conscious.

If I lived in New York, it would not make a difference, but I don't and it does.
10/22/04 10:35:33

Add Comments

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it

Navigation

Please visit our sponsors: Moneyspot.com

Please visit our sponsors: Spreadware.com

The Gross National Debt