The Fallacy of a "Wasted Vote"

Thanks for challenging my thinking on how to vote and whom to vote for.

The principal goal of those in power is to remain in power.

I have voted in every election since I was 18 and can count on the fingers on one hand the candidates that I actually liked. When you vote for a third party candidate you are telling all candidates that your vote is in play. It may not mean much to the winners but it means a lot to the loser, particularly when the margin of victory is narrow.

PS - The quote you attribute to your mother is generally atributed to Albert Einstein.

That's a really good point Maurice. My take on the Democratic parties actions and attitudes towards gay social issues is primarily based on the same thing you are pointing out. They don't want to back any highly controversial issues that would likely fail.

To much caution, to much passivity, not enough guts for fear of rocking the boat to hard. Well, the boat is being rocked a'plenty. We need some stabilizing forces before a bunch of good resources fall out.

How did Americans in general become dominated by the party loyalist mentality, anyway? Aren't we the country of personal freedom and liberty. Isn't individualism one of our greatest resources?

The scariest rhetoric is that which says we should all be silent and do as we are told. If that isn't a hallmark of anti-freedom, I don't know what is.

In my pessimist moments, I see our country in a slow train wreck. With some Casey Jones' at the wheel and the Charley the Choo-choos and little engines that can being loyally dragged along.

where does the electoral college come into your picture, maurice?

The reason I haven't gone outside the two parties is that they endorse people who either are worse than the major partys' candidates or their candidate never reveals what he/she stands for. In my mind, supporting them is equally as bad as choosing the lesser of two evils.

My complaint with the smaller parties is that they always want to start at the top. May be different in other areas, but here I seldom hear from a third party until a presidential election cycle, and then it's mostly to criticize what the others are doing, or to discuss a very narrow platform (sometimes one issue). I would love to see a shake-up of the two-party system, but don't see any of the others trying to build their party from the bottom up, and a foundation is necessary.

Martin: I believe that Tip O'Neill was right when he said "All politics is local". I think the first step is always for people to elect locally because it's the local politicians who have the most impact over someone's day-to-day living, and as the local environment changes, change bubbles up to the higher levels.

And that ties into what Joyce has to say. Sure there are bad candidates in all elections and parties. Joyce's comment is a common one. By voting locally first, you have a better ability to talk to the third-party candidates and get to know them as real people. I'd also like to point out, Joyce, that while it may seem comforting to think that if someone's elected, better the devil you know, but how well do we really know the people in office? Are we really better off with them?

Sandy,
Also a good point! One of the problems for third-parties is that state rules differ for how they're allowed to field candidates and what requirements they face during elections. In my state, or example, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party have to collect a huge amount of signatures across the state each year in order to be considered a political party. Many states require parties to run someone in all of the major elections so they find someone to donate their time and efforts to fill the required election slots so they can remain on the ballots.

Some of the third-party organizations around the country are fighting these requirements in court, especially because Democrats and Republicans are not beholden to the same rules, but it's a long, tiring, and expensive process.

politics is local but independents can win check jessie venture pesonally I'm a independent conservite but my views on only partly taken up by any party so I choose the one that matches most closely and hope for the best

I'm a former Republican who was betrayed by my party in more ways than I care to think about. I will continue to vote a straight Democratic ticket. If we could get runoff elections in this country, I'd be more comfortable voting for a candidate who exactly matched my viewpoint. What I mean is not "instant runoff", but a true runoff, where everyone comes back the following week and makes their minds up again, based on the top two or three vote getters. Instant runoff doesn't give the voters the same kind of control.

I used to think "If things get bad enough, people will come to their senses", but we just seem to forget what it was like even 10 years ago. It's as though America never was prosperous, and we look around and say - like the guy in the Fresca commercial, "This is . . . . . . . "prosperity . . .. " If we have only one shot, I'm voting to get the Republican out as soon as possible: before we invade Iran; before that guy in Pakistan gives any more nuclear secrets to North Korea; before Roe vs. Wade is overturned.

Your vote is not wasted, ever. The idea that you waste your vote on Democratic candidates, or that a Democrat is "no different than a Republican" - these ideas are marketed heavily by Republican spin doctors to stir up discontent within the opposition. If you want to vote Democratic, but don't, you're doing their bidding.

It is a wasted vote.

In fact, it's probably worse than a wasted vote in that it very likely benefits the party that is most inimicable to your views.

Let's take Maurice's example of the gay marriage issue, for example. By voting away from the Dems (many of whom support gay marriage or, at least, civil unions), the immediate beneficiary is the GOP who not only oppose gay marriage/civil unions--but also believe homosexuality to be the equivalent of perversion and the cause of societal ills.

Maurice claims to be a 'libertarian' but I suspect he doesn't agree with many of libertarianism's principles and stances. This means Maurice becomes a party of one--a party which will have no next to no say in shaping policy. The pont being that few will ever find a political party that meets 100% of an individual's personal agenda.

A better solution to Maurice's "take my ball and go home" strategy is to find the major political party that comes closest to your views and work to shape that party's agenda from within.

Actually Jade, you're incorrect. I do support the Libertarian platforms. I support the legalization of drugs, an end to restrictions on gun ownership, an ending of almost all Federal programs, including an end to the Federal Income tax...and I'm not taking my ball and going home. On the contrary, I go out and talk to people, as I have sought to do here. I don't believe in sitting at home and sulking, as a lot of my fellow libertarians do when they claim that voting doesn't help.

I believe in action and so I speak up, I explain my views and how I came to them, I write letters to my elected officials, and I vote in every election.

Ron, I'm not saying that a vote for the Democrats is a wasted vote if you truly feel you are represented by them. I am saying that if you feel greatly disaffected or no longer represented by the two major parties it is time to look beyond them for a third-party that suits you.

If you are a Republican and agree with their philosophies and policies, vote for them. If you are a Democrat and agree with their philosophies and policies, vote for them. I am addressing the people who speak out against the two parties but refuse to vote for another party because it is "a wasted vote".

So, Maurice, you support an end to compulsory education? And an end to child labor laws? An end to age of consent laws?

And what of slavery? In the libertarian utopia, it would be theoretically permissible to sell oneself into slavery.

Frankly, Maurice, libertarianism is a shallow theory in the abstract and a bizarre one in practice. Libertarians rightly concede that one's freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person's, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. For example, libertarians like to rail about the use of "force" or "coercion." But how would the utopian Libertarian society deal with someone who refuses to honor a contract? With coercion and force.

Jade, if you read "Freedom and Capitalism" by Milton Friedman, he deals with many of the issues you highlight, including compulsory education. I don't feel that child labor is appropriate as a child doesn't have the faculties to enter into a contract as an adult does. That also covers aged of consent laws.

I feel as if you're mistaking libertarianism with anarchy, which is not something I support. The unfortunate fact of government is that there always needs to be SOME coercion. You cannot escape that fact, but that's why contracts exist. A contract is a ways of stating that two or more parties voluntarily enter into an agreement and will willingly submit to coercion if they do not meet all of the requirements of the contract. I shouldn't have to explain that. A libertarian does not seek the end of all coercion and an end to all government. Just a limting of government.

Forced slavery could not exist, obviously, but if someone wanted to sell themselves into slavery, then yes, that would be their choice, and as they are a consenting adult I would let them, even if I did not agree. Just as I do not agree with someone who wishes to ruin their body with drugs or drinking, but I'm not going to say to them they can't.

At the micro, we are all a party of one. That is to say, there is not one person in the entire billions on the planet that have 100% of the same views as any other. Political parties, like all social groupings, are formed by people who share similar views and/or goals.

IMO, being ordered to surrender or curb self-thinking, self-direction, self-determination and self-expression has, and probably always will be met by me with suspicion and resistance. Endowed upon us by nature and an integral part of the experience of being, every attempt to suppress them without some convincing personally justifiable reasoning seems self-sabatoging. Suppressing these abilities is hard to see as an acceptable method of protecting myself. Gilded cages anyone?

Whenever a political ideology is run as an absolutist organizations it is disturbing. An American official's first duty should be to the needs and concerns of his entire population and region, not his party, leaders, electors or contributors.

Whenever a person votes according to their conscience the vote is a true representation of an individual, and its value is "true". Whenever a voter votes different than their conscience then their vote is skewed, it represents a value not of their own, the value of this vote, although perhaps more powerful, is less pure, tainted.

Everyone, voting according to their conscience, that would make a true democracy.

I'm still with Maurice on this one.

Maurice, others, the "Positive Libertarian Platform" at http://www.carolmoore.net/4secretary/positiveplatform.html

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights to life, liberty and property is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
The libertarian principle is that individuals should be free to do whatever they please as long as they don't use force or fraud against others. This principle is a variation on the ethical "Golden Rule," often stated as "do unto others," promoted by most religions and ethical systems..."

Guns, drugs, taxes - might be local issues for your group. The Libertarian platform is really much more broad and inclusive.

I'm also a Libertarian. In favor of less government and at least government that uses its resources wisely. I agree with Thomas Payne, however, that government is a 'lesser of two evils' necessity. Not even a practical Libertarian can realistically advance abolishing taxes.

I've found that the economist Lyndon LaRouche's political action platform is the most 'Libertarian' in its content and context. I have no doubt he'd run for President but at the same time, right now, his organization is also trying to work with the current leaders (domestic & international - all parties) toward real Libertarian policy change compatible with all platforms because it's humanely based toward a humane future. The level ground if you will. Check out www.larouchepac.com and tell me your thoughts.

If the Democrats and Republicans did not have an almost absolute lock on the voting process at the state and local level your arguement would make some sense, but that is the reality. As a former libertarian that went to the national convention in Salt Lake city as a state delegate, I certainly agree that we need smaller government. However, some of the positions that the Libertarian Party takes are so unpopular with the voter in general that except for some local offices and Ron Paul, Libertarians don't get elected. Until the two party system of control is changed I don't see any substantial progress being made by any third party, unless the 40% of eligible voters that did not vote in the 2004 election (80 million people!) wake up and get to the polls. Someone once said that is the long-term people get the government they deserve. The level of apathy and indifference to the political process is amazing in this country.

Maurice, I think you're backpedalling. I'm not confusing libertarianism with anarchy--I'm merely pointing out that you don't agree with some not insignificant first principles and tenets of a political philosophy you claim as your own.

A contract is a ways of stating that two or more parties voluntarily enter into an agreement and will willingly submit to coercion if they do not meet all of the requirements of the contract. I shouldn't have to explain that.

This is illustrative of the point that real-life trumps the wishful thinking of libertarianism. Today, when two parties enter into a contract, they also agree to penalties and the threat of "coercion" if one side reneges. If the parties disagree, the state provides a mechanism to adjudicate the matter which may well result in one side being "coerced."

Yet, it is no different in Maurice's libertarian utopia, despite a stated repudiation of state "coercion."

Jade, I don't understand the level of venom in your invective.

Very few libertarians are going to support a total end to coercion. Some laws still need to exist, and with laws comes the ability to punish people. I, and other libertarians only seek to minimize the amount of coercion put upon people day-to-day. As I stated before, in circumstances dealing with contracts, a person agrees to the terms and conditions of the contracts at the risk of incurring coercion.

Libertarianism is not wishful thinking. It's a philosophy that's applied to the political realm, more importantly, a philosophical ideal that's attempted to be applied systematically. Yes there are debates within libertarian circles about how far to take that philosophy. And no, not everyone agrees to where to stop, which is why there are anarcho-capitalists at one end and neo-libertarians (or progressive libertarians) at the other. Because I don't sit all the way at the anarch-captialist side of libertarianism does not mean I'm not a libertarian, or that I don't agree with libertarian philosophy. More importantly, I don't believe that any of this means I'm backpedaling. I have examined the political parties that exist, and I have found that the views of the libertarian party match my outlook on life.

Just as I am sure that many of the things you feel are important don't currently match with the Democractic party platform, but you still consider yourself a Democrat.

I admire your enthusiasm and passion for this subject but I think you're letting it cloud your reasoning.

a vote is still a waste of time in this political system.

the candidates presented to you for president are chosen by the elites who run the show. george bush and john kohn kerry are both from the same wolf pack, folks.

until we have one-vote-one-human, written on paper, and counted publicly, one at a time, out loud - this will continue to be a republic plutocracy.

voting is a ritual designed to make us feel like we're involved.
~

The Symbolic Meaning of the Vote

The act of voting is invested with immense symbolic meaning. Elections are, in part, an exercise that ties the masses to political leaders by giving ordinary citizens the feeling that they can influence government and its policies. At election time, citizens take part in an elaborately orchestrated pageant that invests officeholders with the aura of legitimacy. By reference to this one means of participation, government officials claim the right to govern and to make policy. The act of voting also serves as an emotional catharsis essential for reaffirming the individual's participation in a political community. Elections give people a chance to express discontents and enthusiasms, to enjoy a sense of involvement....Like all ritual...elections draw attention to common social ties and to the importance and apparent reasonableness of accepting the public policies that are adopted.

A remarkable feature of the American political system is that elites have managed to retain all the benefits of ritualistic participation despite low voter turnout.

Exposed to the ritual, drama, and circus-like panorama of election night returns and interviews, even the potential voters who stayed at home on election day are hard put not to feel that they, too, have participated. Low turnout might seem to make it difficult for a politician or media analyst to read a policy mandate into election results, but election winners nevertheless always claim a mandate. In 1980, 70 percent of the potential electorate did not vote for Ronald Reagan. Still, Reagan's pollster offered the following analysis shortly after the President's election:

The nineteen eighty election provided a mandate for change. That mandate was not clearly defined beyond the electorate wanting a strong leader to deal with inflation, but It was a rejection of the New Deal agenda that had dominated American politics since the mid-thirties.

Reagan's opponents disagreed with the claim that the 1980 election constituted a mandate for abandoning programs that benefit the economically disadvantaged. They cited polls showing that the most common reason that people voted for Reagan in 1980 was that they were dissatisfied with Jimmy Carter's administration. Even in the wake of the president's landslide victory in 1984, it could be shown that on only a very few issues did a majority of the electorate agree with specific positions adopted by the President or included in the Republican platform. For candidates though, it matters little if mandates can be objectively read into election returns. What they seek is the legitimacy to govern.

Elections provide this legitimacy, but they are always problematic, because elections can be won, in principle or potentially, by popular majorities that may wish to overturn existing property and social class arrangements. Throughout U.S. history, elites have expended considerable resources trying to walk a fine line: They persuade citizens that elections are meaningful political events, but they also try to make sure that the political choices made in the electoral arena are acceptable to elites.

Controlling voter participation has been an important means that elites have used to accomplish two objectives-legitimation and social control. In the nineteenth century, participation rates were high partly because voting was easy to do and the political parties had an interest in mobilizing the electorate. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries turnout rates began to fall when elites made it much more difficult for ordinary citizens to register to vote. New restrictions on the franchise were proposed, in large part because elites became convinced that the electoral process might produce unacceptable results.
~
When the question is posed about whether low voter turnout is problematic or not, one's answer will depend on whether elections are viewed as instruments of elite control or as the means by which citizens control their government. In treating this issue, the authors of a leading college textbook on American government assert that all forms of apathy among the masses are a good thing:

The irony of democracy is that democratic ideals survive because authoritarian masses are generally apathetic and inactive. Thus the lower classes' capacity for intolerance, authoritarianism, scape-goatism, racism, and violence seldom translates into organized, sustained political movements.

The authors' fear of popular participation is founded on a belief that formal education, and possibly some other characteristics that elites share (they are not clear on this point), make them more protective of individual freedoms than the common citizen. They assert that democracy requires that the masses riot participate very much:

Reflecting the masses' antidemocratic, extremist, hateful, and violence-prone sentiments, [their] activism seriously threatens democratic values....Any genuine "peoples revolution" in America would undoubtedly take the form of a right-wing nationalist, patriotic, religious-fundamentalist, anti-black, anti-intellectual, anti-student, "law and order" movement.

They regard as "demagogues those leaders who would mobilize the people," and claim, "Elites give greater support to democratic values than do masses. Elites are also more consistent than masses in applying general principles of democracy to specific individuals, groups, and events."

In a similar vein, during the 1970s a prominent international group of business leaders, politicians, and intellectuals associated with the Trilateral Commission expressed a conviction that capitalist countries are better off when citizens refrain from or are discouraged from extensive participation. The events of the 1 960s and early 1970s unsettled political and economic leaders. The Trilateralists feared that rising demands from unions, consumers, minorities, women, and environmentalists had created a "crisis of governability" in Western democracies and in Japan. They warned that the American, Western European, and Japanese political systems would not be able to satisfy all of the demands placed on them. They urged that steps be taken to reduce these demands by concentrating more power in governmental institutions.

Throughout American history, elites have tended to become alarmed when mass participation in politics has reached "excessive" levels. During such times, elites have initiated reforms to reduce and channel participation. In the case of electoral reforms, the result has been to turn elections into legitimating devices for elite control. The electoral process in the United States has progressively lost its historic functions of mobilizing new groups into the political system and creating broad-based coalitions of diverse political interests. Legitimacy, however, cannot be divorced from these purposes. When elections become little more than occasions for elite manipulation, they may even fail to confer legitimacy, because the political community may itself be weakened:

It...seems plausible that low participation and voter apathy may damage social cohesion in American life. The democratic political system is supposed to bind citizens, communities, and social groups together. Choosing not to participate in the common activity of governance weakens those ties.

Consultants to the Trilateral Commission like political scientist Samuel Huntington walk a fine line when they advocate lower levels of participation because above all they want ruling elites to be blessed with the aura of legitimacy-but not at the cost of accountability.

The Democratic Facade
Hellinger and Judd
1991

Jade, I agree Libertarianism is "wishful thinking". I wish to live in a society where respecting someone else's liberty guarantees my own. This is not unrealistic and no coercion is necessary when both sides agree to disagree. In economics and business and some universal law, removing restrictive forces improves achieving natural equilibriums.

Maurice, Ron, Martin, Wm – all great comments. I agree there is no such thing as a wasted vote. It always serves some purpose. The problems for third-party candidates include (among other things) a combination of legalities, the electoral college and some serious gerrymandering.

Maurice has a point regarding the apathy of some voters and the tendency to vote for "the lesser of two evils". However, it must be said that in the 2004 election there were many incredible risks at stake. Many would argue that the difference between "the lesser of two evils" in that case was too great to ignore. They would cite things like the war in Iraq, the packing of the Supreme Court and the disregard to our environment and our international neighbors as proof of that, therein allowing for the possibility of a so-called wasted vote.

In order to really change things, it is likely that we have to start from the bottom up. So here's my challenge. As we have been doing for the past several years in my house, get involved! Attend your caucus, do some doorknocking, help get out the vote, write to your local leaders and your local newspapers, contribute to the "small" campaigns or considering running for office yourself.

Many thanks to Maurice for getting involved himself by raising awareness here on Gather.com.

Martin, I'm so behind on my research. I value your knowledge highly. What can you add to this discussion in relation to "The Whiskey Rebellion"? An historic precedent my husband & I are just ruminating. Maybe Bert could help me here as well.

Venom? Invective? Come now, Maurice.

All I've done is point out you don't agree with some of the first principles of your particular political philosophy. And it may well be libertaranism best conforms with your views.

But let us remember you started this with a claim that people should not accept half measures or 80% of what they want. You've certainly shown that you're willing to compromise on some of libertarianism's many contradictions.

Jade, I don't believe you've proven your point that I don't agree with the tenants of libertarianism. You're bullish pushing this point that unless I agree with libertarianism to the very extreme that I cannot call myself a libertarian.

And I did not say that people shouldn't accept half-measures, I said that when people no longer agree with the direction of one of the two major parties, they should consider looking outside of their boundaries for a party that more closely matches what they believe.

And I still do not see what you term "libertarianism's many contradictions". Now, what I do see are two large political parties that have no philosophical peg in the ground to keep them anchored, as say the Libertarian Party or the Socialist Party or the Communist Party has. Can you name for me what the philosophical basis for either the Republican or Democratic party is? And can you then tell me that you agree 100% with that philosophy?

"In order to really change things, it is likely that we have to start from the bottom up."

as i submit in my last comment, diana - until the rules change, the game will always remain the same, top or bottom.

many of the most serious issues we're facing are not things that are controlled by elected officials anymore. especially things like preemptive war. those kinds of decisions are made by appointed bodies, not elected ones. therefore, no matter who is elected president, the machine still calls the shots.

i think it bears re-posting; from the late bill hicks:

I have this feeling that whoever's elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumfu(&s that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.... And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?'

"Just what my agenda is."

victoria - only know what i just read at wikipedia - fascinating. a lot of drama and muscle-flexing over what turned out to be an unenforceable issue.

it followed shays' rebellion eight years before.

The rebellion was led by Daniel P. Shays, a veteran of the American Revolutionary War. The war's debt ultimately trickled down to consumers, in large part to small farmers. In addition, the tax system at the time- a direct capitation- was highly regressive, especially given the fact that there was a dichotomy in eighteenth century Massachusetts economics. Much of the western and central parts of the Commonwealth had a barter economy, as opposed to the monetary economy that existed in the eastern part of the Commonwealth. Compounding the east-west dichotomy, was the fact that certain mature western and central Massachusetts towns (such as Northampton or Hadley) possessed more developed monetary economies, whereas other towns (such as Amherst or Pelham) subsisted on a barter economy. As a result, to meet their debts, many small farmers were forced to sell their land, often at less than one-third of fair market price to eastern Massachusetts speculators. Loss of such property could reduce families to extreme poverty. It also often meant that such men might lose their right to vote since suffrage was often tied to property ownership.

Furthermore, Massachusetts rewrote credit schemes at the time, to be administered by elected rather than appointed officials. These efforts were resisted and obstructed by wealthy and influential parties, led by men like Governor James Bowdoin. Governor Bowdoin had strong control of the government. Because of the property eligibility requirements for office at the time, when Bowdoin was elected governor many of the people in western Massachusetts were outraged by what they perceived as injustice.

there is a great passage in the book i quoted above about the country's founders all being rich white guys from europe, who brought a lot of poor indentured servants with them, and who then armed those servants to fight in the revolutionary war.

shortly after, these rich elites found themselves surrounded by a poor and heavily armed populace.

thus, was born democracy as we know it. faux-representative rule.

and we still use the electoral college to elect the president.

again - who decides who the candidates will be in a presidential election?

big business.

To the contrary, Maurice. I don't believe adherence to the extreme fringes of libertarianism (an oxymoron) is required. However, when you disagree with the first principles of a particular political philosophy--you really can't legitimately claim allegiance to that philosophy.

Example: you disagree with libertarianism's fundamental principle that children have the same rights, or freedoms, as any other member of society. Well, I'm sorry--it's a fundmental of libertarianism. it's akin to saying you're celibate except on weekends.

And I still do not see what you term "libertarianism's many contradictions".

There are so many, it takes my breath away.

I've noted children in the libertarian utopia; similar fates would apply to the elderly and physically-challenged. In today's society, we are free to become billionaires but we are taxed; we are also free to go broke and not forced to starve. The lbertarain utopia would be a much crueler society.

Similarly, libertarians do believe national defense is legitimate function of the state. But how to fund a military capable of securing national defense if you end taxation?

Maurice, I think a good Impeachment would satisfy the voter and replace faith in something political in the United States. Impeachment would validate both political parties and give them both a chance to smoke over the American public and continue business as usual. As much as I'd like to see the Freedom Socialist Party or Libertarian Party make headway, the political system is broke in the United States. It's Good Cop Bad Cop with the Republican Corporation and Democrat Corporation. If American embrace Proportional Representation the yoke may be broke. Don't bet on it. Politics died a long time ago in the United States! Good luck, keep writing!

Maurice,

First, kudos for bringing up this topic. I haven't finished reading all of the comments yet, but enough to get the gist.

Second, you could argue that any losing candidate's votes are wasted at the Presidential level. Before everyone jumps on me, let me explain.

In many ways, the Presidential election is a zero-sum game. That is, there is always a winner, and at least one or more losers.

The reason why is because our government doesn't have a parliament or ministerial structure as some do.

In some countries, the election not only empowers a Prime Minister, but the way the votes come out gives the new government a sense of how the people vote. If we used this method in our most recent Presidential race, George W. Bush would have won for Prime Minister, but he might have been forced to stack his cabinet with almost half Democrats. Wouldn't that be an interesting form of government.

So, the Presidential race (and every other race with a single winner) IS a horse race. There's only one winner, and many losers. And, despite your point of view that "someone" pays attention to the loser's votes, I don't think ANYONE other than the media and the voters themselves pay attention.

To illustrate, without looking it up, who ran against Richard Nixon, what percentage of the votes did they get, and how did their votes change anything that followed Nixon's election?

Unfortunately, because we don't have coalition governments, the losers in these races are most often forgotten and their voices largely ignored until the next election.

Okay Jade, I'm going to ask you to cite your sources for your assertions. Where in libertarian thinking does it say that children have all of the same rights and responsibilities of adults? Who has made that claim? You noted children, but I dealt with that and you did not respond.

Your perception of libertarian thinking is filled with misconceptions. Not all taxes end. If you look at the Constitution it outlines provisions for taxation, and there is nothing that says an individual state can't tax its citizens.

Libertarianism is not the complete lack of coercion, as I've stated before. It is as explained on wikipedia: "Libertarians support an expansive view of liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society. They generally define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one's behavior begins to interfere with another's person or property. At the point of interference, each party would become subject to certain principled rules for adjudicating disputes, generally accepting that one who has demonstrated a proven lack of respect for the rights of others should be subject to sanctions, including possible constraints on their freedom." or on the Libertarian Party's website: "Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don't violate the rights of others." These are the same definitions that Milton Friedman, Hayek, and others make regarding how a libertarian society would work.

Nowhere does it make the claim that all coercion goes away entirely.

I'm not sure I see the point of continuing this discussion with you if you're going to continue ignoring my points and questions so you can angrily tar me with that (verbal) brush you're gesticulating with.

Please explain to me the philosophical underpinnings of the Democratic party and why you agree with it.

All Right, Maurice, you got me quoting Paine here to both support and denounce your argument all at the same time! Does that make me a moderate? Am I a Democrat? Republican? Federalist? Conservative? What's in a name anyway when it suffers individual interpretation?

Paine, T. 1776. Common sense. Third Street, Philadelphia: R. Bell

"Of the Origin and Design of Government in general with concise Remarks on the English Constitution.

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of Kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of Paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistably obeyed, Man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do, by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unaswerably follows, that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others..."

People who think Libertarianism is wishful thinking may find greater depth for their opinion by reading most if not all of the original text by Paine.

Good quote Victoria. I usually hate to trot out the Founding Fathers I do feel that Paine's quote falls in line with what Thomas Jefferson said in his first Inaugural Address: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

I was raised being told that my Grandfather was a Rockefeller Republican.

I find it more than interesting that one of the main philosophies he practiced and preached, "we all have the freedom to do whatever we wish up to the point that our behavior interferes with another's person or property." is a Libertarian tenent.

An ideological overlap?

Are there any Republicans who still hold this ideology as central?

Bill,
I can't speak to the personal beliefs of your grandfather, but my understanding is that Rockefeller Republicans were also called "big-government republicans" but they really would dovetail nicely into the Democratic Party today. They worked to keep budgets balanced, favored the use of foreign aid as a method of sparking economic growth, advocated for programs like welfare, medicare, and the like. Truly, someone like Bill Clinton would have fit in well with the Rockefeller Republicans.

The split in the Republican party started there between them and the more conservative movement embodied by Barry Goldwater. Republicans now view Goldwater as their political godfather, which is curious as Goldwater constantly criticized the role of the religious right in the Republican Party and was a supporter of a woman's right to have an abortion. But that's neither here nor there.

Bill S., Rockefeller felt embarassed by his own wealth in contrast to the poverty of others. Supports what I referred to: "what's in a name" (republican, Rockefeller etc.) it's what's in the heart. And there can be no acknowledgement of ideological overlap in an era of 'eminent domain'. We're still paying and many are still suffering for manifest destiny!

Martin, thank you for contributing on my comment. I sensed I'd find many similarities in the Whiskey Rebellion and other early government 'storming'. But you also put the 'norming' phase into better perspective.

"But that's neither here nor there."

as this thread has become. i maintain that all votes are a waste under the current system, as cc pointed out with the good-cop/bad-cop example.

i also went to wikipedia for some background on deeper tenets of libertarianism. allow me to say that you don't stand a chance with the modern electorate. the philosophy is so ill-defined that it's difficult to view it as a political system.

you'd be better off infiltrating the democrats and changing their party from within.

and good luck with that...


enjoyed the conversation, maurice. keep 'em coming.

Actually, unless you are a major financial contributor to one of the major parties the only way to effect real change is to cause the major party closest to your views (republicans for libertarians and democrats for greens) to lose elections

If they lose enough, then they will try to locate voting blocks that they can pick up without too much difficulty.

This has been very educational for me because I've been living in the States for 13 years and had no idea what Libertarians were about.

And, if I may say so, that is the problem with your party. I think I am the classic example that shows the Libertarians are failing to communicate their message to the people who could form their base. I arrived here with no agenda or politics--true, my Irish background would sway me toward the Democratic Party--but I'm also educated and savvy and understand the democrats are as self-serving as the Republicans so I was open to persuasion and education.

When I started to vote, I saw the word 'libertarian' but had no idea about what it meant. Their promotional materials and signs looked amateurish and rushed. Such a presentation does not create a good impression to make people who are busy and then have to start to do research and find out what it's all about. (On that note, the Green Partyin the US benefited in that I equated their agenda with the Green Party in Germany which, at one time, was amateurish but realized they needed to come across as more professional to gain reconition (and power) from the electorate.)

And I would submit that that is your problem with Americans born in this country. You are not coming across properly and communicating in the same manner as the Donkeys and Elephants and thus will always be regarded as fringe. I think your party leaders need to consider going to Germany and learn how the Greens took their party from being fringe (and maybe even regarded as crazies by Germans who tend to be quite conservative) to being one of the major players in German politics. unfortunately, that may be the only way to break the two-party system.

And finally, look at the Lib-dems in the UK. They're trying to break in and it's taking a lot of time. But they're slowly and consistently doing it.

I'm going to ask you to cite your sources for your assertions. Where in libertarian thinking does it say that children have all of the same rights and responsibilities of adults? Who has made that claim? You noted children, but I dealt with that and you did not respond.

From the platform of the LP (my emphasis added):

Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government -- unless they are abusing the children. Because parents have these rights, a child may not be able to fully exercise his or her rights in the context of family life. However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly.

Basically, this says a child is permitted to end the parental relationships at his or her pleasure.

More:

We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws. We also oppose the use of curfews based on age.

Pretty self-explanatory.

Jade, that is just as true now, via the court system. A child can sue for emancipation from their parents. The LP is affirming this right by stating that children have the same rights as everyone else, it does go further, however, to say "Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship." which you casually omitted.

The LP acknowledges that children need some protections and need care.

You mentioned age of consent laws earlier. The LP states: "Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity." Again a repudiation of your assertion that libertarians wish to repeal them.

Libertarians do not seek to return us to Victorian times with orphanages and sweat-shops filled with little children. The platform makes provision for local courts to have the ability to remove children from homes in cases of abuse, which is obviously an outright authorization on the use of coercion in a specific circumstance.

I'm dismayed that with all of the discussion going on, you have descended to the level of the hysterical "Won't somebody please think of the children????" Is this all you have?

Maurice: Libertarianism and children is but one example of the inconsistencies and contradictions inherent to your political philosophy.

I don't believe I quoted anything out of context; how many parents who neglect or abuse their children are going to say "Hey, I'm not doing a good job on this parental thing--I'd better find the kids a guardian"?

But what you gloss over is the fact the LP says kids can unilaterally assume the rights of adults and end their dependency on parents--assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. Thus, it's pretty easy to see the age of consent can be easily discarded in the libertarian utopia.

If you're uncomfortable defending the libertarian stance on kids--I understand. We could just as easily talk about economics and libertarianism's wildly fantastic views of that topic.

The point you ardently wish to ignore is the one I raised in my first comment: nobody agrees 100% with their chosen party's agenda. But if I agree with, say, the Dems on 90% of all issues--I'd be pretty silly to take my vote to some third party. It will be not just a wasted vote but a de facto vote for a party I'm almost 90% in disagreement with.

Well written, Maurice.

No, your point is that I couldn't possible agree with the tenets of libertarian philosophy, and you mistakenly interpreted my article as one saying that if you disagree on any one item you ditch the entire party.

I said that if you no longer feel represented by one of the two major parties it is time to look elsewhere, and more importantly, to put aside this notion of a wasted vote.

so, everything i said just went right out the window, then?

Not at all Martin, I just had to get some work done and spend time with the family! My apologies. I don't think I'd have luck in converting the Democratic party from within. I used to be a Democrat many years ago, but as I read more philosophy, and examined what I believe I realized that I no longer fit in in the Democratic party, so I was an independent for a while before I eventually joined the Libertarian party.

I would be enthused to see the Democratic party turn itself around and start stumping hard for people's basic civil liberties, but I think that I could not in good conscience return to the Democrats.

yes, but maurice - my point, as christopher pointed out - is that the democrats at the highest levels are no different than the republicans.

rich elitists, working at the behest of even richer business men who had them elected. it's a con game, mo. your vote is very much wasted, unless of course you voted for the chosen one; in which case: "duh".

to really affect change - the group that must get organized is the group of non-voters, and as some have pointed out here, libertarianism is a blob of nothingness in most people's eyes. screw democrats - if progressive people could gain the attention of the non-voter, a new party could be formed overnight.

for instance, my Gather group - Individualists United - now there's a political party. align a nation of the discontented to support an agenda of collective individualism....

wait - is that what libertarian means?

well, hell - sign me up!

~~

Despite his landslide victory in 1984, for example, President Ronald Reagan received less than 30 percent of the votes of the potential electorate. The largest party in American politics is neither Democratic nor Republican; it is the party of nonvoters.

Yeah, would be nice. Except it will never ever happen

I always thought I was kind of a libertarian. I think I need to read this thread and figure out if I'm right. I took a quick glance and it looks like a worthwhile read. Thanks to all for the thoughtful posts -- I'll learn something this weekend.

It's a few years old, but still worth wading through, I hope. my appeal to Nader's people after Gore's defeat.

Interesting discussion here. Many Gather readers might find the "fusion" or cross endorsement voting strategy an interesting option. It allows people who support the platform of a minor party to vote their values, but not necessarily risk spoiling the election (or for some, "wasting their vote"). By making a cross endorsement, a party can form a ballot coalition with another party, but not lose their identity or the message of their vote. Voters in New York and Connecticut are using it to their advantage.

We are trying to change the lection laws to allow it in Massachusetts. You can learn more by visiting our campaign web site at www.massballotfreedom.com.