Selling Dean as the Dem. nominee

[alysheba88]

Chilly, I have heard that argument more times than I care to admit. Know several people who believe exactly like you do.

I have never bought it.

To me that kind of approach leads to group think and anything but democracy.

You vote for who you want to win and run things. If I liked Nader and didnt like Gore, why would I want to see Gore win? That is illogical to me. I want Nader (and in this case "I" is definitely not talking about me but those who voted for Nader). Voting for Gore out of fear of Bush when I really want Nader is just illogical and counterintuitive. You would never ever get the person who you really want if you followed this logic.

You seem to be suggesting that we all just listen to polls and think every election should be 99% one party or the other. I live in a town that is 90% Republican. Every local Dem gets blitzed. According to your thinking I am wasting my votes on the Dem and should vote for the Republican and just make it a 99% or 100% thing.

But we differ.

[Chilly]

Aly,

Your vote IS wasted by voting for someone who CANNOT win IF you adopt the voting is instrumental definition. There is no other way around it. You might not like this definition and prefer another one, which is fine.

As for your scenario, no, don't give up. Instead, you should vote for the Republican candidate in the Republican primary that comes closest to your views. Meanwhile, you need to work for changes that would revive two/three-party competition. Remember the one-party south of pre 1964? Voting for a Republican was a wasted vote since Democrats had a monopoly of power. Instead, the real action took place within the Democratic primaries--you pushed for the guy who came closest to your views. Eventually, party-competition was revived.

The point is that a vote does nothing substantive if you give it to a 3rd party candidate in most places, most of the time. There are qualifications, of course. But I'm talking about representation of your policy preferences, not just registering discontent. Voting for the guy who can't win but denies your second most prefered candidate a seat in a 3 person race is simply irrational, however psychologically comforting it might feel by voting for that guy.

[count zero]

So if my choices are Hitler, Bush and Mother Teresa, and Hitler and Bush are smearing Mother Teresa as female and inexperienced and she's lagging badly in the polls, I should vote for Bush?

I think your argument here amounts to a covert endorsement of perpetual centrism. There are no doubt periods in history where that is appropriate and productive, but I don't think this is one of them.

[Chilly]

[quote]
Originally posted by: count zero
So if my choices are Hitler, Bush and Mother Teresa, and Hitler and Bush are smearing Mother Teresa as female and inexperienced and she's lagging badly in the polls, I should vote for Bush?

why not? That what the new electronic voting machines are going to record anyways.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[count zero]

LOL. Looking forward to working side by side with you on the new, dynamic, unstoppable Mjulian team.

[alysheba88]

Chilly, no thanks. Would rather vote for who I want to win. Just like I will root for Princeton in the NCAA's even though they cant win it all

[Johnny 99]

I would really like to hear BigMo's opinion on the primaries this time round.

[count zero]

Alas, BigMo has vanished into the mists of history, like so many other wonderful, talented, articulate posters in this thread plus The Actuary.

Very sad.