Gaming the Voting System

[Danoff]

Do you believe it's possible to vote against someone? Do you think that it's possible to cast your vote for one party to punish the other one?

Do you think it's important to vote for a candidate that has a chance to win? Or is it more important to vote for the candidate most aligned with you?

I know several republicans who feel the need to vote for democrats this year in order to punish the republicans for not living up to their party platform. The problem is that the democrats stand for the very ideals these people are upset with the republicans for implementing.

I also know many people who think that voting for someone who has little chance of winning is the equivalent of throwing your vote away.

Should we be gaming the system - trying to figure out the outcome of the election to help decide who we will vote for? Should we try to shut the outcome of the election out of our decision?

What do you think?

 

[YSSMAN]

Voting to "punish" a party?

I think its possible that a lot of people may in fact do it, I know I've expressed my distaste with the Republicans while being a Republican myself. However, I'm voting for the opposite party because I believe what they're shooting for is the most part, right. While I will not be seeking to overturn my Congressman or Senator (Republican, Democrat respectively), there are names on a list of Republicans that I'd like to be seen taken around back and removed from office. The Republicans have messed up a lot of stuff, and I know just as well that the Democrats happily went along with a lot of their policies too, but either way, I'm looking forward to having some fresh leadership (from both parties) in both Congress and the White House.

Electability versus Political Stance?

The easy answer is to say that you should vote for who is best aligned to you, the reality is, the American political system does not allow for it to make everyone a winner. Unfortunately we are not as "lucky" as Germany (for example) where proportional representation allows for a greater number of parties who will cater to the variety of issues that people care about most. Because of the way our government has been set up, and otherwise evolved since the early days of the republic, we are otherwise left to a two (and sometimes three) party system. Politics is about compromise, simply put, and coalition building is what the Republican and Democratic parties have to do to maintain their power on the national stage.

This is where visible political movements become key in deciding the platforms of the major parties, and its why I'm both happy and disappointed in the performance of the third parties this year. I'm happy that Bob Barr and the Libertarians have received what otherwise positive press they have, and for that matter, breaking the "alliance" they normally have for Republicans... But I'm disappointed that the third party has been split into thirds with the addition of McCinny (sp?) and Nader. This year would have likely been a good shot for an Independent/Libertarian to grab 10-15% of the vote at minimum.

Just as an example, I voted for Ron Paul in the Michigan GOP primary despite him "not having a chance" against Romney or McCain. I thought it was important to at least make my vote in favor of him to legitimize his position in the GOP, win or lose. The difference is, thats a primary, not a general election, where far greater things are at stake. There are many people who believe that it is a "waste" to vote third party, and I can see where they are coming from, but at the same time it is a legitimization of their platform, and consequently it will alter what is offered by Democrats and Republicans later on. But, I'm not taking my own advice this election season...

Predicting the election to decide votes?

I think its natural that this would occur as the technology to conduct, process and share survey information increases. It is disturbing in some aspects to see the way in which it is flashed in front of us daily, almost like a score in a videogame to tell who needs to do better at any given point... But these are the tools that campaigns use to tone their campaigns, to get votes, and to get elected. Honestly, I like seeing the numbers on occasion, and I do like to check up on them somewhat regularly just to see how my candidates are doing. However, I've done enough work with them before to know that they are only estimations, and most-likely, they will be proven at least marginally wrong on election day.

As to how that effects my vote, well, I'm uncertain. I think its safe to say that if I were "a good Republican" I'd still vote for McCain while down 18% points in much the same way I did for Dick DeVos when he ran for Governor two years ago. But, I understand the point of your final... point. Big numbers and low numbers can both encourage and discourage votes, and that is why we keep hearing both Obama and McCain saying "no matter what, VOTE!" out on the stump. I think now, the only crazy thing that I haven't gotten used to exactly is the outrageous amounts of math that have gone into predicting the outcomes of the election by some organizations, which I find fascinating within themselves. FiveThirtyEight.com is a great example, using a system based on sports statistics to predict the election.

 

[FoolKiller]

You should always vote for the candidate that most represents you. That is what the representative government system is designed for.

If you are voting for any other reason then you are throwing your vote away. This is not about betting on who will win so that you can say, "Yay, my guy won!" This is not about just keeping someone else out of office. There is no lesser of two evils. If you don't agree with either of them then they should both be seen as equally bad.

There are plenty of third parties out there that run nearly the full scale of balance in ideas and so it should be easy for any one voter, that feels the two main parties are both crap, to find someone they do agree with.

People feel there is really only two choices but that is because the system has been led to that by those two parties. If everyone voted for whoever, in whatever party, that best represented them I think that we could break the electoral system in one election. Basically, if everyone did that and some electoral votes started going toward third parties then what would happen is that neither of the two main parties would gain enough electoral votes to win. There would be much debate over whether the popular vote should then be considered. At a minimum the electoral system would be adjusted to take into account a third party. But when that happens a trend will be set and people will be more willing to vote for even a fourth or fifth party.

Unfortunately I see this being a long time away. I think some public movement to start multiple debates with every candidate involved would help. Make enough noise that the media can't ignore it.

After seeing the attention the Obamathon got last night I think that if third party candidates put forth some money in a move like that they could get some attention. Perhaps if they all pooled their money together and did a debate where they bought the air time equal to all the air time given to the two main parties, because broadcasters would have to comply with that by law, it could get their view points out there.

This little third-party debate on CSPAN stuff won't do it. Most of the voting public couldn't tell you the name of a show on CSPAN. Rarely do they flip channels that high on their cable box.

Perhaps if us third-party supporters started working toward the next presidential election now we could arrange something that actually gets the candidate's names out there. Not each party individually, but all the parties working together.

Just a thought.

Back to the main question though: Your vote should always be for the guy that most represents you. Unfortunately your average voter hardly even realizes that there are more than two parties running. And if they do know they don't even know who the rest of the candidates' names, much less their positions on the issues.

 

[YSSMAN]

Perhaps if us third-party supporters started working toward the next presidential election now we could arrange something that actually gets the candidate's names out there. Not each party individually, but all the parties working together.

I'm still under the impression that if Nader and McCinney weren't out there against Barr, he would have stood a chance to be a major spoil-sport to the McCain campaign. There are a growing number of people looking for a strong alternative, and with the number of disenfranchised Republicans growing by the day, it could very well happen. Well, assuming that I see the split in the GOP that I want.

Unfortunately your average voter hardly even realizes that there are more than two parties running. And if they do know they don't even know who the rest of the candidates' names, much less their positions on the issues.

Thats a question of proper education, not only in school, but in life. All of us here are "special" in the way in which we have studied, understood and thereby chosen the candidate that we prefer, thats going above and beyond what most Americans are able to do. The good news is that partisanship is slowly dying as the older generations fade away, but depending on your view of how parties and elections are supposed to work will likely determine how you feel about these new streaks of independence.

 

[Keef]

I've had to think quite a bit lately about who I'm actually going to vote for. Should I look far into the future and hope that the Libertarian party gains enough to support to one day get a president elected? Or should I focus on the present and try to save our country from as much socialism as possible by voting for McCain?

Then again, am I actually voting for McCain or voting against Obama? Well, I know the answer to that one. I'
m just trying to figure out what's more important--the present or the future--and weighing whether a simple vote can change the outcome, say, 20 years from now.

So, though Foolkiller says you should always vote for the person who most represents you, I have trouble believing it. Personally I think you should vote for somebody who represents what's best for everyone, not just you. Sometimes you have to sacrifice your own interests to help others, like me refusing to accept Obama's free money. And maybe sometimes you have to vote against somebody to save the government from catastrophe.

I'd like to vote for Barr. But I don't know if the Libertarian party has the longevity to come into fruition a decade or more from now. And I also want to keep Obama out of office at all costs. I can't decide which is more important, and which would help We the People more.

 

[FoolKiller]

Personally I think you should vote for somebody who represents what's best for everyone, not just you.

I think what you actualy mean is vote for someone to prevent what is bad from happening to everyone now.

Because the way I read that sentence, representing what is best for everyone, you still would have to go third party.

 

[Omnis]

So, though Foolkiller says you should always vote for the person who most represents you, I have trouble believing it. Personally I think you should vote for somebody who represents what's best for everyone, not just you. Sometimes you have to sacrifice your own interests to help others, like me refusing to accept Obama's free money. And maybe sometimes you have to vote against somebody to save the government from catastrophe.

Check the sig, cool cat.

But anyway, this strategic voting crap wouldn't be such a big deal if the Constitution was enforced by us. If one man is able to create such catastrophe, he surely isn't doing what he's supposed to do.



And voting against someone is impossible without a range voting system. Elections are not the horse race they're made out to be.

 

[Danoff]

You're living in a dream world Omnis! But it's a nice dream.

I tend to agree with FK. Elections are the most important public opinion polls we have. Introducing noise in the signal by trying to feed back expected results into your vote compromises the integrity of the poll. And certainly I want my views represented as accurately as possible.

The president is a representative of all of us, not just the people who vote for him. I'd rather that those who are elected knew where I stood on the issues as clearly as possible.

That means that even if the libertarian party were dissolved next year, I should vote for their candidate - because it makes my opinion the most clear.

 

[Omnis]

You're living in a dream world Omnis! But it's a nice dream.

It sucks getting pinched by The Man.

 

[Keef]

Check the sig, cool cat.

So I'm being a hypocrite by wanting to uphold the constitution, but voting to help everyone instead of just myself. That's kind of a buzz kill. Now that I've read that quote I agree with it completely. It's logical, and we've all seen it happen around the world on the news. When you try to make everyone happy, everyone gets mad. Hmm...

That simple little quote has pretty much made my mind then on this election. It's so obvious it didn't even occur to me.

 

[Omnis]

It's not about helping people or making them happy. Politics are not the vehicle to achieve those ends.

 

[YSSMAN]

Personally I think you should vote for somebody who represents what's best for everyone, not just you. Sometimes you have to sacrifice your own interests to help others, like me refusing to accept Obama's free money. And maybe sometimes you have to vote against somebody to save the government from catastrophe.

This is where I agree most with you, as it is more about everyone than just your own personal interests. Funny enough, we reach opposite final decisions on the Presidential candidates. Oh well!

 

[Danoff]

Thread dig with this wonderful video on your right to abstain.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I know the OP is referring to the US system, but with an election looming in the UK recent studies indicate that 30% intend to vote tactically.. And..

"Research carried out by BMG revealed that in the upcoming election, only half (51%) of all the electorate are likely to vote for “the candidate or party they most prefer regardless of how likely they are to win”."

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...cord-breaking-numbers-set-to-vote-tactically/

 

[mustafur]

Thread dig with this wonderful video on your right to abstain.

Probably should put a fatality warning on that post(even though the quality is terrible).