What's It Like Voting for 'The Lesser of Two Evils?'

[civiltech]

Don't jump on me quite yet, but I've heard a lot of gurmbling that whether you vote Dem., or Rep. nothing really matters.

Not getting all high and mighty, but here in Canada, we have several parties to choose from. This can lead to it's own problems (minority governments) but it tends to keep our politicians on there toes, and at the very least gives us a wide choice as to how we want to see our country run.

Why didn't this happen in "The freeist country in the World" US? Is it really choosing the lesser of two evils, or is that an unfair statement?

[onesandzeros]

I sooooo never like to get into these political posts (i don't like to have my head chewed off), but...

All I can say is that both systems have pros and cons and could be debated for decades as to which is best. Heck I change my mind on that subject on a daily basis. On one hand the 2 party system is a -relatively- clear deal (even though for me it really is voting for the lesser evil, i don't particularly like either candidate). And just like you said, with a multi-party system you can have very unpopular groups take office. Hey, I tend to think Bush and Kerry are on their toes right now.

On a somewhat different subject, what we -should- do is:
A) Make voting day a national holiday
B) Make voting mandatory
C) Allow a vote for neither candidate. It will show that people care enough to vote, but don't feel that the candidates are good for the job. (Kinda helps with the lesser of two evils problem)
D) Do something about the electoral college!

[mrbiggs]

^--What is this icon?

Originally Posted by onesandzeros

B) Make voting mandatory
C) Allow a vote for neither candidate. D) Do something about the electoral college!

You can vote for neither candidate. It's easy, and it saves time and money, too. Just can't quite put my finger on it....

I was about to respond to D, but it's kinda its own thread. So I'ma make my own thread.

[noodle]

don't blame me, i voted for kodos

[Philistine]

Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?



--Philistine

[cornflower]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?



--Philistine

Whre does that name come from?

[Philistine]

You can read more about Chlulhu and his platform at the Cthulhu for President biography page.

--Philistine

[K Degnon]

I had planned on voting for Alfred E. Neuman, but now that Cthulhu has entered the race, I'm not sure which candidate to support. Tough choices.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by K Degnon

I had planned on voting for Alfred E. Neuman, but now that Cthulhu has entered the race, I'm not sure which candidate to support. Tough choices.

One thing to consider--according to the candidate's webpage:

Cthulhu cultists will be given the following priveleges:

They will die last.

--Philistine

[onesandzeros]

I really like this Cthulhu candidate. Perhaps there should be a Bush, Kerry, Cthulhu debate?

[elberto]

Originally Posted by onesandzeros

I really like this Cthulhu candidate. Perhaps there should be a Bush, Kerry, Cthulhu debate?

and one would assume/hope that the losers would die horribly on screen (sceam?!) just to make it a more interesting real life tv show

or of course if Cthulhu lost the winner would ide..

well .. everyone but cthulhu would die

hope fully those watching the show would be spared (if they laughed enough) and maybe be classed as cultists and die last....?!

[onesandzeros]

I think FOX has set up the debate. It's on right after Trading Spouses.

[milwaukee_rdb]

Originally Posted by civiltech

Not getting all high and mighty, but here in Canada, we have several parties to choose from. This can lead to it's own problems (minority governments) but it tends to keep our politicians on there toes, and at the very least gives us a wide choice as to how we want to see our country run.

Why didn't this happen in "The freeist country in the World" US? Is it really choosing the lesser of two evils, or is that an unfair statement?

The US actually has more then two parties, it's just that Democrats and Republicans tend to rule the arena. It wasn't always that way though, at times third party candidates have made good shows at national elections, whether it wsa the whigs or the Bull Moose Party. The major problem with smaller parties is that they tend to be rather general on the majority of topics and base thier platform on very specific issues, such as worker reform or the enviroment. Although the smaller parties do have a good following and are represented in the small jurisdictions of the country, such as at the city, county and state level. But there are also some third party candidates in Congress. My old high school social studies teacher has a couple good pages up on the polictal process and the smaller parties. http://www.carman.k12.mi.us/Highschw...icaparties.htm

Originally Posted by onesandzeros

A) Make voting day a national holiday
B) Make voting mandatory
C) Allow a vote for neither candidate. It will show that people care enough to vote, but don't feel that the candidates are good for the job. (Kinda helps with the lesser of two evils problem)
D) Do something about the electoral college!

We can't really make voting mandatory. It is a free political process that our country is based on, and that includes the right not to vote. Remember voting isn't a right it's a privledge. There are a number of people in our country that can't vote, including convicted felons. While I think we do need to do something about the electoral college, it has generally worked, in principal. There have only been two occasions that I know of, the last election (Bush vs Gore) and a few decades ago (Truman vs Dewey) where the electoral college has chosen to go against the popular vote. While electors are sworn to vote based on thier party affiliation, and the only party's electors that cast ballots is the party that won the popular vote in the state, sometimes they don't. Some states have laws that require this, and failure on the part of an elector to vote as promised can be tried in either civil or criminal court. I don't really know what changes could be made to the electoral college to fix it's issues. One of the major issues is that all the electoral votes go to a single party in a state. Which means that states with larger populations are some what at a disadvantage. Look at it this way, if 55% of New York voted Democratic and 45% voted Republican then all that's states electoral votes (in theory) would go to the left. Where as if New Hampshire had 80% vote republican and 20% vote Democratic thier electoral votes would go to the right. That would give the democrats a majority in the electoral vote, but a minority in the popular vote. Just some food for thought.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by milwaukee_rdb

We can't really make voting mandatory. It is a free political process that our country is based on, and that includes the right not to vote. Remember voting isn't a right it's a privledge. There are a number of people in our country that can't vote, including convicted felons.

Voting is mandatory in several deomcratic countries - Belgium springs to mind. Why can it be done there, but not in the USA? Furthermore, felons can vote in several countries. They are so few so that their vote will not alter the outcome, anyway.

Originally Posted by milwaukee_rdb

While I think we do need to do something about the electoral college, it has generally worked, in principal. There have only been two occasions that I know of, the last election (Bush vs Gore) and a few decades ago (Truman vs Dewey) where the electoral college has chosen to go against the popular vote. <snip> I don't really know what changes could be made to the electoral college to fix it's issues. One of the major issues is that all the electoral votes go to a single party in a state. Which means that states with larger populations are some what at a disadvantage. <snip>

The bigger problem with the electoral college is that it skews the election tactics - both major parties go for the battleground states, and important issues which are especially important for states with a predictable outcome (Utah, DofCol) get to little attention. It also lessens voter participation, since so many voters live in places where they can reasonably assume that the electoral college will go to one party, and their vote does not matter. In a popular vote system, democrats in Utah, and republicans in Mass, would matter. This would force the candidates to adress all sorts of issues, and face all sorts of voters.

Personally, I think that the best reform to the electoral college would be to abolish it altogether, and replace it with a popular vote system. Not simple plurality system, as is common in USA, rather instant runoff or Condorcet voting.

Those who are proponts of the electoral college: What pros do you think that it has, that can not be attained with a popular vote system?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[noodle]

harr nobody liked my simpsons reference. maybe another will help:


My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!
-Kodos

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Those who are proponts of the electoral college: What pros do you think that it has, that can not be attained with a popular vote system?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Popular vote is simply Mob rule. Our founders feared that as much as they disliked a monarchy.
During the founding of the US they put in place the EC so that each State could decide who they would support for president. States are assigned a number of EC votes based on their population. Therefore candidates do have to Campaign to the more populated states but they can't win by only campaigning in those states. Historically some states always go for one party or the other. Those states get less attention, like OKlahoma. If we had a popular vote the "Fly-over Country" would never be able to effect an election. A candidate could win by corting the major cities and metropolitan areas in the East and West. Candidates would never need to address the concerns of the voters in the middle of the country.
The EC eliminates Mob rule and gives some voice and power to less populated states.
Even with the EC every vote counts. As evidenced in Florida 2000.

[civiltech]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Popular vote is simply Mob rule. Our founders feared that as much as they disliked a monarchy.
During the founding of the US they put in place the EC so that each State could decide who they would support for president. States are assigned a number of EC votes based on their population. Therefore candidates do have to Campaign to the more populated states but they can't win by only campaigning in those states. Historically some states always go for one party or the other. Those states get less attention, like OKlahoma. If we had a popular vote the "Fly-over Country" would never be able to effect an election. A candidate could win by corting the major cities and metropolitan areas in the East and West. Candidates would never need to address the concerns of the voters in the middle of the country.
The EC eliminates Mob rule and gives some voice and power to less populated states.
Even with the EC every vote counts. As evidenced in Florida 2000.

Funny, but there fear of Monarchy, ( a minority fear I might add.) was unfounded. I wonder if this could hold true for other points mentioned here?

I agree with not making voting mandatory. The fact that you choose not to vote should be upheld. We have a high menonite population and other groups who do not vote. To penalize them because they choose not to participate doesn't seem right.

We have a similar voting system in Canada where we try and balance the populace with the region so that sparce areas like Northern Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and the territories will get some say when faced with the dense populcae of centers like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. However, it also recognizes that 1 million people in a an area should have a stronger voice that 1000 in an area the size of France!!!

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by civiltech

Funny, but there fear of Monarchy, ( a minority fear I might add.) was unfounded. I wonder if this could hold true for other points mentioned here?

Care to elaborate?

[jBirch]

And, to seperate the wheat from the chaff, ba bump.

[civiltech]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Care to elaborate?

We've been down this path before and it ends up with hurt feelings, so I'll be brief.

The ways we learned itin school was that 1/3 of the population of the US wanted to leave the British Empire, 1/3 wanted to stay, and 1/3 just didn't care.

Now that aside, the arguement for the founders of the US fearing mob rule like the monarchy just doesn't make sense to me. The mob rule would be the majority of the people..........and the monarchy? The freeist countries in the world according to the UN are Constitutional Monarchies. (The only two in the top ten which are not monarchy's are France, and the US.)

Maybe I"m reading this wrong. But fearing "mob rule" sounds like "If we voted we may not be sure of suceeding from the Empire by referendum. It could swing either way?"