On Voting

[Synergy]

Former Physicist Manuel Garcia, Jr. discusses the biases that guide voter decisions. I felt it was a rather interesting opinion piece that brought about some valid points. Worth reading for anyone keeping an open mind to this years upcoming presidential election.

A Ritual of Justifying Biases

On Voting

By MANUEL GARCIA, Jr.

The brain is a food-seeking antenna at the service of the stomach, the controlling organ of the body. To understand this is to be free of the delusion that we humans are rational beings who observe to gather data for analysis, analyze to formulate plans and arrive at decisions, and then employ our physical selves and our exosomatic mechanisms to enact these plans and decisions. Instead, we decide emotionally and largely unconsciously, generally on the basis of fear and prejudice, and we use our brains to fabricate post-facto rationalizations for our biases and predetermined actions. Some may feel this characterization of human motivation is unjustly insulting to human dignity, and severely dismissive of human intellect. I concede that it will not be universally applicable, but I think it sufficiently representative to help explain many social trends and popular attitudes. Let us consider attitudes about voting in the 2008 US presidential election.

All the ballots will list many presidential candidates, but we can group these into three categories based on political party: Democratic, Republican, minor party and independent candidates.

The Democratic and Republican parties are the official political organizations of the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC). They prosecute the interests of US capitalism's ownership class by managing the dollar-area empire, both parties vying for each four-year contract to operate the national government. These two parties are called "the major parties" because they share a joint control of the political apparatus, extending to all three branches of government: executive, judicial and legislative. The relative proportions of managerial power allotted quadrennially to the major parties reflects the consensus of political opinion among the many constituencies making up the MICC (adjustments may occur through mid-term elections). It is important to remember that the domestic component of MICC capitalism is economic class warfare, capital's unrelenting attack on the working class ("labor," "wage earners," or most accurately "wage slaves"), and the foreign component is imperialism by militarized dollar-area economics (see my previous article, "Oiling The War Machine" http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia07112008.html).

Voting for a major party candidate is an endorsement of MICC capitalism, both in its domestic assaults on popular democracy and the working class, and in its imperialistic aggression. Expressing a preference for a Democratic or Republican candidate is accepting MICC capitalism with an endorsement of one of its two proposed management styles. The major parties have been called collectively a "duopoly."

It is delusional to imagine that, once in office, a charismatic or maverick presidential candidate from a major party would betray the class interests of his or her patrons -- the MICC sustaining this political career -- to advance a popular working class aspiration, in other words to reverse the course of the class war. On the other hand, it is certain that those the MICC advances to the presidential competition will be adept at convincing much of the public (in the proletariat) that a populist bond of shared aspiration does indeed exist between them. The MICC prizes Individuals capable of this feat because they are more effective at social control by the leading of public opinion. This projection of illusion, basically a lie, is called "identity politics." Vanity leads many presidential contenders to overestimate their capabilities in this area, and the primary elections are intended to weed them out.

The third category of presidential candidates is that of independent and minor party candidates. We eliminate from further discussion the frivolous and delusional candidacies appearing on any ballot. There remain numerous individuals leading a wide variety of political parties with little if any actual political power, and independent candidates with some substantive platform. The three minor parties of most significance are the Constitution Party (paleoconservative, or authoritarian capitalist), the Green Party (center-left populist) and the Libertarian Party (anti-authoritarian capitalist). Two notable independent candidates today are Ralph Nader (a long-time and effective advocate for economic justice), running for US president, and Cindy Sheehan (today's best-known US anti-war activist), running for California's 8th congressional district seat in the US House of Representatives.

Honest minor party and independent candidates (we exclude the dishonest careerists from further consideration) seek to have their platforms of ideas widely accepted, whether or not they themselves advance to leadership roles by riding on the hypothetical flood tide of social transformation they advocate. Voting for a minor party or independent candidate is an endorsement of their platform. Since the US American empire is a hierarchy of greed managed by patronage, the only way to register your preference for a different model of national organization, through the electoral process, is to vote for an anti-imperialist or socialist minor party or independent candidate. In doing this you add to the popularity of the party or organization advocating the platform you support, and that organization may then reach the stature necessary in the U.S. to receive public funding. A vote for a minor party or independent candidate is a vote to "build the party" that carries the message, the platform, you believe in. In choosing to vote this way you choose to forsake registering an opinion on which of two styles of empire management is preferable.

So, you have three choices: 1, vote for the empire led by John McCain with a lumbering regressive politics; 2, vote for the empire led by Barack Obama with sophisticated regressive politics; 3, vote against the empire.

There are many minor parties and independent candidates, and the array spans the political spectrum. Some are anti-imperialist and/or democratic-socialist, and it is the combination of these that I indicate in choice 3. For completeness I should add choice 4: one could probably find and vote for minor parties unopposed to empire, and with narrow ideological, issue or regional focus. Applying a leftist bias, I discount this fourth choice.

We already know the most important outcome of the 2008 election, the headline could read: "Americans Overwhelmingly Endorse Empire!" Why? Because too many voters have internalized the indoctrination that instructs them to measure the efficacy of their elected representatives by the quantity of pork barrel slopped their way. It's all about the money. Everybody wants their local federal grant, or highway repair, or school building fund in exchange for their vote; every politician wants those votes, as well as his or her campaign funds; and every capitalist wants political and regulatory favors in exchange for those campaign funds. The Duoploy continues not only because it can manipulate the apparatus of government to prevent parliamentary democracy, but because much of the public does not want to lose its share of the pork barrel occasionally cracked open for it, by shifting its allegiance to minor parties and independent candidates.

We voters make our electoral choices on the basis of biases that are rarely as dispassionate and principled as we declare. Racism is one obvious factor influencing electoral choices in the U.S. If we view bias as "thinking with your stomach," or "gut feel," then we can ask: what is any voter's bias? A US industry revolves around this question.

Each individual's dominant motivation will often combine the avoidance of their fears, which can involve prejudices and superstitions few admit openly today, and the grasping for objects (including money), status (self-esteem) and relationships that are idealized as desirable. People dominated by the grasping for wealth, and prone to xenophobia, will easily find that the Republican Party speaks for them. People dominated by a desire for protection against both impersonal natural forces and socially callous authoritarian, bureaucratic and capitalist organizations are more likely to be drawn to the Democratic Party. These are broad generalizations offered as suggestive, not exhaustive, descriptions.

Some portion of a voter's preference will be based on the personal attributes of a candidate: race, military veteran status, age, ethnicity, assumed state of health, assumed sexual proclivities; and another portion of the preference will be based on the assumed benefits to be had with the victory of one or another party as regards: the personal pocketbook, the social impact, potential policy changes in an area of personal interest, pork barrel. "What's in it for me?" So, after people vote in hopes of lowering their taxes, sheltering their capital gains, closing out undesirable populations from their comfortable neighborhood enclaves, or from the entire country, gaining advantages from foreign laborers cheaply, subsidizing their private liabilities at public expense, initiating new wars they anticipate profiting from, and in many other ways gaining exclusive preferences and subsidies, and giving free rein to their prejudices, they may seek sympathetic characterizations of their voting rationales because uttering the unvarnished truth would be too embarrassing.

We can surmise that most eligible voters, and many ineligible ones, already know how they would vote in November 2008, their major uncertainty is how to describe why they voted as they will, while maintaining the appearances that matter to them. Justifying a vote for McCain or against empire is trivial, raw capitalism and white power prefer the former, revolution the latter. More nuanced justifications are needed by Obama voters. Perhaps the simplest and sincerest justification would be a desire to elect an Afro-American president. Others could claim they are Democratic Party loyalists, hence automatic voters for Obama. This is an elastic rationale which can be conveniently stretched to cover over both ideological and pork barrel affinities. The most elaborate justifications would have to be by leftists and progressives, people who see themselves as anti-imperialists, who plan to vote for Obama as a way to vote against the McCain continuation of Bush-Cheneyism, thus of necessity casting ballots in favor of the empire. This conflict between self-image and political reality -- Obama is an imperialist -- has been oozing through its cocoon of denial in published commentaries that admit to "disillusion" and complain about Obama's "shift to the right." Obama hasn't changed, but for people who can't yet face up to the fact that they deluded themselves, it is easier to ascribe the evaporation of their illusions to an undesirable shift in Obama's political stance.

In fairness to the reader, let me state that my own bias is for an anti-imperial, anti-capitalist, socialist model of national organization. I do not expect most citizens of the United States to arrive at this conclusion in the foreseeable future. Given this view, it is illogical for me to vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama. With either one I get more war, and I will never again vote for war. Ralph Nader is my logical choice for president because he advocates what I want (Cindy Sheehan would be my choice for congress if I lived in Nancy Pelosi's district).

Objectively, I realize that Ralph Nader will not win the election. So, is my vote wasted? Since it is my vote and I prefer to apply it to the support of the people who carry on the platform of ideas I would wish this nation to adopt, no. I understand how presumptuous Democrats may wish to commandeer my vote, with the excuse that as a leftist I should be a captive of their party, and vote for O'Clinton to spite McBush. They will wail that my vote for Nader is a wasted vote, perhaps even contributing to a Republican victory. But, I repeat, I will never again vote for war, and I will never again endorse the empire. I don't care if I'm the only person in the country who votes against the empire. That will never be a wasted vote. "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get lots of it."

If I can do this, then so can you, and so could a majority of US voters, once they wake up.

Source: http://counterpunch.org/garcia08082008.html

[Guardsman Bass]

Former Physicist Manuel Garcia, Jr. discusses the biases that guide voter decisions. I felt it was a rather interesting opinion piece that brought about some valid points. Worth reading for anyone keeping an open mind to this years upcoming presidential election.

A Ritual of Justifying Biases

On Voting

By MANUEL GARCIA, Jr.

The brain is a food-seeking antenna at the service of the stomach, the controlling organ of the body. To understand this is to be free of the delusion that we humans are rational beings who observe to gather data for analysis, analyze to formulate plans and arrive at decisions, and then employ our physical selves and our exosomatic mechanisms to enact these plans and decisions. Instead, we decide emotionally and largely unconsciously, generally on the basis of fear and prejudice, and we use our brains to fabricate post-facto rationalizations for our biases and predetermined actions. Some may feel this characterization of human motivation is unjustly insulting to human dignity, and severely dismissive of human intellect. I concede that it will not be universally applicable, but I think it sufficiently representative to help explain many social trends and popular attitudes. Let us consider attitudes about voting in the 2008 US presidential election.

This is grossly simplistic. While it's true that human beings are plagued by a whole host of biases, we also have parts of our brain that analytically examine things as well, and if we know about our blindspots, then we have the capability to second guess them.

All the ballots will list many presidential candidates, but we can group these into three categories based on political party: Democratic, Republican, minor party and independent candidates.

The Democratic and Republican parties are the official political organizations of the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC). They prosecute the interests of US capitalism's ownership class by managing the dollar-area empire, both parties vying for each four-year contract to operate the national government. These two parties are called "the major parties" because they share a joint control of the political apparatus, extending to all three branches of government: executive, judicial and legislative. The relative proportions of managerial power allotted quadrennially to the major parties reflects the consensus of political opinion among the many constituencies making up the MICC (adjustments may occur through mid-term elections). It is important to remember that the domestic component of MICC capitalism is economic class warfare, capital's unrelenting attack on the working class ("labor," "wage earners," or most accurately "wage slaves"), and the foreign component is imperialism by militarized dollar-area economics (see my previous article, "Oiling The War Machine" http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia07112008.html).

This is rather simplistic, to say the least. The author doesn't care to mention what exactly this "economic class warfare" is, and while there has been some element of the military and economy feeding off each other (in the current military industries as of now, and situations like United Fruit in Guatemala in 1954), it is probably inaccurate to describe this as if it is some massive cabal.

Voting for a major party candidate is an endorsement of MICC capitalism, both in its domestic assaults on popular democracy and the working class, and in its imperialistic aggression. Expressing a preference for a Democratic or Republican candidate is accepting MICC capitalism with an endorsement of one of its two proposed management styles. The major parties have been called collectively a "duopoly."

He simply states this as if it is true by default, as one of his premises. I'm arguing his premise.

It is delusional to imagine that, once in office, a charismatic or maverick presidential candidate from a major party would betray the class interests of his or her patrons -- the MICC sustaining this political career -- to advance a popular working class aspiration, in other words to reverse the course of the class war. On the other hand, it is certain that those the MICC advances to the presidential competition will be adept at convincing much of the public (in the proletariat) that a populist bond of shared aspiration does indeed exist between them. The MICC prizes Individuals capable of this feat because they are more effective at social control by the leading of public opinion. This projection of illusion, basically a lie, is called "identity politics." Vanity leads many presidential contenders to overestimate their capabilities in this area, and the primary elections are intended to weed them out.

So, in other words, if a Presidential candidate panders to the interest of the moneyed classes, then he's simply serving his true "constituency". But if he appears to serve the public against his own economic interests (say, by raising the top brackets of income taxes like Democrats did throughout the first half of the twentieth century, or by running for the poor and working class even while being called a "class traitor", like what happened to FDR vis a vis his own economic class), well, then he's still serving his true "constituency", but is being really devious about it. You see the problem with this logic? It's the same type of problem with all conspiracy theories.

The third category of presidential candidates is that of independent and minor party candidates. We eliminate from further discussion the frivolous and delusional candidacies appearing on any ballot. There remain numerous individuals leading a wide variety of political parties with little if any actual political power, and independent candidates with some substantive platform. The three minor parties of most significance are the Constitution Party (paleoconservative, or authoritarian capitalist), the Green Party (center-left populist) and the Libertarian Party (anti-authoritarian capitalist). Two notable independent candidates today are Ralph Nader (a long-time and effective advocate for economic justice), running for US president, and Cindy Sheehan (today's best-known US anti-war activist), running for California's 8th congressional district seat in the US House of Representatives.

Nader was an effective advocate for consumer interests, but I'd question how effective he's been in terms of economic justice, particularly since he's more or less lost whatever widespread public credibility he once had following the 2000 election.

Honest minor party and independent candidates (we exclude the dishonest careerists from further consideration) seek to have their platforms of ideas widely accepted, whether or not they themselves advance to leadership roles by riding on the hypothetical flood tide of social transformation they advocate. Voting for a minor party or independent candidate is an endorsement of their platform. Since the US American empire is a hierarchy of greed managed by patronage, the only way to register your preference for a different model of national organization, through the electoral process, is to vote for an anti-imperialist or socialist minor party or independent candidate. In doing this you add to the popularity of the party or organization advocating the platform you support, and that organization may then reach the stature necessary in the U.S. to receive public funding. A vote for a minor party or independent candidate is a vote to "build the party" that carries the message, the platform, you believe in. In choosing to vote this way you choose to forsake registering an opinion on which of two styles of empire management is preferable.

So the whole goal is simply to reach a point where the party can win public funding? You don't get it, do you - the nature of a Single District Simple Majority electoral system is that it, de facto, favors a two-party system unless there is significant regionalism (like in Mexico), which is why you see two major parties appearing wherever it exists, whether in Great Britain (where the Liberal Democrats only hold significant stakes in areas where they are locally one of the two parties - i.e. "Liberal Democrats vs. Labor"). That means you have to be pragmatic about getting your interests ahead, or wait for one of the two big parties to collapse and swoop in to swallow the remnants (like what the Republicans did when the Whig Party collapsed in the 1850s). Occasionally, a third party will get major attention (very rarely), but that's usually only when it is cresting a rather specific wave of outrage, like the Dixiecrats in the 1948 election or George Wallace in 1968.

So, you have three choices: 1, vote for the empire led by John McCain with a lumbering regressive politics; 2, vote for the empire led by Barack Obama with sophisticated regressive politics; 3, vote against the empire.

The third choice is really "be ignored, but feel good about it". I'll pass.

We already know the most important outcome of the 2008 election, the headline could read: "Americans Overwhelmingly Endorse Empire!" Why? Because too many voters have internalized the indoctrination that instructs them to measure the efficacy of their elected representatives by the quantity of pork barrel slopped their way. It's all about the money. Everybody wants their local federal grant, or highway repair, or school building fund in exchange for their vote; every politician wants those votes, as well as his or her campaign funds; and every capitalist wants political and regulatory favors in exchange for those campaign funds. The Duoploy continues not only because it can manipulate the apparatus of government to prevent parliamentary democracy, but because much of the public does not want to lose its share of the pork barrel occasionally cracked open for it, by shifting its allegiance to minor parties and independent candidates.

You act as thought this is entirely a bad thing. Pork is not entirely bad; part of what a representative is there to do is to represent and promote the interests of their district and state, and pork spending (which is actually pretty tiny at, what, $20-30 billion a year?) can help that, by getting funding for all manner of local projects.

Objectively, I realize that Ralph Nader will not win the election. So, is my vote wasted? Since it is my vote and I prefer to apply it to the support of the people who carry on the platform of ideas I would wish this nation to adopt, no. I understand how presumptuous Democrats may wish to commandeer my vote, with the excuse that as a leftist I should be a captive of their party, and vote for O'Clinton to spite McBush. They will wail that my vote for Nader is a wasted vote, perhaps even contributing to a Republican victory. But, I repeat, I will never again vote for war, and I will never again endorse the empire. I don't care if I'm the only person in the country who votes against the empire. That will never be a wasted vote. "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get lots of it."

But don't you understand how much of a waste this actually is? The time spent "giving your vote" to a guaranteed-to-lose party is time that could be spent changing the Democratic party from within (which has happened before; look at what happened in the wake of the 1968 riots, for better or for worse, with the Democrats).

At least you are honest about preferring to be righteous but impotent rather than influential and corrupted. Hope that keeps you warm on a cold, cold night in the middle of a Republican-dominated USA, since it won't do it for me.

If I can do this, then so can you, and so could a majority of US voters, once they wake up.

I don't think so. America has enough voter apathy as is right now; why encourage more?

[Synergy]

So, in other words, if a Presidential candidate panders to the interest of the moneyed classes, then he's simply serving his true "constituency". But if he appears to serve the public against his own economic interests (say, by raising the top brackets of income taxes like Democrats did throughout the first half of the twentieth century, or by running for the poor and working class even while being called a "class traitor", like what happened to FDR vis a vis his own economic class), well, then he's still serving his true "constituency", but is being really devious about it. You see the problem with this logic? It's the same type of problem with all conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately, Obama doesn't stand up for the people on many important issues (FISA, PATRIOT Act, CPD, AIPAC, War, Health Care etc.). He only panders to the interests that are necessary to draw in swing votes to win the election. If he stood for real change, he would pander to the interests of the people and not the wealthy corporations that fund his campaign and he has not done that, despite all his tough talk about corporate lobbyists.

Nader was an effective advocate for consumer interests, but I'd question how effective he's been in terms of economic justice, particularly since he's more or less lost whatever widespread public credibility he once had following the 2000 election.

Freedom of Information Act

Environmental Protection Agency

Pension Protection Act

Whistleblower Protection Act

Occupational Health and Safety Act

I'd say all of those things do play a political role more so than the consumer interests you claim Nader is exclusive to.

As for the 2000 election propaganda BS again, just drop it already. It's a subjective, emotional argument based on an unfalsifiable assumption. It is simply fantasy speculation to say that Gore would have been a better president. We do NOT know that for a fact. All we DO know for a fact is that Gore wanted a BIGGER military budget than George Bush, and that while VP, the Clinton-Gore administration bombed Iraq and engaged in economic sanctions that killed thousands of children. That's what we DO know.

To argue that Ralph Nader is a spoiler is undemocratic. It's a disgraceful example of political bigotry. This is a democracy, either everyone is a spoiler, or nobody is. It was Nader's constitutional right to run just as much as it was Gore's. Aside from the fact that Gore did in fact win the popular vote, and that the election was stolen from him, Gore also ran an awful campaign, there's no denying that. So who is to blame for Gore's loss? How about the Gore campaign? How about the people that voted for Bush, many of whom were registered democrats? Or the millions of Americans that chose not to vote? How about we blame George Bush for George Bush's actions and not shift the blame to a candidate that had nothing to do with his actions nor supported any of his policies?

Funny how, despite all George Bush's criminal actions as president, and all the tough talk from Democrats about those criminal actions, Ralph Nader of all people is the only candidate in this years election that supports the impeachment of George Bush. And yet, Bill Clinton was impeached for cheating on his wife? Okay, I'm sorry, "lying under oath." The Democrats would rather just point the finger and move on.

Stop being a sore loser and pointing the finger like an angry five-year-old child. Gore lost. Get over it and move on. Don't use another candidate as a scapegoat, especially when that candidate was the only one to stand up for the interests of the people.

The third choice is really "be ignored, but feel good about it". I'll pass.

The two party choices are really "be ignored, but support it anyway!" Yeah, I think I'll pass on that.

But don't you understand how much of a waste this actually is? The time spent "giving your vote" to a guaranteed-to-lose party is time that could be spent changing the Democratic party from within (which has happened before; look at what happened in the wake of the 1968 riots, for better or for worse, with the Democrats).

Guaranteed to lose? Only because people such as yourself continue to perpetuate the spoiler myth and promise change through more of the same. Whenever there is a poor presidential administration, like the Carter administration, the gullible electorate by and large believe the solution to be "just vote for the other party." And then when they run into another snag with that party, like with the Bush administration, the solution is once again to "just vote for the other party." That's one of the main reasons why Democrats easily regained control of the House recently... and nothing happened. One thing is crystal clear, neither party stands up for the interests of the people anymore.

The biggest reason for the lack of support is poor (corporate) media coverage and not being allowed in the presidential debates, which is controlled by the CPD. Ever since the CPD assumed control of the debates, things have gone down hill in a hurry. Walter Cronkite called the CPD an "unconscionable fraud."

When the League of Women Voters revoked their sponsorship of the debates, they had this to say:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

The debates are now nothing more than glorified press conferences with serious issues avoided, sound bites memorized, direct debate disallowed, questions and questioners predetermined, moderators hand selected, and dictated entirely by the two parties. If the third party candidates got proper media coverage they would have a viable chance. Jesse Ventura's support was less than 10% when he was running for governor of Minnesota. After he was allowed in the debates his support skyrocketed in just weeks to win the election. Similar scenarios have played out across the country, not always successful, but with the same dramatic result. The fact of the matter is, so few people even KNOW they have other options, or know what those options stand for.

As for changing the Democratic party from within, how about you ask Kucinich and Gravel how that went? Or Ron Paul on the right?

I don't think so. America has enough voter apathy as is right now; why encourage more?

There are millions of potential voters that choose not to vote because they believe the system is biased, corrupted and hopeless. Giving them less voices and choices only makes matters worse for this demographic.

Edited August 15, 2008 by AstroPro

[Guardsman Bass]

Unfortunately, Obama doesn't stand up for the people on many important issues (FISA, PATRIOT Act, CPD, AIPAC, War, Health Care etc.). He only panders to the interests that are necessary to draw in swing votes to win the election. If he stood for real change, he would pander to the interests of the people and not the wealthy corporations that fund his campaign and he has not done that, despite all his tough talk about corporate lobbyists.

I'm not disagreeing with you; I was responding to the point about this being used in reference to all democrats.

As for the 2000 election propaganda BS again, just drop it already. It's a subjective, emotional argument based on an unfalsifiable assumption. It is simply fantasy speculation to say that Gore would have been a better president. We do NOT know that for a fact. All we DO know for a fact is that Gore wanted a BIGGER military budget than George Bush, and that while VP, the Clinton-Gore administration bombed Iraq and engaged in economic sanctions that killed thousands of children. That's what we DO know.

This is what boggles the mind. You seriously think that a Vice President who has spent decades supporting environmental causes and made it the cause celebre after his 2000 wouldn't make a better President than Bush? You think Gore's support of the sanctions in Iraq and the containment of Iraq in that method was no better than Bush's invasion of Iraq, which directly killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, with many more perishing from the associated conditions of a destabilized area following an invasion and governmental collapse? Remember that Clinton and Gore ignored the Project for the New American Century's proposal for an invasion of Iraq; Bush made it the central part of his national security strategy. These are all instances where any reasonable person would assume that Gore would act better than Bush, but you continue to espouse denial to the bitter end.

To argue that Ralph Nader is a spoiler is undemocratic. It's a disgraceful example of political bigotry. This is a democracy, either everyone is a spoiler, or nobody is. It was Nader's constitutional right to run just as much as it was Gore's. Aside from the fact that Gore did in fact win the popular vote, and that the election was stolen from him, Gore also ran an awful campaign, there's no denying that. So who is to blame for Gore's loss? How about the Gore campaign? How about the people that voted for Bush, many of whom were registered democrats? Or the millions of Americans that chose not to vote? How about we blame George Bush for George Bush's actions and not shift the blame to a candidate that had nothing to do with his actions nor supported any of his policies?

It's a statement of political fact that has nothing to do with how well Gore ran his campaign. The simple fact is that in a system that, by its nature, favors two broad parties (the Simple Majority Single District representation), a third party that attracts voters who could reasonably be expected to vote for one of the major parties is a spoiler. You could argue that perhaps Gore should have run his campaign better, or not run at all, but that doesn't change the fact that Nader voters in Florida (all 75,000 of them) probably allowed Bush to scrape by narrowly in Florida, when even a few thousand of those voters voting for Gore would have made the difference (when they generally aligned with Al Gore and the Democrats).

Funny how, despite all George Bush's criminal actions as president, and all the tough talk from Democrats about those criminal actions, Ralph Nader of all people is the only candidate in this years election that supports the impeachment of George Bush. And yet, Bill Clinton was impeached for cheating on his wife? Okay, I'm sorry, "lying under oath." The Democrats would rather just point the finger and move on.

What about Dennis Kucinich back in the primaries, who actually put his money where his mouth is and risked something by calling up articles of impeachment?

Nobody thinks that Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership was right to not even try for impeachment, but let's be realistic; they would have had no chance of actually getting it. They did not, and do not have complete control over the Senate, which is where impeachment efforts can easily fail (the Senate failed to remove Clinton from office after impeachment in the House, for example), and to try it now, when Bush is very close to being a lame duck president, would be used as evidence by their Republican opponents that the Democrats are only interested in settling scores rather than solving issues.

Stop being a sore loser and pointing the finger like an angry five-year-old child. Gore lost. Get over it and move on. Don't use another candidate as a scapegoat, especially when that candidate was the only one to stand up for the interests of the people.

I'm more than over it. You, and other Nader voters on the other hand, are most assuredly not over it. You just can't bring yourself to accept that you might be partially responsible for George W. Bush being in the White House. Perhaps I ought to remind you that you brought the issue up in the other thread, and started this thread here.

The two party choices are really "be ignored, but support it anyway!" Yeah, I think I'll pass on that.

No, it's called "work from within".

The biggest reason for the lack of support is poor (corporate) media coverage and not being allowed in the presidential debates, which is controlled by the CPD. Ever since the CPD assumed control of the debates, things have gone down hill in a hurry. Walter Cronkite called the CPD an "unconscionable fraud."

Ross Perot was allowed in the 1992 debates, or at least some of them. Some good it did him; he probably got more votes, but he still lost overwhelmingly for want of Electoral Votes. Not before he arguably took Bush out with him.

When the League of Women Voters revoked their sponsorship of the debates, they had this to say:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

Of course the campaigns are going to try to use the debates as a "campaign-trail charade" to boost their support. They're trying to win an election, and every venue is calculated as another way to get to the high office. Why do you suppose that McCain continues to support townhalls, while Obama has tried to limit them? It's called playing to their strengths.

The answer is not to disavow the debates altogether, but to get tougher questioners. After all, once you get them on the stage, they can't simply walk off without looking very bad and cowardly in most cases, so hit them hard.

The debates are now nothing more than glorified press conferences with serious issues avoided, sound bites memorized, direct debate disallowed, questions and questioners predetermined, moderators hand selected, and dictated entirely by the two parties. If the third party candidates got proper media coverage they would have a viable chance. Jesse Ventura's support was less than 10% when he was running for governor of Minnesota. After he was allowed in the debates his support skyrocketed in just weeks to win the election. Similar scenarios have played out across the country, not always successful, but with the same dramatic result. The fact of the matter is, so few people even KNOW they have other options, or know what those options stand for.

Ventura is a good example, so I'll concede that. I still think the answer would be to pick moderators with bigger balls. Tim Russert actually had his moments (although he's dead now).

As for changing the Democratic party from within, how about you ask Kucinich and Gravel how that went? Or Ron Paul on the right?

I would hardly call Gravel a real participant in the Democratic Party as of recent years; after losing a primary election in 1980, he more or less wandered in the political wilderness until he hooked on to the National Initiative idea (which is a terrible idea, in my opinion, but I don't think very highly of most popular initiatives). Kucinich is a better example, but keep in mind that he agrees with the Democratic Party on most things.

There are millions of potential voters that choose not to vote because they believe the system is biased, corrupted and hopeless. Giving them less voices and choices only makes matters worse for this demographic.

Then you need to

A)Change the SRSM system to one that doesn't favor the creation of two major parties, like a more proportional system (look at Germany for an example of this);

B)Try to find a wave of popular sentiment and ride it;

C)Set up a third party to be very strong in a regional area. That's how Mexico partially sustains it; the major parties are heavily regional.

[Neognosis]

I always thought going to the voting booth, walking in, closing the curtain, NOT voting, and then opening up the curtain and walking out made more of a statement than just not going. I think some machines actually register that. That way, they can't pass it off to laziness or apathy, you cared enough to go there and make the statement that the two party system is crap, the candidates are crap.

[Lt_Ripley]

hands down people will always vote for those they think will help them the most.

"This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite -- I call you my base." --at the 2000 Al Smith dinner

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

Listen to audio clip

[Guardsman Bass]

I always thought going to the voting booth, walking in, closing the curtain, NOT voting, and then opening up the curtain and walking out made more of a statement than just not going. I think some machines actually register that. That way, they can't pass it off to laziness or apathy, you cared enough to go there and make the statement that the two party system is crap, the candidates are crap.

That's no fun. What would be better would be to do a "spoiled ballot"; to disqualify your ballot by scribbling insults to both parties all over in (hopefully) profane language. I've heard that it is popular with the French, and that some elections have had up to 10% of ballots being spoiled (I'm not sure, but I've heard that). I actually suggested this to the husband of one of my former co-workers when he was p***ed about being stuck with McCain.

[Startraveler]

How very C. Wright Mills.

It is delusional to imagine that, once in office, a charismatic or maverick presidential candidate from a major party would betray the class interests of his or her patrons -- the MICC sustaining this political career -- to advance a popular working class aspiration, in other words to reverse the course of the class war.

What are the class interests of, for example, Barack Obama?

Let's see. He gets 96% of his contributions from individual donors, nearly 50% or which come in denominations of $200 or less (his campaign hit 2 million unique donors this month). The rest of the individual contributions are somewhere between that and the $2,300 limit. We all know his background (growing up the son of a single mother who sometimes relied on food stamps to get by) but how about today? His personal finances, formerly somewhat comfortable with salaries coming from his position in the UChicago law department and his state senatorship, have risen with the sales of his book:

Obama's money

Net Worth: $1.3 million

Where he got it

After Harvard Law, Obama didn't exactly rake in the big bucks. He led a voter-registration drive and then worked for a Chicago law firm that specializes in civil rights and employment discrimination.

He earned $60,000 as an Illinois state senator, plus another $32,000 as a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

Michelle Obama, however, worked for a while as a big-firm lawyer, leaving to take jobs in the nonprofit sector. She wound up as vice president for community affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid nearly $317,000 a year.

She resigned in May and also left her post as lead independent director of Tree House Foods, a private-label food business.

According to the Obamas' tax return (Obama and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut are the only candidates to release one), their income hit $1.7 million in 2005 and $991,000 in 2006.

The big boost came from his writing, following the stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention that made him famous.

First came a memoir, "Dreams of My Father," and later "The Audacity of Hope," which was on the New York Times bestseller list for 30 weeks.

Perhaps we can glean some of his class leanings from his tax plan?

Nah, probably not.

To argue that Ralph Nader is a spoiler is undemocratic. It's a disgraceful example of political bigotry. This is a democracy, either everyone is a spoiler, or nobody is. It was Nader's constitutional right to run just as much as it was Gore's.

By the simple criterion of "what words mean," that argument makes no sense. Spoiler: "any competitor, entrant, or candidate who has no chance of ultimate victory but does well enough to spoil the chances of another." That's what a spoiler is.

Democracy is about allowing competing interests to interact. That means a large degree of wheeling-and-dealing and horse trading. That's the nature of democracy--those who can build winning coalitions around common interests win, those who fail lose. Those who share a common interest but choose to willingly dilute their power also lose. Let's take an example. For a number of institutional reasons (including a significantly greater amount of popular support) the Democratic party has a chance to win elections that the Greens and Ralph Nader do not. So when you post a question like this:

As for changing the Democratic party from within, how about you ask Kucinich and Gravel how that went?

A simple counter-question comes to mind: did you vote for Kucinich in the Democratic primaries? When everyone who leans far enough left leaves the party, that group of people loses the ability to shape the debate or influence the selection of candidates. I was (and remain) a proud supporter of John Edwards during the Democratic primaries. Was it ever particularly likely that he would overcome the Clinton and Obama juggernauts to take the nomination? No. But he played a key role in driving almost every aspect of the debate in the Democratic primaries, forcing every serious candidate to present a comprehensive health care plan, a detailed poverty reduction program, and a scheme for addressing climate change. Despite the baseless accusations that Obama has only vague generalities instead of detailed policy proposals, he does indeed have solid, detailed policy proposals in large part (I believe) thanks to the presence of John Edwards in the race.

I don't know what exactly it is that draws you to Nader but if, say, you support H.R. 676 then building support around Kucinich (regardless of whether or not he had a chance to win the primary) would've brought the issue of single-payer to the forefront of the debate. Certainly there's nothing wrong with supporting third party candidates, particularly insofar as doing so impacts the mainstream parties (I assume you realize the point of a serious, non-vanity third party candidacy is generally to influence one or both of the two major parties). Failing to pick your battles wisely, however, can be very dangerous to the interests third parties claim to represent. The 2000 election is probably the clearest example in recent memory of this.

The article's a nice try at social theory for a physicist (I myself study both) but ultimately a bit limited in its vision.

Edited August 24, 2008 by Startraveler