Third Party Redux
Posted by
tgirsch
Let’s try this another way.
Suppose you’re stuck in an all-day meeting with twelve other people. Lunch is going to be brought in, and they’ve offered up four choices: Papa John’s Pizza, Subway Subs, P.F. Chang’s, or Taco Bell.
Papa John’s and Taco Bell aren’t your favorite, but you could live with either one of them. What you really want is P.F. Chang’s — it’s your favorite. And you absolutely despise Subway.
The problem is, they’re going to bring in food for everyone from just one of those places. They’re going to vote by secret ballot, and you only get one vote.
Asking around, you learn that five people are strongly in favor of Papa John’s, and five more are strongly in favor of Subway. The other two are split between Taco Bell and Chang’s.
So in this scenario, what do you do? Do you vote for Chang’s because that’s what you want, even though it has no chance of winning, and even though this increases the likelihood of you having to eat Subway, which you hate? Or do you vote for Papa John’s (effectively voting against Subway), and take a less-than-ideal lunch that you nevertheless don’t mind instead of having to suffer through Subway?
well, if success in politics is just about elections (no campaigns, no compromises to consolidate support bases, etc) no historical component, and a very finite and determinable set of voter preferences, I suppose this is a good example.
Comment 1/11/2008
It’s obviously not a perfect example. It’s grossly oversimplified to demonstrate the principle that’s at play. But I think it does a pretty good job of that.
In truth, compromises and consolidation of support bases happen in our political system all the time. It’s just that they happen within the context of the two-party system. Third parties rarely have anything to do with it.
I will argue, however, that in our system, at least, winning elections is all that matters. There’s no such thing as a “moral victory” in American politics.
Comment 1/12/2008
I have no intention of getting into another long argument about this since it’s obviously a waste of our time, so I will say this and no more:
1. “Third parties rarely have anything to do with it.” Bull. You’d be hard put to find an issue, a goal, or a program of the American left, either enacted or hoped for, that did not originate in a 3rd party only to be picked up by the Dems later. For example, for all practical purposes the entire New Deal was a watered-down version of the Socialist Party platform. And Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights legislation, and environmental protection all fit the bill.
2. “There’s no such thing as a ‘moral victory’ in American politics.” Also bull. The history of 3rd parties in the US has been that of gathering support until one of the majors has to respond to protect its own position by adopting in some form what that 3rd party has been pushing. (See #1.) I would certainly call that a type of moral victory. I ran for Congress as an independent. As a result, when it became clear I was going to do it again, the incumbent supported legislation he had previously ignored and became more outspoken on two issues he had previously downplayed - specifically because he was worried about the support I might pull from him otherwise. And yes, I know that for a fact; I was told as much by someone in his campaign and by a co-director of a group whose endorsement he sought. Am I not to consider that a victory of some sort?
3. Your example in your post makes sense, I suppose - if you are prepared to accept up front that you will never have Chang’s and mediocre food is the best you will ever get, that it is impossible for you ever to convince anyone else to try Chang’s, and that you’ll continue to vote for Papa John’s no matter how many times they overcharge you, don’t deliver what they promised, use Subway ingredients in the pizza, and have crappy food. And, of course, that you keep it completely divorced from the real world of politics, in which your support of Chang could very well force the Papa John lovers into including at least some Chang-type food in the order for the sake of getting your support.
In that case, yeah, I suppose it makes some degree of sense.
How many times does your Papa John pizza have to feature Subway cold cuts before you start to think it’s just not good enough?
Comment 1/12/2008
This is *exactly* what’s wrong with American elections now - everyone’s so worried about what everyone else says their choice might be, that we all end up herded by polls, “discussions” of “electability”, pundits and other meta-data instead of the actual data.
Yech.
Comment 1/12/2008
LarryE:
#1, If true, it shouldn’t be at all difficult for you to provide the names of Democratic candidates from that era who lost in a plurality election because the third party siphoned off a substantial number of votes. Anyway, my contention is the converse of yours: any temporary bump in third-party influence was because the issues were gaining popularity among the populace, not the other way around. And because those issues were gaining popularity, one of the two major parties was bound to pick them up.
#2, The plural of anecdote is not data.
In any case, I’ll concede that this sort of thing can work, but only if the calculus I laid out in the comments of the other thread apply. That is, emphasizing the downplayed issues will attract substantially more voters than it deters. But it seems to me that history shows the opposite is more likely to occur: the losing party will move closer to the winning party in hopes of getting a piece of that action, a la the Clinton administration. But hey, at least you’re willing to admit that the best a third party can ever hope to do is play a spoiler role, put the worst possible party in power for a full term, and hope that teaches the less-bad party a valuable lesson! 
#3, You assume (wrongly, I submit) that the vote is the only time one can hope to have influence on the lunch choices. In any case, the point of the analogy is to ask how a vote for Chang’s — virtually assuring a Subway lunch in the process — is likely to help, even in the long term.
I’ve just never been a big fan of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the idea that if you have any preference at all between the to most likely outcomes, and have a chance to impact which outcome comes to fruition, that it makes sense to go with that preference?
I dunno. Maybe you’re right, and I’m wrong, it was worth it to go through eight years of Bush/Cheney, because all of the ground we’ve lost in that time has somehow enabled a great Progressive Renaissance to last for a generation. But I just don’t see it.
A five year war costing hundreds of billions; a large-scale rollback of civil liberties; damage to the army that will take a generation to fix; the complete ruination of America’s reputation abroad — that’ll teach those damn filthy Democrats to ignore our issues!
Comment 1/12/2008
From where I sit, LarryE wins the debate by a large margin.
Comment 1/12/2008
Yes, because all those Nader voters in 2000 sure did push the Democratic party, and the nation, in a more progressive direction, just as his theory of how things works predicts.
Maybe in the ether of the intertubes, where everything’s all hypothetical and results don’t matter, I suppose he does win. But from where I sit, the proof is in the pudding.
Name one Green Party platform issue on which the country (A) is in better shape today than it was in 2000, and (B) would be worse today if Gore had won. I’m really not trying to be snarky on this point. I really do want to know just exactly what it is the Nader voters think they accomplished in 2000, and why it was worth 8 years of Bush. (Assuming you can get any Nader voters to take any sort of responsibility for that — a tall order, I know.)
I know a lot of it is my problem. It’s this mental block I have. I just can’t bring myself to comprehend the “give me everything I want or nothing at all” theory of politics. I can’t get my head around the idea that compromise is bad. I can’t accept that it’s better to lose everything than to win a few important things. It’s entirely possible that there’s some “big picture” that I’m missing, or that I’m just too politically impatient in waiting for the Grand Change that this third party voting is supposed to bring.
But it all just seems like the People’s Front of Judea to me.
Comment 1/12/2008
the example and ensuing discussion highlights, most ironically, what’s most seriously wrong with U.S. politics. it’s patently obvious in the problem statement, yet nobody suggests any of the obvious solutions.
allow two vendors to each supply part of the lunches. use some manner of multiple winners voting system to decide which ones. (i’m partial to the D’Hondt count myself, but really, any proportional representation method is likely to be “good enough” for a compromise), and avoid the whole lesser-evil candidate problem.
Comment 1/12/2008
Nomen:
I agree that proportional representation is a better solution. I’m pretty sure LarryE does, too. We just disagree about how to get there, is all.
For all of our arguments, he and I really are on the same side. It’s easy to lose sight of that.
Comment 1/12/2008
I think I’d just say, no thanks, I’ll get my own lunch.
:-)
Comment 1/12/2008
Vote P.F. Chang, grab a snack from the cafeteria or vending machine, skip eating subway and have dinner at P.F. Chang’s and enjoy.
Comment 1/13/2008
I wasn’t going to do this because I don’t see the point, but there is one thing I can’t let pass, so I might as well do it all.
1, Pay flipping attention! I didn’t say any candidate had to lose in a plurality election, or any other sort - only that the growing strength of a third party created a threat of that happening, a threat that had to be addressed. And oh, yeah, sure, politicians and political parties which see no threat to their positions will rush to adopt minority positions that are “gaining popularity” despite your own contention that doing so risks alienating more voters than it attracts. Yeah, that makes sense. Why then, for example, has there been such little progress on ending the war, a position that has majority support among the public? Could it be because Democrats know that people like you will vote for them whether they stop the war or not? Whether they approve funding for it or not? Whether they approve more intrusive versions of FISA or not? Could it be because they know that ultimately it won’t make a damn bit of difference what they do, that you will vote for them anyway?
Sometimes, sometimes, major parties adopt up-and-coming issues when they figure they can do so safely. But in a good number of cases they have done so only because “the only poll that matters,” actual votes, have demonstrated a constituency for such ideas large enough that it can’t safely be ignored. I say again, almost the entire New Deal stands as an example of that.
2. The plural of anecdote is not data. I cite a specific example (which you do not deny) illustrating exactly the kind of effect that is the core of my argument and you flick it away with, in essence, “It doesn’t count.”
[T]he losing party will move closer to the winning party in hopes of getting a piece of that action. Of course it will if there is nothing to pull it in the opposite direction. So by your own argument, it is the lack of an effective leftist third party that has resulted in Democrats, even in victory, acting more and more like Republicans. More bluntly, your opposition to third parties has helped enable Democrats in their move to the right. And I’m the one who’d just make things worse?
[A]t least you’re willing to admit that the best a third party can ever hope to do is play a spoiler role, put the worst possible party in power for a full term, and hope that teaches the less-bad party a valuable lesson!
This is the part that I couldn’t let pass. That’s not argument, it’s snide, condescending mockery disguised as interpretation. And no, a wink is not going to cut it as amelioration.
3. You assume that the vote is the only time one can hope to have influence on the lunch choices. I said no such thing. I took your scenario as it was presented. And I noted that by the conclusion you intended readers to reach, it was you who was maintaining that it would be impossible ever to convince more people to support Chang’s.
[T]he point of the analogy is to ask how a vote for Chang’s — virtually assuring a Subway lunch in the process — is likely to help, even in the long term. Actually, in the analogy, a vote for Chang’s does not “virtually assure a Subway lunch” but rather a deadlock, 5-5-1-1. To be followed, perhaps, by a “brokered convention” where, as I suggested, some Chang’s items can be included in the order in exchange for my vote for Papa John’s - which is, it seems to me and by the way, exactly the sort of compromise of which you say I can’t conceive.
Why is it so difficult for you to accept if you have any preference at all and have a chance to impact which outcome comes to fruition, it makes sense to go with that preference? Yeah, why can’t I just shrug my shoulders and perpetually settle for second best? Why can’t I just give up on the idea of seeing my ideals come to fruition? Remember the saying “Be realistic - demand the impossible?” The hell with that. Now it’s “Be realistic - don’t even try to see if it’s possible.”
This also illustrates why I pledge right now to never comment on this topic here again. Because the fact is, you simply don’t listen. I have never said I would not vote for the lesser evil; in fact the last time we went through this I specifically said that had I lived in a tossup state in 2004 I would have voted for Kerry. What I have said is, I refuse to make it my standard practice to limit myself to the lesser evil except for those cases where it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference and yes, that is exactly what you are demanding of me and everyone else who supports a third party.
As for the rest of your comments, they are the same moldy old cliches blaming Bush on Ralph Nader, ignoring an incompetent Democratic campaign for a candidate who even his own campaign staff admitted never defined himself or just what he wanted to do and dumping right down the memory hole the fact that despite that, Gore actually won the damn election but had it stolen by high-level corruption in Florida and the RNC, backed by a politicized Supreme Court. Perhaps blaming the Greens is just easier than facing the depth of corruption in our political process.
A five year war costing hundreds of billions; a large-scale rollback of civil liberties; damage to the army that will take a generation to fix; the complete ruination of America’s reputation abroad — that’ll teach those damn filthy Democrats to ignore our issues! Yeah, because now that the Dems are back in control of Congress, look how much better all those things have gotten! That’ll show them Greens!
And with that, I’m done with this. For good.
Comment 1/14/2008
Oh, except for this:
Thanks, Ted.
And yes, T., I do agree proportional representation is better and would resolve a lot of the contention over 3rd parties. How we’ll get there by supporting a continuation of the 2-party monopoly is, I have to admit, beyond me.
Comment 1/14/2008
“cutting of your nose to spite your face”
From where people myself and LarryE. sit, this charge is more aptly applied to your position.
Also, let’s take the bizarre hypothetical at face value… I’d vote for Changs anyway. When it’s my birthday, they’ll surprise me with the food that I actually like, not the food they think I like… Also, if the process was supposed to be secret ballot, wouldn’t all the asking around you did serve to undermine the integrity of the election in the first place?
But, really, you are falsely representing your tastes. Maybe when there’s office turnover, there will be new employees who want Changs, but since nobody ever voted for it for the previous 10 meetings, it won’t even be offered as an option anymore. Then you’ll have an office of people who would really prefer Changs sitting around eating shitty pizza thinking that they got what they wanted…
Comment 1/14/2008
LarryE:
Let me start by saying that I realize, after the fact, that my tone in my response to you was ultra-pissy, and I sincerely apologize for that.
As to your points, I’ll try to keep this brief. (And I’ll fail.)
And oh, yeah, sure, politicians and political parties which see no threat to their positions will rush to adopt minority positions that are “gaining popularity” despite your own contention that doing so risks alienating more voters than it attracts.
It depends on the minority position, of course. My statement here was not intended to be an absolute always yes or always no; instead, it was intended to convey the idea that politicians will only adopt such positions if such positions attract more voters than they alienate. For some positions, this may be the case. For others, not so much.
Why then, for example, has there been such little progress on ending the war, a position that has majority support among the public?
And then God said, “Let there be the filibuster.” And lo… (Never mind that rat Lieberman…)
Could it be because they know that ultimately it won’t make a damn bit of difference what they do, that you will vote for them anyway?
They don’t care about me, or you for that matter; they care about the median voter. But on the flip side, I don’t really care about them, either. I don’t see why it’s preferable to let a Republican win — and REALLY mess things up — than to give them the satisfaction of my “automatic” vote.
I say again, almost the entire New Deal stands as an example of that.
Maybe you can recommend some source reading there. Because I’m having a really hard time accepting the idea that in the midst of the Great Depression, both parties would have been deaf to calls for a change of direction, had it not been for a temporary rise in popularity of a third party. It seems we have differing views of cause and effect here. I view the temporary rise of the socialist party as a symptom of growing public demand for social change, and that such change was basically inevitable. You seem to view that rise as a catalyst for or perhaps a cause of that change.
I cite a specific example (which you do not deny) illustrating exactly the kind of effect that is the core of my argument and you flick it away with, in essence, “It doesn’t count.”
I’m not saying that it can’t happen or that it never happens; only that it’s not the most likely outcome by any stretch of the imagination.
You may not believe this, but I’ll tell you anyway: If I believed voting third-party had any chance of doing some long-term good, I’d do it. I just don’t believe that.
So by your own argument, it is the lack of an effective leftist third party that has resulted in Democrats, even in victory, acting more and more like Republicans.
I don’t think that follows from my argument at all. What I argue isn’t that the lack of an effective third party causes this or that. Instead, what I’ve argued all along is that in our system, except in highly unusual circumstances, there can’t be an effective third party. That’s an important distinction.
Given that, a vote for a large, effective third party is a very different thing than a vote for a small, ineffectual third-party. The Big Two will indeed pay attention to the former, but will ignore the latter. (And if the Reform Party is any indication, they’ll pay attention just long enough to kill the third party, and go right back to ignoring it.)
That’s not argument, it’s snide, condescending mockery disguised as interpretation.
You’re right, and you have my apologies. But even though my tone was admittedly piss-poor, it does underscore the part that I fail to understand (and that I will likely never understand).
Actually, in the analogy, a vote for Chang’s does not “virtually assure a Subway lunch” but rather a deadlock, 5-5-1-1.
Valid point. I forgot to mention the fourteenth person in the room, the VP, who doesn’t get a vote except in the event of a tie. He’s a big Subway fan. As you were.
To be followed, perhaps, by a “brokered convention” where, as I suggested, some Chang’s items can be included in the order in exchange for my vote for Papa John’s
OK, so what process in the US electoral system is analogous to this?
Yeah, why can’t I just shrug my shoulders and perpetually settle for second best?
I can’t stress this enough, but results matter. I feel your pain on perpetually settling for second best, but when the cost of not doing so is consistently actually getting the worst?
Why can’t I just give up on the idea of seeing my ideals come to fruition?
I’m not asking you to “give up” on that. I’m merely arguing that voting third party, especially in a dead-heat contest between a so-so candidate and an OMFG-awful candidate, is not a good way to see your ideals come to fruition. You obviously disagree with my assessment there, but don’t pretend that I’m asking you to give up on positive change.
What I have said is, I refuse to make it my standard practice to limit myself to the lesser evil except for those cases where it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference and yes, that is exactly what you are demanding of me and everyone else who supports a third party.
See, this is where you lose credibility with me. You whine about me misrepresenting your positions, and then you misrepresent my position. I don’t argue this at all; instead I argue that you have to weigh what the “damn bit of difference” is likely to be, and ask yourself if you’re willing to accept the worst in the short term to (hopefully) enable an improvement in the long term.
And again, you complained about my “snide” argument above, but isn’t that exactly what you’re arguing here? If the “damn bit of difference” you’re talking about isn’t costing the candidate closer to you the election, in hopes of getting him to pay attention to your issues, then precisely what is it?
If you had a scenario where voting third-party would cause a so-so candidate who’s expected to win easily over a lousy opponent to instead win narrowly over the lousy opponent, that would certainly make a “damn bit of difference,” and I’d be all for it. But with the country as evenly divided as ours is, that’s not the scenario we’re dealing with.
As for the rest of your comments, they are the same moldy old cliches blaming Bush on Ralph Nader, ignoring an incompetent Democratic campaign for a candidate who even his own campaign staff admitted never defined himself
Don’t think for a minute that I absolve the Democratic Party, Gore, Palm Beach County, the butterfly ballot, or the corrupt GOP in any of this. I don’t claim that it’s “all the Greens’ fault,” but I don’t let them off the hook, either. All other things being equal, if the Green voters vote Gore, there’s no Florida to dispute. So in that sense, voting third party did make a damn bit of difference: it helped the GOP win/steal the election, and it moved the Democratic party to the right.
As to Gore “winning” the election, as I said in the other thread, he won the popular vote, which is not the same thing as winning the election. I haven’t seen a vote count in Florida that put Gore ahead. (Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, just that I haven’t seen it.)
Yeah, because now that the Dems are back in control of Congress, look how much better all those things have gotten!
Well, if you consider 50 senate seats plus Lieberman to be “control,” I suppose… The Democrats may control congress, but the progressives don’t. You’ve still got a lot of conservative Democrats that need to go away in favor of progressive candidates (be they Democrat or otherwise).
Look, in the past, you’ve asked how I suggest pushing for positive change, without leaving the system (going third party), and I’ve said that the way to do that is in the primaries. One way I do this is through support for Democracy For America. Their DFA list candidates target not only vulnerable Republicans, but also conservative Democrats, by rallying support and raising money for progressive challengers. To me, that has a much better chance at making an impact than voting for a marginalized third party with no shot at victory.
How we’ll get there by supporting a continuation of the 2-party monopoly is, I have to admit, beyond me.
How support for marginalized third-parties will get us there is, I have to admit, beyond me. (Kudos to the Greens, by the way, for officially supporting proportional representation, but if wishes were horses…)
And with that, I’m done with this. For good.
You know, I’m truly sorry that we got off on the wrong foot on all of this. I really don’t want permanent animosity between us. It’s just that we both feel very passionately about this particular issue, and things are bound to get heated. The best we can to is try to disagree without being disagreeable. I know I’ve fallen well short of that goal, and I think you’d have to admit that you haven’t always been a model citizen, either. (We’re both far too skilled at condescension for our own good, it seems to me.)
Comment 1/14/2008
digg:
Also, let’s take the bizarre hypothetical at face value… I’d vote for Changs anyway.
Enjoy your Subway.
Also, if the process was supposed to be secret ballot, wouldn’t all the asking around you did serve to undermine the integrity of the election in the first place?
Polling is not the same thing as balloting.
Anyway, you’re obviously a better man than I. You’ll stand on principle, results be damned, whereas I’m too much of a pragmatist. Likely outcomes matter to me. There are only a very limited number of circumstances in which refusing to compromise can be seen as a virtue, in my estimation.
Comment 1/14/2008
I haven’t seen a vote count in Florida that put Gore ahead.
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181
http://legitgov.org/index_hot_April5.html
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~gpomper/FloridaRecount.doc
Comment 1/14/2008
Don’t think for a minute that I absolve the Democratic Party, Gore, Palm Beach County, the butterfly ballot, or the corrupt GOP in any of this. I don’t claim that it’s “all the Greens’ fault,” but I don’t let them off the hook, either. All other things being equal, if the Green voters vote Gore, there’s no Florida to dispute. So in that sense, voting third party did make a damn bit of difference: it helped the GOP win/steal the election, and it moved the Democratic party to the right.
Ex post facto - hence, illegitimate.
Also, in the first place, them being “on the hook” for exercising their political voice is quite unAmerican - to get a little Fred on you…
When going to the polls, it is entirely unreasonable to assume you may act as an unwilling enabler of the undermining of democracy.
Well, if you consider 50 senate seats plus Lieberman to be “control,” I suppose… The Democrats may control congress, but the progressives don’t. You’ve still got a lot of conservative Democrats that need to go away in favor of progressive candidates (be they Democrat or otherwise).
More of the same… When somebody remarks that the voting for the lesser of two evils hasn’t catalyzed much change, people of your view just dismiss it by saying that the control they have isn’t really control, or it’s not at the critical mass that will yield results, yet. In essence, you ask us to consider the long term and not focus on the fact that your victory doesn’t translate to much in the now.
But, that’s what we ask you! Since you’re not getting much in the short term anyway, invest your efforts in possibly building something truly progressive in the long term.
Comment 1/15/2008
LarryE:
Thanks for the links. I was hoping for something non-partisan (which, the middle one may qualify), thanks.
digg
in the first place, them being “on the hook” for exercising their political voice is quite unAmerican
So there shouldn’t be any such thing as voter accountability, then? Shall we pretend that there’s zero connection between how people vote and the direction of the country?
Also, let me be clear: While I have my reservations about the Nader voters, the Bush voters (of which there were exponentially more) are the real bad guys here. My intent isn’t to vilify third-party voters, but merely to point out that third-party voting (particularly in a presidential election) can be exactly counterproductive. If even half of Florida’s Nader votes go to Gore, it makes the state much more difficult, if not impossible, for the Republicans to steal.
Further, it’s by no means just the third-party voters, as LarryE has pointed out. The reason the GOP has had so much success in recent elections is because their various core constituencies (religious/social conservatives, fiscal “conservatives,” libertarian types, etc.) do an excellent job of making compromises with one another and voting as a bloc, whereas liberal constituencies tend to fragment, fail to coalesce behind a single, strong candidate, and often just get lethargic and stay home on election day (the equivalent of forfeiting a game). The conservative base comes out in force and gets behind the compromise; the liberal base fragments and does not. This is why I keep making the People’s Front of Judea reference.
(If I’ve been guilty of one thing, it’s overemphasizing the role third-party support plays in that dynamic; that doesn’t mean, however, that it plays no role.)
Since you’re not getting much in the short term anyway…
I’d dispute that statement. What you’re “getting” in this case, is stopping the bleeding. I don’t know of anyone sane who expected that, with a narrow margin, the Democrats could undo six years of Republican control overnight. Have they done as good a job as I’d hoped? Not even close. But are they doing a better job that the GOP would if they still had full control? Without question.
Plus, I find it hard to classify 2004, for example, as a “short term” loss, when two ultra-conservative Supreme Court justices ascended during that term, and we’re going to have to live with them until they retire or die.
invest your efforts in possibly building something truly progressive in the long term
I’m okay with that idea (cf, DFA again), but I don’t see why this has to mean conceding power to the conservatives in the short- to mid-term.
Look, it’s clear that we’re never going to agree on this, and it’s even clear where our disagreement lies: You’re an idealist, and I’m a pragmatist. It’s just that simple. You can disparage me all you want for “settling for second best,” but to me, preventing the worst is considerably more important. You disagree with that assessment, and that’s your prerogative.
For what it’s worth, this is one of those issues that’s like global warming for me: I’d love nothing more than to be dead wrong about it. I hope against hope that all that we’ve lost during the Bush years becomes worthwhile in the long run, that we somehow enabled neoconservatism to kill itself in a way that we never could have killed it. Maybe a powerful liberal third party will suddenly appear within the next couple of years and pull American politics sharply to the left. I’m not at all optimistic about that, but it would thrill me to be wrong.
Comment 1/15/2008
I’m fine with agreeing to disagree. I think it’s under that understanding that we entered the discussion in the first place, right? I knew your position, you knew mine, and we both knew where the difference lies.
Comment 1/15/2008
I’m not sure I fully understood where, exactly, the difference lay before we entered this discussion, which is a part of why I entered it. But I have a better understanding now.
Maybe a lot of it is geography. In NYC (or Connecticut) you can afford to be idealistic. Here in Tennessee, not so much.
Comment 1/15/2008
“All other things being equal, if the Green voters vote Gore, there’s no Florida to dispute.”
All other things weren’t equal. The early call of Florida for Gore caused many people in pro-Bush panhandle not to go to the polls at all. You have to take what you get. People are free to vote for anyone they choose. You can speculate all day on what would have happened if this group or that group had voted differently. Bush won. Get over it.
Comment 1/15/2008
I guess I knew your position better than you knew mine.
I had read past exchanges you had with LarryE.
Comment 1/17/2008