New Rule
Posted by
tgirsch
Inspired by this:
The company usually makes 8 to 12 cents per gallon after suppliers’ prices and credit card fees. On Wednesday — the day before the protest — that added up to $3.49 for a gallon of unleaded gas.
Schwartz called that “outrageous” and said even he can’t fill up his SUV at that price.
“If it keeps going like this, my kids will never be able to afford to drive,” said Schwartz, who has an 18-year-old son and 15-year-old daughter.
Look, if you drive an SUV or any other gas guzzler, you’re just not allowed to complain about gas prices. Ever. If gas prices bother you that much, how about not buying a car that only gets thirteen fucking miles per gallon? Until then, grab a nice warm mug of STFU.
“Look, if you drive an SUV, you’re just not allowed to complain about gas prices.”
Maybe you could get the Congress to pass a law. The anti-freedom dems would probably be willing to do it.
Comment 5/25/2007
Hehe, I just bought a hybrid SUV in March (28-30 mpg). Now I can be evil AND cheap.
Comment 5/25/2007
“Now I can be evil AND cheap.”
My SUV gets 21-23 mpg. Would TG and his ilk allow me to complain about gas prices? Please, liberals, don’t take my SUV away from me.
Comment 5/25/2007
Your only mistake here is calling this a new rule. It has always been the case that those who actively exacerbate problems have forfeited their intellectual right to complain about those problems.
Comment 5/25/2007
>Would TG and his ilk allow me to complain about gas prices?
I’m not complaining about high gas prices. The higher they go, the bigger ROI I get on the extra $3000 I paid for the hybrid (vs. the standard version of the same vehicle).
At $3.50/gallon I make it up the difference in about 2 years. At $2.50/gallon it takes me 3.5 years.
Comment 5/25/2007
Fred:
Contrary to what you assume, I wouldn’t make it illegal for people who drive low-MPG vehicles to complain about gas prices. It just makes them hypocritical asshats when they do.
And for the record, I drive a low-MPG vehicle (rated 19/27, but in real life it gets about 17/25) — I’ve had it for years, but I don’t whine about gas prices, either. If anything, they should be higher, to encourage efficiency, less driving, etc. My next car will be much more fuel efficient, when it comes time to buy one, but I still won’t gripe about gas prices.
Stormy:
Good for you. Which one? I’ve looked at the Saturn Vue hybrid. I need at least one bigger vehicle for carting the dogs around. But I suspect the next car I buy will be one of the small 45-50 mpg models.
Comment 5/25/2007
Tgirsch-
Comment 5/25/2007
It’s a 2007 Mercury Mariner Hybrid (Mercury version of the Ford Escape)
Comment 5/25/2007
“Contrary to what you assume, I wouldn’t make it illegal for people who drive low-MPG vehicles to complain about gas prices. It just makes them hypocritical asshats when they do.”
Lighten up. It was a joke. I like to poke fun at you liberals who seem to think that every problem can be solved with another law.
“Dan M. Says:
May 25th, 2007
Your only mistake here is calling this a new rule. It has always been the case that those who actively exacerbate problems have forfeited their intellectual right to complain about those problems.”
I wonder who died and made you king. When did you make this ruling?
Comment 5/25/2007
I actually agree with Dan M. on this one. You wanna drive a gas pig? Go ahead. It’s a free country. You wanna whine about how much it costs to fill up? Go whine to someone else, I don’t have time for you. You can whine, just don’t get frustrated about how no one listens.
Of course I take the same attitude towards people who don’t vote. You don’t vote or take part in the process, don’t whine about what the government is doing.
Comment 5/25/2007
“Contrary to what you assume, I wouldn’t make it illegal for people who drive low-MPG vehicles to complain about gas prices.”
In your original post you said: “if you drive an SUV, you’re just not allowed to complain about gas prices. Ever.”
You made no mention of low-MPG vehicles in your original post, just SUVs. As shown, SUV and low-MPG are not synonymous.
Comment 5/25/2007
Big U:
You’re especially right about the voting thing. But I also feel that way not just about non-voters, but in the US, about people who throw their vote away (in close elections) on a third-party candidate. You may have encountered them: they’re the people who try to claim that Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same (but who usually would never vote for a Democrat under any circumstances).
Fred:
For once, you’re right. I’m correcting the post.
And if I were you, I wouldn’t complain too much about liberal solutions to problems, since you never offer any proposed solutions of any kind — you merely piss and moan about “liberal” solutions (and call everyone you disagree with a “liar”), without ever offering anything even remotely resembling a viable solution. Not to mention that the guy who complains about people “think[ing] every problem can be solved with another law” supports trying to solve problems like abortion with more laws…
Comment 5/25/2007
“think[ing] every problem can be solved with another law” supports trying to solve problems like abortion with more laws…”
Actually, I support reversing the Supreme Court ruling that has allowed the killing of 50 million innocent babies. Short of that, I proudly support laws that will prevent the death of the unborn and apparently you support the killing of the unborn babies. I think I have the high moral ground on this one.
As for proposing solutions to problems at a site called “Lean Left,” what’s the point? Also, I do not call people who disagree with me on policy matters liars. I call those who tell lies liars. Words have meanings.
Comment 5/25/2007
“For once, you’re right. I’m correcting the post.”
Your “correction” falls short. Not all SUVs are gas guzzlers, unless you have a mighty low standard as to what a gas guzzler is. My SUV is not a gas guzzler.
Comment 5/25/2007
“ Also, I do not call people who disagree with me on policy matters liars. I call those who tell lies liars. Words have meanings.”
That’s another great joke! Coming from you, it can’t be anything but.
As far as solving problems with new laws, did you just admit to agreeing with Tgirsch’s assessment?
Comment 5/25/2007
“As far as solving problems with new laws, did you just admit to agreeing with Tgirsch’s assessment?”
No.
BTW, show me where I have called someone a liar because of a disagreement about policy. You are a very strange person. Why do you feel the compulsion to make up things? Do you need to see a doctor or maybe contact someone who can give you some moral guidance? I feel sorry for you.
Comment 5/25/2007
Tgirsch: [T]he guy who […] supports trying to solve problems like abortion with more laws[.]
Fred: I proudly support laws that will […]
You a lying sack of shit, but without so pleasant an odor. And I can’t even begin to enumerate the times you’ve called me a liar for explaining when you’re wrong about facts that inform policy.
Comment 5/25/2007
So why exactly are people who don’t vote disqualified from having a legitimate opinion on the government?
Comment 5/26/2007
why are people who don’t vote disqualified from having opinion on the government
The argument was always that you have no business complaining about the result of a process in which you could have taken some part but failed to do so. (Note the reference is to people who don’t vote, not who can’t vote.)
I’ve never fully endorsed that, myself. I would apply it to people who just don’t get around to it or who just don’t care or can’t be bothered - but not to those who look at the choices and say “geez, I don’t like any of these bozos” and not to the not-inconsiderable number who have just given up in despair at the idea, who don’t vote because they have lost faith that it makes any difference.
Comment 5/26/2007
“And I can’t even begin to enumerate the times you’ve called me a liar for explaining when you’re wrong about facts that inform policy.”
Thanks for admitting you can’t do it. I knew you couldn’t. You are in over your intellectual head.
Comment 5/26/2007
“The argument was always that you have no business complaining about the result of a process in which you could have taken some part but failed to do so.”
In this country people are free to discuss anything they don’t like about their government. Who are you to decide that a person has no business complaining if he doesn’t vote?
Comment 5/26/2007
>Who are you to decide that a person has no business complaining if he doesn’t vote?
There’s a difference between having a right and being right. The fact someone has the right to say something doesn’t mean it deserves to be listened to or that he ought to be validated for having said it. While I disagree with his conclusion in this instance, it’s his obligation as a moral individual to judge people and their actions as either good or bad.
Comment 5/26/2007
Fred:
I proudly support laws that will prevent the death of the unborn
Nice try, but laws against abortion won’t prevent abortion any more than speed limits prevent speeding.
Also, I do not call people who disagree with me on policy matters liars.
Who said anything about “policy matters?” Certainly not me. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? Could it be that you are *gasp* lying?
Not all SUVs are gas guzzlers
Not all liberals are liars, either, but you’d never know it to hear you talk. Listen to your own rhetoric some time, why doncha?!?
Stormy:
So why exactly are people who don’t vote disqualified from having a legitimate opinion on the government?
Not exactly disqualified, it’s just that it’s a bit hollow. It’s rather like a guy complaining that it’s sad about those sweat shops over in China while he’s buying the $1.99 12-pack of socks from Wal-Mart.
If you’re not part of the solution…
LarryE:
If they’ve lost their confidence that voting makes a difference, what makes them think bitching is going to accomplish? If they’re so fed up, then fer chrissakes, they should DO something about it! Don’t like the candidates you get in a general election? Vote in the primary!
And if you really think the two candidates in the general are equally awful, odds are, you’re just not paying attention. They may both suck, but I’ll guaran-damn-tee that one of them is bound to be objectively worse. Does anybody here, left or right, really think the country wouldn’t be different in any important way if Kerry or Gore had won? I’ve got two supreme court justices says they’re wrong.
Now I can see some people might just be stupid enough to actually like what Bush has done, but I can’t imagine anyone being dumb enough to think that Kerry or Gore would have been interchangeable with him. But that’s precisely the logic of someone who abstains from voting, or who pisses away a vote on a Nader or a Perot.
Comment 5/27/2007
Jeez-US! I never thought that what I figured to be a simple, straight-forward answer to a straight-forward question would generate such heat. Damn!
As for Fred, he’s little more than a child who likes to poke a beehive with a stick to see if he can make the bees angry and so is unworthy of further response.
As for Tgirsch:
what makes them think bitching is going to accomplish
They don’t think it’s going to accomplish anything. That’s the point. They generally bitch to express their sense of frustration that nothing will make a difference. The issue is not whether they are right. The issue is explaining what they feel. Ignoring those feelings is not going to change them.
If they’re so fed up, then fer chrissakes, they should DO something about it! Don’t like the candidates you get in a general election? Vote in the primary!
I’m sorry, but that’s just silly. Telling someone who’s given up on the idea of voting that the answer is to vote is logically incoherent.
just not paying attention. … can’t imagine anyone being dumb enough
Equating despair with laziness or stupidity won’t win you many converts, either. And telling someone whose future is contracting, who’s constantly worried about being outsourced, and who is realizing that their children - contrary to the real “American dream” - will be worse off than they are, that even though they can’t see how even the lesser of the evils is going to change that, that they still have to vote because otherwise some change that they don’t see as relevant to their lives will happen is just going to get you a blank stare.
You want more people to vote? Give them a reason! Don’t lecture them on their civic inadequacies or lack of political acumen. Those of us who are involved in political activism of any sort need to generate candidacies that the disaffected can actually support. Frankly, it’s not up to them to just vote, period. It’s up to us to give them a reason to.
pisses away a vote on a Nader or a Perot
Okay, to that I say bullshit. It is never “pissing away” your vote to vote for what you actually believe in. And just what does constitute a “pissed away” vote? What about Alan Schlesinger, the GOP candidate for Senate in CT in 2006? Did the people who voted for him “piss away” their votes? He had no chance of winning. Are 10% of the CT electorate thus pissing losers? Or does the term only apply to minor party candidates?
I say if you see a candidate you can actually support, then vote for them. Period. And don’t be deterred by any amount of “omigod if you don’t vote for the lesser of the major party evils the Earth is going to spin out of its orbit and fly into the Sun” rhetoric.
Comment 5/27/2007
“Nice try, but laws against abortion won’t prevent abortion any more than speed limits prevent speeding.”
Laws against murder doesn’t prevent murder. Do away with them!
Comment 5/27/2007
Fred:
Laws against murder doesn’t prevent murder. Do away with them!
Except that I’m not the one who generally opposes legislation as part of the solution to problems. That’s your area, remember?
LarryE:
They generally bitch to express their sense of frustration that nothing will make a difference.
Of course that’s their right, and I would never do anything to take it away from them. It’s just that they have zero credibility, is all. When someone bitches incessantly about a problem, but doesn’t do anything to try to solve it, and doesn’t try to offer up any solutions, that just makes them a damn annoying whiner.
Telling someone who’s given up on the idea of voting that the answer is to vote is logically incoherent.
Only if you think it’s impossible to change people’s minds. We’re people, not automata, you know… In any case, what a terrible waste to live in a democracy and then just refuse to exercise the most pivotal right of that system of governance — a right many literally fought and died for. Voting rights for blacks? Why bother? Women’s suffrage? What’s the point? Voting doesn’t matter, anyway, so why should we care who does and doesn’t have the right to vote? In fact, why bother having elections at all?
(As you can see, this gets me worked up. But that sort of defeatism pisses me off to no end. Their dire outlook isn’t true today, but if they keep acting that way, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.)
Equating despair with laziness or stupidity won’t win you many converts, either.
Sorry, but I call ‘em like I see ‘em. And when people consistently act against their own best interests, that is stupid. You can sugar-coat it all you want, but that doesn’t mean I have to. Besides, if they’ve already given up, as you say, there’s not much point in me trying to “convert” them to anything. They’re out of the game, because they’ve taken themselves out of the game. And then they bitch about problems as if they’re everyone else’s fault and not their own? Give me a break. I have no time for them.
telling someone … that they still have to vote because otherwise some change that they don’t see as relevant to their lives will happen is just going to get you a blank stare.
Good thing I’m not telling them any such thing. What I’m telling them is that they ought to vote, because if they’re willing to invest five whole minutes of attention, they’re almost certain to discover that as bad as both candidates might be, one of them is almost certain to be objectively worse (and probably not just a little bit) on the very issues they care about the most. OK, so they don’t get their dream candidate, and not everyone gets a pony. But you would think it would still make sense to do what they can to prevent the WORSE guy from getting into office.
Those of us who are involved in political activism of any sort need to generate candidacies that the disaffected can actually support.
On this, at least, we agree, more than you might think. But when we fail, that still doesn’t let them off the hook when their indifference causes the other side’s “F” candidate to beat our “C” candidate. Which, as you may recall, has recently happened twice.
Okay, to that I say bullshit. It is never “pissing away” your vote to vote for what you actually believe in.
Well, yes and no. As with all things, there’s a time and a place. In the primaries, you should absolutely vote for the candidate who best represents your ideals. In the general, however, you should vote for the viable candidate who best represents your ideals. And even in the general, I don’t go so far as to say that you should never vote for a third-party candidate. I’m just saying you shouldn’t ever do it in a close election, because to do so risks cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If you live in a district where the election is clearly a runaway for one candidate or the other, then I encourage you to cast the protest vote. But in a close election? It’s just too risky.
And don’t be deterred by any amount of “omigod if you don’t vote for the lesser of the major party evils the Earth is going to spin out of its orbit and fly into the Sun” rhetoric.
It’s not that the Earth will spin out of its orbit. It’s that if you don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, it’s partially your fault when the GREATER of two evils wins. In a hypothetical race where a baby rapist is running against a scheister and a thief, is it really going to help you sleep at night, when the baby rapist wins, that you took the “high road” by voting for neither? Elections, as they say, have consequences, and the hypothetical baby rapist is counting on your indifference.
How many Nader voters in 2000 do you suppose honestly believe Gore would have been no better than Bush? How many Perot voters in 1992 do you suppose were just as happy with a Clinton victory as they would have been with a GHWB re-election? In both cases, those “protest” votes had genuine consequences, which were almost universally contrary to the interests of the people who cast them.
Mind, you, I still hold the person who casts the ill-advised protest vote in much higher regard than the person who can’t be troubled to vote at all. But then, I’m old-fashioned (you might even say *gasp* conservative) that way — I don’t view voting as merely a “right” or a “privilege,” but as a duty, a responsibility, and an honor. And when I see people who are lucky enough to live in a place where they have that hard-won right turn around and piss it away, and then have the gall to piss and moan and gripe about how bad things are, as if there’s nothing they can do to stop is, you bet your ass that I have nothing but contempt for that.
Comment 5/27/2007
>If you’re not part of the solution…
Ah, but this assumes voting is the solution.
Comment 5/27/2007
If you’ve got a better idea, I’m all ears…
Comment 5/27/2007
T -
My last words on this:
I made a distinction between those who don’t vote because of laziness or indifference and those who don’t vote because they have genuinely come to despair of the idea that it will make any damned difference to their lives. I suggested that if you want to change the minds of that second group (whose minds, actually, would likely be more open to change than the first), you have to offer them reasons beyond condescending lectures.
You responded with a condescending lecture, denied the possibility of despair, called them lazy and stupid, expressed your “contempt,” and offered nothing but blame.
I can only conclude that, by your own logic, you have no interest in changing their non-voting status but only in bitching about it.
Footnote: When I said it is never “pissing away” your vote to vote for what you believe in, I meant it: Never. Period. The idea that it’s okay to vote for a 3rd party only in those cases where it assuredly makes no damn difference is absurd on its face. Most new ideas enter our political arena through 3rd parties which garner enough support to threaten the position of one of the majors, which then has to adjust to meet that threat. Following your advice would ensure that would never happen.
I’ve actually given talks on voting as a political tactic and the role of 3rd parties in our system. Maybe I’ll post some of that over at my place; if I do, I’ll find an appropriate place here to link to them.
Oh, actually, one other footnote: If by failing to vote for the lesser evil for whatever reason, it’s partly your fault when the greater evil wins, does that mean if you do vote for the lesser evil and they win it is also partly your fault when they start doing the evil stuff?
Comment 5/28/2007
LarryE:
you have to offer them reasons beyond condescending lectures.
If it’s not enough to explain to them that Candidate B is likely to fuck things up a lot worse than Candidate A, and that the election is close enough that Candidate B might just win if enough people stay home just because they’re not in love with Candidate A, then I don’t know what would be enough. But I’m all ears as to what your “reasons” are.
If I’m guilty of having nothing up my sleeve other than condescending lectures, you’re guilty of having only the extremely impractical idea of putting forth a near-perfect candidate. News flash: there’s no such thing.
When I said it is never “pissing away” your vote to vote for what you believe in, I meant it: Never. Period.
Even when doing so results in the exact opposite of what it actually is that you believe in? That’s just silly! Sure, the baby rapist may have won, but at least I didn’t sully myself by voting for the thief!
The idea that it’s okay to vote for a 3rd party only in those cases where it assuredly makes no damn difference is absurd on its face.
Again, there’s the disconnect: It’s not that it’s only okay to vote 3rd party in those circumstances; it’s that it’s NOT okay to vote 3rd party when that vote is likely to result in the WORST candidate (from the voters’ perspective) winning. And that’s precisely what has happened in three of the last four presidential elections. So it’s not a question of whether or not it makes a difference, but a question of what difference it does make. If it results in a candidate that’s actually farther from your ideal winning the election, then you’ve just voted AGAINST your interests.
does that mean if you do vote for the lesser evil and they win it is also partly your fault when they start doing the evil stuff?
To the extent that you didn’t get more involved in the primary process to ensure a more ideal candidate, yes. And remember, your job doesn’t end at voting, and there are other ways to make your voice heard even after the election is over. What you do other than vote also makes a difference. In any case, life is full of compromises, and they’re not often easy. When someone is presented with two (and only two) viable options, neither of them perfect, and instead opts to chase a no-chance, pie-in-the-sky ideal to the detriment of the very causes he or she holds most dear, I just don’t have a lot of respect for that.
I don’t mean to totally disparage pie-in-the-sky idealism, by the way. It’s just that the time for these is between the elections. Because it’s during that time that you can most heavily influence who’s going to be viable when the next election comes along.
And I’ve got nothing inherently against third parties, either. In fact, I’m all in favor of breaking the two-party stranglehold on our political system. It’s just that you’re never, never, never, ever, ever, ever going to accomplish that simply by voting third party in our current political system (Perot carried 19% — almost one in five — and even that fizzled). Unless and until you amend the constitution to enable a more third-party-friendly system (e.g., allowing ranked choices, or mandating runoffs), you’re just not going to get there.
Comment 5/29/2007
Tgirsch, I understand that you have a strong attachment to two party rule, but consider that:
There are plenty of examples of governments comprised of members of multiple (more than two) political parties, so at least from a logistical perspective, it can work.
If a third party candidate (usually a one or two plank campaign) receives a significant percentage of the vote, is there not a good possibility that one (or both) of the dominant parties will assimilate the third party’s platform in the next election cycle?
Comment 5/29/2007
Ted:
I understand that you have a strong attachment to two party rule
Huh? I don’t like it at all, actually, as I thought I made clear in my last comment. I’m merely a realist, and I recognize that for all its warts, it’s the system we have (”We go to elections with the candidates we have…”), and that you can only either work within the system or change the system. I’d prefer the latter, but in the meantime we have to work with the former.
There are plenty of examples of governments comprised of members of multiple (more than two) political parties, so at least from a logistical perspective, it can work.
I agree. I’d love a parliamentary system. It’s not that it can’t work, it’s that we don’t have one.
is there not a good possibility that one (or both) of the dominant parties will assimilate the third party’s platform in the next election cycle?
I’m not aware that this has historically been the case. Look at the Reform Party and the GOP for a recent example; instead of assimilating the Reform platform into the GOP, it had the opposite effect. The “Reform”-sympathetic wing of the GOP threw its weight behind the new splinter party, giving the remaining factions of the GOP (most notably the social conservatives and the neocons) even more weight in the established party. By the time Reform died on the vine, it was too late to undo that, and only now is the influence of the social conservative wing of the GOP starting to wane a wee bit. The neocon influence, sadly, remains as strong as ever.
So, no, I don’t think it has the effect that you’re postulating.
Of course, in politics, there’s also a great deal of “testing the wind,” so as public opinion (or, at least, the opinion of the reliable constituencies) clearly shifts, the parties will try to shift to match it. There’s an old expression that says that a politician’s job is to try to figure out where the parade is going, and then get in front of it. I think that’s an apt description.
Comment 5/29/2007
Tgirsch, poor choice of words on my part. The discussion was about elections, not forms of government. There is nothing about a representative democracy that limits participation to two political parties. So we agree that multi-party governments can work from a logistical perspective.
If a group of people have a burning issue that is not being addressed by either of the established parties (and keep in mind I am addressing elections in general, not only national elections), by making that issue the centerpiece of a campaign and then translating into a significant percentage of the vote - seems to me that is a good way to get the attention of the established parties.
I don’t see the Reform Party as a good example. It did not have a focused policy that could be assimilated. Policy-wise it was multiplank (basically a mixture of existing dem and republican policy), and appeal-wise it was about not being an established party.
Comment 5/29/2007
Ted:
I see what you’re trying to get at, but again, I’m not aware of when it ever happened. The Dixiecrats, maybe, but that’s not exactly a great example.
Comment 5/29/2007
I was going to let this drop but after you made assertions about me that showed, to use your term, a disconnect between what I said and what you answered, I have to go one more round. This, I promise, will be it. Period. Finis.
I’m all ears as to what your “reasons” are
Snide put-downs (which is what putting “reasons” in quotation marks, as if my use of the word was not to be taken seriously, amounts to) are not argument. Reasons? How about reasons that non-voters can actually relate to their day-to-day lives? Most people simply don’t see how, for example, the make-up of the Supreme Court does that. (Again, to head off another presumption, the issue is not if it does or does not but if people see it as doing so. And please do not respond with another variation of “well, if they’re too stupid to see how it does, the hell with them.”) How about giving people who have felt let down and betrayed by both major parties, who have heard over and over again “elect me and your homes, your schools, your roads, will be safer, better; your future and that of your children will be brighter” only to see their communities deteriorate and their futures contract, a real reason to believe that this time it’ll be different? A reason beyond “at least our candidate isn’t the other one!”
Hey, here’s an example: It’s widely accepted that the 2006 Congressional election reflected public opposition to Iraq. If any of those voters were first time voters who turned out because of the war, what do we tell them now? Do you think, as things stand now, they would turn out again in 2008?
Here’s another: The other driving force in 2006, it’s been said, was corruption. Suppose some people overcame their “they’re all crooks” rejection of voting and said “hey, maybe there is a difference ’cause these Democrats are promising to clean things up.” If they’ve paid attention in the meantime, what they’ve seen is delay, dance, and dodge and the Dems backing away from campaign promises. As things stand now, are they going to turn out again in 2008?
That’s another reason for people not voting: They feel, with good cause, they can’t trust the people they elected before, so why bother now? Which means a reason for people to vote would be for those elected to keep their goddam word.
the extremely impractical idea of putting forth a near-perfect candidate
I said nothing about a “near-perfect candidate.” Clearly, you simply aren’t paying attention. I said you have to give non-voters a reason to vote. And it has to be their reason, not yours.
the baby rapist may have won, but at least I didn’t sully myself by voting for the thief
Arguing by extremes is another form of non-argument, and so is the hoary “you just want to be pure” meme. Quite frankly, this is the same form of argument as that used by endorsers of torture: “Well, the nuke may have gone off, but at least you didn’t sully yourself by torturing the prisoner who knew where it was!” It’s dumb there, it’s dumb here.
It’s not that it’s only okay to vote 3rd party in those circumstances; it’s that it’s NOT okay to vote 3rd party when that vote is likely to result in the WORST candidate winning.
That strained attempt at a distinction utterly fails its mission. It still means that voting for a 3rd party is acceptable only when the outcome is a sure thing, when such a vote appears unnecessary either to block the worst candidate or assist the “not worst” one. Despite your expressed distaste for the two-party system, your advice would dispatch all 3rd parties to perpetual irrelevance.
has happened in three of the last four presidential elections
Excuse me? Where did that come from? In 1992 and 1996, exit polls of Perot voters showed that if he hadn’t been in the race, his votes would have been split fairly evenly; in both cases his presence might have changed the electoral map somewhat, but it did not affect the outcome. Nader’s role in 2000 has been argued to death, with the “it’s all Nader’s fault” people going out of their way to ignore serious GOP irregularities and illegalities in Florida (the “purge” of voter rolls, the Election Day suppression of turnout in minority areas, which together served to disenfranchise unknown thousands of likely Democratic voters) and New Hampshire (the tying up of Democratic Party phone lines to suppress its voter-turnout efforts), the only two states where Nader’s vote exceeded the amount by which Gore lost. (And even then the argument is based on the assumption that all of Nader’s voters would have still voted and voted for Gore if Nader hadn’t run, despite the campaign’s own polling which concluded a significant minority was disaffected Republicans who wanted to cast a protest vote but who no way in hell would have voted for Gore. Full disclosure: I had no connection to the Nader campaign and I did not vote for him.)
In sum, in only one of the last four presidential elections is the claim that 3rd parties affected the outcome even arguable and in that case the argument is weak. Frankly, I wish the overall contention was stronger, the better to force one or both of the majors to alter its policies to protect its position. But it’s not.
Now, again, I fully endorse voting for 3rd parties; I say you should vote for what you believe in. From either end of the political spectrum, resigning yourself to always voting for the lesser evil also means resigning yourself to the idea that that’s the best you’re going to get. Essentially telling the major party featuring what to you are the lesser evils that it can take your vote for granted is the surest way to make your concerns irrelevant to its policies and practices.
To the extent that you didn’t get more involved in the primary process to ensure a more ideal candidate, yes.
That fundamentally changes the question I asked and thus is an evasion. Leaving aside the fact that this would tie you even more strongly to the two-party system you say you hate, are you saying that being involved in the primary will ensure a “more ideal” candidate? (I think you actually mean “less evil” - after all, you were the one who talked about the “extremely impractical idea” of the “near-perfect candidate.”) What is so magic about primaries? Are you saying that whatever candidate you think is “least evil” will prevail?
Since I doubt that you’d argue that, the reference to the primaries must be set aside. We’ve gone through the primaries. Your candidate did not prevail. It’s now the general election and you are faced with the choice of the “lesser of two evils,” voting for a 3rd party, or not voting. So we’re back to the actual question. You said that if you don’t vote for the lesser evil, it’s partly your fault if the greater evil wins. By that same logic, if you do vote for the lesser evil and it wins, are you partly responsible for the evil that results?
I don’t disparage pie-in-the-sky idealism…. It’s just that the time for these is between the elections. Because it’s during that time that you can most heavily influence who’s going to be viable when the next election comes along.
That is just silly. The idea that you can declare your ideals in the streets but not in the voting booth is one I can’t reject vehemently enough. The idea that you’re going to “influence who’s going to be viable” when you have declared in advance, as a matter of basic principle, that you will vote for whoever a major party throws at you provided solely that they are not as evil as the one thrown at you by the other major party, is not a path to change but a doorway to a windowless room, one I flatly refuse to enter.
amend the constitution to enable a more third-party-friendly system (e.g., allowing ranked choices, or mandating runoffs)
Such things as weighted, ranked, or proportional voting and mandated runoffs are all good ideas to broaden the political choices available to voters, which undoubtedly would would be a boon to public involvement in the process. However, the idea that you’re ever going to get any of them while continuing to support the dominance of the two-party system by urging - no, demanding - voting on the basis of the lesser of two evils is far more pie-in-the-sky than anything I have suggested.
After all that, I want to end on a note of agreement.
your job doesn’t end at voting
Absolutely and resoundingly true. I would only add that it doesn’t begin with voting, either.
Comment 5/29/2007
LarryE:
Let’s try this from another angle, shall we? Name for me anything tangible that was accomplished by people voting for Nader, that the Nader voters are actually pleased with, and I’ll concede the point. As far as I can tell, it was utterly and completely counter-productive. No, Nader was not the one-and-only cause of Gore’s defeat, but it certainly didn’t help, and in any case I never said it was. I’ve argued that third-party votes in close elections in our current system of governance are almost always counter-productive, and I stand by that position. I am, however, willing to concede the point on 1996.
In a more general sense, what tangible good has ever come from voting for any third-party candidate at the national level? If I felt that voting third-party actually accomplished anything, or even if I felt that it was simply neutral, I’d be more inclined to agree with you. But as it is, it seems to me to be counterproductive more often than not, at least in close national elections.
How about giving people who have felt let down … a real reason to believe that this time it’ll be different?
How about everyone gets a pony, while we’re at it? Look, I’d love it if that would happen, I really would, but won’t you ever consider realism over idealism? The time for idealism is between elections, but once the candidates are named, realism has got to win.
Now, again, I fully endorse voting for 3rd parties; I say you should vote for what you believe in.
Even when it’s clear that voting for what you believe in is likely to result in the candidate farthest from what you believe in winning? You’re just never going to get me to agree with that sentiment. Sorry, but you just won’t. I’ll repeat, if you want to stay home or vote third party, that’s your prerogative, but that doesn’t make it a good idea. Voting for a can’t-win candidate over the least of viable evils may look like principle to you, but as I said before, to me it looks like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
My contention is that given a choice between “bad” and “worse,” “neither” is an even worse choice. I’d go so far as to call it a cop-out. You’re obviously never going to agree with that. Life is full of unpleasant compromises. But an utter unwillingness to compromise, and a lack of regard for the impact of that unwillingness to compromise, is rarely something that I’d view as being virtuous. As Geddy Lee once sang, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. And that choice has consequences.
To use a benign anecdote, voting for a third party in the general is rather like continuing to vote for Sanjaya on American Idol in the weeks after he was eliminated. It does nothing to advance your goals.
That fundamentally changes the question I asked and thus is an evasion.
No, it isn’t. By the time the general comes around, you have no control over who the viable candidates are, but there’s a good chance you do have some control over which of them wins. You do bear some responsibility if you vote for the lesser of two evils and that person wins, but when your only other viable choice was the greater of evils, I’ll bear that cross.
What is so magic about primaries?
They tend to be frequented only by the fringes of the party base. If more moderates got involved, you’d wind up with more moderate — and more generally palatable — candidates. In the same way you forfeit some of your credibility by not voting in the general, you also forfeit some of your credibility when complaining about the candidates who win the nomination if you didn’t participate in that process.
Given any problem, I don’t care what it is, whether it’s politics or economics or debt or what have you, my question to somebody who’s complaining is “What are you doing to try to change it?” If the answer is “nothing” (other than complain), I have little sympathy. I understand that the influence of one individual on such macro things as national politics is quite small, but it’s still greater than zero.
The idea that you can declare your ideals in the streets but not in the voting booth is one I can’t reject vehemently enough.
I don’t see why. The current executive administration is an exception to the rule, but generally speaking, politicians pay very careful attention to public opinion when crafting their platforms. Are you suggesting that the only public opinion they pay attention to is the voting booth? Quite the contrary, actually. Come the general election, the only people they care about are the “likely voters,” and they consider the opinions of everyone else — including third-party voters — as “safe to ignore.” They pay more attention to the public at large when they’re campaigning during primary season.
The idea that you’re going to “influence who’s going to be viable” when you have declared in advance, as a matter of basic principle, that you will vote for whoever a major party throws at you provided solely that they are not as evil as the one thrown at you by the other major party, is not a path to change but a doorway to a windowless room, one I flatly refuse to enter.
Oooh, that’s fun! I can play this game, too!
“The idea that you’re going to influence politics when you have declared in advance, as a matter of basic principle, that you won’t vote for a viable candidate unless that candidate is actively appealing in wholly positive ways to me personally, is not a path to change but a doorway to a windowless room, one I flatly refuse to enter.”
However, the idea that you’re ever going to get any of them while continuing to support the dominance of the two-party system by urging - no, demanding - voting on the basis of the lesser of two evils is far more pie-in-the-sky than anything I have suggested.
Depends on your perspective, I guess. As difficult as it may be to change the system from within, it seems to me that it’s nigh-impossible to change it from without. I’m proposing the former, and you’re proposing the latter.
Getting back to the general, and to the question at hand, let me try putting it another way, one which hopefully won’t be too “condescending” for you. Ask yourself the following questions:
Is it true that one of these two candidates, and no one else, is going to hold this office after the election?
Assuming #1 is true, does it make any difference at all to you which of those two actually does hold the office? That is, do you like or dislike one more strongly than the other?
If the answer to both questions is “Yes,” then it absolutely makes sense to vote for one of those two candidates, even if that amounts to voting for the lesser of two evils, and it makes no sense to abstain or to vote for a non-viable third party, when doing either of these presents the very real possibility of the guy you hate worse winning. I would have thought this logic was utterly uncontroversial, yet you continue to argue it to the grave.
Comment 5/30/2007
[…] Over in the comments here, commenter LarryE and I have been engaged in an often-heated debate about whether and when it makes sense to vote for a non-viable third-party candidate in a close election. I argue that in our current electoral system, at best it makes no difference at all, and at worst it’s exactly counter-productive. He disagrees. It’s a good read, and I’m interested in learning if anyone else has strong opinions one way or the other. […]
Pingback 5/30/2007
[…] As regular readers are well aware, my marathon debate with LarryE (which started here and continuedhere) went from bad to ugly, and violated all the rules about disagreeing without being disagreeable (I accused him of having a “persecution complex”; he at least twice described me as being “truly an ass.” Really? He’s just now figuring that out? Anyone who has read my writing with any regularity over the three or four years I’ve been blogging ought to know that about me, but I digress…), doesn’t mean that we can’t share a little linky love. Our disagreement was largely about prudent and effective electioneering, and he discusses his views on them in Kevin T. Keith-like detail in a series of four posts: […]
Pingback 6/7/2007