No, there is nothing more insane than to repeat the same act in perpetuity and expect a different outcome. The Republican Party machine has routinely show us that, if permitted to do so by We the People, will betray us at every turn. Mr. Jackson's assertion that we should vote "party, not principle" is precisely the reason why the GOP has left so many of us disgusted.

They do as they please, knowing that many party members will always vote for the Republican Candidate - even if it were Hillary Clinton running as a Republican.

Comment by BravoSix | December 10, 2007

I thought I was "making a statement" when I voted for Ross Perot. All I did was help give Bubba the presidency and watch him sell our secrets and technology to China, seduce teens in the White House, and let the terrorists do what they pleased. Dole was weak but none of those things would have happened if I hadn't been trying to "make a statement." No, I don't like voting for the lesser of two evils, but my previous experience will prevent me from making the same mistake twice.

Comment by olderbutnowiser | December 10, 2007

"Given the choices we have, do we use our vote to make a
statement, or to win an election?"

Your main flaw is your opening premise. A vote is not relegated to
having only two purposes. The simple fact you overlook is that
fundamentally, in order to evolve as a group, minority ideals have to
be empowered. You are correct that our political system has
evolved into a two party process, but it can evolve into
a three party process as well. There is no rational for discounting
something on the basis of its current acceptability in the mainstream.

Added to the simple observation that our election process is not
very democratic, I think evolution should be in order.

Comment by silus | December 10, 2007

On election day November 2008 I will be submitting my vote for Ron Paul.

Whether that vote is a simple click on a box or writing in a name depends entirely on the Republican primary voters.

The pressure is on the dwindling establishment Republicans this time around to decide now, before the primaries, if they want to throw away their vote and vote for their pro-war neo-con candidate because of their principles of wanting big government war mongerers spending us into the poor house, or do they actually want to beat Hillary Clinton.

A vote against Ron Paul in the primaries is a vote for Hillary Clinton. The decision comes early this year. Don't screw it up.

Comment by BillMoore | December 10, 2007

Lets hope lightning doesn't strike the Republican candidates, but Dr. Ron Paul does in fact win the Republican nomination. Regarding what Dr. Ron Paul can do as President, he can as Commander-in-Chief order the closing of all American bases outside of the USA thus save hundreds of billions of taxpayer money. Dr. Ron Paul can also reverse all of the Executive orders created and expanded by our last few Presidents.

Comment by strongjohnny | December 10, 2007

Phil:

As usual, your excellent article brought me not just a few good laughs. However, I am tempted to think your advice might help the Democrats if the "wrong" person on their side is nominated.

“ … ‘we need to send a message’ to the powers-that-be because they chose the wrong person to head the ticket.”

The absurdity of this attitude is re-enforced when you consider that the “wrong person” got the most votes. In a system where the person with the most votes wins, that person is the right person by definition.

Comment by sedonaman | December 10, 2007

Some of the issues we face are survival of the country level problems. Immigration is just such an issue if we don't fix it by serious removal of illegals followed by a tight border we will go down the path toward 3rd world existence (not a bad life as long as you are one of the "haves").

I think there is a line to draw in the political arena when you go to the third party or write in candidates simply to register the position. Otherwise we will continue to suffer the convergence of the two party system into the single party of professional politicians that we have today.

Comment by Mickey G | December 10, 2007

Since this is very close in spirit and substance to a previous essay by Dr. Jackson (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/12/who%E2%80%99s-running-for-president/), I'll just repeat some of the comments I made then:

Vote-pairing involves people in swing states ‘trading’ their votes with people in more solidly-set states. E.g. someone in Ohio voting for a Republican to help ensure a Republican victory there, though ideally they’d prefer a Libertarian candidate. In exchange, a Republican in, say, Maine (where there’s little chance of a Republican victory anyway) will vote for a Libertarian candidate. Both voters get what they are looking for.

There are already issues with the current parties. The Republican party has long had trouble holding together the various threads of conservatives; tension between fiscal and social conservatives is well-known. A split along more laissez-faire versus socially interventionist lines wouldn’t be that surprising a few election cycles from now. Such splits have happened to parties in the past.

A large amount of vote-pairing would be noticed by the major parties, and would noticeably influence their actions. They’d be interested in preventing such splits and preserving the impression that they are the only possible options. This would be an effective way for third parties to influence (I didn’t say dominate, of course) policy through the 2008 election.

Vote-pairing has been expressly ruled legal. No changes to the Constitution required. Selling or buying votes is illegal, but trading vote-for-vote is not. Other vote-counting systems would require changing the Constitution, but that’s what things like vote-pairing are meant to help enable, eventually.

To clarify further: the current electoral college does not serve the function that the framers of the constitution intended. They intended to have a semi-independent group of people, respected in their local communities, who would gather and select a president. What we have now is a buffer between the popular vote and the presidency which serves essentially to 'discretize' the popular votes in each state - turning them from a (practically) continuous value to an all-or-nothing value. Thus the (relatively common in recent years) result where the winner of the popular vote is not the winner in the electoral college. It has the effect of smoothing out ‘noise’ in the ’signal’ the electorate sends; elected officials need only concern themselves with the two strongest parties, and other alternatives can barely be ‘heard’.

Vote-pairing happens in the popular vote, not the electoral college. It is a response to this 'winner-take-all' setup. While the electoral vote is the one that 'really counts', politicians are still sensitive to the popular vote, but the dynamics of the electoral college act to minimize the visibility of voters disaffected with the main parties. Because of the way the electoral college works, people don't vote as they’d really like, they just vote against the worst available option, obscuring their actual sentiments.

Vote-pairing allows voters to avoid the worst outcome while still registering their presence and their wishes. It doesn't change the outcome of the electoral college vote, but it does expose voter preferences to politicians that would otherwise be obscured, and affords savvy politicians the information they need to craft policies to appeal to disaffected voters.

In a more reasonable voting system like instant-runoff or the Borda count, vote-pairing would not be necessary. It's a strategy to work around the current system, not a permanent replacement for it.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 10, 2007

Sedona: the nomination process for Republicans and Conservatives involves reasoning. The nominating process for Democrats and Liberals involves feelings. By definition, you can't nominate the "wrong person" if you just total up the individual feeling that were expressed by all the Democrat primary voters, since feelings do not require an objective connection to reality to be expressed. "Right" and "wrong" only applies to morality and logic, commodities in short supply among Liberal/Democrat voters.

Mickey G: Regarding the lines you suggest drawing by voting 3rd party in a general election for the office of the President, I again repeat the conclusion to my original essay.

"Everything I’ve said above will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears of the true believers, who just know in their hearts that standing up for their principles and sending a message to Washington will transform American politics regardless of the reality of the political process. It’s simply much too hard to work within the Republican party to change opinions, and much more fun to be a renegade patriot than an actual meaningful voter. … Come November 2008, when your ideal candidate has been rejected as the Party’s standard bearer, the nature of the game has changed. It’s now down to just two people, the Republican or Democrat nominees for president. And here a simple fact trumps all others. There is nothing more insane than insuring defeat for a person who shares only some of your beliefs so an individual who holds none of them can be elected to office."

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 10, 2007

Looks like a bunch of comments popped up after I wrote my first reply, so here goes. Hope I didn’t leave anyone out.

BravoSix: President Rodham-Clinton, Obama and/or Edwards appreciates your standing on principles in the face of the realities of the two party system that has governed American politics since the country’s inception. But keep pretending we’re a parliamentary government if it makes you feel better.

Silus: In a presidential election in the US, there have always been only two viable choices for president. This is why we have no President Lafollette, Perot, Anderson, Wallace, Nader, or any other third party candidate. It’s also why George Soros is taking over the Democrat party instead of starting his own. Evolution is great for achieving an objective centuries in the future. It’s never been very good at winning a national election that’s a year away, particularly after the “evolutionary” candidate made his pitch for the nomination and lost.
BillMore: Ibid my comments to BravoSix. President Rodham-Clinton, Obama and/or Edwards appreciates your standing on principles in the face of the realities of the two party system that has governed American politics since the country’s inception. There is nothing more insane than insuring defeat for a person who shares only some of your beliefs so an individual who holds none of them can be elected to office.

Strongjohnny: We could scrap our current Air Force and save a lot of money too. Ron Paul will be looking for an experienced aviator to pilot his blimp. All this is purely hypothetical, though, since a vote for Paul for President is 100% guaranteed to elect someone other than Paul in 2008. If you think that every candidate but Paul is the same, please see olderbutnowiser’s comments. It’s one thing to spout rhetoric for dramatic effect. It another to actually believe that it somehow actually reflects reality.

Raymond: And I’ll repeat my comments about vote pairing too. Here are some salient points made by Wikipedia:

"Through the 2000 election, the concept was known in the US as “vote swapping,” while “vote pairing” originally had a somewhat different meaning–where people of opposing parties would agree to together vote for a third-party candidate instead of for their own candidates. (For example, a disaffected Democrat and a disaffected Republican both agreeing to vote for a third party candidate instead of for the candidates of their own parties.) However, by the 2004 presidential election “vote swapping” had become “vote pairing,” and the various people who had created vote swapping sites for the 2000 election had banded together as VotePair.org. The concern often gets raised on whether vote pairing can be used by opposing parties to manipulate an election or sabotage a candidate. However, in practice, such ideas of manipulation turn out to be impractical and self defeating.

For an example, suppose that in the 2004 election the former Republican Pat Buchanan had again run for President under the Reform Party (as he did in the 2000 election). Suppose that supporters of the 2004 Republican candidate, George W. Bush, had set up vote pairing web sites so that Buchanan supporters from swing states in the US (such as Ohio, where the Democrats and Republicans were in a close race) would get matched with Bush supporters in solidly Democrat states (such as Massachusetts). This was not actually done of course (since Buchanan did not run in 2004), but suppose that Republican supporters of George W. Bush had gotten concerned that Democratic supporters of John Kerry would try to sabotage these web sites or manipulate the election by posing as either Bush or Buchanan supporters. However, if such Democrats had done so, all they could do is pose as George W. Bush supporters in solidly Democratic states or as Buchanan supporters in swing states. In the former situation (Democrats posing as Bush supporters in solidly Democrat states such as Massachusetts), all they could do is trick Buchanan supporters in swing states to cast their vote for Bush–which would only hurt the Democratic candidate, John Kerry. Similarly, in the latter situation (Democrats posing as Buchanan supporters in swing states), all they could do is trick Bush supporters in solidly Democrat states to vote for Buchanan–which wouldn’t change the election since the Democrat candidate, John Kerry, would very likely carry those states anyway.

Ultimately the only real way to manipulate vote pairing, and its effect on an election outcome, is to prevent people from learning about it, not to pose as a different kind of voter. Arguably, this kind of manipulation–preventing people from learning about vote pairing–is what happened in the 2000 presidential election.
In the United States (and perhaps elsewhere), the legality of vote pairing in public elections has been questioned. Opponents claim that it is illegal to give or accept anything that has pecuniary value in exchange for a vote. (Indeed efforts to buy or sell votes are illegal, and in the 2000 presidential election, there was even a web site for buying and selling votes, vote-auction.com, which was shut down by an Illinois judge.)"

Phil’s comment again — The 9th Circuit (the most overturned appeals court in the US) has ruled that vote pairing is legal, but as the rest of the Wikipedia article details, the actual legality and practicality of the issue is still quite dubious for the reasons mentioned above. Experiment with it on a local level if you want (but no-one really is because as I also pointed out, people tend not to gravitate toward convoluted systems no matter how well intentioned).

As I said above, “One of the problems with having academic debates about real world issues is the tendency to believe that by describing the world in a way that pleases you, the world is somehow transformed into that caricature.”

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 10, 2007

Dr. Jackson - the Wikipedia quote you mention specifically says that "is illegal to give or accept anything that has pecuniary value in exchange for a vote"; but for that very reason a vote itself is not anything that has a 'pecuniary value' and therefore trading votes doesn't fall under those laws. Feel free to critique the actual decision: http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/porter-v-bowen.pdf

Whatever the wisdom of using vote-swapping agreements to communicate these positions, such agreements plainly differ from conventional (and illegal) vote buying, which conveys no message other than the parties’ willingness to exchange votes for money (or some other form of private profit). The Supreme Court held in Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 55 (1982), that vote buying may be banned “without trenching on any right of association protected by the First Amendment.” Vote swapping, however, is more akin to the candidate’s pledge in Brown to take a pay cut if elected, which the Court concluded was constitutionally protected, than to unprotected vote buying. Like the candidate’s pledge, vote swapping involves a “promise to confer some ultimate benefit on the voter, qua…citizen[ ] or member of the general public”–i.e., another person’s agreement to vote for a particular candidate. Id. at 58-59. And unlike vote buying, vote swapping is not an “illegal exchange for private profit” since the only benefit a vote swapper can receive is a marginally higher probability that his preferred electoral outcome will come to pass.

It's unlikely to be overturned anytime soon, seeing as the State of California declined to appeal. One of the key reasons that vote-pairing wasn't a major factor in 2004 was the lawsuits attempting to paint it as illegal. Without that, I rather think its appeal will broaden. This time around it's likely to be Republicans doing the majority of it, however.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 10, 2007

Given that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will end this invasion and occupation in Iraq, bring our troops stationed all over the world home, guide us back to the inspired tenets of the Constitution and away from this criminal neocon New World Order agenda that going to destroy this country, I will not vote if Ron Paul is not nominated by the Republican party. And I can guarantee you that the majority of Ron Paul supporters will abstain. The elections are rigged anyway. No matter what nominated Republican or Democratic candidates run against one another, they're all cut from the same cloth, save Ron P., Dennis K. and Mike G. And we know they won't be nominated by the Democrats. So why even bother. If they don't nominate Ron Paul, then it won't matter who's the President. We'll be in for four more years of treachery, bankruptcy and most certain a police state. I don't think we'll survive long enough for that President to try and run for another 4 years. The world, as we know it, will be over.

Comment by elleanee | December 10, 2007

The way a 3rd party comes about is by a current party changing from within. Period. Enough discussion on a simple subject.

Comment by hvance | December 10, 2007

"There is nothing more insane than insuring defeat for a person who shares only some of your beliefs so an individual who holds none of them can be elected to office."

This seems to be a central point of yours. My original point, though, applies again. Defeat is only ensured if all persons in the group accepts this rigid principle. Your theory is just based on the difficulties of power transference from group to group, which in turn causes those in the group to enforce the structural integrity of the group, as you are doing. Though I do not disagree that it is a winning strategy for the present.

Secondly, implicit in your argument is a belief in hardline party allegiance, and the monopoly on certain beliefs one party may have over another. If I may invoke the name of Ron Paul, a great number of people support him due to beliefs that exist outside of party lines. That is a simplistic analysis, but that is often the basis for evaluations on a person to person level. And also, do not underestimate basic human characteristics such as trust, respect and integrity being placed over group/self-serving political issues. After all, the people, out of all things, first want predictability, regardless of where it is coming from. The point I take is that the issues that tie a voter to a candidate can be different from what ties them to a party.

Comment by silus | December 10, 2007

Translation of this piece of "Intellectual Conservative" thought: Do not support Ron Paul. Of course this true and obvious message/purpose is veiled in some pseudo-intellectual gobbledy gook and presented by a "Ron Paul supporter".

P.E.J. -

How much have you contributed to Ron Paul's campaign? To which Ron Paul meetup group do you belong?

Arrogant hucksters like P.E.J. peddle this nonsense with particular glee because they believe us rubes too foolish and ignorant to ever catch on to their time-worn but thus far mostly effective flim-flam techniques. Ol' P.E.J. is busting a self-satisfied gut laughing at his threefer hidden within what appears on the surface to be an appeal to reason by a principled and concerned conservative to his fellow conservatives.
The hidden threefer being, smear Ron Paul, do not support Ron Paul because it will lead to the "greater of two evils" and extending the useful life this particular tactic of Hegelian Dialectic scammers.

Listening to the advice of "conservatives" like P.E.J. have brought conservatives to where they are today with a leadership that neither knows not nor cares not about conservatism, American ideals and AMERICAN INTERESTS. A leadership that is only concerned with making sure that whomever occupies any particular office plays ball on the leadership agenda; a (D) after that officeholders name is of no significance, whether they play ball or not is the only concern.

I will not even bother (at this time) explaining the obvious and irrefutable facts of life about why the only candidate that can beat Hillary/any other D banner nominee is Ron Paul, thus making even the false premise of this Ron Paul attack piece time and bandwidth wasting nonsense. Gotta love the "logic" being peddled here though-the road to ending the status quo of a not conservative, conservative party is by continuing to support the status quo. I suppose it is possible the preceding concept passes for brilliant horse sense in a parallel universe somewhere.

Comment by gmason08 | December 11, 2007

Raymond: Vote pairing, in one form or another, has been around as a concept for years. Except for a few fringe cases, it’s not embraced by the American people for the reasons I explained to you when you first raised this issue. The people routinely reject convoluted election schemes, particularly at the national level. In any event, the subject of this essay is November 2008, not voting in general. If you want to write an essay exploring the various ways to change the American voting system, go for it. But as a response to what to do in November 2008, your comments are not on point.

Elleanee: President Rodham-Clinton, Obama or Edwards thanks you for your support. Under your scenario, your Republican candidate (Paul is not running as a third party candidate, but for the Republican nomination) can’t persuade enough Republican voters to win the nomination, so you’ll do exactly what I described in my essay. “Everything I’ve said above will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears of the true believers, who just know in their hearts that standing up for their principles and sending a message to Washington will transform American politics regardless of the reality of the political process. It’s simply much too hard to work within the Republican party to change opinions, and much more fun to be a renegade patriot than an actual meaningful voter.”

hvance: I’m always glad to have someone enter a debate who actually understands history and the American political process.

silus: I appreciate your thoughtful comments, and will give you a respectful reply. Don’t take anything I say here personally. I think you’re trying to approach this issue rationally, but you’ve chosen the wrong tipping point to make your conclusions. My theory is based on how the American political system actually functions. A third party has NEVER been successful in electing a president in all our history. The Republican party arose only after one of the other dominant parties already collapsed. Paul is running in the Republican primaries. If he can’t convince his fellow Republicans to accept his point of view, he’ll have even less electoral success starting a third party in June 2008 for the November 2008 election. The Libertarian party has had a national presence for decade, and never gotten even 1% of the national vote. Our system is not designed for third parties. Change must come from within the 2 party system. George Soros understands this, which is why he’s taking over the Democrat party instead of starting a new one. But somehow many of the Paulistinians who say they’ll not vote Republican unless Paul is the standard bearer don’t grasp this. This my-way-or-the-highway rejection of the two party system will not succeed in creating a viable third party. It will simply elect an even more odious candidate. It’s pure BS to believe, as others have expressed, that there’s absolutely no difference between Hillary Clinton and ANY Republican. It’s one thing to spout rhetoric for dramatic effect. It another to actually believe that it somehow actually reflects reality.

gmason08: Vote for anybody you want in the PRIMARIES. That’s what primaries are for. That’s where guys like Huckabee come from last to first place in certain polls by expressing their ideas and winning converts. To date, despite the Ron Paul blimp and the text-message voting for him after every debate, he remains near the back of the pack. If Paul wins the nomination, I’ll support him even though I think he’s nuts on many of the issues he espouses.

You might try re-reading the original article I wrote to see what I actually said about the subject, since most of your comments have nothing to do with anything I’ve written about here. As for “smearing” Paul, I’ve stated my opinion about him here and elsewhere and given my reasons for challenging his beliefs about the Constitution, Iraq War, etc. Unfortunately, like all good True Conservatives, one must support your guy, and your guy only, or else be condemned to the seventh rung of Hell.

Paul has had all the opportunity he needs to get his point of view across to the Republican voting base, and the electorate in general. Both have rejected him so far. We’ll see if Paul is a man of his word and does not form a third party if he loses the nomination. And we’ll see if the Paulinistas are self-possessed enough to do for the Republican party in 2008 what Nader did for the Democrats in 2000. I’m sure electing Hillary because Paul’s supporters stayed home will REALLY convince the average Republican voter to turn to him in 2012, the same way any other group (Christian fundamentalists, etc.) boycotting the election will endear themselves to the Republican party.

You have absolutely no understanding of how American politics actually works, and once again are a perfect illustration of what I warned against. As I said above “one of the problems with having academic debates about real world issues is the tendency to believe that by describing the world in a way that pleases you, the world is somehow transformed into that caricature.“

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 11, 2007

Dr. Jackson - we are for the most part in violent agreement. As you noted to silus, "A third party has NEVER been successful in electing a president in all our history," primarily because our current voting system actively works against it. As you say, "Our system is not designed for third parties." (Technically, the Founders didn't design it for parties at all, but the two-party 'system' emerged from the logic of the rules they set up.) I agree with that, and agree with the difficulty of a third party influencing the policies of the two dominant ones.

All we disagree about is the relatively minor point of exactly how much a third party can influence the dominant ones, and by what strategies. Coordinating voting patterns is dramatically easier with a communication tool like the internet, as compared to past election cycles - essentially, it makes the 'voting schemes' much less 'convoluted'. With the legal challenges out of the way, and the divisive splits that currently exist within the major parties… I foresee a greater impact for vote-pairing in 2008, and increasing impact past that. We'll just have to see if my prediction holds up.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 11, 2007

Raymond. I've spent a lot of time working with the electoral process at a local, state and national level. I was chief of staff to the City of Dallas charter review committee, and I can tell you from first hand experience that schemes like this wouldn't pass muster with the local officials or electorate in anything other than a highly liberal state. Ditto state government, and when you get to national politics (particularly presidential elections), it's virtually impossible. Remember the aftermath of the 2000 election when the Electoral College was certain to be changed? It's 8 years later and the debate hasn't moved beyond electronic vs. paper ballots. What you propose on paper looks good on paper. It has no chance at all of being implemented on a national level regarding Presidental elections, either formally or informally, in the near future or decades from now.

Third parties come and go in American politics. At best they screw up an election or two (1968 and 2000 come to mind), then their devotees gravitate toward a mainstream party when they grow tired of making statements and want to actually influence real policy. This is why Reagan didn't abandon the GOP in 1976 when he lost the nomination to Ford, and why Paul is now running as a Republican instead of a Libertarian. Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 11, 2007

I must reluctantly disagree with Mr. Jackson. Call me stubborn, call me ignorant, call me naive. I do not believe in voting just for a party. I like the position of fighting only when deciding on a nominee in the primaries, but I strongly disagree that voting Rino in the general is in the best interest of the party. Small disagreements can be resolved but major platform issues can not and should not be compromised to ensure a more competitive Republican nominee in the general election. I must ask Mr. Jackson one question- If Hillary was a Republican and Obama a Democrat, would you vote for Hillary? ( I believe we could both agree that Hillary would give us a much better chance at winning in Iraq than Obama so I made her the Republican) Is there a point where the Republican party simply isn't important but the principles of conservatism are? How far left is the Republican party willing to go to keep the executive branch? Our 2 party system often creates a lesser of two evils approach to government; but it also provides for the death of parties that create platforms not in line with its constituents. We may well be in that arena now. A Guillani nomination may be the strongest chance of victory for the GOP- but it signals the death of the conservative movement in the Republican Party. I believe it would finish what George Bush (43) started in destroying the Republican Party. George destroyed any fiscal conservatives chances of winning elections by eliminating the differences in the tax and spend nature of liberals versus what should be the hands off approach of conservatives. He took the issue off the table with his reckless spending and social programs. Rudy would take abortion, gun control, immigration, and marriage off the table. He would maintain only one true conservative issue- defense; both at home and abroad. We must regain our party if we hope to promote conservatism. I know we all fear the Hillary presidency, but I must ask why? If we truly believed in conservatism wouldn't we expect the American people to reject her after 4 years? I for one would like to offer the American voter a clear choice in who they vote for. If you listen to Hillary and Rudy the similarities are much stronger than the differences. I would rather see 4 years of Hillary (Jimmy Carter ) followed by 8 years of a conservative (Reagan) than 8 years of Rudy. I am praying we send a conservative to the White House in 2008, but with Huckabee presently the only challenge it does not look likely. Under this scenerio, I will for the first time give up my registration with the Republican Party. I will be searching for a party that represents conservatism or wait for the GOP to come back to it. Ronald Reagan famously stated he never left the Democratic Party, it left him. Conservatives feel the same way about the GOP. So yes, I and my ilk can be cast off of as narrow-minded, issue orientated buffoons who are costing the GOP elections; I will take the label with a heavy heart believing all the while a non vote for Rudy is the only chance of saving the GOP for generations to come.

Comment by Honker | December 11, 2007

Honker:
Sorry you feel to the degree that you would not vote. I nearly have the same feelings as you but I can't bring myself to not vote. My main thing above all is the abortion issue. If hilliary were voted in because of my abstaining from the election, it would be devastating for our nation. The next supreme court nominee could turn our country into a left bias which would be hard to swallow. Am I selling out my principles? In your eyes, yes, but tell that to the next aborted baby.

Comment by hvance | December 11, 2007

“ I strongly disagree that voting Rino in the general is in the best interest of the party.”

*** Voting for president is not a symbolic act. The winner gets real power, and it makes a difference whether it’s Hillary Clinton or a Republican exercising this power. Just how many electoral votes will a third party candidate win? As I said in my essay, the only practical issue once the primaries are over is “Two people have received the nomination of their political parties for the office of President of the United States. One of them will be elected to that office. For which one do you cast your vote?”

“I must ask Mr. Jackson one question- If Hillary was a Republican and Obama a Democrat, would you vote for Hillary?”

*** Honker, it’s a false premise. Despite all the rhetoric of the true believers that there is no difference between the Republican and Democrat parties, there is. One will always be more Liberal or Conservative than the other — it’s the nature of the dynamics of a two party system. I’d vote for the candidate who is “more conservative”, even though he/she can’t pass the idealistic ideological purity test many people want to set as the standard for their vote. If JFK was running today he’d be a Republican, and I’d vote for him instead of Hillary or Obama who’d get the other party’s nomination. Then I’d use the next 4 years to work within the more conservative party to get a better candidate nominated, like Reagan did between 1976 and 1980.

“George destroyed any fiscal conservatives chances of winning elections by eliminating the differences in the tax and spend nature of liberals versus what should be the hands off approach of conservatives.”

*** Ron Paul and Tom Tancrado, to name two, are Republican party candidates. Bush isn’t preventing them from getting the nomination; an absence of support among Republicans is. The fact is the kind of Conservatism that many people making comments here want has been offered to the Republican electorate, and they don’t accept it. Perhaps they will in another 4 years with more effort. Or maybe no one wants a President who thinks the way Paul does. This is what the primaries sort out — the battle of ideas. And it isn’t just the guy with the best organization who gains support (look at Huckabee vs. Romney). Don’t confuse your guy’s inability to succeed with the belief that the party must therefore be fundamentally flawed. Reagan didn’t make this mistake in 1976.

“I know we all fear the Hillary presidency, but I must ask why?”

*** Because she will have the power to do things that injure my interests. As I said in my essay: the first step in overturning Roe v. Wade is to nominate a strict constructionist Supreme Court Justice, and this process begins with a choice made by the President of the United States. “Which of the two parties' candidates is more likely to start this process in motion? If the choice for 2008 is between Never and Doubtful, I’ll still take Doubtful rather than boycott that choice and focus instead on the third party option, namely No Chance in Hell. The same logic applies to illegal immigration, foreign wars, and a myriad of other supposedly Constitutional matters.”
“I would rather see 4 years of Hillary (Jimmy Carter ) followed by 8 years of a conservative (Reagan) than 8 years of Rudy.”

*** Seems to me this is exactly what people said about Bush-Clinton in 1992. And what president was produced in the 2000 election? The same guy you said above is responsible for destroying conservatism. What you propose is not a sound political strategy. It’s just wishful thinking.

“I will for the first time give up my registration with the Republican Party. I will be searching for a party that represents conservatism or wait for the GOP to come back to it. Ronald Reagan famously stated he never left the Democratic Party, it left him.”

*** Yes, and he left to join the REPUBLICAN party and transform it from within, rather than waste his time with a symbolic act by joining a 3rd party. Why is it that in the realm of politics Conservatives always want to pick up their marbles and leave the fight so the Liberals can take over, just to make a self-serving feel good statement? No third party has ever won the Presidency. All you are doing is guaranteeing the defeat of a person who shares only some of your beliefs so an individual who holds none of them can be elected to office.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 11, 2007

One thing everyone seems to forget is the thing a politician in office fears the most: a challenger from his own party.

If an incumbent is not delivering the party platform, it won't be long before he'll have a challenger that will.

Comment by sedonaman | December 11, 2007

By the way Honker, don't take anything I said personally. I was just using your comments to make a larger point. Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 11, 2007

hvance- Abortion as Dr. Jackson correctly stated will be won in the individual states as the consitution provides. If I honestly believed that a vote for Rudy would provide such a standard, I would vote for him. I do not believe in any way, shape, or form that Rudy could put a pro-life Justice on the Supreme Court. I do not believe he could get the candidate through confirmation if he did nominate one (he wouldn't fight for it). The only way to change Roe v. Wade is to nominate a conservative. A vote for Rudy does nothing for Life. If anything it gives Rino Republicans cover for changing their views on abortion. Consider this for a moment hvance- If a pro-choice candidate can lead the GOP on the national level- how long will it take for the abortion issue to be off the table at the state level where this issue will be decided? What good is a pro-life Supreme Court with no one left to change the laws? If you really need to answer questions of if Rudy deserves the conservative support regardless of his views let me ask,
Would you vote for a candidate that is pro-choice?
Would you vote for a candidate that is anti-gun?
Would you vote for a candidate that will not protect marriage?
Would you vote for a candidate who mayored a sanctuary city?
I sympathize with the light you see with only 1 change in the Supreme Court beginning the process of reversing Roe, but I assure you Rudy is not how to make that happen. Rudy represents a rubber stamp for abortion for future generations, and destroys the grass-roots efforts of the last 35 years to end abortion. For me, abortion is not the only issue, but when you combine his abortion views with the other views noted; Rudy represents the end of conservatism in the Republican Party. Let us both pray we have an alternative to a pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-marriage, pro-illegal immigration candidate for President.
By the way- I don't think you are selling out your principles, I just don't think you realize the real consequences of having a social liberal at the head of the Republican Party. The satisfaction of defeating Hillary would be short lived when the realization of the death of the conservative party is at hand.

Comment by Honker | December 11, 2007

Phil

Another great analysis.

I would note that many people consider themselves “Independents” or “Beyondists” & resist being affiliated with & often disdain either major party. It’s impossible to figure how large a portion of the population independents/beyondists constitute since so many, including, counter-intuitively, non spoil-seeking party faithful, consider themselves to be independent/beyondist thinkers & are, thus, reluctant to say publicly that they consistently vote for one party or consistently along social/economic lines. (Someone, apparently bored with the term “independent”, has coined the term “beyondism” to describe getting beyond left/right labels, beyond partisan politics, beyond thinking inside the box. But in the end, like many self-described independents, even beyondists seem to wind up on one side or another in the social or economic area & wind up voting for a candidate of one of the major parties.)

Based on voting results, it’s difficult to find many independents/beyondists who walk the walk after all their talk. For instance, generally (Nader, Buchanan, & esp Perot being exceptions), very few people vote for a truly “independent/ beyondist” candidate (as opposed to, say, a Joe Lieberman who lost in the Democrat primary in 2006 & was running as the “real” democrat on an “independent” line); and the 40 to 50% of all eligible voters who do not vote in national elections may be diffident as well as independent/beyondist or may be party faithful or centrists/moderates turned off by the actual choices.

So, one suspects, most independents/beyondists who vote do so for a major party candidate.

And, of course, some self-styled independents/beyondists do have a strong thoughtful Right or Left social/economic philosophy, but also just have a simple disdain for politicians (most of whom are, of course, worthy of disdain), or a disdain of voting for anyone they feel is self-righteous (thus ignoring their own stronger self-righteousness). Most, on the other hand, seem to be just negative, “throw the bums out" folks. That is, they have a strong self-righteous, anti-incumbent tendency, without necessarily having a coherent or thoughtful political philosophy. Or they find most day-to-day politics as borrrrrrrrrring & infra dig (surprise).

Yet, they are most unhappy & feel most betrayed when, speaking of digs, the Second Avenue Subway or a bridge over some obstacle between them & their work place is not built or if they or their family have been the victim of a crime, & they spend much time wailing their fate.

In conversation, few independents/beyondists will admit that The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good. And all independents/beyondists seem to have learned one of Life’s Rules: If you criticize, it makes you look “smart” to a lot of people.

And they get to note how the parties often go for a consensus in the end, leaving the party faithful in the lurch & so, independents/beyondists look upon consistent party voters as Helena, when she says to Demetrius in A Midsummer Night’s Dream:
The more you beat me, I will fawn on you.
Use me but as your spaniel – spurn me, strike me.
Neglect me, lose me; only give me leave
(Unworthy as I am) to follow you.

But smart as they think themselves, independents/beyondists, especially the inattentive, the wishful thinkers, & those who play a version of fantasy football in politics, seem to be most susceptible to negative spin since it confirms their basic negative philosophy of “I’m agin it”: “Don’t ya see that photo of Bush 41 (in which he was just being polite to the demonstration guy) looking befuddled by a scanner shows that he’s so out of touch that he’s never been to a supermarket?” “Eisenhower never did anything in eight years.” “Halliburton orchestrated the Iraq war.” “The neo-cons (Jews) want us to destroy Arabs.” “That Rudy is corrupt!” Since the dinosaur media is controlled by Liberals, virtually all its negative spin is against Republicans & so Teddy Swift Car Kennedy & Robert KKK Byrd get a free pass from this self-proclaimed independent media & these Democrats’, shall we say, peccadilloes are lost among inattentive independents/beyondists.

BTW, as I’m sure you’ll agree, the self-proclaimed independent candidates for President you’ve mentioned are not guys to be smug about supporting.

And, ever notice that, many independents/beyondists often consider themselves centrist/moderate, even though they may hold extreme positions, especially the “I’m just agin it” independents/ beyondists, & use the same immoderate appellations as some immoderate centrists/moderates in characterizing of those to their Left & Right: “orthodox’ “ideologue”, “sycophant”, “simplistic”, “fundamentalist”, “troglodyte”, “fascist”, “racist” ,“uncompassionate” , “Christianist” “socialist”, “tree hugger”, “spend thrift” not to forget, “cult member” &“extremist” &, most counter-intuitively, “unprincipled”?

Finally, perhaps a subset of the independents/beyondists, is the single-issue guy. This person is generally an extremist on his/her issue & is not subject to reason about the commonweal or the political process. War, gun control, social security, abortion, embryonic stem cell research (?) is her/his litmus test for a candidate. Generally, these people do belong to one of the two major parties, but if the candidate of their party of preference is agin their issue & the candidate of the other party or a Third-party guy is for their issue, they’ll vote agin their party & for their good guy. This may be coherent but not always thoughtful. And it’s certainly self-righteous. Often single issue people confuse themselves as centrists/moderates since they don’t espouse all tenets of any one party or all concepts of any economic/social philosophy. And some see Single Issuers as drinking the Kool Aid.

Comment by From Inwood | December 11, 2007

Phillip- you seem to basing your arguments towards me solely on third party candidates- an argument I never brought forth. I am not suggesting a symbollic vote promotes conservatism. I am stating that a vote for Rudy promotes liberalism. The (R) behind his name does nothing for the cause of conservatism. If you choose to vote for him and believe that his presidency will in any way better conservatism, I disagree.

Comment by Honker | December 11, 2007

You guys who are arguing about party lines are missing the point. The elites love this kind of divisive behavior that keeps us so busy fighting each other over these ideological issues that we can't see the forest for the trees. The elections are rigged. The voting machines are hacked! The elites are supporting both Hillary and Rudy. They don't care who gets in because both of them are warmongering One World Government suscribers. And that's the bigger picture. So please wake up, cut the Republican/Democrat crap, work to change the voting machines back to paper ballots, and vote your conscience, not divisive party lines.

Comment by elleanee | December 11, 2007

Honker, if Rudy gets the Republican nomination, and you won't vote for him under any circumstances, your only option is to either (a) not vote in the Presidential election, or (b) vote for a 3rd party. Both (a) and (b) produce identical outcomes. They do nothing to take away from the electoral victory of the Liberal/Democrat candidate.

I will vote for whoever gets the Republican party nomination (Rudy or Ron Paul, Tom Tancrado or Huckabee, Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, John McCain or whoever wins the nomination). I will not sit it out or vote 3rd party, which is the same thing because it leads to the same outcome. My argument is not about Rudy vs. Paul. It's about winning an election vs. making a symbolic statement that gives victory to the opposing party that shares none of my values.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 11, 2007

"My theory is based on how the American political system actually functions. A third party has NEVER been successful in electing a president in all our history."

And why is that? Exactly because of the theory of power transference that I mentioned. The two party system is so entrenched, of course it will be extremely difficult for a third-party candidate, even if the most popular candidate is running. But your argument basically revolves around what has never happend, which ultimately is a fatal concept for accurately projecting the future.

Now, tell me if you disagree, but this adherence to the "never" usually acts as a concept that prevents the individual from the basic acts of thinking and making assessments on a case by case basis. And so when the circumstanes are ripe for change, you will not see it, nor will you investigate it, merely because it has never happened. That is not sustainable in the long run. If you consistently use what has never happend to understand the present and future, when you will be proven wrong seems to just be a matter of time.

Comment by silus | December 11, 2007

elleanee: Again, Hillary/Obama/and Edwards profusely thank you for your principled stand that ignores the fact that an election will take place in November 2008 — with the winner exercising real political power — so that you can make a philosophical statement about opposing One World Government.

Like I said, for some people it’s simply much too hard to work within the Republican party to change opinions, and much more fun to be a renegade patriot than an actual meaningful voter.

There is nothing more insane than insuring defeat for a person who shares only some of your beliefs so an individual who holds none of them can be elected to office.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 11, 2007

Phil writes, "…your only option is to either (a) not vote in the Presidential election, or (b) vote for a 3rd party. Both (a) and (b) produce identical outcomes. They do nothing to take away from the electoral victory of the Liberal/Democrat candidate."

Phil is right. You don't get to govern if you don't win. Period.

Comment by sedonaman | December 11, 2007

I "hear" what you're saying and you just keep saying the same thing again and again. You're taking one aspect of what I said and ignoring the rest. It's like you're a broken record. Don't you understand? The whole system was created to distract us. The Bushes and the Clintons are very good friends. While old man Bush was running the country (into the ground) as VP and then President, they were already onto the dissatisfaction of the masses with his Republican agenda, so they were grooming Bill Clinton to be his successor. That way the American sheeple would think they were getting something different. Hah! They got more of the same. During the 8 years the public was tiring of Clinton's messes, the puppeteers were propping up and prepping ol' half wit, junior, to take over for the next 8 years. And so on and so on. You can extrapolate how Mrs. Clinton would be their next shoo-in. They want to keep it "in the family" and even though one family is called Democrat and one is called Republican, they're both from the same criminal cartel.

People are starting to wake up to the bigger agenda. Because the big win of the Democrats two years ago brought on none of the changes the Dems had anticipated, a realization set in that both of these parties are basically the same–bankrupting the country, keeping an endless war going with our children as expendable soldiers, removing the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the people via the "patriot" act, dispensing with habeaus corpus, and arguing over whether waterboarding is torture.

There is an outrage that is growing based on the lies told to us by both the Dem and Rep neocons, hence the rush to a principled and brilliant man of integrity like Ron Paul. How could anyone with a heart and a conscience vote for one of the neocons just because their party nominated them!?! Only the truly out of touch who then become pawns of the power elite.

Comment by elleanee | December 11, 2007

elleanee: If you want to change the system, by all means work toward that objective. Unfortunately, the November 2008 elections will take place as scheduled regardless of whether or not the people have come to understand the need to use paper instead of electronic ballots.

Ron Paul, who you seem to support, recognizes that to exercise power you must win an election, and to win an election it makes no sense to run as a 3rd party candidate. Regardless of your philosophical ideals, elections are about practical choices. And national elections in the US are about voting either Democrat or Republican.

If you focus only on ideals and ignore the practical political parameters under which we all live, then you're forever consigned to ranting about injustice instead of actually working to achieve a political objective.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 11, 2007

silus: with all due respect, I live in the real world. Regarding the November 2008 election, there is no chance in hell that a third party will win the election. Zip, zero, nada, nunca, Never! You can argue all you want, but history has proven this so — a history based on how the present system actually works today, and has always worked in the US. Wishing it was otherwise doesn't make it so.

So, you have a choice in November 2008: vote for the Democrat or Republican for president. Everything else (third party or sitting the election out) will not elect your philosophically-correct president.

If you don't like the present system, you can start a 50 year quest to produce a 3rd party — just like the Libertarians have done and failed consistently. Or if you have enough money you can buy an existing party like Soros has (which is a successful though dispicable practice). Or you can do what Reagan did in 1976 when he lost to Ford: you can vote for Ford in 1976 and then work to get your philosophy represented 4 years later.

In the real world we need to start with how things actually function and proceed from there. Ignoring the present because it's inconvenient, not the way you like things, or came about in a way you didn't endorse is a recipe for electoral failure.

Ideas without the power to implement them are politically irrelevant.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 11, 2007

Inwood: I hadn't heard the term "beyondists" before, but it fits.

A lot of people are frustrated because they "know" that they possess the "Truth", and the rest of humanity is too stupid or selfish to see it as well. They think that ranting about their Truth or scolding people for not supporting Their Candidate somehow translates into informing and educating the general public.

When this tactic fails (or in fact has the opposite effect of actually driving people away from these insufferable ideologues) they conclude that the entire system is corrupt and By God they will have nothing to do with this Impurity any longer! So they either start a third party, or stay home on election day to "punish" their old party.

Politics is not just about ideology, it’s about practical strategies to achieve and sustain power. The first step in this process is to win an election. And in the US, we have only two practical choices for President — the Republican or Democrat nominee.

If the ideologically pure cannot stomach the give and take of real politics, they should start a commune where only like-minded ideologically pure people are welcome. This of course will not last, because eventually there will be some disagreement on some issue which will create a new schism. In the end the only ideologically pure collective is a collective of one.

If the ideologically pure don’t want to start a commune, and they don’t want to recognize that elections are about power — and that to win elections requires accepting less than your pure ideological positions — then they will do us all a favor by leaving those of us who live in the real world alone (except, of course, for the occasional humor they bring by announcing their non-negotiable world views and insisting that we all adopt these views period!).

This is why no one takes the ideologically pure seriously. When they test their ideas in the political arena (i.e. presidential primaries) and fail, they pick up their marbles and leave.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 11, 2007

elleanee, Inwood, et al:

If you think that politicians are a “criminal cartel” “worthy of our disdain,” then consider the following from Beyond Politics by Mitchell & Simmons:

Chapter 4 – Pathological Politics

“…Because voters are rationally ignorant (the costs of gaining particular kinds of information are greater than the benefits since one vote is essentially meaningless), politicians must employ a language designed to evoke emotion – enough emotion to motivate the right people to turn out and vote, Thus, politicians rarely speak with precise meanings, marginal calculations, or logical reasoning; instead they manipulate affect, raw emotions, group identifications, and even hatred, envy, and threats. Because premature commitment to an issue can cause one to end up in a minority position, successful politicians equivocate, hint, exaggerate, procrastinate, ‘straddle fences,’ adopt code words, and speak in non-sequiturs. Understanding the politician is therefore extremely frustrating for those who value precise statements. But note that this problem is not the fault of the politician; it is rooted in the rational ignorance of voters, the distribution of conflicting sentiments among voters, and the nature of collective endeavor. What all this means is clear: Political communication is rarely conducive to rational or efficient allocation of scarce resources. This does not mean that the individual politicians are irrational in their choice of language and symbolic activities. Waving the flag and kissing babies are practiced because of their tactical value in an activity that is at once a rational game and a morality play; in that conjunction lies the endless fascination and frustration of politics.” [Emphasis added]

Comment by sedonaman | December 11, 2007

Honker:When I said my main thing was abortion it was as said, my main thing. I have other planks in my platform, they however can wait if need be. I would vote for Huckabee over Rudy, Mitt over Rudy, Fred over Rudy. I think the main problem with this discussion is that the Media thinks that Rudy has the nomination locked up because most of them are from NY. Way too much power in the media in one place. The rest of the country's opinions will never be represented until this changes. Back to Rudy, Yes, if he is the nominee vs heresy then I will definitely vote for him. I would not subject the court to her whims under any circumstances. Just one guy's opinions.

Comment by hvance | December 11, 2007

"Politics is not just about ideology, it’s about practical strategies to achieve and sustain power."

Gee, silly, naive and idealistic me! I thought that being in politics was about the desire to be a public servant. Of upholding the tenets of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and supporting a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I guess that's where I went off track. Thanks for the education!

Comment by elleanee | December 11, 2007

Phil makes an excellent point. The Republican Party should be first and formost to its loyal servants. The party supercedes your beliefs, morality and attitudes. In the end, this is a game of which party controls the White House, not the belief of the office holder….beliefs are just part of the political game we play.

Bow down at the alter of the Republican Party. Accept whatever nominee our party elects. Everything will be fine as long as a republican is in the White House. Deal with it.

Thanks for telling it like it is Phil.

Gregin NY

Comment by GreginNY | December 11, 2007

sedonaman

You want to boil down what I said to two phrases which in no way capture what I said.

Let me boil down your quoted material to this (not original):

"You can fool all the people some of the time & you can fool some of the people all the time & two outta three ain't bad!"

Comment by From Inwood | December 11, 2007

elleanee: Good luck having your idea become reality while never doing anything practical to win an election. The main issue in 2008 is obviously paper vs. electronic ballots, and until we get this issue resolved there's no sense in voting. Hillary/Obama/Edwards thank you again for pursuing a strategy that ignores political reality in order to keep yourself politically pure.

Greg: Again, I know from previous posts that reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours. Go back and look at the difference between primaries and general elections. Hillary/Obama/Edwards also thank you profusely for telling us all that it makes no difference who is in the White House unless your candidate wins the party's nomination.

Once more, this is why no one takes the ideologically pure seriously.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 11, 2007

Is no one allowed to disagree with you, Phillip Ellis Jackson? What are these forums for if not to allow and engage varying thoughts, ideas, and opinions? It appears you want everyone to agree with your point of view and when they don't, you make incorrect assumptions and launch personal attacks. I'm not impressed with your ability at facilitating an interesting and thought-provoking conversation.

When your allegiance is such that you're willing to vote for whomever the Mighty Party nominates at the expense of your integrity, it might behoove you to refresh your memory on that point in Germany's history where the party was God and the sheeple followed that party without question.

Comment by elleanee | December 11, 2007

I do not claim to have a monopoly on "reality," as you have just done. I do not claim what will or will not happen. I simply acknowledge what you do not. Which is the possibility of change is real, and simply ignoring a possible occurrence because it has not happened is a principle that totally ignores all of known history. Knowledge works well only to those that apply it humbly.

The bottom line is that you are too eager to make your point. All this time you thought you were talking about reality, when really you were just dealing with probability. You should acknowledge that first before you ever attempt to represent the reality.

Comment by silus | December 11, 2007

"I do not claim to have a monopoly on 'reality,' as you have just done."

** I don't claim to have a monopoly on reality. I just claim to be in touch with it.

Elections are about choices, and those choices involve the world as it exists today, not as we wish it to be. The "probability" of electing a 3rd party candidate president of the US today, tomorrow, or 50 years from now is not just "slight", or "low". It's zero, which is to say, it's not "realistic" to believe otherwise.

The political system we have does not allow third parties to gain electoral success in presidential politics (the subject of this essay). Whether this is by accident or design is irrelevant. It's the way the system has worked from its inception, and wishing it was different will not change that singular fact. If you can't recognize this reality, then you are bound to be profoundly disappointed when you participate in the political process.

To Greg, elleanee, and any other true believers who think that third parties or non-voting actually produces a directed result — just to be clear, I am in no way attempting to influence the decisions you will make in the electoral process. There is a great deal of comfort in knowing that certain people self-marginalize their ability to actually accomplish anything in the political arena. The Republic can survive having the true fringe stay out of practical politics, so please don't change. It's the wider audience of intelligent, undecided (from a strategy perspective) people listening in on the conversation that I'm actually speaking to. These people are actually interested in accomplishing something, rather than impressing others with their political purity or visionary but impractical "solutions" to real world problems.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 11, 2007

It's really interesting that you decided not to show my last post. Wonder what you're afraid of. That maybe you're wrong?

Comment by elleanee | December 11, 2007

Those who have studied calculus will understand the concept of local maxima versus absolute maxima.

In layman's terms, if your strategy for reaching the top of the mountain is to never move in a direction that takes you downward, there is no guarantee that you will reach the top of the mountain. You will get stuck on a small rise and never traverse the valleys or gullies that take you toward progressively higher peaks.

I understand the pragmatism of voting for the "least worst" candidate in a general election, and I cannot argue with Dr. Jackson's logic here much as I would like to. But I also know that it does not breed excellence or lead us as a nation to any mountaintops. It leads us simply to a mediocrity that seems to be moving ever left-ward under the guise of "electability." Some candidates can do more damage than others. Sadly, that seems to be the criteria today - rather than who can do the most good, it is who can do the least harm.

Comment by Steve Sabin | December 11, 2007

43.Sabin
Excellent summation of where we are. Unfortunately a major event will be needed for the country to be taken back from the mediocrity that we currently enjoy. Perhaps $200 oil? Nuclear bomb anywhere? Unemployment at 20%? We'll probably get all 3 or more. How's that for doomsday? Tell me why we won't get the above three in the next 10 years.

Comment by hvance | December 11, 2007

Your reasoning is not sustainable. You can apply it weakly to this discussion, but this fragile method of understanding cannot be used consistently.

And to clarify, you are arguing against a position I have not taken. You are getting fired up to attack a position I never had. I already made it clear several times, I understand the odds running as a third party candidate. Our disagreement lies in that YOU believe you have the eternal knowledge to state probabilities in the absolute, where I do not. That is where our problem lies. And lets be clear, this has nothing to do with politics anymore. This is about principles. You have taken the arrogant approach, I have maintained what will likely happen without leaving myself open to be blindsided by the unknown.

This has nothing to do with me winning or you winning, but I need to bring up the fact that the position of most strategists, scholars, historians and philosophers of history, my position is favored. Which is just having a simple respect for your own stupidity.

Comment by silus | December 12, 2007

“It’s really interesting that you decided not to show my last post. Wonder what you’re afraid of. That maybe you’re wrong?”

*** Your “last post” didn’t appear until later. You may have noticed that some comments don’t appear until a later point, as I acknowledged in comment 10. Since you want a reply to the nonsense that no one is allowed to disagree with me, okay. Here goes. I’ll type very slowly so you can understand every word.

I wrote an article outlining my position, to which you’ve replied with a bunch of idiotic slogans about rigged elections, paper ballots, and the need to support Ron Paul — and no one else but Ron Paul — because he’s an inspired non-neocon. Other than objecting to what I’ve written, you haven’t done anything other than object to what I’ve written.

Your understanding of American politics is on a third grade level, to be generous. Honker and I also disagree, but Honker is an intelligent guy who tries to support his positions with actual arguments and reasoning. This allows for a real discussion to take place about a substantive issue, as opposed to listening to the demented ramblings of some fringe player who can’t support any position she takes.

We all understand that you like Ron Paul and paper ballots and don’t think that elections involve political power, just the expression of ideals. There’s not a lot to respond to someone who takes this position, other than to encourage them to be true to their beliefs and withdraw from the political process to maintain your ideological purity.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 12, 2007

“Our disagreement lies in that YOU believe you have the eternal knowledge to state probabilities in the absolute, where I do not. That is where our problem lies. And lets be clear, this has nothing to do with politics anymore.”

*** You’re missing the point. The American electoral process is not a randomly-changing system. It has definable rules of operation (the primary system and electoral college, etc.). It has definable institutional parameters (the need to qualify for the ballot on 50 separate states, etc.). It is structured in a way that has never allowed any third party electoral success in a presidential election (a historical fact).

Given its structure, parameters, and 200+ years of operating experience, it isn’t a statement of “probability” that a third party won’t win the 2008 election, it’s a FACT. And the same historical and structural elements that made it ALWAYS operate this way up to the present time will CONTINUE to make it operate that way into the future. Wishing it was different won’t make it different. This is why it’s not a matter of probability. When the probability is zero, there is no longer probability. There’s fact.

If you really believe that the probability is not zero, then assign a value to it and give me a date in history when a third party will win the presidency. If you’re so convinced that I’m wrong for insisting that the real-world probability is Zero, then here’s an easy way to show it.

Of course, if all you’re doing is just shooting off your mouth you’ll find a thousand ways to avoid backing up your claim. You want to believe that the American political system will one day operate differently, but you don’t have any idea how this will actually happen, or when. You just know in your heart of hearts that you’re right, so you resent being told that your concept of American politics is silly and superficial.

Just curious about one thing though. I base my “eternal knowledge” on my academic credentials, my participation in a congressional campaign, my decade-long experience heading up the political arm of a trade association, and my three years working on Capitol Hill. Since you’ve seen fit to question why I believe what I believe, let’s hear the credentials you have that make your opinions worth listening to.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 12, 2007

silus,

As an aside, I'm not sure who your comment was directed at when you complained about your post not showing up, but that (a delay) happens to all of us from time to time. Those who submit editorials, such as PEJ, have no control over comments - that is a combination of manual review by a moderator, and automatic filtering software that flags comments based on criteria I have never understood…possibly message length and inclusion of certain words that would require manual review by the moderator.

But rest assured that I have never seen someone banned from this site for expressing their views just because their politics happened to be controversial. That is the whole point of this site. Indeed, I think the site sometimes goes too far in its leniency when people cross the line from "passionate" to "abusive."

If you want to visit sites that scrub dissenting views, I suggest Huffingtonpost or DailyKos. They regularly implement their version of "tolerance" and "freedom of speech" by erasing posts that don't conform to their worldview.

IC can perhaps be criticized for several things, but selective posting is not one of them.

Comment by Steve Sabin | December 12, 2007

PEJ #49
Excellent rebuttal. Don't waste your time with people who can not tell the difference between reality and ridiculous.

Comment by hvance | December 12, 2007

While I do agree that there is no way in He** a 3rd party candidate can win in a general election, I fail to see how a vote for a candidate simply because he has an (R) after his name will help the Republican Party. You used as an example the election in 1976. However, Ford did not win that election. The opportunity for change in the Republican Party was due in large part to Carter and his complete ineptitude as President. Reagan’s victory had as much to do with Carter as it had with the loss by Ford. There is also the fact that very many voters left the Democrat Party after it officially hammered the pro-abortion plank into its platform and joined the Republicans. I’m not saying this was a major factor, but it was a factor. Let’s say for argument’s sake Ford won. Would Reagan have been able to change the Republican Party in 4 or even 8 years to the point he would have been elected? I think not. So arguing we should vote for someone such as Rudy just to win the White House and then work to change the party afterward is idealistic at best.

As an example I offer the special election in California a few years ago. Back then many dissatisfied voters, republicans especially, voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger over Tom McKlintock because they figured he had a better chance of winning. I personally know many who did just that. How has this fixed the Republican Party in California? Well, the answer is it hasn’t.

So while a vote for the republican may allow the GOP to keep the White House for 4 more years, it will not help conservatives in the GOP. After all, as you have said repeatedly, the winner will get to exercise real political power. That includes setting the agenda and directing the future of the party. If a liberal heads the GOP in the White House, it may just signal the end of the conservative wing of the party.

Comment by Annasdad | December 12, 2007

“If you really believe that the probability is not zero, then assign a value to it and give me a date in history when a third party will win the presidency."

The probability is highly improbable. How many times should I repeat that to you? And you are being extremely arrogant now for knowing my position and still asking me to predict the future. Did you not read anything I have said? Predicting the future is a game YOU have been playing.

All your relative knowledge still falls upon the fact that you are human, and you cannot grasp enough variables to ever make statements in the absolute. This point is so simple and fundamental, yet you think telling me about your work experiences somehow relate to this. As I said, you may have a better relative grasp of the variables at work, but that never translates to having a complete and absolute knowledge. Lets be specific, you are not just talking about 2008 but also 2100, and 2200. Continuously bringing up 2008 just clarifies how truly weak your argument really is. You use the present as a crutch because your argument can only be accepted in the present, when knowledge is greatest and the stability of variables are at their highest. When you stop taking refuge in that, then you might see how fragile your argument has been.

The funny thing is you assume my position is an emotional one, when in truth my position has been tempered by acknowledgement of natural limitations. As you have been the one to arrogantly step out and claim an impossible position, which really makes no sense to me. Why would you blatantly ignore possibilities, however improbable? That would put you at a position of extreme ignorance, and denial, if that improbable possibility ever began to gain momentum. If you were a military strategist, you would have lost long before you became aware of it.

Comment by silus | December 12, 2007

“… Unfortunately a major event will be needed for the country to be taken back from the mediocrity that we currently enjoy. Perhaps $200 oil? Nuclear bomb anywhere? Unemployment at 20%? We'll probably get all 3 or more.”

hvance: Unfortunately, a major crisis will not automatically make our politicians better, or less mediocre, as you put it.
All: What is it with people, anyway? They all seem to have been yearning for a dynamic leader ever since JFK was shot. The US has been fortunate in the past to have great leaders in times of crisis; but the reverse is not necessarily true – as hvance seems to imply – a crisis will not necessarily produce great leadership.

The Dems kinda found one in Bill Clinton, but as we have seen with dynamic leaders, they can be dangerous because the people have conjured up in their minds an image of a sort of savior who can do nothing wrong. Such a leader will sense this and take advantage of it. In extreme (repeat, extreme) cases we have a despot like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc. All one need do is tune in to the History Channel and watch one of them give a speech to see how important image is to a despotic leader.

I suspect this is one of the reasons the Dems / liberals hate Bush so much – he is not a very good public speaker and, consequently, does not create the “image”that the Dem / liberal mind so desperately wants, as I’ve personally heard them say on more than one occasion. As Phil indicated earlier, Dems / liberals are all about “feeling,” and they didn’t “feel” the right “image” in Bush. This brings me around to the Myers-Briggs personality theory. Dems / liberals seem to be the “NF” (iNtuition-Feeling) personality type, whereas Repubs / conservatives seem to be “ST” (Sensing-Thinking) personality – and never the twain shall meet.

Inwood: You completely missed my point about Pathological Politics. Everyone blames the politician, but he’s just reacting to what he thinks the people want. As the people are rationally ignorant, he also makes a rational decision: how many votes will I gain vs. lose if I vote a certain way on a particular issue?

Comment by sedonaman | December 12, 2007

sedonaman:
Forgive me for not expounding on my point a little better. Yes, history is littered with despots who took advantage of situations. The direction, in my opinion, we are headed as a nation is not going to be the country that I would prefer. Does that mean that I and only I am right? Of course not. Nevertheless it is my opinion, that for the U.S. to stop its precipitous slide into 3rd world status, a major event may or may not be the wake up call that it needs. No absolutes intended, just expressed.

Comment by hvance | December 12, 2007

Sedona — they also hate Bush because they believe he stole the Florida election Gore that Gore was in the process of stealing from Bush. It's like something out of "The Sting". Only Democrats are allowed to manipulate the vote (convicted felons get registered, illegal aliens get registered, they suppress military absentee ballots, etc.). This is the normal way things are. When a Republican allegedly beats them at their own game, all hell breaks lose. There is nothing worse than a perceived crook stealing something from a real crook!

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 12, 2007

PEJ:
Speaking of stolen elections, have you ever noticed how the miserable media never mentions the theft of the 1960 election by the icon JFK? Also RMN was never given credit once for taking the high road by not challenging the results. I really wish that one of the talking heads would get on your point and hammer it home about the felons, aliens and denial to our troops' ability to vote in 2000. Now is the time that an election is upon us.

Comment by hvance | December 12, 2007

hvance — The double standard is suffocating. When Clinton runs in '92 military service is not important. When Kerry runs in '04 it's the most important factor. Clinton "spins", Bush "lies". And so on, and so on. Thank God for the alternative media!

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 12, 2007

Sedonaman:

Interesting and thought provoking quote you presented, but I wonder if voters really prefer a “rational” over an emotional approach. It may be true that, rather than basing their decision on information and logic, voters prefer an emotionally charged cat fight.

If you view the campaign as a year-long job interview process rather than politics, you see the voters’ preference for emotion and high drama – partly as entertainment, partly as catharsis. For example, have you ever noticed that our peculiar job interview and hiring process for the presidency breaks every single law on the books used in other enterprises when interviewing and deciding on job candidates?

Is religion ever a legitimate consideration in the hiring process? Ask Mitt Romney what he thinks about that question. Would the government employee hiring a contracts officer for the DOD ask the job candidate if he or she is religious, what theology their religion adheres to and whether the candidate would hold to their religion when making decisions on the job?

Can race be a factor in the hiring decision? For hiring managers in the business world, that’s a big no-no. But, we can discuss whether Bill Clinton is more or less black than Barrack Obama – in fact, they are discussing exactly that at Townhall. Does all the black women Clinton hit on make him more black than Obama? I don’t know, but commentators are seriously debating that issue during this unorthodox hiring process.

Can a woman perform the job as well as a man? Better not ask that question in a job interview – you can get sued and you will lose – as Phil says ‘that’s a fact”. But, Hillary and her supporters are ready with an affirmative answer to a question that can’t legally be posed when interviewing for a job.

Citizens apparently feel no reticence, legal or otherwise, when it comes to hiring for certain jobs. But, after all, the presidency is an important job, so maybe the normal laws don’t apply. Ever wonder why that is and what drives that belief?

In any event, about two weeks before the next election, a strange process will occur – it always does. Voters will stop posturing and pontificating and seriously assess the candidates in their own minds. Where previously some voters declared a “pox on both houses”, those same voters will now decide which side is currently winning and which side they will support. “Line in the dirt” issue voters will decide that ending the unlimited right to abortion isn’t as important to them personally as universal health care – an example of pragmatism over idealism. The end result of our bizarre hiring process will be voters who need not be encouraged to vote and who will decide which of the two candidates deserves their support. So, maybe gleefully repudiating every one of the very laws we claim to believe in is a necessary part of this “rational” process.

Comment by Pat Skurka | December 12, 2007

Phil:

"When Clinton runs in '92 military service is not important. When Kerry runs in '04 it's the most important factor."

And I predict that Dems will claim that it is again not important in 2008, especially if McCain is the Republican candidate.

I agree that Bush hatred probably all stems from the “stolen” election of 2000 because Gore was the “right” person and should be the winner, even if he got fewer electoral votes (more “feelings”).

Comment by sedonaman | December 12, 2007

Sedona — you are indeed correct. The deciding factor for the press in 2008 will be whether the candidate sits or stands when nature calls, or whether they have a natural tan, depending on who gets the nomination! (The fallback tipping point will be whethr they have a law degree and speak with a Southern drawl).

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 12, 2007

Phil, Pat Skurka:

I got more than a few chuckles out of your responses.

Voters may not prefer an emotional approach, but since they are rationally ignorant, what other approach can they take?

One rational approach would be to judge the entertainment value of a candidate. Why would this be rational? Easy. The voter correctly determines that none of the candidates, once in office, will ever do anything for him, so he concludes that the future office-holder, once elected, might just as well entertain him. This was the case with Clinton and why he had a lot of public support in spite of his offences – the Clinton administration was an eight-year soap opera. You never knew what was going to happen next. Why end it?

Another entertaining value can be obtained by seeing the other side lose, and I think this has more weight than almost any other consideration. None of the candidates will do anything for me, so I vote for “A” just to see to “B” lose so I can figuratively dance on his (and his supporters’) graves.

Comment by sedonaman | December 12, 2007

Sedonaman:

Although we’ve strayed far off topic, interesting observation that a healthy vindictiveness drives citizens to vote for the “other guy” – have to agree with you on that. When the “will of the people” and the popular vote is the method used to select leaders, we can count on weird and sometimes comical motivations driving the vote.

Throughout history there have been many variations on the method used to select the right leader – the military hero, the anointed of God, the wisest among us as determined by the less wise, etc. On the positive side of enduring successful methods, a small group of men (and only men) select the next pope, presumably with God’s help. There have been great popes and some not so great ones but most Catholics, who don’t get a say in the voting by the way, seem satisfied with this undemocratic approach. But, then we’re talking about a relatively unimportant, non-political job like leader of a worldwide religion.

On the negative side, Adolf Hitler was elected by popular vote – although it wasn’t a clear majority of Germans. And, Josef Stalin presumably campaigned for his job among a few Soviet decision makers. Although, unlike Soviet Russia, under our system the successful candidate isn’t allowed to murder his former rivals or send them to Alaska to harvest timber.

But entertainment, as you explained, has always been a big drawing card for political candidates. The ancient Romans were fond of this method and used it successfully for centuries (I promise not to compare the fall of Rome with modern day America). Roman seekers of high government office sponsored games for the masses to demonstrate their love and concern for the common citizen - and it became so popular it developed into a big business, something like today’s political campaigns.

Imagine the largest stadium in the known world, far larger than any sports complex we’ve built in America, filled with eager and excited Romans on the first day of the games. The political candidate running for say, Province Governor, has practically bankrupted himself hiring the best gladiators, bestarii (animal fighters) and comedians to entertain. In fact, if the candidate should win the election, his first task is to rebuild his fortune through the power to tax his province and by selling political favors – we all understand exactly how that works.

The games always start with a major parade around the arena. Men marching and waving flags, tumblers, jugglers, animals (the Romans loved elephants), etc. would precede the candidate. The candidate would then appear walking slowly and alone before the crowd or possibly riding in a gilded chariot guided by slaves. Supporters and the candidate’s slaves would endlessly shout out the candidate’s name and the political office; the crowd needed to be reminded who sponsored the games and why – but, if the games turned out to be a dreary farce, the crowd also remembered that. The Romans even had a popular saying “boring as a circensian procession” to describe this early form of political commercial.

As the decades passed, the games became increasingly brutal and degrading with the search for ever more novel forms of entertainment. Pairs of dueling gladiators were followed over time by men specializing in taunting and killing wild animals (forerunner to modern bullfighting but much more brutal). Teams of fighting men appeared who bloodily reenacted famous, historic battles. Bedroom comedies and unusual sex acts were introduced to punctuate the endless killing and allow the emotions to cool down before the next match. Young, presumably virgin, women were eaten alive by crocodiles (they could completely flood the arena), chimpanzees were trained to rape children, imaginative tortures and executions of criminals and war prisoners were publicly conducted in the arena and so forth – the Roman Hollywood merged with the Roman political process in rather novel and unique ways.

The participants (if that euphemism is appropriate) in the games didn’t personally represent the candidate running for office, they were merely the entertainers. The political candidate’s popularity was judged by how entertaining overall the games were to the voters. Boring acts, inept or cowardly gladiators, ugly virgins were all down-checks for the voters and reflected negatively on the candidate’s worth to hold office. Sometimes the Emperor would attend and normally patricians, both dilettantes and supporters of the candidate for office, would be in the reserved boxes. The mob would pass loud remarks about the scandalous private lives of the patricians (and their private lives would make Paris Hilton blush). The patricians, in turn, would pointedly ignore the mob. If a good time was had by all, the candidate was a shoo-in.

This bizarre system worked well for Rome, but it’s difficult to say exactly how much a skillful gladiator or a beautiful, screaming virgin contributed to a successful political campaign – and today’s Oprah stumping for Obama is certainly no screaming virgin. It’s also tempting to draw parallels between the Roman games and modern political campaigns, but the only common denominator I can see is the voters’ love of entertainment combined with politics. Unlike Hollywood celebrities today, the premier Roman gladiator of his day didn’t personally endorse the candidate before he killed. However, the political commercials haven’t changed one bit – they’re still as boring as they were in 54 A.D.

Comment by Pat Skurka | December 14, 2007

Still waiting for a response, and I dont want to hear about your credentials anymore in your justification of your arguments.

On a side note: Since you seem to be in great fear of a candidate running on a third party ticket, you might want to pause for a second to think which party would really be hurt more.

Comment by silus | December 14, 2007

Please see post #13 for the answer to the debate.

Comment by hvance | December 14, 2007

What a coincidence. The answer is your answer. Wouldnt
we all like to think so.

Comment by silus | December 14, 2007

"Still waiting for a response, and I dont want to hear about your credentials anymore in your justification of your arguments."

** You raised the issue; now you don't want to respond in kind when challenged. Why listen to someone who actually knows what he's talking about — and has the credentials to back it up when challenged — when all you're interested in doing is mouthing off.

If you believe that the probability of a third party gaining the White House is not zero, tell us all what that probability is, what timeframe it will take to come about, and how you arrived at this amazing piece of reasoning. You won't, because you can't, because all you are doing is emoting instead of thinking.

By the way, the probability that my next door neighbor will win a nobel prize in Mathematics is Zero, that there will never be a national debt is Zero, and that a five year old boy will go into space aboard the next Space Shuttle is Zero.

Lots of things in real life have a probability of Zero; including your ability to understand the basics of the American political system and offer an intelligent comment about it.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 15, 2007

"All your relative knowledge still falls upon the fact that you are human, and you cannot grasp enough variables to ever make statements in the absolute."

*** This post just appeared. Is this guy for real? Do you have any understanding of the American political process? Do you really think that it's just a cosmic coincidence that every third party in every era of our history has failed miserably to capture the white house? Do you think that the parties that actually control the electoral process just coincidentially structured the 50 state election systems that guarantee third party failure? Do you really think that all this will just magically change some day? What an absolute dolt!

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 15, 2007

“If you believe that the probability of a third party gaining the White House is not zero, tell us all what that probability is, what timeframe it will take to come about, and how you arrived at this amazing piece of reasoning. You won’t, because you can’t, because all you are doing is emoting instead of thinking.”
Is reading so difficult for you? You are missing the entire point, which is that you cannot place any EXACT FIGURE upon probabilities, which is why you avoid stating things in the absolute! I’ve said that 5 different ways, how many times until that simple point gets through to you? And you have the nerve to ask me the timeline? To answer that would be to align myself with the same arrogance you are working with.
“By the way, the probability that my next door neighbor will win a nobel prize in Mathematics is Zero, that there will never be a national debt is Zero, and that a five year old boy will go into space aboard the next Space Shuttle is Zero. “
You have no idea what a probability signifies. And allowing yourself to be confident in such simplistic examples is just a pitfall you have obviously fallen for. I’m sure your next door neighbor will not fly to pluto tomorrow as well. Point taken. You are now ready to make predictions with certainty on any topic. Maybe you should try betting on sporting events.

“This post just appeared. Is this guy for real? Do you have any understanding of the American political process? Do you really think that it’s just a cosmic coincidence that every third party in every era of our history has failed miserably to capture the white house? Do you think that the parties that actually control the electoral process just coincidentially structured the 50 state election systems that guarantee third party failure? Do you really think that all this will just magically change some day? What an absolute dolt!”
I’m so for real you quoted my statement but couldn’t offer anything to challenge it. Let me simplify my point, I understand perfectly the American political process. The question is do you understand the fundamental elements that limit what we can know. To make your inflexible assumption of third-parties you also assume that the electoral structure will forever remain the same. I do not need to believe it will magically change, I just need to keep in mind that change is possible. Is this so alien to you? You are quite aware of what has happened with third-parties in the past, but how do you reach the point where you know with absolute certainty the fate of third-parties in the near, AND the far future? I cannot believe you fall for the ridiculous suggestion that what has happened in the past will absolutely continue in the future. You may call me a dolt, but i’m still on the side of sanity. You go ahead and believe your vision of the present will remain static for the rest of American history.

Both of your words irrationally sacrifice thought for the ability to make disgustingly arrogant and unyielding statements which may often work, but in no way comprise a sustainable method of reasoning.

Comment by silus | December 15, 2007

*** This is a joke, right? Some clown says that a third party can win the white house in a system that is designed not to allow this to happen, and now he says that he knows the probability is not Zero (which means, “it can’t happen”), but probability theory says that you can’t actually assign a probability value to something that is supposedly probable?

All he’s doing is shooting off his mouth. I’ve studied and worked in the system I comment on. All he does is offer an opinion that it could happen, maybe, sometime. What tripe.

By the way, the probability of winning a Nobel Prize in mathematics is Zero. There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. But you can’t even admit this.

“To make your inflexible assumption of third-parties you also assume that the electoral structure will forever remain the same. I do not need to believe it will magically change, I just need to keep in mind that change is possible.”

*** TELL US HOW IT WILL CHANGE!!! You have no understanding of the American political process or the dynamics that inform it. Are you 12 years old, or just plain idiotic. You just shoot off your mouth and make random statements without any real understanding of the issue. You are a complete and utter dolt! Unbelievable.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 15, 2007

Oh, and, um, you know like Hillary Clinton may actually run as a Republican because, like, we can't state things in the absolute that she won't just suddenly wake up one morning and switch parties based on who and what she is and what she stands for. And you know, maybe on election day everyone (all 150 million voters) will just refuse to vote for either the Democrats or Republicans and elect Ralph Nader by acclamation because, you know, it just might happen because no-one can ever say anything with absolute certainty. It could happen you know, if we just open our minds to the possibility and get in touch with our feelings.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 15, 2007