Not advocating it, but not voting for Prez is an option in many states due to the electoral college

Again - - I'm not advocating this - - but I thought I'd shed some light on why the argument "not voting for the Dem Presidential nominee is the same as voting for the Republican!" argument isn't persuasive in all cases.

Saying "If you don't vote the Republican Presidential candidate will win!!" is not technically true in many states, due to the electoral college's "winner take all system". In almost all states, once a candidate wins 50% of the popular vote + 1 vote, they win all the electoral votes. Additional votes beyond that are "only" statements of principle and additions to the candidate's popular vote total, which gets them nothing but bragging rights.

So if the electoral election is close enough, a person who lives in a swing state like Ohio or Florida can swing the election by not voting for the Dem nominee (or by voting third party). But a person who lives in a deep blue state like Cali or New York or Hawaii has a very different experience voting. They expect the Dem to win the electoral vote in their state, and are almost never wrong. Ditto for people who live in a deep red state like Texas or North Dakota or Indiana, they expect the GOPer to win the electoral vote in their state, and are almost never wrong.

I'm speaking from experience, having voted in Indiana for my first two Presidential elections and California for every election after that. I always voted for the Democratic nominee - - always - - but I also always knew that my individual vote was not going to win or lose the state - - or the race - - for my candidate. My experience of my vote is/was that it is/was a statement of principle that the Democratic nominee was a better choice than the other candidates. For example, I once stood in line three hours waiting to vote for Mondale, even though I knew he had already lost the election by a landslide.

If other folks who live in deep blue or deep red states decide that they want to stand on principle and not vote because the Dem nominee voted for X, or doesn't support Y, or comes from a wing of the party they think is whack, or has a totally lame website, it's almost impossible to convince them that their individual vote will swing the Presidential election. Especially if we "solid staters" look at the polls on election day and see one of the candidates leading by 10% (or more) in our state. For myself and other "solid staters", we know that means our vote is not going to swing the Presidential election in any direction.

I will go farther than that. If we get to election day and our nominee is doing so badly in Cali that my individual vote will carry the state, then our nominee is going to lose in a landslide and my vote is only going to make that disastrous loss look slightly less embarrassing. And if we get to election day and our nominee is doing so well in Indiana that my mother's vote will decide whether the state goes red or blue, then our nominee is winning by a landslide so huge that my individual vote is only going to make the Republican loss more embarrassing to them.

Expect any third party candidate from Nader to Bloomberg to Hagel to know this as well - - and use it as part of their pitch. And if our only response to those "solid state" Dems who stop to wonder if they're free to send a message of displeasure to the Democratic party by voting "None Of The Above" this election is to scream "TRAITOR!!!!"... they're just going to be more likely to sit out the election, not less.

Again, I'm not advocating that anybody not vote for President or vote third party. I just think that it's important to find arguments that are persuasive.

And if some folks do decide that sitting out the Presidential election is something that they need to do to be true to themselves, I would urge them to still go to the polls and vote on the down ticket races. This is where the power of an individual vote can be felt.

I'm pretty sure Vermont is not going to go red anytime soon.
Its nice to not have to vote for the usual dorks.
Same thing happens on a state level as well. most of the state races are decided the day they are announced, so we get to
have fun and vote for weirdo marijauna parties and crazy liberty tax dodgers and such.
None of them have a chance in hell of winning but its fun seeing them on tv.

And you're okay with that because you can trust them, but they can't trust you.

Wow.

thanks for pointing that out.
sorry for your misfortune.

DU needs to learn about a movement called the National Popular Vote. The idea is, because they probably can't easily do away with the electoral college, to have states agree to divide their electors based on the NATIONAL popular vote. This could potentially destroy the electoral college.

I've been meaning to write about this for some time now ... too many other distractions ...

check this out: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

they think they'll have enough states on board to implement it by 2012.

if we have an Obama or Edwards and Giuliani matchup

but the same will be true of the heavily "red states" ...

the problem I see with this is the initial implementation. the states that sign on agree to implement the program when 2/3 of the states have agreed. but, it's not binding on the states that don't sign on.

it seems critical to ensure that this doesn't tip the scales against us. for example, if more blue states sign on than red states, we take a bath.

this bears watching though because the electoral college is un-democratic. it fails to give any recognition to voters in the minority. i hate all or nothing electoral systems.

welcome to DU, btw ...

stops yelling "Traitor!" whenever anyone says s/he won't vote for X if X is the Dem nominee.

:kick:

This is despicable advice designed for no other purpose than to sabotage the presidential election.

And right down the line, you're buying it.

quit putting words in my thread that are not there.

i can type all by myself, thanks.

:kick:

I said I wanted to explain why a certain argument was ineffective. I said I understood why some people could see "not voting" as a principled option. I don't have to agree with an idea to understand it and explain it. As an American, I really feel it is my duty as a citizen to at least try to understand other people's political points of view.

My point was and is that if we only use the argument that "Not voting (or voting for a third party candidate) will directly cause the Republican to win!" we will not persuade many people who don't live in swing states. We need to understand what their experience of voting is if we are going to formulate more effective arguments.

I think this is more important this cycle than in 2004. I think that the danger posed by the potential third party candidates in this election is greater than 2004. For example, Zogby had a blog post recently talking about Bloomberg's chances - - Zogby thinks there is a possibility Bloomberg might even win outright:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1329

It comes down to good timing, really. After more than a decade of harsh wrangling, likely voters tell me they are tired of the vicious partisanship. In a national telephone poll last month, 80% said it was "very important" that the next President be a person who can unite the country, and 82% said the same about the need for a competent manager. Bloomberg wins on both counts.

Another 58% said it was "very important" that the next President be able to cross party lines to work with political opponents, while just 42% said it was "very important" that he or she reflect the values of their own political party. As a Democrat-turned-Republican-turning-independent, Bloomberg fits the bill.

(snip)

On the electoral map, a Bloomberg candidacy puts almost every state into play. Suddenly, the required winning percentage in each is reduced from 50% plus one to just 34%.

An important side note: Contrary to conventional wisdom, my polling shows he would likely take more votes from the Democrat than the Republican. Those who consider themselves part of that growing "moderate" political class are 38% Democrats, 25% Republicans, and 38% independents.

Obviously, who we pick as the nominee may affect the ability of a 3rd party candidate to get the kind of traction that Zogby thinks is possible. But that's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is, as I said a number of times in the OP and this one, to understand why some folks are not swayed by a specific argument.

I expect lots more helpful people here as the elections come closer. Lots more.

Basically it seems like you are saying 3rd party votes don't make a difference in determining the outcome.

An educated electorate should not only discern the best candidates, but also be able to pass on those who do not have a chance of winning.

Support 3rd party candidates locally, where they have a chance of succeeding. Otherwise, in big races, it is like leading them on, which is no good.

The elections are decided by people who do vote, not those who don't. If you sat out the election, you haven't contributed to the Dem victory or defeat in any meaningful way besides send the message that you found the field unsatisfactory.

It's a different story if you vote for a third party. Then you did take part in deciding the outcome of the election. However, this caveat only applies in close swing states, not deep red or deep blue states. There, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. That's the nature of the Electoral College.

For example, my voting for the Green Party in 2008 won't change the likely outcome that the Repub will win 50 percent +1 vote in my state. (We're talking Mississippi here) However, if I did live in a swing state like Florida, every vote cast in the state would matter highly. The same is true of a state like Ohio.

As to non-voting, that is of course our right. However, all actions and inactions have consequences, small as they might be. Is it likely that one vote would make a difference in the sense of someone winning or losing by one vote? Of course not. But sometimes you can judge a behavior, or lack of it, by asking the question: what if everyone did, or did not, as I did?

Giving $1 to a charity, to help the homeless, to help the environment, you name it...the same arguement could be made to "justify" inaction: $1 will not make a difference. Yet, if everyone took that attitude, no money would be donated to charity, and nobody would lift a finger to help any cause.

Helping out someone with car trouble on the highway can similarly be "justified" by just figuring "someone else will do it". Yet, if everyone took that attitude, nobody would get help. If you multiply that by other situations besides being on the roadside, and we would live in a society where nobody helped anybody. Why help? Just one act of kindness wouldn't make a difference.

“Each time a man stands for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”
--Robert Kennedy

What if Kennedy had instead argued that a tiny ripple would not make a difference?

One of the problems of non voting is that it is indistinguishable from the lazy voter who just doesn't give a rip, indistinguishable from apathy. So is THAT the message we would want to make with our "voice"?

As to voting a third party, I have done that and have actually worked for a third party candidate in the past. So I don't buy into the arguement that it is always wrong.

However, I am still reeling and the country is still reeling from the disaster that George Bush's presidency has been.

There were those in 00 and in 04 who thought that the differences between the two major party candidates were minimal, as Nader put it, tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

Fact is, they were wrong!

It is always going to be a rationalization for third party candidates that the two majors are the same. But I think it stands to reason we open our eyes to a little bit of discernment to actually see the candidates for who they are instead of being swept up into some kool-aid mantra like "they are all corporatists" etc.

Anyone who could not see Bush in 00 as being different from Gore, anyone who could not see he would be a disaster as a president, deserves what he got! The only problem is, the rest of us ALSO have to live with a dead beat president.

Gore "lost" by 500 votes in Florida. So did our country. 500 people thinking Gore and Bush were the same is tweedle dumber.

only the votes of the electors college do, and they're not bound to vote for either candidate based on the outcome of the state the represent.