Endorsed: Other Options
Now I know what you’re thinking – am I just throwing partisan red meat into this symposium by suggesting anything would be better than any of the Democratic candidates? In short, no. In fact this article isn’t for likely or certain Democratic voters at all – if you’re planning to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020 then I have nothing in particular to say to you. Sure I like some of the candidates more than others, but I can’t vote for them anyway and there’s a limit to how far I’m willing to insert myself into a foreign election.
Instead I want to talk to conservatives for a moment, who might otherwise feel this symposium wasn’t for them. Some of you might be dedicated Trump voters, and if you are I can’t imagine what I could say that would change your mind, but a lot of the conservative and conservative-adjacent Americans on this site are not fans of Trump, and it’s you I want to talk to today.
So let’s say you’re a conservative but you hate Trump and what he has done to your party (and who can blame you?) what are you to do on Election Day 2020? I have seen comments from many of you on the other endorsement posts, concerned that if the Democrats nominate the wrong candidate you may be forded to vote for Trump. But fear not fellow Ordinarian, I am here to tell you this is not so.
Before we go any further we need to think about what a vote means. The way we are raised to think of voting is as a means of determining who our political leadership will be, but while this is true in aggregate it is not true for a particular voter. In a single-candidate election only one vote matters – the vote that separates the winner from whoever came second. If you are not this one voter, you didn’t affect the outcome of the election. A total of 138 million people voted in the 2016 US election, the human brain cannot comprehend a number as small as 1/138 million. To give you some context for your odds of changing the election result, 37,461 people died in road accidents in the US in 2016, representing a bit over 102 deaths per day. It is almost certainly the case that many more people died in road accidents going to the polls than actually affected the result. For you to believe your vote has an appreciable affect on the result of the election, you would also have to believe that you are in serious danger of death travelling to get there.
This logic is sometimes used to say that voting is irrational, but that’s not quite right, the rationality of an act depends what you hope to achieve by doing it. But there is no question that voting to change the outcome of the election is irrational. You won’t change the outcome, you can’t change the outcome. No polity bigger than a few hundred people can have both political equality (or anything close to it) and a single vote mattering, spread control of the US government over 138 million people and the power per person rounds to 0.
This, more than anything else, is why no-one should feel forced to vote for Trump. You may tell yourself that if you don’t then <terrible Democratic nominee> will win instead. But that decision is out of your hands. They won’t win because you vote for someone else, and they won’t lose because you vote for Trump, that’s just your human intuitions about large numbers lying to you.
While this may seem a little deflating, you can achieve other things with your vote. A vote is an endorsement, a way of saying “I approve of this person / party and their ethos and agenda” in a way that carries a more weight than just saying it. And I think other people see it this way too – a candidate that wins by a large margin is commonly seen as more legitimate than one who wins narrowly. So the question is, who do you want to endorse? Which candidate would you be willing to stand up and say “I think this person would make a good, or at least adequate, President”? Because if you can’t say that about Trump, you shouldn’t vote for him.
Of course, you may not feel you can say that about the Democratic nominee either and that’s fair. But, and I cannot emphasise this enough, you are under no obligation to vote for one of the main parties. The US’s political duopoly benefits from you thinking that you have to, because that way they each only have to convince you they’re less terrible than the other one. But you are allowed to have higher standards than that. If you can’t stomach the Democratic nominee, but are unwilling to tolerate Trump then look elsewhere. If Justin Amash runs then he might be a good choice for anti-Trump conservatives. There are other parties like the Libertarians to consider, if that’s to your taste. Alternatively if there is no candidate who you think you would make a good, or even an acceptable President, then vote for no one. You are under no obligation to vote and, contrary to popular opinion, not voting can show civic virtue too. After all a polity will get no better than it accepts, and if no candidate meets your standards, is that your fault or theirs? Remember that your vote is an endorsement, and endorsing a lesser evil is still endorsing evil. So I advise you to consider what you are endorsing with your vote, be that for the election itself, or the Democratic Primary.
Photo by kidTruant
Republicans are going to Republican whether they are Trumpists or not. Time and time again, I have seen this from Republicans:
“I deplore Trump but cannot vote for the Democrats unless they take on the 2012 Republican Party platform.” Then there are the Republicans who agree with Trump but wish he was just not so gung-ho or coarse about it. People who might find concentration camps for kids queasy but also don’t want to encourage what they call “illegal immigration” and what I call refugees seeking asylum. They often perform impressive mental backflips to not understand asylum and refugees or a concept or dismiss the claims as false.
I can’t say that the past few years has been leaving me feeling warm and fuzzy over the right. Good on Amash for leaving the GOP but the number of true #NeverTrumpers can seemingly fit into a small conference room at the Muncie Marriot.Report
Consider this, how badly would a Democratic President behave before you’d vote for a Republican candidate? Would Japanese internment have stopped you from voting for FDR?Report
Since any Republican President during WWII also would’ve done internment, I don’t see that as disqualifying.
Speaking personally, as a social democrat, I’d never vote for a right-leaning candidate since I disagree with 100% of their political positions, but if the Republican Party was like center-right parties across the world, I wouldn’t have abject fear of them in power.
Like, if lived in New Zealand, I wouldn’t like the National Party, but I wouldn’t think it’s the end of the world if they lost an election and I wouldn’t think anybody that voted for them was a terrible human being.Report
Yes I’m sure there’s a lot of conservatives telling themselves that the Democrats are just as bad too.
Remember, not voting is still an option.Report
Let us look at Republican free speech concepts. According to Republicans, this is a-okay:
https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/should-the-north-carolina-gun-store-billboard-targeting-the-squad-be-unconstitutional/?rf=1&fbclid=IwAR1vAW4ChFUp7tNJIFAazlEEzlgYzwucIGg-TwnKAjD7oPVnEUjA-vXdltUReport
How is it not OK? Why should you decide what is and what is not constitutional, protected speech? I would trust you to do that just as much as I trust Trump.Report
As an example, the French government is considering the inclusion of “criticism of agricultural workers” in their hate-speech laws. So, y’know. As has been pointed out, laws are an army, and the powerful will always seek to use the army as a tool against the masses.Report
See also, ag gag laws, passed exclusively by red state legislatures. Lest one think that liberals have a monopoly on nonsensical anti-1st Amendment laws.Report
Thanks for linking to that article, it was a really interesting and thoughtful discussion of freedom of speech.Report
I get that you’re mad, but you need to calm down. Take a few deep breaths and tell us what you think the problem is.Report
According to Republicans, this is horrible and how dare Rep. Castro point this out:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/07/joaquin-castro-tweeted-names-top-trump-donors-republicans-say-it-will-incite-violence/?noredirect=on
Fish them.Report
No, F*** Castro. He is a piece of shit for doing this. He makes Trump look like the good guy.Report
You’re aware this is all public information available from the FEC?Report
I am. That does not excuse what he did in any way. We have seen shooting of Republican politicians, republican politicians beaten in their own homes. If we want to go to a more positive place politically, where we can actually work across the aisle as most here say they want, then you cannot in any way condone this vile shit.
If Dems want to be the party that should be in charge, they need to start acting like it. Not like a bunch of thugs inciting a mob.Report
This could lead to someone publishing the names of Warren supporters.
Wouldn’t that be a nightmare!Report
Hmm. Billboard with gun sights hovering over freshman Democrats: Constitutional protected speech “What’s not okay about it?”
Tweet listing donors taken directly from FEC filings: “What a piece of shit. We can’t in any way condone this vile shit”.
Interesting pair of statements you made 6 minutes apart.
I’m confused as to where the line between “Oh that’s okay” and “this is vile shit” is. Would it have been okay if Castro had just placed targets on those donors? Is it the gun imagery that moves it from “vile shit” to “okay”? I would have thought gun imagery is more likely to “incite a mob of thugs”, as you put it, but as I don’t own a gun perhaps they have a calming, soothing effect I’m unaware of.Report
I think the dividing line is “it is okay when you are Republican”Report
“Both are constitutionally protected expressions of speech but one violates norms I hold dear and the other one doesn’t.”Report
When Citizens United was decided the supremes and supporters of their decision kept saying that transparency was the antidote to the possibly corrupting influence of money. Money was speech, so more speech, transparent speech was the answer. Cynics at the time pointed out that we weren’t getting a whole lot of transparency since rich folks and even other govs can easily find ways to donate secretly. Well this thing here is transparency, the kind that the supremes said was the answer.Report
Ah yes the bastion of transparency, say, is that server still available?Report
ummm…is this supposed to make sense? I’ve mistyped stuff or got cut off in the middle of comments so i can see that happening. But ???Report
To more seriously answer your question:
Example #1 is constitutional but vile.
Example #2 is that actions have consequences. This is publically available information. Rep. Castro is just making it easily accessible. If they want to give money to Trump fine but they don’t get to impunity and anonymity as well. People have a right to make informed decisions based on all knowledge.Report
This is just the extension of the freakout over “free speech” on the Right.
Basically, the Right wants to be able anything they want, donate to whatever right-wing politician they want, and support whatever terrible policies they want, then play the victim if anybody actually criticizes them for any of that.Report
Criticizing and doxxing are not the same things.Report
All doxxing is based on information which can be found by members of the public.Report
How is it doxxing? This information is available from the FEC. They are not donating under pseudonyms. But it’s okay when you are Republican runs deep in the blood I guess.Report
It’s very easy to get all kinds of information these days Saul (especially if you know someone’s real name). That doesn’t necessarily mean you need to share it in a public way meant to spark outrage. Let’s not pretend that this was just some innocent thing he did.
And just so I am clear, I would be just as appalled if a Republican had done it.Report
Had done…what?
Exposed donors to Biden or Warren?Report
“well that’s not like DOXXING doxxing” is certainly a takeReport
The ENTIRE POINT of the FEC requiring this information is to have it easily available to the public.Report
If it’s easily available then why is he amplifying it to his social media followers?Report
For the same reason that the Congressional Record is not widely read.
Is it unfair to quote from it to amplify a Congressman’s statements?Report
So you leave political comments on a public chatboard. If I choose to put up a billboard near your neighborhood with some choice quotes, have I don anything wrong?
I get that the information is available, but putting that information on blast and then doing the ‘what me?’ routine is juvenile at best.Report
Isn’t a Congressional staffer now serving something like five years for Doxxing members of Congress during (I think) the Kavanaugh hearings?Report
I don’t know but I am good with that. I’ve been doxxed before and it was horrible. They threatened my kids and my job. I don’t take this stuff lightly.Report
You’re talking to a guy who posts with his real name and photo, so I’m a poor one to ask.
And as has been pointed out elsewhere, the entire logic of allowing unlimited money in campaigns was that transparency would allow the public to know who is fueling them.Report
You’re the perfect one to ask because you make that information ‘easily available’. I would argue that your brave to post here under your real name but it’s also reasonable to expect these conversations to remain here at OT. Me putting them on a billboard crosses into doxxing IMO.
I’m all for transparency. But I’m also for not using platforms to amplify what is already out there, especially in a negative way.
Our local political cartoonist gets plenty of letters to the editor complaining about his cartoons. I like his work, but obviously it’s meant to be provocative so push back is to be expected. A few weeks ago a guy sent a letter to the paper that was published, and the cartoonist perceived the letter as racist. So he used his Facebook page to point people’s attention to it. Needless to say, they said some not so nice things and a few people said they knew the guy and were going to make sure others knew about what he said. THAT was crossing the line.
Playing around with social media and signal boosting is a very dangerous game that I have zero tolerance for.Report
There is nothing I say here that I won’t say in public. I might say things here in a more heated manner, but the content remains the same.
If someone sends a bigoted screed to the local paper, but then gets upset if people find out about that — well what does that say about that person? They want to deploy hate without consequences?
Certainly bigots want to be able to pick and choose when to present their bigotry. They want to deploy it selectively, to be bigoted when it is safe, but retreat behind pretense when they might face consequences. Obviously they want that. There is no reason we should let them.
Also note that being “outed” as a bigot is utterly different from being outet as a gay person. I understand very well why bigots and their allies want to conflate those two things. We shouldn’t let them.Report
There’s political discourse, which always rolls on, where people wildly denounce or insult blacks, communists, Mexicans, Italians, papists, No-nothings, unions, bosses, Apaches, Southerners, Yankees, gays, or racists. And then there are the moments that history starkly remembers when some idiot escalates to “Hey! I found one! Somebody get a rope!” That’s what Doxxing is.Report
The issue isn’t the thing itself, it’s the perceived intent (and/or perceived possible outcome) that causes the disagreements. Imagine how reactions would change on both sides if a Trump-supporting politician posted a list like this of anti-Trump voters in the immediate aftermath of an apparently politically-motivated shooting? It’s all about thinking the worst of our opponents.
And I can’t point to a specific instance but I have a vague memory that something very like this was done by a GOP politician with similar reactions from (some) folks on the left. EDIT — maybe not a politician, but at least a prominent conservative/republican..Report
“I have a vague memory that something very like this was done by a GOP politician with similar reactions from (some) folks on the left.”
Sarah Palin and Gabrielle Giffords, maybe.Report
It’s not what I was thinking of, a little different than this specific situation but certainly in the same ballpark of “least charitable interpretation” and over-simplistic cause-effect analysis.Report
My point is proved.Report
That you can’t see the difference between loathing someone’s protected political speech and inciting a mob shows me that you and your party are not better than the other team.Report
I think you just have a cultural misunderstanding.
South of the border, jobs are often contingent on supporting the right person for office. If you don’t vote how they tell you to vote, you will likely get fired, because if they didn’t want your vote, they wouldn’t have given you a job.
Worse is having money and supporting the wrong candidate, because your influence, money, and reputation might mislead others into making the same mistake. So that’s a definite red flag that has to be dealt with directly. “Nice daughter you have there, be a shame if something happens to her.”
So what we have are people in Julian Castro’s district who aren’t supporting Julian Castro. Would it be a shame if something bad happened to them as a result? They need to realize that they’re in his district, and should express all the proper loyalty and gratitude, or they should move somewhere else. Canada perhaps.
Every traitorous anti-Castro voter, every Trump supporting anti-Hispanic racist (which is the same set) should be singled out and dealt with until order and harmony are restored, so that the Castro family can rule for generations, bringing prosperity to all the loyal campesinos, just like politics in Mexico.Report
Please hold for Mr. Soros.Report
IOKIYG*
*goyishReport
Which is which?Report
#impeachJoaquinCastro is trending, or not trending, on Twitter. (Twitter puts their thumb on the scales in these dust ups.)
It seems to have been started by a comedian named Terrence Williams, who seems quite upset. I think his message has 530,000 views.
The comments seem to be a civil war in microcosm.Report
three rageposts in a row, but he censors the swear word because he wouldn’t want people to feel offended or anythingReport
Censoring the swear word is a local quirk of our site’s commenting culture and I applaud it.Report
I’m…aware of this, sir. I was around when it started.Report
Yup, just makin’ it clear for any newbies who might be lurking in the bushes and upholding the zeitgeist.Report
Since we’re talking the US, where the ballots are long, worth mentioning that many people might interpret “don’t vote” as quite different than “don’t vote for president.” Every US House seat is up. One third of US Senate seats. In most states, a lot of state legislative seats. In some states, initiatives and referendums on policy questions. Just because someone might be torn over Trump doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t fill out the rest of the ballot.Report
The size of ballots is really long in the United States. In San Francisco besides the normal positions (President, U.S. Rep, Senator, Mayor, Board of Supervisors, State Assembly, State Senate), I get to vote for the City Attorney, the County Assessor, and the Sheriff. Plus school board, community college board, DA, Public Defender, and retention elections for the Superior Court. There are probably positions I am forgetting. This really is too much.Report
You left out the dozen or so state and local ballot initiatives :^)
More seriously, yes, we almost certainly have too many layers of government, and have elections for too many of the positions. Changing that’s an enormous undertaking, though, involving both state and local constitutional changes.Report
That’s a fair point Michael, my logic should be applied vote by vote and not ballot by ballot.Report
Just for the record, how is New Zealand faring in the area of O’Sullivan’s first law?
All that personal freedom stuff holding up ok, or have yall made a lot of your population criminal through lawfare?Report
Well, our restrictions on abortion are going to be reduced, assisted dying is being debated, and it looks like our urban planning laws might be under review, so I think we’re doing OK on the personal liberty front.
I mean the recent ban on plastic bags in supermarkets was something we could do without, but all-in-all we’re not doing too bad.Report
So reporting all positive(except plastic bags of course!). You wouldn’t be shining me on would ya?Report
Look, it’s still a left-wing government, there’s still stuff happening I don’t like, but we are seeing some noteworthy reductions in government control as well.Report
From the OP:
“But, and I cannot emphasise this enough, you are under no obligation to vote for one of the main parties…If you can’t stomach the Democratic nominee, but are unwilling to tolerate Trump then look elsewhere.”
Several of us have expressed the sentiment on this site that we will vote third party if the Dems don’t nominate a candidate we can support. We have been told that voting for a third party candidate is an endorsement of Trump despite this:
We have also been told that everyone knows we’re all going to end up supporting Team Red in the end or that we just want the Dems to embrace an older GOP platform. Well, yeah, that’s sort of how politics work. You look for a candidate you have some agreement with and pull the lever. But I think the proof here is that folks like Saul don’t really see this election as a referendum on the Democratic platform. It’s a referendum on Trump. He wants us to give the Dems a pass on actually having good ideas this time because they are Not Trump. I’m not sure if he has just so embraced the idea of Trump being an existential threat that he doesn’t care what the other side actually wants to do, or if he’s trying to backdoor a Democrat into the Oval Office. Either way…gross.Report
Why is our excitable Saul more of an exemplar of liberals and the left than more temperate commentors here? Why is AoC and the squad representative of the Democratic Party whereas Connor Lamb and the 50-80 congress critters like him aren’t?Report
I’m not suggesting that Saul is an exemplar. To the contrary, I think most liberals are completely reasonable on the idea of voting one’s conscience. But still, these are the things we have been told and not just by Saul, so there is at least a vocal element of the Left already making their list of people to blame if things don’t go their way next year.Report
Sure, but that exists everywhere on every subject where a large group of people discuss and argue the matter.Report
so there is at least a vocal element of the Left already making their list of people to blame if things don’t go their way next year.
Same for moderate liberals, institutional Dems, conservatives and independents, and every other election watcher. Hell, *you’ve* cited people to blame if the Dems lose next year (the SJWs). Everyone does this.Report
Man, if Saul is the leftmost edge, maybe I should up my game and withdraw my periodic denunciations of Stalin.Or at least pen a mash note to Antifa.Report
You have drifted a lil bit brother, you can thank me later.Report
If I were acting in my official self appointed capacity of arbiter of the boundaries between centrist, liberal, progressive and arch liberal (my sword is sharp, shaped like a keyboard and has challah roll crumbs on it) I would definitely not put Saul at the leftmost edge Chip; your position is safe. Please spare me the mash notes to Antifa; I just ate!Report
“(my sword is sharp, shaped like a keyboard and has challah roll crumbs on it)”
Oh yeah? Mine has dorito crumbs. So there!Report
Yeah, what am I, chicken liver?Report
You are a true believe buddy. No one can take it from you and I sure as hell wouldn’t try.Report
I disagree with you quite a lot, Jesse. But I do want to say you are honest and very willing to admit when your policy preferences might have less than good consequences. I really admire that about you.Report
Is Saul excited? I always thought that was the temperate version.Report
Lee is the temperate version; Saul is the excited one. They’re both great fellows though.Report
Can’t argue with that, I kind of miss Gabriel being a regular. InMD brings a lot of good to the table also.Report
While I appreciate that I sort of suspect I don’t count. I think I end up coding more libertarian on this site, primarily due to my profound unwokeness. That really has to do with the flash points of debate at OT.Report
Well I see your more classical position as a relevant marker of a place where freedom and harmony could still exist.
It’s not your fault the world went crazy.Report
“Why is our excitable Saul more of an exemplar of liberals and the left than more temperate commentors here?”
Why is a billboard in North Carolina representative of all Republicans everywhere?Report
One could make an argument about the more excitable, incoherent and loud conservatives not representing the right wing and conservatives in general. It’s very difficult, in our current day and age, to do so when exactly such a conservative was elected head of their party and then to the Presidency of the country. Kindof a “who ya gonna believe? Our words or your lying eyes?” kindof thing.Report
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07Report
Good comic.Report
I am not sure excited. I just hold contemptable actions in contempt and I refuse to suffer fools and bad faith trolling gladly.Report
If you think I am the left most edge of politics, there is a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you.Report
I didn’t say that, but you have been spending a lot of digital ink telling all of the conservatives that we are going to vote for Trump and we will always ‘Republican’. Jesse is far more liberal than you, but it seems like you’re kind of experimenting with being an angry liberal and not just a Left Coast elitist, so that’s cool I guess. Sometimes it’s fun to role-play.Report
I’m thinking about a better quip for someone on the left-edge, more along the lines of “I’m so collectivist that if I moved further left I’d have to join an ant colony.”Report
“Honeypot ant colony.”Report
I feel less able to vote third party (which I’ve of course as a libertarian I’ve done many times in the past) since a very vocal argument has been “but Hillary won the popular vote!”
If we’re in the realm of using popular votes to take the pulse of the nation – and Dems seem insistent upon doing so – I cannot and will not vote third party knowing that my voting 3rd party may be used to draw conclusions about my beliefs/desires that are not accurate. I do not want the policies of the far left Democrats enacted, period, end of story, and I won’t allow my vote to be twisted into a mandate I am not giving.
Thus, even though my vote in Washington State is wasted since it’s a blue state, I feel I must either vote for a Democrat I can stand, or Trump. If the Dems win I want every objection to their policy on record in the public’s vote. If Trump wins via the electoral college I want as many popular votes to be recorded as possible.Report
“If we’re in the realm of using popular votes to take the pulse of the nation – and Dems seem insistent upon doing so – I cannot and will not vote third party knowing that my voting 3rd party may be used to draw conclusions about my beliefs/desires that are not accurate.”
This. Dems have this idea that the popular vote reflects some kind of collective will that we should feel beholden too. The only reason any of us are wringing our hands is because we know that if we don’t vote Dem we’ll certainly make the mistake of announcing it here and we also know how that will go with some of our Left-leaning fellow commenters.Report
Kristin is nailing it here. From the actions of the Dems over the last week of so, I want nothing to do with them politically. They are not showing that they are the moral force needed to correct some sort of free-ranging evil, which is what they are basically accusing the right of. Indeed, with many of the people in this thread praising the actions of Castro, thus tacitly endorsing doxing and other forms of political violence such as Antifa, they are showing they are every bit as awful as they claim Trump to be. And in some cases, worse.
I am going to vote my conscience, not someone else’s. And if that is the Libertarian candidate, then I am happiest. If that is Trump, I am OK with that.Report
I appreciate this approach, and my third-party votes over the years have been for a similar reason, but I wonder if there’s ever been any measurable effect (outside of political debates) of that kind of argument. At the end of the day, it’s the winners who have the power and they’ll use whatever they can to justify going full steam ahead– IIRC, even GWB found a way to claim a mandate for his policies after the 2000 election.Report
This idea that one’s vote is worthless if the margin of victory is >1 and so you shouldn’t be too bothered about who you vote for seems to be particularly common among libertarians/classical liberals, but it’s not a sensible way of looking at it. It leads to the absurd conclusion that if Candidate A beats Candidate B by one vote then everyone’s vote for candidate A mattered but if A beats B by two votes then *no one’s* vote mattered.
A better way to consider it is that every vote increases the probability that the given candidate will win. Typically for a statewide election (note that your 138 million nationwide number is irrelevant due to the EC), the amount of that probability increase is quite small, but the amount isn’t known until after the election’s over. Ironically, if the campaign to convince people that their votes are meaningless were incredibly successful, the outcome would be that the value of each of the few votes still actually cast would become quite a bit higher.Report
I’ll second this. I usually vote Dem, but didn’t for Clinton in ’16, because I live in a very safe blue state. It’s tough to move the needle in a presidential race, but downballot races can be real nailbiters. We had a few aldermanic races here decided by a couple dozen votes.Report
I vote primarily because it can matter locally. General presidential elections voting here is meaningless. I didn’t vote for Hilary either and was able to do so with a clean conscience.Report
This way of analysing election came from my Policy Economics classes at university, so its not just some libertarian idea.
And in both of your examples only one vote mattered, whichever person that pushed the winner one vote over who came second. If every other vote were discarded the end result would be the same. That we cannot identify which voter it was precisely is neither here nor there.Report
Well, I wasn’t saying it was a libertarian idea per se, just that for whatever reason most of the people I’ve seen making this argument have been libertarian bloggers/professors. I’m libertarianish myself, so that bit wasn’t intended as a criticism, just an observation.
Anyway — not only are votes not ordered, a given vote that provides the margin only does that because of the other votes that were cast. I think in the case where, say, A beats B by 1,000,000 votes to 800,000 votes, it’s more sensible to say that 800,001 of the A votes “mattered”, or else perhaps that all million votes ended up being worth about 80% of their maximum value. This is really just another collective action thing — a single individual’s action is virtually worthless but a large group of individuals doing the same thing has impact. If I prefer candidate A but don’t vote, I’m just free-riding on the votes of others.Report
Yes, it has the same dynamic as any collective action problem. Of course you can’t escape a collective action problem through individual action.Report
Voting works by magic: https://samzdat.com/2017/06/19/the-use-and-abuse-of-witchdoctors-for-life/Report
There’s a large element of that to be sure, but I think there’s also a game-theoretic aspect to voting. Would be interesting to see a model with an assumption of no cultural incentives, just accounting for different people’s cost of voting, strength of preference, and threshold of predicted vote value, and see what happens to participation over time under various levels of candidate differentiation.Report
Several people here insist that Trump is awful and say they will not vote for him in 2020. When they say they will either stay home or vote third-party, I take them at their word, think that is the best we can hope for from them, and am happy to take what I can get. There’s no reason to think they will ever vote for any Democrat who could conceivably contend for the nomination, and I’m OK with that. If they want to jerk off or vote their consciences, for those who see a difference between the two, I’m OK with that as long as I don’t have to watch.
But some folks won’t accept live and let live. They tease us by setting out conditions on which they might consider doing something of some marginal political value — voting for the only general election candidate that can take the White House other than Trump — and expect us to take them seriously. And it always amounts to the same thing: I’ll gladly vote for the Democrat if the party nominates a Republican. Mayor Pete has it right. No matter who the Democrats nominate, the nominee will be painted as an evul, gun-grabbing, baby-killing soshulist. And from the point of view of the teasers, they are probably right. It gets old.Report
Since I resemble those remarks – let me just say that I sent in my paperwork to register as a Democrat for the Kentucky primaries next year. My wife and I have donated to two different Democratic presidential candidates so far and I’m engaging with their campaigns. I’ve very serious about considering all of them and I will vote for the one I think is the best next spring.
Whether or not they will get my general election vote is a whole other thing. And to be honest, I’m starting to think third party isn’t a great option either because I’m holding my nose with the libertarian candidates too (sorry Jaybird!). As someone suggested, leaving that section of my ballot blank might end up being the most principled thing I can do.Report
Welcome to the party Mike. Even if it’s for a short duration we’re lucky to have you both.Report
Thanks! It will be the first time since 1999 that I have had a (D) next to my name. It will be nice to actually participate in the primaries.Report
I’m confident they’ll both end up writing in “Coach John Calipari”, which says a lot about the Democrat’s positions this cycle.
In the rest of the state he could brag about his true blue Kentucky loyalty, while in Louisville he could say his plan was the best way to make UK go with another drunk loser like Eddie Sutton or BIlly Gillispie.Report
I would rather vote for AOC than Calipari. If I did a write-in it would probably be Mitch Daniels. God, he would have been good.Report
Hehehehe!!!!!
The question is, can you deadpan that joke later this evening. 🙂Report
In my state, you don’t have to register to vote in the primary. You just have to go to the polls and tell them which ballot you want. Or so I understand–I’ve never voted in the primaries. I hate the idea of voting in the primaries. However, if the Republicans have a credible challenger to Trump who is in some ways better than Trump, I might very well vote in the GOP primary.Report
If the GOP ran a credible challenger to Trump I would have a tough decision to make. I want to weigh in on the Democratic nominee, but I love the idea of denying him the nomination. Of course, I also like the idea of discovering bigfoot, so yeah, I dream big.Report
How dare Democrats decide they want their own agenda instead of becoming Republicans circa 2012?Report
Saul, you are welcome to whatever agenda you want. You’ve already stated that you don’t think you need Centrists and moderate conservatives to get elected. Good luck with that strategy.Report
Conversely, why would Republicans turn into Democrats simply because they don’t like Trump?Report
The point some of us have been making is precisely that, protestations to the contrary, they won’t. And we’re tired of the tease.
That said, I believe in the possibility of redemption and will welcome converts. It’s just not the way to bet.Report
Why do they need to be converts? What happened to building a coalition? This seems to be one of the biggest failings of our government verses a parliamentary system. Everyone has to pick a team and if they don’t, they are viewed with suspicion by all sides.
On this site you have several right-leaning folks being open about how they want to vote for a Democrat but are struggling with certain things. We used to celebrate that kind of transparency of thought. Now they have you chirping in their ears and telling them it’s all a game. What if you actually talked through those concerns with them instead of reminding them why they don’t like liberals?Report
We’ve tried. It never gets anywhere.Report
Try harder.Report
Sounds good, but there’s an actual history on this, which those interested can assess for themselves, and I’m content to let them.Report
Remember how in 2004 60% of Americans were opposed to SSM so the SSM-advocates just gave up? And now, 61% of Americans are in favor of SSM.
Weird…Report
I’m not sure what that’s responsive to. I was addressing the history on this site. But, hey, if people converted on SSM — and I always thought they would if it got through and they saw the results — I’m happy.Report
Having been with the site for over a decade now, I would say we have seen plenty of people evolve their position based on dialogue, myself included.Report
Stephen Ross, owner of Equifax and Soulcycle is now in trouble for holding a Trump fundraiser even though his core consumers are not Trump voters.Report
Welp…this was fun reading..especially the comments. 138 Million voted…..or 100M didn’t if I did my math right. That’s a lot of people who didn’t vote….
I’m one of them. I believe I’m like a lot of folks….washed my hands of the entire thing. Each party is one side of the same coin. I will say however that the TDS is much more entertaining then the ODS the repubs had. It’ll continue that way until someone actually starts shooting. Most likely it’ll be antifa beating the crap out someone and that guy will pull a gun and kill a few antifa. Then things start getting interesting.Report
Well, as far as I’m concerned that’s a perfectly valid voting choice to make. I certainly respect someone who, having thought about, decided that not voting is the right course than someone who just votes on autopilot.Report
Anyone who doesn’t write in my preferred candidate is aiding and abetting hate.Report
I don’t disagree with your conclusions here but I would note that it’s the result of applying an individualistic analysis to an inherently socially collective process. Is it really the proper frame of reference?
And in reference to your comment above, libertarians can be just as bad about this as anyone. I was witness to many online debates in the 90’s where the question was “Vote Republican or waste a vote on the libertarian who can’t win?”
This is why I’m an advocate of IRV/STV and multi-member districts.Report
The only person whose actions you can really control are your own, so it makes sense to adopt a model where your behaviour is a variable bu everyone else’s is a constant.Report
” but I can’t vote for them anyway and there’s a limit to how far I’m willing to insert myself into a foreign election.”
I say we launch an investigation into New Zealand trying to influence the election on social media. It wouldn’t be the same as our current New Red Scare, but we gotta start somewhere.
More seriously, I really liked your post. I voted for Clinton in 2016 primarily as a repudiation to Trump. Otherwise, I would have voted 3d party. I’ll likely vote Democratic in 2020 barring some unforeseeable circumstance. But it won’t be a vote for the Democratic party or even for that particular Democrat.Report
Look, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I’m going to avoid Putin myself into your electoral process.Report
I’m not buying it. My theory is that you embedded yourself onto the Positive Liberty community about 10 years ago just so you could troll Ordinary Times for the 2020 presidential election. OT didn’t exist yet, but you knew. You knew.Report
I happen to own a really nice “ushanka”, the common Russian fur hat with the ear flaps that fold up like they wear up north. I ordered mine from Amazon and it was made in Belarus. It also came with a big Soviet pin for the front. I’ve also got a nice KGB pin for my coat.
When I got to vote in 2020, how can I not wear the hat and speak with a Russian accent when I chat with everyone else in line? I just regard it as an inevitable and humorous thing I’m going to have to do, working without a script to entertain everybody.Report