Deal with the Devil

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by gunsmoker, Nov 3, 2010.

  1. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,321
    611
    113
    I voted for some Republican candidates yesterday, and a few Libertarian ones, and one Democrat.
    I really wanted to support the Libertarian party more, but I think that when I'm choosing between a Republican and a Libertarian, voting for the Libertarian is effectively throwing my vote away. It gives the Democrats more power.

    I wonder if there are, somewhere out there, other people whose political leanings are strongly Democrat, but who also want to see the Libertarian party gain strength and challenge both of the big established parties for the vote of the middle class Americans who really want smaller government and more personal liberty.

    Then I could make a pact with one of those Democrats---- they pass over the Democrat candidate and vote Libertarian, and I'll pass over the Republican and vote Libertarian, too.

    (I wonder if you could trust somebody to carry out their end of the deal??)
     
  2. Metalheadisme

    Metalheadisme New Member

    663
    0
    0
    As long as we have runoffs, what's the issue? If your vote would be the one to push a candidate to having a majority, you'd get your chance in the runoff.
     

  3. MrMorden

    MrMorden New Member

    2,598
    0
    0
    Straight Libertarian ticket for me, except Isakson and Paul Broun. I've been done for a while supporting the lesser of two evils.
     
  4. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,321
    611
    113
    Yeah, I suppose that as long as the "splitting the vote" phenomenon that is seen in the general election can't be repeated in the runoff, it will be a 2 party race after all. And if the Libertarian vote combined with the Republican votes still don't outnumber the Democrat votes, it's right and fair that the Democrat should win without even needing a runoff.

    THINKING OUT LOUD HERE....
    ....Okay, suppose that the race for a particular office has only 2 parties. Republican and Democrat. No third parties, no write-ins.

    Let's say that "if" this were how the ballot were presented to the voters, they would elect the Republican, 55% to 45%.
    A ten-point margin of victory for the Republican.

    Now let's say that a 3rd party that has a reputation for being right-of-center is in the race. Let's say they will get almost no votes from the Democratic voter base, but they'll siphon off a bunch of votes that would normally go to the Republican. The conservative vote is "split" between two parties (but not equally, not even close). The liberal vote is certain to go to only one candidate--the Democrat.

    We can assume that in the 3-way race, the Democrats still get 45%. Their vote is not "split." But let's say only 40% of the people vote Republican, and 5% vote for the 3rd party.

    In Georgia and states with a run-off election system, the Democrat and Republican face each other in the runoff, since neither one got the majority (over 50%) in the general election. So then the "conservative" vote will no longer be split. You have to choose between the 2 major parties and that's it.

    In states where the one getting the most votes wins, then the Democrat will win the general election thanks to the conservatives splitting their votes between two other candidates. But that's not Georgia.

    CHANGE THE SCENARIO: Suppose that without any 3rd party being involved, the Democrat was going to win a true majority (say 52%) and the Republican was going to lose with 48% ? Then the involvement of a right-of-center 3rd party would not matter. The conservatives are going to lose either way, since they are simply outnumbered by other fellow citizens who have the opposite political views.

    WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT: Sending a message to the Republicans that they need to lower taxes and cut back the size of government and the power of government over the citizens.... OR..... giving momentum to the Democrats by splitting the votes that would otherwise have gone Republican, resulting in a Democrat doing better than any other candidate in the election. The Democrat may face a run-off, but she will go into that runoff bragging that she was the front-runner of the general election (say the vote was 48% Dem, 42% Repub, and 10% 3rd Party). That gives her campaign a boost, because people like to jump on the bandwagon and join the side that appears to be in the lead.
     
  5. MrMorden

    MrMorden New Member

    2,598
    0
    0
    I understand what you are saying, but again, I don't vote to keep a party in power. I vote for the candidate that most closely matches my principles and policy objectives. Not voting for someone just because "they can't win" would be like becoming a French collaborator with the Nazis in WWII, instead of working with the partisans. After all, the partisans can't win against the Nazi war machine, and you want to back a winner, n'est pas?

    It's much more important to follow your principles and be RIGHT than to WIN. This is IMO of course. :)
     
  6. foxtrotterz

    foxtrotterz New Member

    1,054
    0
    0
    :-? I like everything I have read in your post MM and I hope I don't come off as attacking you. But have you studied Isakson's record? Does he really match your principles and policy objectives? Would you have confirmed Hilary as SoS, confirmed Eric Holder as AG, voted for the trillion dollar bailout TARP? That is just a snapshot of Isakson's record, not someone who votes in line with my principles. I didn't vote to keep a party in power.

    It was a wonderful feeling logging onto Secretary of State website and seeing that at least 68,177 other Gerogians felt and voted their conscience the same way I did. Not to mention over 100,000 who voted for Monds.
     
  7. MrMorden

    MrMorden New Member

    2,598
    0
    0
    No problem, I don't feel attacked. I honestly did not get enough time to research every candidate, and Isakson was one I didn't get to do much on. In light of the facts you presented I probably would not have voted for him, had I know them at the time. :(
     
  8. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    I dislike strategic voting, but the nature of the human animal is going to ensure that such will continue to happen whether I choose to participate or not. That being said, instead of a "deal with the devil" why don't we all get behind some form of condorcet voting?

    The simplest version is that you just list the candidates in the order you choose them from most preferred to least preferred. With computer tabulation and electronic voting this type of voting is easy to compute today. And, the great thing about it, while strategic voting still will occur, condorcet voting would tend to limit the level of such and encourage people to vote for the candidates they truly prefer.

    As an example, in our governor's election between Monds, Deal and Barnes, a voter who wanted to vote for Monds but was afraid of doing so because they believed their vote for Monds would enable Barnes to win could make a condorcet vote of Monds in top position, followed by Deal and then Barnes last. That way if Monds did not get enough votes to win, their secondary preference would take precedence.

    But, since condorcet voting would be a death knell for the lock the two main parties have on the election cycle, don't expect to see it get adopted anytime soon. Condorcet type voting will only occur when The People demand it through a constitutional amendment.
     
  9. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    I'm not attacking you at all, and I wish you would have had time to do more homework, because you definitely missed out by not voting Chuck Donovan. He is an amazing 2nd amendment advocate. Look around here for the Chuck Donovan 2nd amendment thread right here on off-topic political. You'll probably want to kick yourself in your own butt. :D
     
  10. AV8R

    AV8R Banned

    6,624
    2
    0
    With that attitude you're actually throwing away an opportunity to bring about *REAL* change to American politics. :shakehead:
     
  11. CountryGun

    CountryGun New Member

    7,594
    0
    0
    I've run the gamut. I was born and raised Democratic, when Democrats were more conservative than today's Republicans. I later found myself voting for more Republican candidates. I now find myself labeled "Libertarian" though I'm still struggling to find a good definition. I find responsible leaders in all parties. This is just about the biggest dilemma a voter can find himself in!
     
  12. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,602
    154
    63
    Gunsmoker, it's all your fault!

    I have had "Shout At The Devil" by Motley Crue running stuck in my mind all day and I could not figure out why. Until I just came back across this thread after reading it this AM. As soon as I read your title, the song was back again. It's all your fault!


    Hijack over.
     
  13. JiG

    JiG Awaiting censure

    7,204
    7
    38
    Shout!

    Shout!

    Shout!

    :wink: :lol:
     
  14. JiG

    JiG Awaiting censure

    7,204
    7
    38
    That's the real problem IMO. This election alone: I found at about a 10:1 ratio of folks who said they would vote libertarian-"but" vs. those that were libertarian.

    If all those folks actually had voted libertarian, we'd be having a whole big, scary, yet optimistic talk about the election results today.
     
  15. JiG

    JiG Awaiting censure

    7,204
    7
    38
    Whatever it is you feel it should be for you.

    Libertarians argue amongst themselves as much as they do over what the left and right believe. You can be a straight up libertarian, a conservative libertarian, or a liberal libertarian..... What I hope most that the libertarians can rally around is freedom in the future. If we don't preserve freedom in this country, freedom will perish from this earth.