| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Voting Philosophy
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| ta |
 Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 1:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Assuming the goal of voting is to try to move the country in a direction you
think is the right direction, should one vote for the candidate you think
most closely represents that direction, or should one compromise and vote
for one of the two mainstream candidates as they are in all likelihood the
only candidates with a chance of winning? For example, if you are a
proponent of Pat Robertson (assuming he were running), do you vote for him
knowing he hasn't a chance in hell of winning, or do you vote for Dubya? (or
Nader/Dem candidate on the left). Which method (idealist vs. pragmatic) is
better for democracy?
(obviously there is no "right" and "wrong" answer, but I'd like to hear
people's opinions and their arguments for doing so) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Randy Cox |
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
If we had voting reform, then each person would be FREE to vote for the
candidate he preferred. If there was a runoff provision when the one with
the most votes (actual or electoral), then it would be a fair election.
What we have now is flawed.....FLAWED....when the election is close. It
also heavily favors the two main party candidates. We could do
better....but we don't. It indicates a flaw in the national intellect. We
resist change even when change is necessary. Elections like the last
presidential election leads to division.
Unity was a philosophical foundation of America before the white man even
came here. The Peacemaker took a bundle of arrows into enemy Indian
villages, walked right up to the chief at the peril of his life and
demonstrated how easy it was to break a single arrow, but how when bundled
together, the arrows were nearly impossible to break. From this brave idea,
the villages formed a confederation called the Great Iroquois Confederation
and stopped the constant devastating attacks among them.
Colonial Englishmen....and French...and Dutch were impressed by the wisdom
of these confederations. When it became their turn to form their own
governments, they used the confederation principles to form the Articles of
Confederation which united the 13 states into one Confederation. These
articles gave way to the Constitution, but the idea of unity and separate
but sovereign states is still part of our system.
You can find images of the bundled arrows on some of our early coins and
many official seals. Today, what is left of the Iroquois Confederations,
all of the recognized First Nations, and the 50 American states still are
bundled together in the Peacemaker's bundle.
These words I write are as true as they can be, and important, but that so
many do not know these things indicates we are not as informed as we should
be. Remember, "United we stand; divided we fall".
It doesn't take much insight to see that the demographics of our nation has
changed. The whole electoral process is a remnant of the confederation
theories to protect small states against large states and to give the state
the choice of how to casts its portion of votes.
I think the electoral college has outlived its usefulness. Even if we keep
the college, it should be revised to recognize the votes of third party
candidates on the first ballot and require a national runoff election to
give the people of each state the choice to vote for their first candidate
first, and their next favorite candidate at the runoff. That way we would
always have a president that reflected the majority of the people's
selection.
It is far easier for a losing voter to accept as their leader one who made
it through the gauntlet of a runoff than to accept one who wins by even the
perception of some heavy handed political decisions in a state governed by
the winner's brother, or even the absence of a portion of votes on one side
because they have gone over to a third party faction of that party that
should have won....but didn't because the third party votes were just wasted
(Perot, Buchanan, Nader...and others through our history).
America would be a better and more United States if all would agree to make
these changes. Clinton did not win the majority of votes in his first
election leading to a similar anger. I remember encouraging my right wing
neighbor to vote for Perot, and laughing at how easily he was led into
"wasting" his vote and making mine count more. I am ashamed of doing that,
but he has his revenge now. Revenge is not an enabling nor unifying
motivation for a nation. I am ashamed that we haven't corrected this
problem which would be so easy to correct.
I am ready to tie the bundle of arrows with a stronger cord by these
reforms. I stand waiting for others to join me that we don't have to suffer
this gap between the two sides and the anger that weakens us as a nation.
Randy R. Cox
"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GU_Gb.16219$ED.12888@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Quote: Assuming the goal of voting is to try to move the country in a direction
you
think is the right direction, should one vote for the candidate you think
most closely represents that direction, or should one compromise and vote
for one of the two mainstream candidates as they are in all likelihood the
only candidates with a chance of winning? For example, if you are a
proponent of Pat Robertson (assuming he were running), do you vote for him
knowing he hasn't a chance in hell of winning, or do you vote for Dubya?
(or
Nader/Dem candidate on the left). Which method (idealist vs. pragmatic) is
better for democracy?
(obviously there is no "right" and "wrong" answer, but I'd like to hear
people's opinions and their arguments for doing so)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 3:56 pm |
|
|
|
|
The Art of Tactical Voting
__________________________________________________________________________
[1]
If your side is the #1 favorite to win in your district, you vote for your side.
[2]
If the opposition is the #1 favorite to win in your district, you vote for the #2 favorite,
regardless of who the candidate is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obviously, this is most effective in districts where there are more than two candidates.
__________________________________________________________________________ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:17 am |
|
|
|
|
The short answer for me is a matter of principle, not the lesser of two
evils. Frankly, I think what this country really needs is another four years
of Shrub and his neo-fascist right wing congress to finally make America
wake up. Especially, the stupid people, who vote strictly on the matter of
abortion, because they are too sheepish, blind and trusting of what they
hear coming from the pulpit; ignoring Jesus' own warning to question your
Pharisees. Sure, abortion is murder, but then what of all the innocent
children Shrub has murdered in Iraq? Sadam was an evil tyrant, and it would
not have bothered me a bit to see a bullet put in the back of his head,
versus a full scale invasion which has only made matters worse ... the
Alciada insurgency example; not a problem until we invaded, then left the
borders wide open for the terrorists. I'm no big Clinton fan either, but at
least Clinton's lies didn't get anyone killed ... especially innocent
children (like Bush), which I will be happy to provide pictures of upon
request. As for the alternative (assassinating Sadam), sure it's a violation
of international law, but then, so was the whole damn war to begin with.
NOTHING Colin Powell said at the United Nations could be substantiated ...
and some of it was even proven to be flat out lies! Yee-Haw is not a foreign
policy! As far as I am concerned, George W. Bush is the anti-Christ. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:22 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Yee-Haw is not a foreign policy!
preach on, brother.
--
TheTruthHurts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Cameron L. Spitzer |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 8:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <q28puv8pltvkmi6ustjfcem9n63peomgcl@4ax.com>, grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
Quote: The Art of Tactical Voting
[1]
If your side is the #1 favorite to win in your district, you vote for your side.
[2]
If the opposition is the #1 favorite to win in your district, you vote for the #2 favorite,
regardless of who the candidate is.
That popular "strategy" depends on certain assumptions.
1. You know who the "favorite" is. What if you live in a
gerrymandered "safe" district, where the incumbent is widely despised
but the mass media insist he can't lose because he's spending ten times
as much money as #2? Is the incumbent really the "favorite"?
2. The "opposition" is truly opposed to the "#1 favorite". What if
he's just a shill, whose job is to lose to the "favorite"?
What if his main job is to convince you you'd be "wasting your vote"
on candidate #3? Is he really "opposition" then?
The "tactical voting" strategy is an illusion. It *feels* analytical,
but it's not really rational at all. You *can't* trust polls.
You can't know who the "favorite" is until it's too late.
You can't be sure other voters share your opinion of who the
"opposition" is, or who the "favorite" is. You don't know who will
turn out or how many of them will vote for the candidate with the best
hair (1960). (Or the one they'd most like to have a beer with, 2000.)
Therefore you don't have enough information to make a rational
decision. "Tactical voting" is garbage-in garbage-out. It's just a
feel-good emotional "strategy." And if you're going to let your
emotions guide you, you might as well vote for your real first choice
no matter what the polls say his "chances" are.
Cameron |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:00 am
|
|