The "first-past-the-post" nature of American elections means that if, say, the Democrats win, everyone else loses. There are no gains made for the Greens if they get 1% of the vote
Not in tangible, legally-significant terms, and not in the short run. But if you want a long-term alternative to the Republicans and Democrats, you have to build up that alternative. You have to go through 1% and 10% and 20% before you can get to 50%, and that's not going to happen in one election.
If the Republicans get into office because the vote was split by, say, the Libertarian party and Nader, then there are real-world consequences of that that are borne by everyone. For four years. Consequences like, say, a draft. More people killed in useless wars. More jobs lost. Are you willing to pay that price for no outcome because of a gesture vote?
Here we're talking specific examples. In the election this November I'll be voting Democrat, for pretty much those reasons. Bush is bad enough (and the Democrats, while not great, are not-as-atrocious enough) that he has to be taken out of power now. The damage he'd do with another four years outweighs my desire to bump up the Greens.
In other circumstances, though, I might not decide the way. The closer the Democrats are to the Republicans, the less importance rides on deciding which of those two wins the contest, and then long-term considerations might dictate my decision.
The time is earlier in the process. Right now, people have been casting votes in the primaries for long-shot candidates such as Kucinich.
Yes, and that's a 'safer' way to do it... but it's also a less influential way. Because it can taken as saying "Hey, you guys are much too far to the right... but when it comes to the crunch, I'll still be voting Democrat. So just go ahead and elect the most right-wing of all our candidates, because that'll give us the best chance of winning the final election."
Vote a third-party locally. That isn't throwing your vote away. It's slowly doing the very hard work of convincing people that you are right, and that you deserve representation. I wish you all the good karma and goodwill in the world in that, and if you do it in my town I promise to consider your candidate.
Unfortunately, I don't have that option. Unless I've misunderstood the rules, which is entirely possible, as a nonresident US citizen I don't get to vote in local elections. Only the presidential one.
On a semi-relevant note... do you know why, historically speaking, Australia has preferential voting? It's *because* vote-splitting screwed with the major parties. (In this case, a secondary conservative party, the Country Party, took votes away from the major conservative party, with the result that Labour was able to win some districts with a minority of the vote).
The conservative government of the time introduced preferential voting to 'fix' this by ensuring that votes cast for the Country Party came back to them. In the short term, it benefited them - but in the long term, it makes third parties much more significant in Australian politics. (Although proportional representation in the Senate is also important here.)
Not that one can rely on history to repeat itself, but I wouldn't complain if it did...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zvi
Afterthought
Date: 2004-03-05 15:35 (UTC)Not in tangible, legally-significant terms, and not in the short run. But if you want a long-term alternative to the Republicans and Democrats, you have to build up that alternative. You have to go through 1% and 10% and 20% before you can get to 50%, and that's not going to happen in one election.
If the Republicans get into office because the vote was split by, say, the Libertarian party and Nader, then there are real-world consequences of that that are borne by everyone. For four years. Consequences like, say, a draft. More people killed in useless wars. More jobs lost. Are you willing to pay that price for no outcome because of a gesture vote?
Here we're talking specific examples. In the election this November I'll be voting Democrat, for pretty much those reasons. Bush is bad enough (and the Democrats, while not great, are not-as-atrocious enough) that he has to be taken out of power now. The damage he'd do with another four years outweighs my desire to bump up the Greens.
In other circumstances, though, I might not decide the way. The closer the Democrats are to the Republicans, the less importance rides on deciding which of those two wins the contest, and then long-term considerations might dictate my decision.
The time is earlier in the process. Right now, people have been casting votes in the primaries for long-shot candidates such as Kucinich.
Yes, and that's a 'safer' way to do it... but it's also a less influential way. Because it can taken as saying "Hey, you guys are much too far to the right... but when it comes to the crunch, I'll still be voting Democrat. So just go ahead and elect the most right-wing of all our candidates, because that'll give us the best chance of winning the final election."
Vote a third-party locally. That isn't throwing your vote away. It's slowly doing the very hard work of convincing people that you are right, and that you deserve representation. I wish you all the good karma and goodwill in the world in that, and if you do it in my town I promise to consider your candidate.
Unfortunately, I don't have that option. Unless I've misunderstood the rules, which is entirely possible, as a nonresident US citizen I don't get to vote in local elections. Only the presidential one.
On a semi-relevant note... do you know why, historically speaking, Australia has preferential voting? It's *because* vote-splitting screwed with the major parties. (In this case, a secondary conservative party, the Country Party, took votes away from the major conservative party, with the result that Labour was able to win some districts with a minority of the vote).
The conservative government of the time introduced preferential voting to 'fix' this by ensuring that votes cast for the Country Party came back to them. In the short term, it benefited them - but in the long term, it makes third parties much more significant in Australian politics. (Although proportional representation in the Senate is also important here.)
Not that one can rely on history to repeat itself, but I wouldn't complain if it did...