Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Ralph Nader on Least-Worst Voting

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Photo courtesy of here.

The Cincinnati Beacon’s Resident Philosopher, Wes Dempster (also my friend since pre-school) has engaged me in a lengthy, private email debate about the merits of voting for a third party candidate.  When I heard Ralph Nader would be coming to Cincinnati, I realized I might be provided an interesting opportunity to take my private debate into the public realm.  So I collaborated with Dempster to create a single question for Ralph Nader—one to which we had not personally seen him respond, worded in such a way as to limit his answer in a very particular manner (assuming he would not sidestep the question, as politicians so frequently do).  I joined the press conference this past Monday to see how Nader would address my friend’s question.

The important components of the question, which I worked out with Dempster via email and telephone, included setting up key elements of context:  imagining an election day morning where Nader has not appeared in any televised debates, and where major credible polls have him in the single digits.  Shouldn’t a voter in a key battleground state like Ohio choose the “least worst” candidate to prevent the “most worst” candidate from winning?

(For those who don’t know, Nader frequently characterizes voting under the corporate duopoly a matter of selecting the “least worst” candidate instead of the “best” candidate.)

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

says:
09 Sep 2008  at  06:12 pm | #

So, Nader would advise the voter who opens the morning paper on election day and sees Nader polling in the low single-digits to vote for him anyway, because, even if he doesn’t win, by voting for the candidate she “believes in” the voter will ensure that in four years time a better crop of candidates will emerge--or so his argument seems to suggest.

Well, Nader ran for president in 1996 when the major-party candidates were Clinton and Dole. In ‘96 a Nader-voter would have gleaned from the polls that her candidate was not likely to win, but voted for him anyway--perhaps on the theory that in four years the major parties, heeding her protest vote for Nader, would put forward better candidates with more progressive platforms.

Nader ran for president four years later, in 2000. This time the major-party candidates were Gore and Bush. That year a Nader-voter once more would have gleaned from the polls that her candidate was not likely to win, but would have voted for him anyway, thinking that--as a result of her vote for Nader--in four years the major parties would put forward better candidates with more progressive platforms.

Nader ran for president yet again in 2004 when the major-party candidates were Kerry and Bush. Four years ago a Nader-voter would have gleaned from the polls that her candidate was not likely to win but voted for him anyway, since doing so would ensure that in four years the major parties would put forward better candidates with more progressive platforms.

Now it’s 2008 and the major party candidates are Obama and McCain. If Obama and McCain are better than Kerry and Bush (’04), who are better than Gore and Bush (2000), who are better than Clinton and Dole, then maybe it’s time to vote for one of them. On the other hand, if you don’t think Obama and McCain are closer to Nader than Clinton and Dole, then, in my view, Ralph owes you a better reason to vote for him than that not doing so will somehow make things worse than if the worst possible candidate is elected.

says:
09 Sep 2008  at  06:16 pm | #

The idea that voters should have to hold their noses and vote for a candidate they don’t believe in is simply undemocratic. If the system is broken-and it certainly is-shouldn’t people be working to challenge the corruption and fix it instead of complaining about those that are working to improve our democracy?

For a country that goes around the world pretending it’s the greatest democracy in the world and imposing our will on others, we sure do have a lot of political bigotry when it comes to having more voices and choices.

I would rather vote for a candidate that I believe in and that supports my agenda and lose than vote for a candidate that I don’t believe in and that doesn’t support my agenda and win. We have to really think about what we’re losing when we stifle voices that aren’t beholden to corporations that don’t care about the public interest.

Freedom Fighters says:
09 Sep 2008  at  07:04 pm | #

.

We think Nader evaded the question, PERIOD !

We were willing to entertain Nader, but, after seeing this response we have ruled him out.

Even with Nader and Barr in the mix, in our humble opinion, it is still the least-worst.

There really is only two options and the thought of the next white-house resident having the opportunity to make 3 lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court we cringe at the thought of more of the same.

.

north14 says:
09 Sep 2008  at  07:30 pm | #

The idea that voters should have to hold their noses and vote for a candidate they don’t believe in is simply undemocratic.

What could be more democratic then people having studied the issues and deciding who they want to vote for.  No one has to vote for the candidate they hope will win or for the candidate they wish to win.  It is a decision which each person weighs and that is what democracy is.

If the system is broken-and it certainly is-shouldn’t people be working to challenge the corruption and fix it instead of complaining about those that are working to improve our democracy?

People make their own decision of how important the corruption issue is for them and how the candidates approach the issue and make a decision and cast their vote.  Again that is what democracy is.  And democracy give ralph nader very few votes.

we sure do have a lot of political bigotry when it comes to having more voices and choices.

Ballot access is America is relatively easy compared to the rest of the world and there is room on the ballot for ralph nader.  It just so happens most people don’t choose to vote for him. 

I would rather vote for a candidate that I believe in and that supports my agenda and lose than vote for a candidate that I don’t believe in and that doesn’t support my agenda and win.

and that separates you from a majority of Americans.  It doesn’t make you right or the other people right but it does make you a minority.  It is amazing to watch nader’s people talk about democracy and then when they wind up in the minority ignore the fact.

We have to really think about what we’re losing when we stifle voices that aren’t beholden to corporations that don’t care about the public interest.

There are many opportunities for these voices to be heard.  In the end it just turns out that a majority of americans dont want to vote for those voices.  There are minimum thresholds to get into the public financing of elections etc.  Nader has failed to reach those.  When he becomes a voice with serious backing people will pay more attention to him.  In the meantime work on getting that 5% of the vote first.

says:
09 Sep 2008  at  07:30 pm | #

He did not evade the question; you just don’t like his answer.

By the way, who is the worst Supreme Court justice?  How many Democrats supported his appointment?

says:
09 Sep 2008  at  07:33 pm | #

Nihilist,

A philosopher I know recently wrote to me in an email:  “My point is that a principled opinion is one that is generalizable and does not depend on one’s particular circumstances.”

says:
09 Sep 2008  at  07:39 pm | #

The Nihilist, Nader didn’t really run until 2000 according to the FEC. Power is only responsive when it is insecure and it concedes nothing without a demand. Are you making any demands on the Democrats to be better or take on your agenda?

While some have argued that Nader has successfully pulled the Corporate Democrats to the left or a more progressive position because they use terms like “Universal health care” I would disagree with that assessment. I think the corporations are pulling the Corporate Democrats and Republicans in their direction 24/7 while least worst voters like yourself are merely being taken for granted every time and allowing the corporate parties to get worse every year.

If your argument is ‘we should vote for a candidate because they are the least worse’ (and it seems to be), don’t the candidates you’re telling us to vote for owe us a better reason than that? I’m voting for Ralph because he’s the candidate with the best record, the most integrity and he clearly has the best platform. Would you disagree with that?

It seems to me that the most important part of the electoral process should be a discussion about the direction of our country, surely Ralph Nader is qualified to put forth his ideas and solutions, don’t you think? Or do you think “elections” should merely be coronation ceremony where the public sometimes gets to pick the least worse between the ruling elite’s two favorite candidates?

says:
09 Sep 2008  at  07:42 pm | #

Dean, this philosopher you know sounds pretty smart. But could you explain the relevance of the comment for the present discussion?

Freedom Fighters says:
09 Sep 2008  at  07:45 pm | #

.

No, we liked his answer.

It demonstrated a willingness to throw a vote away when there is more at stake than one individual in one office.

The answer pushed us over the edge.

We concluded his answer was just simple minded and evaded the real question.

When you have nothing but the worst, he advocates not voting, PERIOD !

To not participate, after using logic, is fruitless !

.

says:
09 Sep 2008  at  07:49 pm | #

I would vote for Nadar over McCain.  I had the pleasure (lol) from seeing them today in Lebanon, Ohio (from way for back of course) and it seems every thing Palin said the crowd went wild.  It’s raining (they clapped) There’s a squirrel (they clapped). You get the picture.

says:
09 Sep 2008  at  08:02 pm | #

Freedom Fighters, you make an excellent point. Before casting a vote for Nader, it is well worth considering what is at stake, not only in terms of who sits in the Oval Office, but also who will fill the Cabinet, who will be nominated to the Supreme Court (not to mention the lower courts), and who will be appointed to sit on the Federal Reserve Board. These are the hard-nosed pragmatic issues that Nader, Jeffre, and The Dean’s Utopian view of electoral politics doesn’t make room for.

north14 also makes an excellent point. Nader often talks as though a majority of the American public would support him if only they weren’t bamboozled by the “corporate media.” But the truth is, he’s been around a long time; people know what he stands for; and they’re not going for it. I personally like Nader’s platform. But as a voter, I feel I have to take into account that more than 90 percent of the country is not going to support him.

says:
09 Sep 2008  at  08:17 pm | #

Justin, just to make it as clear as possible, my argument is absolutely not “we should vote for a candidate because they are the least worse.” My argument, in a nutshell, is that when voting (as with anything else) one should act in the way that one thinks will bring about the best consequences. If Nader is polling in the low single-digits on election day, nobody is going to say that he has a credible chance of winning. With a Nader victory off the table, a voter should consider what are the likely outcomes and how her vote can be put to the best possible effect.

The challenge to Nader is this: if I give up my second choice candidate in order to vote for you, Mr. Nader, how will my vote have brought about the best possible outcome?

CAJD, if your first choice is Nader but your second choice is McCain, forget everything I’ve said and, by all means, vote Nader!

says:
09 Sep 2008  at  08:36 pm | #

What could be more democratic then people having studied the issues and deciding who they want to vote for.

Nothing, but that’s not what we have here. Most voters probably don’t even know who all will be on the ballot or what their favorite candidate’s record or position is, much less what the other candidate’s records and positions are. Do you know who will be appearing on the ballot in Ohio?

People make their own decision of how important the corruption issue is for them and how the candidates approach the issue and make a decision and cast their vote.  Again that is what democracy is.  And democracy give ralph nader very few votes.

People don’t have a choice in many elections because the “opposition party” often doesn’t run a candidate, there are restrictive ballot access barriers and the corporate parties exclude them (along with the corporate media) from participating in their scripted “debates”. Without any exposure people don’t even know if they do have a choice. In real democracies like France candidates get equal airtime and they don’t have to have serious corporate cash to be considered serious candidates.

Many people that know about Ralph Nader think he is the best candidate with the best ideas. The only thing that prevents them from voting for him is that they know we have a rigged system, so people vote for the lesser evil out of fear, like the Nilhilist. Nader supports majoritarian issues like single-payer health care, ending corporate control and bipartisan wars.

Ballot access is America is relatively easy compared to the rest of the world and there is room on the ballot for ralph nader.

We have the highest ballot access barriers in the industrialized world. Do you have any idea what it takes to be on the ballot in Texas or Georgia for instance? 

It is amazing to watch nader’s people talk about democracy and then when they wind up in the minority ignore the fact.

Again, we support majoritarian issues. People don’t get to vote for the issues they support because the corporate parties protectively imitate each other and take them off of the table.

For instance, if you were against the war in 2004 the major parties gave you a choice between two pro-war candidates. If you were for a living wage or ending the failed War on Drugs the major parties denied you a real choice. The major parties harass Independent candidates and third parties all of the time, shut them out of the debates they control and knock them off of the ballot.

There are minimum thresholds to get into the public financing of elections etc.  Nader has failed to reach those.

Independent candidates have to spend more just to achieve ballot status giving the corporate parties yet another advantage. For instance the Republicrats only have to collect 50 valid signatures each to run for County Commissioner while Independents like Chris Dole have to collect over 2,600 valid signatures.

If you know anything about ballot access (you don’t seem to) that means that you have to get double the number of signatures required. That’s 100 signatures for the corporate party candidates and over 5,000 for Independents. Not exactly a level playing field, huh? And that’s just for a local office!

It is hard to meet those thresholds if you are denied coverage on the corporate controlled airwaves that are publicly owned.  Even if a candidate reaches the threshold it’s hard to compete with all that corporate cash that nullifies honest elections.

says:
09 Sep 2008  at  09:03 pm | #

Freedom Fighter no way my 1st choice is John McCain.  I was at the McCain/Palin rally to protest McCain’s southwest chair Joe Deters.  A few people gave me hell. One person even told me it’s better to support McCain instead of Ted Kennedy because he’s a murderer. He asked me who was paying our group Citizens against Joe Deters to rally. I said I wish someone was paying me to stand in the rain and get heckled holding out a sign.

I’m of the belief that independent can’t win (like Nader or Mckinney). I’m voting Barack.

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  04:35 am | #

My argument, in a nutshell, is that when voting (as with anything else) one should act in the way that one thinks will bring about the best consequences.

Nihilist, I’m short on time right now—so more later on your first question.  But as for this comment above:  is that a philosophy that, in your view, takes a principled position?

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  08:08 am | #

Mr. Freedom Fighter,

You said, “When you have nothing but the worst, he advocates not voting, PERIOD !

To not participate, after using logic, is fruitless ! “

This is not entirely accurate.

If you do not vote, but make it known that your vote is in play if the right candidate comes along, then there is an argument to be made that you are participating.

Mr. Ventura became governor because of exactly this reason.  People that did not vote in the past and were not labeled “likely voters” were courted by him and they added 10% to his final tally which put him in office.

He was polling at 27% the day before the election based on a “likely voter” poll.  He got 37% in a three way race.

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  08:10 am | #

Dean, what I’ve described is basically the fundamental principle of utilitarianism: always act to maximize utility (i.e., to bring about the best consequences). It’s completely universalizable. Whether it’s voting or deciding what to have for dinner, one should always try to maximize utility. And, in fact, this is a principle that you have said you agree with.

So there is really no question as to whether it’s a principled position (it most certainly is). And if you agree with it, it is difficult to see how you could conclude that voting for Nader if he is polling in the low single-digits on election day could help to bring about a better consequence than voting for the better of the two candidates that actually has a chance of winning.

The onus is therefore on Nader to offer a reason for people to vote for him even if they think he can’t win, since in doing so the voter gives up her chance to express a preference between the only two candidates with a real chance of winning. And, frankly, the answer Nader gave to the question you posed to him suggests that he does not have an answer that comes anywhere close to meeting the demands of the principle of utility.

Voters deserve more than specious platitudes about voting “for the best.”

Chris Johnson says:
10 Sep 2008  at  09:39 am | #

The Nihilist wrote:

“But the truth is, he’s been around a long time; people know what he stands for; and they’re not going for it.”

I would disagree that the majority of people have a firm grasp on Nader’s positions and proposals.  Name recognition is probably quite high, but I doubt that many people could lay out his stance on the issues.

See this video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e5-vVfxulk

provide48 says:
10 Sep 2008  at  09:57 am | #

Nothing, but that’s not what we have here. Most voters probably don’t even know who all will be on the ballot or what their favorite candidate’s record or position is, much less what the other candidate’s records and positions are. Do you know who will be appearing on the ballot in Ohio?

So your problem is that the voters are too stupid to research the issues and decide who to vote for?  I will agree that many voters don’t to their research but haivng 70 names on the ballot wont fix that problem.  I know which of the presidential candidates that will will be appearing on the ballot that has a chance to win is closet to my positions.  That is who I will vote for.

People don’t have a choice in many elections because the “opposition party” often doesn’t run a candidate, there are restrictive ballot access barriers and the corporate parties exclude them (along with the corporate media) from participating in their scripted “debates”.

People decide whether or not they want another candidate in the race not the parties alone.  Look locally at ed rothernberg that is challenging portune without party support.  The difference between someone like nader whining and someone who works.

Do you have any idea what it takes to be on the ballot in Texas or Georgia for instance? 

Not sure it is still the case but georgia used to be 5% of the registered voters.  Is that still the case?  If you can’t get 5% of the registered voters why do you think you can win the election if you can just get onto the ballot?

Independent candidates have to spend more just to achieve ballot status giving the corporate parties yet another advantage. For instance the Republicrats only have to collect 50 valid signatures each to run for County Commissioner while Independents like Chris Dole have to collect over 2,600 valid signatures.

So where is the increased cost to get on the ballot in your example?  It looks to me that getting 2,600 signatures while laying the groundwork of your campaign should be pretty easy to accomplish.  If you aren’t going to make contact with 2,600 people how do you expect to win?

If you know anything about ballot access (you don’t seem to) that means that you have to get double the number of signatures required. That’s 100 signatures for the corporate party candidates and over 5,000 for Independents.

Before you started your musical career I was gathering signatures to put a third party candidate on the ballot for a kentucky house race in order to teach my party a lesson.  We did the work- took enough of the vote to cost a safe house seat and spanked the party back into line.  So wipe your arrogant comment away and quite making ASSumptions it truly shows your ignorance.

It is hard to meet those thresholds if you are denied coverage on the corporate controlled airwaves that are publicly owned. 

You should be able to in one election buy enough exposure to get 5% of the vote and get into the public financing system.  Then you should have a base that you can get to the 15% polling threshold to get into a debate.  It isnt rocket science.  You should quit your whining and get to work.  Lay your base expand it and go from there.

NtotheC says:
10 Sep 2008  at  11:24 am | #

Dean, what does it take to be called a philosopher? a PhD in philosophy?

a principled opinion is one that is generalizable and does not depend on one’s particular circumstances

please provide me with a principled opinion, as i am of the belief that everything is circumstantial.

This whole debate is quite interesting.  I would agree that Mr. Nader has a great platform.  One with which i agree, more so than the major parties.  However, i do not vote for a candidate based solely on their platform.  I also vote for a candidate based on how i perceive their ability to lead the country.  I don’t believe that Nader has the ability to lead this country.

Mr. Jeffre,

You seem to be making the argument for 3rd party candidates in local elections.  I’ve mentioned several times that third parties have to focus on local elections and build support before moving up.  I’m not sure why Mr. Nader continues to run for President and why people like you support him.  The President is probably the one elected official that has the least impact on our day-to-day lives (unless you are in the armed forces).  If third parties want to make an impact, get into local politics.

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  11:56 am | #

Chris Johnson, you may be right that “the majority of people have a firm grasp on Nader’s positions and proposals.” But, by the same token, the majority of people do not have a firm grasp on McCain’s and Obama’s positions and proposals either. My point is that to the extent that the electorate is tuned in to policy issues at all, Nader has had years and years to get his message out.

NtotheC, I offered an example above in the principle of utility. People who hold to this view, namely, utilitarians (The Dean says he is a utilitarian), think that whatever the circumstance, this single principle should guide your actions.

As to the point you make about third parties building up a base by winning local elections, I couldn’t agree more. In fact, this strategy has been successful in European countries. Mr. Nader, I think, is making a tactical error in running for president every four years. If he wanted a place at the table, he could have won a congressional seat with far less effort. But I think he’s happier playing armchair president.

librariangrrl says:
10 Sep 2008  at  12:17 pm | #

I don’t think that anyone suggested that the public is “too stupid” to research the issues.

The fact is however, that they just don’t do it! Or, when they do, they do not conduct their investigation in a manner that will yeild solid, credible, authorative information sources.

As a petition circulator, I can tell you FOR A FACT that the average person has NO idea that anyone other than Obama and McCain are running for President.  They have little understanding of the political process, and NO UNDERSTANDING of ballot access.

As a librarian and as an activist, I see everyday what kind of information the public deems creditable and what kind of “research” they partake in.  Many people who work for the Obama campaign have NO IDEA about anything he stands for. They listen to his speeches, get all weepy and inspired, and that’s about as far as they take it.

I have argued with several PAID Obama campaign representitves regarding his stance on FISA and the Patriot Act only to realize that they not only don’t understand the legislation but really have no idea of what Obama’s stance on these issues is, nor do they have any idea how he voted on these bills.

The same goes for ending the war in Iraq.

What it comes down to is that the people believe what the media tells them to and the media doesn’t like Ralph Nader. 

If you really took a look at all Nader single-handedly has done for this country and all that he has done for the consumer--which is all of us (safe cars, clean water, clean air, safe food, safe pharmaceuticals etc.)--if you really understood the contributions he has made to make your life better, you’d realize he has already tangibly done more for you than Obama and McCain combined have, and probably ever will! That alone marks him as an ideal candidate for President in my book!

Freedom Fighters says:
10 Sep 2008  at  12:42 pm | #

.

Mr. Ryan:

That is a naive’ analysis.

If you do not vote your voice was not heard, PERIOD !

If you do not vote, for the least-worst, you get the worst.

No one is perfect, including those who support or run as fringe candidates.

.

NtotheC says:
10 Sep 2008  at  01:37 pm | #

The Nihilist,
i believe that you laid out a principle (and one that is certainly practical) however i don’t think it’s a “principled opinion.”

Librariangrrl,

People don’t typically know what is going on.  How could they? They rely on the media to tell them what is relevant, and the media is merely there to tell them what they want to hear so they keep paying attention (want to hear, in this case, means things that get people to watch, like what celebrities are doing).  It is really a shame that a paid surrogate of any candidate wouldn’t be able to tell what their candidate’s position on those bills would be.

Nader did a wonderful job as an advocate.  Do you think he’d be able to do any of that stuff as President?  Hell no.

librariangrrl says:
10 Sep 2008  at  02:03 pm | #

Freedom Fighters:

When you vote for the “least worst” candidate--a candidate that you don’t believe in but are voting for because you FEAR the consequenses, should the opposition win--you are continuing to support a corrupt system.

If you truly desire REAL change--but continue to support a corrupt system, how exactly, will that real change ever come about?

When you vote for the “least worst”, you are settling for what corporate America hands you--in essence, you are letting the mainstream politicians take the power from your hands, willingly!!!!

By not demanding better candidates and settling for the status quo, aren’t you pretty much throwing your vote away?

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  02:14 pm | #

librariangrrl, I do not dispute your claim that, qua consumer advocate, Ralph Nader has made tangible contributions to public health and safety. But how much can he do as an also-ran presidential candidate? It would be one thing if he gets into the debates and is able to bring his numbers up to, say, 30 percent by election day. But if the polls don’t change significantly, Nader’s chance to put his platform into effect will be nil.

I do not begrudge anyone for supporting Nader’s candidacy, nor for advocating for his being allowed to participate in the debates. The question, however, is this: How is it that voting for a candidate you know in advance will not win advances the positions for which he advocates, especially when, in doing so, you risk allowing the candidate who is on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum to take control of the levers of government?

That is a serious question that any potential Nader voter should want answered. It won’t do to try to tar the major-party candidates with the ignorance displayed by some of their supporters--that’s neither here nor there. And Nader’s answer in the above video is far from adequate.

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  02:21 pm | #

NtotheC, a principled opinion would be any opinion derived from a principle. (If you believe in principles, you have to believe in principled opinions.)

In the present case, someone might be of the opinion that even though Nader’s platform is better than Obama’s, it would be better to vote for Obama since such a vote would have a better chance of effecting the best achievable outcome. Such an opinion is principled because it derives from the principle of utility (described above).

Chris Johnson says:
10 Sep 2008  at  03:10 pm | #

Nihilist said:

Chris Johnson, you may be right that “the majority of people have a firm grasp on Nader’s positions and proposals.” But, by the same token, the majority of people do not have a firm grasp on McCain’s and Obama’s positions and proposals either. My point is that to the extent that the electorate is tuned in to policy issues at all, Nader has had years and years to get his message out.

Ah, but the Democratic and Republican parties have certainly had much more time to get their messages out throughout history.  They have also have had much more money from corporations which will buy you a voice in the media.  This all leads to the very mess of an electorial system in which you have a largely uninformed electorate voting for a candidate who may be bad but “not as bad as the other candidate” because a third party candidate does not have a legitimate chance at winning the election. 

I fail to see how this system will promote any real change.  Why should the more informed portion of the electorate also vote for the “least bad” candidate in this situation?  What will change if the cycle simply repeats itself?  If you keep voting for “least bad” candidates then you will end up with decades of policy that may be bad, but thank god it wasn’t a dictatorship!  We can do better than this.

Naturally I think that movement building is extremely important in addition to simply voting for your core beliefs in the election, but in a society that models itself as a “beacon of democracy”, this system certainly makes it a challenge for democratic ideas to flourish.

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  03:27 pm | #

Mr. Freedom Fighter:

All I said was that there was a legitimate arguement against your statement.

I even gave you an example.

Mr. Ventura knew that there were a lot of potential voters out there that got fed up with taking time out of their day to cast a “lesser evil” vote.

He may have gotten some polling data that these people were in play if he courted them.  So he did, and he won.

To judge people’s motives as to why they don’t participate is not really a proactive approach.  A candidate should make a realistic assumption that this is the case and analyse what it would take to get them out to vote for you.  In the case of Ventura, it didn’t take much.  I think he spent less than $350,000 on that campaign campaired to a few million a piece for the other two.  All he needed to do was seek to be included in the debate which was granted to him and people decided to get off their lazy asses and vote for him.

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  04:23 pm | #

CAJD, if your first choice is Nader but your second choice is McCain, forget everything I’ve said and, by all means, vote Nader!

Nihilist, you might want to pay closer attention to all the polls showing Nader taking more support from McCain. Nader has always gotten Republican votes because he’s against all the waste, fraud and abuse going on and he’s strong on civil liberties and supporting our constitution.

http://www.calendarlive.com/media/acrobat/2008-06/40351172.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.obama.clinton/index.html

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1529

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_NBCPoll_prtl_082108.pdf

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_Poll_072308.pdf

You say Obama is the lesser evil but he hasn’t demonstrated any willingness to challenge corporate fraud or abuse. At least McCain took on Boeing. He’s taking more Republican and corporate money than McCain

Please explain how voting for Obama furthers my agenda in anyway what so ever.

A vote for Obama is a vote to expand the Pentagon budget, continue a bipartisan imperial foreign policy, continue free trade over fair trade, continue the failed War on Drugs, continue the pay or die health care system and the list goes on and on.

I have the audacity of hope for real change on these issues. I don’t think our forbearers that voted for the (abolitionist) Liberty Party, the Women’s Nationalist Party, or the Farmer/Labor Party’s made a mistake and neither is a vote for a candidate that represents my agenda.

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  04:24 pm | #

Chris Johnson, the idea that voting for the more progressive of the two major-party candidates will be less effective in moving our country in a positive direction than voting for a lost-cause candidate is certainly an intriguing proposition. But I’m still waiting for someone--whether it’s Nader, Justin, The Dean, or you-- to describe to me the mechanics of the theory whereby the candidate with the fewest votes somehow gets more political capital than the candidate with the most votes, if he just gets yours.

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  04:29 pm | #

provide48, The American people aren’t stupid, they just are being lied to and pumped full of corporate propaganda disguised as news. There aren’t 70 people on the ballot. There are only 5 that will be on the ballot in enough states to mathematically have a chance of winning.

I know which of the presidential candidates that will will be appearing on the ballot that has a chance to win is closet to my positions.  That is who I will vote for.

In other words, you don’t know who all will appear on the ballot you will be voting for. That’s my point. You don’t know what your choices are and neither do most Ohioan’s because even so called progressive media outlets like City Beat don’t bother covering the race in a responsible way.

People decide whether or not they want another candidate in the race not the parties alone.  Look locally at ed rothernberg that is challenging portune without party support.  The difference between someone like nader whining and someone who works.

What are you talking about? Rothenburg is running as a Republican and only had to collect 50 signatures. I worked in the state of Illinois where we had to collect 50,000 signatures to get the 25,000 valid signatures required. We turned in 65,000 in Arizona to make the 25,000 hurdle and we will be on the ballot in 45 states and a write in candidate on the rest.

Those are just two states and it’s a major effort to collect that amount of signatures all across the country in a short amount of time. There are many barriers against Independents that you aren’t aware of. For instance, in Georgia nobody that voted in the primary can sign a petition.

Time is money of course and you can do all this work and still get frivolous challenges from the corporate parties that drain funds. Working to improve our democracy isn’t whining, it’s fighting for justice. There’s nothing wrong with working for a level playing feild and trying to improve democracy so we have more voices and choices.

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  04:58 pm | #

You seem to be making the argument for 3rd party candidates in local elections.  I’ve mentioned several times that third parties have to focus on local elections and build support before moving up.  I’m not sure why Mr. Nader continues to run for President and why people like you support him.

NtotheC, I think we need third parties at every level. Why are we limiting our choices to two corporate candidates that agree on more issues than they disagree on and ignore the needs of the people while serving their corporate paymasters?

Nader’s running for president to open up the democratic process, he’s putting issues back on the table that have been taken off of the table by the corporate candidates, he’s inspiring citizens to get engaged and to take back their country and educating them about how they can do it.

The electoral process is supposed to be about determining the best direction for our country and who will get us there. Nader knows the problems and best solutions. He’s done more for the country than anyone else and he deserves to be in the debates. If he gets in the debates he will win.

Jesse Ventura was polling in single digits. He got into the debates and won. The same thing happened with Nader’s running mate. Perot got 20 million votes when he got into the debates. He educated the public about NAFTA, the job killing trade agreement and his run launched a new party that runs candidates at the local level.

Nader did a wonderful job as an advocate.  Do you think he’d be able to do any of that stuff as President?

Working across party lines Nader built a record that would be the envy of any modern day president. If he could do this as a private citizen, imagine what he could do as President. Here are a few of Nader’s accomplishments.

∗ Safe Drinking Water Act
∗ Clean Air Act
∗ Freedom Of Information Act
∗ Environmental Protection Agency
∗ Seat Belts/Air Bags/Tire Safety
∗ Consumer Product Safety Act
∗ Pension Protection Act
∗ Whistleblower Protection Act
∗ Safe Medical Device Act
∗ National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety
Act
∗ Clean Water Act
∗ Occupational Health and Safety
Administration

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  05:10 pm | #

Nihilist, the anti-war movement doesn’t build political capital by voting for a pro-war candidate, the single-payer health care movement doesn’t get capital by supporting the candidate that’s taken more health industry payola than McCain etc. Did the peace movement gain anything by supporting John Kerry, a pro-war candidate? Did they gain anything by sending a bunch of pro-war Democrats to the house in 2006?

Obama’s getting worse because he’s moving farther to the right. Why are his poll numbers sinking? It’s the issues silly!

You would make him better if you pulled him in your direction. By throwing your support without any demands what so ever, you allow him to be pulled by the corporations and your vote to be taken for granted.

librariangrrl says:
10 Sep 2008  at  05:20 pm | #

Nader did a wonderful job as an advocate.  Do you think he’d be able to do any of that stuff as President?

Well, he kinda already HAS proven that he can do it…

Andrew Warner says:
10 Sep 2008  at  06:20 pm | #

Nihlist,

okay… Hitler is running for re-election versus Mussolini. Hitler’s polling at a whopping 45 percent and the newcomer Mussolini is coming in with a surprising 45 percent to make it an exciting horse race that the media can’t stop talking about… It’s so close and so exciting that they ignore a lesser-known third candidate, Martin Luther King, Jr. who is polling at an anemic and irrelevant 10 percent.

In this scenario do you apply your theory and vote for the least worst to try to maximize your utility or do you vote based on your belief of who the best candidate is?

If you choose to go with one of the favorite candidates, are you then complicit in the style of government they choose to run once in office?

**** i am in no way comparing either McCain or Obama to Hitler or Mussolini. I am also not comparing Nader to MLK. i am merely seeing if this working theory of voting for the least worst can be applied universally.

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  07:08 pm | #

Andrew, arguments by analogy are only as strong as the analogy itself. Hence, your admission that you are not comparing McCain or Obama to Hitler or Mussolini makes whatever I say in response to your question almost irrelevant in the present context.

I will say this, however: Voting for MLK, if he is polling “at an anemic and irrelevant 10 percent” might give you a sense of self-righteous pride (it would give you the right to put a “Don’t Blame Me I Voted for MLK” sticker on your car), but it wouldn’t do much good beyond that. Maybe in this case the scale of preference for MLK over Hitler or Mussolini is so great that it is worth taking the microscopic chance that, by some miracle, MLK could win.

But unless you are willing to say that voting for McCain or Obama is akin to voting for Hitler of Mussolini, again, the point does not bear on the present case.

Actually, what you present is even more problematic since most people would agree, I think, that a coup d’etat would be justified in the case of a Hitler or Mussolini presidency. In other words, you’ve presented a case so extreme that it would be justifiable to act undemocratically, thus rendering the issue of whom you should vote for moot.

Andrew Warner says:
10 Sep 2008  at  07:47 pm | #

I believe the Dean has been quoting a great philosopher who said this:

My point is that a principled opinion is one that is generalizable and does not depend on one’s particular circumstances.

This quote, from an alleged great philosopher, is a simple rephrasing of Kant’s categorical imperative which is phrased like this:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

If you are saying that voting for the least-worst candidate only works in certain situations, you’re violating the idea of both these mental giants.

Utilitarianism is a nice theory, but is for the most part incongruent with our government and Constitution. If you are going to use this as your principle of democracy then you are supporting acts such as the Patriot Act, the Red Scare, FISA countless other acts that sacrifice the minority for the alleged well-being of the majority. But i digress and this is another conversation all together.

The original point stands, though. If you support the least-worst argument you have supported this entire thread, then you are rejecting Kant’s moral system and a quote I can only assume is properly attributed to you. Morality, unfortunately, is not always in the results.

How is it possible that you demand generalized principles and then turn around and say you need to look at circumstances on a case by case, election by election, basis?

On top of that, your coup d’etat argument is not based on a different principle, just on a varying degree of the same principle.... Meaning that perhaps there are some people out there who feel Obama and McCain present a situation where a coup d’etat (in this case a vote for Nader) is necessary. Do most people have to agree that a coup d’etat is necessary for it to be actually necessary? What if the group being terrorized and oppressed is in a distinct and tiny minority? But again, that is just another flaw of the utilitarian philosophy you are promoting.

And about the bumper sticker joke… I’m certain the original opponents of slavery were only a small minority. Were they only worthy of a bumper sticker on their buggy or were they the beginning of a necessary and moral change? Or were they only right when they suddenly became the acceptable majority?

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  08:06 pm | #

Andrew, the principle I am advocating is not “always vote for the least-worst candidate,” it is the principle of utility, which holds that one should always act in such a way as to bring about the best consequences.

With that point in mind, the rest of your argument is nonsensical (all due respect, etc.).

FYI: Kant is not a utilitarian; he’s a deontologist (which is very different).

says:
10 Sep 2008  at  08:41 pm | #

Mr. Jeffre,

I noticed the enthusiasm on this subject.  You should play up the lead roll that Nader played in the alliance of all the third party candidates regarding several issues.  It may get Mr. Nader a few more votes here in Ohio.

Take a lesson from the local alliance that defeated the Jail tax.

Just a thought, do as you wish.

Andrew Warner says:
10 Sep 2008  at  09:14 pm | #

nihlist,

Best consequences, even in your world of sacrificing the minority, is hard to quantify. You yourself has said that Nader’s candidacies have brought a better crop of candidates every time… It’s impossible to say whether this is the best crop you’re going to get or the one we need to optimize our happiness/utility. And how do you quantify the utility created by an Obama presidency over the utility of having a more open and democratic process—which a strong showing for Nader would certainly create. You seem willing to exchange long-term gain for short-term gain.

And you should still say as to whether or not you would have been against the early fringe movement to end slavery. After all, at the time when it was argued I’m sure it could have been argued that the end of slavery could ruin, or diminish, our economy and alter our society in a way that was unfavorable to the majority of people.

I’m aware Kant is not a utilitarian. Utilitarian philosophy is horrendously flawed and fails to protect the rights and liberties of minorities (in this case political minorities). It also promotes the tyranny of the majority (Democrats and Republicans oppressing smaller, dissenting parties).

Kant, unlike Utilitarian thinkers, recognizes that there is an inherent rightness or wrongness to an action regardless of the consequences it has. You already know that of course… but you’d be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with ending slavery now, even though when it was first proposed it wasn’t going to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Truly utilitarian voting would be to have people vote for who they want to vote for and have the winner be the president . Even truer utilitarianism would be having a new voting system that accurately represents more people (Proportional representation comes to mind so that everyone will have what they feel is proper representation of themselves). These results aren’t going to be brought about by people being forced to vote for a Democrat or a Republican.

When you have people voting for candidates they don’t like, or not voting at all (some 50%), you don’t have the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

NtotheC says:
11 Sep 2008  at  07:37 am | #

Librariangrrl + Mr. Jeffre,

I contend that the pressures on the President and the constraints on the position (ie. seperation of powers) would prevent Mr. Nader from achieving the types of things that he has in the past.  One of the great mysteries to me is the “platform” of each President.  The President certainly has an agenda that he supports, but Congress is the law making entity.

The one thing that i hope comes out of this election is the reduction in scale of the powers of the President.  That is one thing that i don’t see Nader doing any more than Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama.

Andrew Warner says:
11 Sep 2008  at  08:12 am | #

Besides Nihlist, a recent poll shows that 60% of Americans are unhappy with the two major parties…

This would indicate that their continued decision to vote for them is more an instance of poor decision making than maximizing their utility.

says:
11 Sep 2008  at  09:42 am | #

Andrew,


Best consequences, even in your world of sacrificing the minority, is hard to quantify

In this case I think it is fairly easy to see that more people would be better off under one of the major-party candidate’s administrations than the other. Justin and The Dean have both admitted as much to me in private, but then take it back the moment that concession becomes inconvenient, argumentatively. What is difficult to understand, however, is how voting for a candidate you know in advance will lose will advance the causes for which he advocates.


You yourself has said that Nader’s candidacies have brought a better crop of candidates every time…

That was a reductio ad absurdum on Nader’s answer to the question posed to him.


And how do you quantify the utility created by an Obama presidency over the utility of having a more open and democratic process which a strong showing for Nader would certainly create. You seem willing to exchange long-term gain for short-term gain.

First, I don’t need to specifically quantify the utility of an Obama presidency. I only need to point out that the next president will have far more influence over the quality of life for the vast majority of Americans than the candidate who garners less than ten percent of the vote, regardless of whether or not you vote for such a candidate. When you say that a “strong showing” for Nader would create a more open and democratic process, that depends on what you mean by strong showing. My whole argument has to do with the hypothetical--but very likely--scenario in which you open the newspaper election morning to see that the polls show Nader with low-single digit support. Surely you don’t think that if that holds through the election that that would qualify as a “strong showing.” And surely you don’t think that your vote is likely to change that. In such a case, a vote between the two major-party candidates will have greater impact on the state of things post-election. So, no, I’m not willing to exchange long-term gain for short-term gain. But I am willing to exchange some gain for no gain.


And you should still say as to whether or not you would have been against the early fringe movement to end slavery. After all, at the time when it was argued I’m sure it could have been argued that the end of slavery could ruin, or diminish, our economy and alter our society in a way that was unfavorable to the majority of people.

Of course I would have been for the movement to end slavery. People can argue anything, as your post demonstrates, but whether or not the argument you hint at would have been a good one is another matter.


I’m aware Kant is not a utilitarian. Utilitarian philosophy is horrendously flawed and fails to protect the rights and liberties of minorities (in this case political minorities). It also promotes the tyranny of the majority (Democrats and Republicans oppressing smaller, dissenting parties).

The same could be said--and, indeed, has oft been said--about democracy. But I didn’t think anyone here was promoting the abolition of democracy. I mean, what is voting if not a majoritarian exercise?


Kant, unlike Utilitarian thinkers, recognizes that there is an inherent rightness or wrongness to an action regardless of the consequences it has. You already know that of course but you’d be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with ending slavery now, even though when it was first proposed it wasn’t going to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

One of the great things about utilitarianism is that it gives the same weight to the preferences of everyone, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, etc. Thus John Stuart Mill, the best-known utilitarian philosopher, argued against slavery and for the rights of women. Kant, on the other hand, said that if a murderer asks where his would-be victim is hiding, you are obliged to tell him if you know, since “it is always wrong to lie.” (According to Kant’s theory, the person who revealed the location of the Frank family to the Nazis was morally justified!)

In the history of progressive social movements, utilitarian arguments have advanced the cause of oppressed people to a far greater extent than deontological (i.e., duty-based) arguments. Not only human “rights” (strictly speaking, utilitarians don’t believe in rights, but it’s a convenient shorthand), but also animal rights have been advanced by utilitarians. For instance, Peter Singer--the most famous living utilitarian philosopher--is responsible for the animal rights movement.


Truly utilitarian voting would be to have people vote for who they want to vote for and have the winner be the president . Even truer utilitarianism would be having a new voting system that accurately represents more people (Proportional representation comes to mind so that everyone will have what they feel is proper representation of themselves). These results aren’t going to be brought about by people being forced to vote for a Democrat or a Republican.

Utilitarian voting is voting with an aim to bring about the best possible (read achievable) consequences. Nobody is “forced” to vote for a Democrat or a Republican. When you go to the polls in November you will have the option to vote for Nader, as will everyone else in Ohio. But if you know in advance that the vast majority of Americans (and Ohioans) will vote for either McCain or Obama, what utility is there in voting for Nader? That is the question to which nobody has given a sensible answer.

Having said that, I agree with you that there are other systems of voting that would be more utilitarian. E.g., instant run-off voting would allow voters to express their preference without fear that if their first preference doesn’t win their least preferred candidate might. But it doesn’t make any sense to vote as though the rules aren’t what they are.


When you have people voting for candidates they don’t like, or not voting at all (some 50%), you don’t have the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Utilitarians are realistic in their objectives. A utilitarian voter will not try to vote-in a Utopian government ex nihilo. She will, instead, use her vote to effect the best achievable outcome.

says:
11 Sep 2008  at  11:15 am | #

Andrew,

you say


Besides Nihlist, a recent poll shows that 60% of Americans are unhappy with the two major parties…

Interesting, but the fact is beside the point. If a poll showed that 60 percent of Americans wanted Nader to be president, that would be something. As it is, only about 1 to 4 percent of Americans think that.

says:
11 Sep 2008  at  01:42 pm | #

You should play up the lead roll that Nader played in the alliance of all the third party candidates regarding several issues.  It may get Mr. Nader a few more votes here in Ohio.

Mr. Ryan, you make a good point and I’m glad you recognize Nader’s role in bringing third parties together to find a common agenda. This campaign is about opening up the electoral process for future Independents or third parties and cleaning up the corrupt system.

Some people seem to think that we can just sit back and watch things get worse and that voting for the least worst is doing something productive. Challenging corruption and working to shift the power from corporations to the people is much more productive.

says:
11 Sep 2008  at  02:08 pm | #

I contend that the pressures on the President and the constraints on the position (ie. seperation of powers) would prevent Mr. Nader from achieving the types of things that he has in the past.

Even if Nader only accomplished half of the things as President that he has as a private citizen that would be much more than any modern president has accomplished.

The President certainly has an agenda that he supports, but Congress is the law making entity

.

The President has the Bully Pulpit and the power of the veto. Nader undersands very well how government works and that’s how he was able to get so much legislation pushed through over the past decades. He knows what the American people want and that when Congress hears them roar on an issue they react. That’s why his message is so important.

The one thing that i hope comes out of this election is the reduction in scale of the powers of the President.  That is one thing that i don’t see Nader doing any more than Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama.

Nader has called for Impeachment. That would send a message to future Presidents that if you break the laws of our constitution you will be prosecuted. Nader has called for repealing the Patriot Act which expanded the power of the executive branch.

He would not have given the telecommunication companies immunity from spying on us and he’s called for strentghethening privacy laws, civil liberties and the rule of law. He would reduce the Pentagon’s bloated budget and change our imperial foriegn policy. Nader would also reduce corporate power in this country which 75% of Ameircans feel is out of control.

says:
11 Sep 2008  at  02:36 pm | #

Nihilist, how does voting for a candidate that wants to expand the so called War on Terror further the cause of somebody that wants to end it? How does voting for a candidate that reauthorized the Patriot Act help those that want to restore our constitution and our civil liberties?

How does voting for a candidate that has “always been for free trade” (except while campaigning in Ohio) further the cause of those that want fair trade? How does voting for a candidate that thinks we need to continue with Nuclear further the cause of those that think we need to stop using it?

How does voting for a candidate that’s pulled out of public financing and who’s taking more Republican and big business money than McCain further the cause of campaign finance reform, public funding, clean elections and ending corporate welfare and corporate person hood? How does voting for someone that thinks we should continue the failed War on Drugs further the cause of justice?

I haven’t heard Obama or any of you “least worst” status quo voters make the case yet.

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power.”
President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Mussolini said; “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

Mussolini and Hitler were both fascists or more properly should be called corporatist. Obama and McCain are corporatists as well. Like Dr. King, Ralph Nader has worked to shift to power from the corporations to the people. We need an engaged citizen revolution.

Would Dr. King support single payer health care for all or Obama’s pay or die system? Would he support expanding the Pentagon budget while we have more adult and child poverty than any nation in the industrialized world? Would he support expanding the war in Afghanistan? Would King support free trade or fair trade? Wasn’t King’s poor people’s march on Washington about giving workers a living wage?

Or would he say, ‘well, Obama’s corporate agenda is the best we can hope for so lets just remain silent on these issues for right now and vote for the lesser evil? What the hell, at least he ain’t as bad as McCain I don’t think’? Or would Dr. King have been holding the least worst’s feet to the fire?

says:
11 Sep 2008  at  02:50 pm | #

Mr. Jeffre,

Bravo with that response.

Both ends need to work together to suffocate this beast.

I will leave it at that.

says:
11 Sep 2008  at  03:07 pm | #

Nihilist,

As I now understand you, the idea that one must vote for the least-worst that can win and not for the best is your utilitarian view wherein principles might be sacrificed for measurable results.

You indicate, therefore, one should vote against one’s principles and core beliefs to support the least-worst candidate if that could help prevent the most-worst candidate from being elected—however negligible one might view the differences between them.

Additionally, I take you to mean that only violent, bloody revolutions can indicate when people are tired of the system under which they currently live, and that if I am not willing to start killing people (or to be killed myself) then the least-worst candidate has not created a circumstance too horrible.

Built into this thinking, if I understand you properly, is the assumption that a vote for Nader will accomplish nothing—being as how he has run for president previously, and you do not think votes for Nader had any meaning as interpreted by the system.

Presumably, therefore, if you could become convinced (or, if you could become convinced that another at least had a reason for becoming convinced herself) that a vote for Nader could have some effect—and further that this effect could be a benefit in a short term view—then I figure you would concede voting for Nader would NOT be pointless.

Before I go further, can you clarify if I have accurately stated your position, and if not could you clarify the mistake I may have made?

says:
11 Sep 2008  at  03:49 pm | #

Besides Nihlist, a recent poll shows that 60% of Americans are unhappy with the two major parties…

-Andrew Warner

Interesting, but the fact is beside the point. If a poll showed that 60 percent of Americans wanted Nader to be president, that would be something. As it is, only about 1 to 4 percent of Americans think that.

-Nihilist

Nihilst, Aside from putting important issues back on the table, Nader’s 2004 campaign was successful in that it has helped open up the electoral process by challenging and overturning unjust barriers in several states created by the two party corporate dictorship which will make it easier for Independents in the future.

Also the Nader campaign went after the undemocratic Corporate Democrats that illegally worked to knock him off of the ballot in 2004. 12 people are facing jail time. Hopefully this will teach those corporatist a lesson.

With 81% of the country feeling that we’re heading in the wrong direction, it seems to me one’s time wo