Given the choices we have, do we use our vote to make a statement, or to win an election?
The first primaries and caucuses are just a few weeks away. Where the distinctions within the Democrat party focus on who has or hasn’t seen a UFO, who has or hasn’t apologized for supporting the war in Iraq (which they may or may not continue to support with material and troops through 2012), and who sits or stands when nature calls, Republicans are blessed with a range of pro-war and anti-war candidates; fair-weather Christians, Christian fundamentalists and Christian “cultists;” flat tax, fair tax and fairer tax proponents; and a fairly representative sampling of everyone on every issue in between.
Hillary has already won her party’s nomination, so conventional wisdom goes, so there’s no real need to analyze the Democrats further. It’s Hillary or the highway, and the highway is littered with the corpses of bimbos, bumblers (like Norman Hsu), and other human refuse that dared get in the Clintons’ way. Therefore, let’s focus on the Republican party instead, and ask a simple question that might logically guide one’s actions in an election year. Given the choices we have, do we use our vote to make a statement, or to win an election?
This question only applies to the general election, however. In the primaries one should feel free to vote for whichever candidate they feel best represents their interests. If Bozo the Clown was on the ballot in South Carolina and you felt a particular affinity for bulbous-nosed circus performers — go for it and proudly put your name in the “Bozo-yes!” box. But when the primaries are over and Bozo returns to his regular gig from 3-4:00 pm on your local cable access channel, then you face another decision. 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?
It’s at this point that I’m usually bombarded with objections that “principles matter most” and “we need to send a message” to the powers-that-be because they chose the wrong person to head the ticket. Add to this the particulars of the 2008 election cycle where now “religion matters” (at least, having the correct religion matters), the number of wives one had (and how they divorced the previous ones) matters, and the protection of the Constitution (as viewed and interpreted by the Constitution’s self-appointed protectors) matters, and we have all the makings of a supposedly practical-philosophical counter-argument. “I won’t vote for that SOB because [fill in the 2008 particulars], and doing so will show the world that principles matter most as I send a message to Washington.”
Unfortunately, the guy who was named “Washington” is dead, and the city that now carries his name is only a general destination point. The actual recipient of the message will be the 44th president of the United States. This person — regardless of whether they unzip or unbuckle — will undoubtedly have a different take on many of the highly principled issues you hold dear. Where Rudy was personally pro-choice but said he would nominate strict constructionist judges (i.e. the only individuals who can actually do something about elective abortion), Hillary is both pro-choice and will nominate liberal activist judges who will do their best to uphold abortion on demand. Where Mitt worships the wrong Christian God, Obama has a much wider tolerance for non-Christian religions. Where Fred and John will keep us in Iraq and fight to win, no one in their right mind expects the new president (Hillary, Obama or Edwards) to unceremoniously yank a couple hundred thousand troops and support staff out of Iraq overnight — or even be finished by the end of their second term in office.
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. Whether Roe v. Wade was properly decided or not, it exists. And it will continue to exist until it is overturned within the dynamics of the present legal/political system. And when it is eventually overturned, abortion will not disappear; it will return to 50 individual states for 50 individual decisions, where this battle will be fought in perpetuity in 50 different legal/political venues. This doesn’t argue against supporting a pro-life candidate in the primaries. Rather, it simply asks you to understand how the decision to overturn abortion will actually be made. Nominating a strict constructionist Supreme Court Justice is the first real step, 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. Exactly what kind of a “statement” is made by abandoning a party that rejected your primary candidate to form a third party effort that is automatically doomed to failure? Reagan lost his bid for the GOP nomination in 1976 with a lot more support than Ron Paul will ever receive. Rather than bolt and undertake a useless electoral exercise, he stayed and transformed the Republican party. Wallace bolted in ’68 and ’72 and helped elect a different party. Anderson in ’80, Perot in ’92, and Nader in 2000 all helped produce a similar outcome. The fact that I liked some of these outcomes is meaningless political analysis. The question isn’t whether a third party will help or hurt the Democrats or Republicans. We know that answer is yes, with the only question “which party” in “which year” for “which one-time historical reason”? The real question is what exactly did a Nader voter do to advance the Nader platform by going 3rd party instead of continuing to fight within the Democrat or Republican parties. And the same question applies to Wallace, Anderson, Perot, and all of the other third party losers throughout American history.
Voting for a third party candidate serves only one practical, immediate purpose, and that is to help elect someone even more antithetical to your beliefs. America does not have a parliamentary system, so pretending that it does to justify a third party vote is just plain silly. Moreover, Presidential elections are about the next four years, not the next fifty. Voting third party in 2008 to influence the vote in 2020, 2032, or 2052 isn’t just silly, it’s downright ignorant. Electing a candidate in 2008 can certainly influence future elections, though the farther out in time the more difficult it is to sustain that influence without repeated additional reinforcement (that is, additional electoral victories of like-minded candidates). Voting for the New Vegetarian party in 2008 with an eye toward shaping policy in 2009, let alone 2020, is the height of personal hubris. Kooks are routinely ignored, not incorporated into policy making; that is, unless that kook is a billionaire or holds a position of already-established influence. Moreover, these kinds of kooks tend to work within the two-party structure, which is why George Soros and Moveon.org are taking over the Democrat political machine instead of building a new one from scratch.
Like it or not, the American political system has evolved to a point today where only two parties have a viable opportunity to win a national election. Any political strategy that ignores this reality is nothing more that a self-masturbatory flight of fancy. Should Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, I’ll vote for him in the general election rather than waste my vote on a third party candidate. I share almost none of Paul’s reasoning on the nature of the Constitution, but as looney as I think he is, I understand the political process well enough to know two things.
First, except for a very narrow range of purely-presidential prerogatives — a range made even narrower by Paul’s own view of the Constitution — there is little Paul can actually do to implement his programs without a national consensus. (Unlike scientific theory, “consensus” is actually a good thing in politics, since it allows for an action that may change again when a different consensus is formed.)
And second, the chances of Paul actually winning the Republican nomination are on par with my winning the Megabucks lottery, so it’s an empty symbolic gesture on my part to say I’d support him. Nevertheless, it does illustrate the significant difference between my political symbolism and those of a third party supporter. As unlikely as it is that either Paul or I will achieve our goals, the probability is not zero. Lightning could strike the next Republican party debate stage and kill off everyone but Ron Paul, who then becomes the only registered nominee in all the state primaries; and someone has got to win the next $300 million lottery, and that someone might be me. Not so a third party presidential election victory, where the probability isn’t near zero, it’s actually zero. I’ll take any bet, from any individual, with any odds you want that when the votes are counted in 2008, it will either be a Democrat or Republican who has been elected president.
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.
Of course, if you look at the rest of the lives these people lead, you’ll see plenty of substantive compromises. They didn’t marry the exact perfect spouse, but instead accepted certain basic flaws in that individual. The perfect spouse doesn’t exist, and it’s either accept a lonely life or marry someone who doesn’t meet 100% of your criteria. I’m also willing to bet their jobs are less than ideal or desired. Yet rather than quit on principle they stay because they need the money to survive.
I could go on with other examples, but each less-than-perfect situation would be met with the same defense: it’s just not reality to live in a dream world, so we have to make compromises. And yet, when it comes to politics, I may like what one guy says about taxes, foreign policy, life and other important issues, but by God he’s a Morman and he just won’t do! Or he’s been married three times and has problems with his children, unlike my family (or my friends) who are all married to the same spouse and never have any problems with their kids. Or he’ll keep the U.S. strong and secure, but I didn’t like what he did on campaign finance reform in 2005, so I’m not voting for him!
These are all legitimate reasons (even the personal-prejudice ones) not to vote for this person or that in the presidential primaries. The primaries are where you vote for your ideal guy or gal, or at least as close to one as you can get. And while one may question your humanity for focusing on race, religion, gender, etc. as the deciding factor in your decision, if that’s part of your ideal political package, then by all means express yourself.
But 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.
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.
PEJ #49
Excellent rebuttal. Don’t waste your time with people who can not tell the difference between reality and ridiculous.
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.
“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.
“… 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?
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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”).
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).
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.
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.
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.
Please see post #13 for the answer to the debate.
What a coincidence. The answer is your answer. Wouldnt
we all like to think so.
“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.
“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!
“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.
*** 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.
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.
Mr. Jackson has made the point in his main article and again in several comments like comment 50 that the way the American system of government is set up will not allow a third party to win a presidential election. He says that this is why the past has been as it is and why the future will be as he says. Those who disagree with him seem to object to the fact that he believes this with certainty. As far as I can see they have not backed their claims up with anything other than you can’t say something will never happen, which is clearly not the case. I can say just as certainly that there will never be a king in America. I wish those disagreeing would either tell us how the American system will change or get on to a new subject.
*** 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. ”
Getting emotional about this is just cementing your ignorance. Its pretty obvious you are trying to recreate my argument to make it easier to criticize, but what you are saying above has nothing to do with my point. Did anything I say have to do with predicting “HOW IT WILL CHANGE”? No, of course not. My point is so siple, and so obvious, why cant you just accept it for what it is? I just will not state that I know with absolute certainty that it will NOT change. Thats it. And you fools have been arguing with that, when it is the most sensible and logical position to take. Getting upset and falsly interpreting my point to suit your counter-argument is just closing your mind to the real issue. But its funny from this point of view to see how badly you want your point to be right, and how badly you want me to be wrong. A Its a shame for you emotion does not assist an argument.
But tell me again your main conclusion. The American electorate system will forever remain static, and whether 2008 or 2100 and beyond, a third-party candidate will absolutely never win. This is the difference between logic and reading a crystal ball, which seems to be a hobbie for many of you.
P.S.
“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.”
Because there is currently no prize for mathematics does not mean the probability of recieving one is zero. Did you ask yourself the probability of a Nobel Prize in mathematics being implemented? I’m sure that must also be zero then, correct?
Hopeless
Hopeless?
Come on, Phil, Silus has given you incredible insight into the field of probability and statistics.
There are “currently” no reported cases of humans mating with giraffes.
But, in the future, due to the progress of science, this may become possible.
Therefore, the likelihood that Silus will successfully mate with a giraffe must be greater than zero.
You should thank Silus for this lesson in probability.
stutzenbach, I stand corrected!
Great way to characterize those who disagree with you. And an even better way to continuously avoid taking on my argument head on. You do have great skills at reforumulating my argument to make your irrelevant counter-points valid.
Anyways, you have proven to be entrenched in your irrational point of view. And after this entire discussion you are just even more fixed in your limited thinking. At least you have experience that allows people to accept your views at face value.
Utterly hopeless
Stutzenbac. As it was once said, those who cannot fight you can only hope to try to ridicule you. At least I know where you stand on this topic.
If you ever wish to defend the point of how the electoral system will forever remain the same, and third-party candidates will never be elected, then go ahead. But none of you have made a reasonable case to believe this. Changing the subject is merely acknowledgement of failure.
Utterly hopeless with a probability of Zero
Phillip, I wanted to address a comment you made in post #18:
“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”
_________________
Ron Paul has been elected to the House as a Republican for 10 TERMS. He had a brief stint with the LP many moons ago. Since he is a 10 TERM REPUBLICAN Congressman doesn’t it make sense to run as a Republican? It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.
Haha. You remind me of something…
When your arguments dont function as planned, you resort to Donald Trump’s exit strategy from Iraq.
“Declare victory and leave.”
Completely, utterly hopeless with a probability of Zero
freedom360
We’re actually in agreement here. Despite my disagreement with some of Paul’s beliefs, for the most part he’s chosen to pursue his ideas within the two-party structure instead of going the third party route as he did once before. He saw that strategy for the structural failure it was, and knows that if he is ever to implement his ideas he must convince other Republicans — or like Reagan, abandon one established mainstream party for the other and pursue his ideas there. This is the entire point of the essay. Paul wants to win, and starting or joining a third party now — or in the future — is designed to do one thing only: “punish” the old party while making you feel good about espousing your beliefs with absolutely no chance of electoral success in the Presidential election.
The only way a third party can be built is from the ground up, through state-by-state efforts at a local then state effort, and finally, going after congressional seats. This is an extremely long and very difficult thing to do, as the Libertarians have found out. Most third parties evolve around a singular personality, which is why they have no staying power at a national level. This strategy has never worked nationally because the US system is designed to smash it. [Whether this design is deliberate or just evolved this way is irrelevant. It is that way, and it's not going to change unless the people who now control it (the Dems and Reps) magically volunteer one day to surrender their power.] The one alleged success that people point to is the Republican party; but this was not a third party. The Whig party had collapsed and the Republicans replaced it as the alternative “second party”.
Paul is doing what a politician should. He’s putting his ideas forth in the primaries. If he doesn’t win this time he, or a like-minded colleague, will be back in 2012. Like I said in my essay, there is nothing wrong with this, and in fact it’s the absolutely correct way to proceed if you want to win elections instead of mouth slogans. But when the general comes, there are only two realistic choices on the ballot. I believe Paul when he said he will not form a third party, which I interpret as he will support the Republican nominee, just as he would expect Rudy, Fred, etc. to support him if he won the nomination.