Yves here. This post very much annoyed me, and so I thought it might be entertaining for similarly annoyed readers to take it apart. The fact that it starts by arguing that protest voting is “bad for the democratic process,” as if what we have in the US is a democracy as opposed to an oligarchy, is par for the piece. It therefore also sees all third party candidate votes as bad because they might serve as spoilers.
My two observations: the author does not consider that a protest vote is a form of altruistic punishment, as in something you do for not gain that does (here only might) impose costs on you. Here the tacit assumption is if you make a protest vote against the Dems by not voting, leaving the top of the ballot empty, or voting for Jill Stein, you are helping Trump. It’s not as if voters who are considering one of those actions have not heard that argument a zillion times and do not care. Many readers voice views that indicate they would rather have Trump than keep reinforcing Democratic party sellouts. Or they might want to get the Greens to a high enough percentage nationally so that they could qualify for a debate position someday or otherwise get more press attention and get different policy ideas into the debate, and again won’t be cowed by “But ZOMG you are helping Hair Furore.”
In addition, there are some voters who find the support of both parties for genocide in Gaza and now planned for Lebanon unacceptable, and as a matter of conscience cannot vote for either of the two major parties. As yet another reminder of the slaughter, I just got this note from a Lebanese friend who is also an American citizen:
yeah my bro #6 ran into a friend while driving up to the mountain up north for a min , stop by to say hi n a truck driving by to was hit by an Israeli drone n my bro flew up in the air 8-9 feet n half of his head was blown off of his head n all his bikes broken dead instantly n 4-5 cars full of families trying to escape the fighting got blown by the missile , last sat , they r just killing everyone , they can’t get to the fighters , they start blowing up buildings n bridges infrastructure n innocent people. , n American gov behind it all , unfortunately , they want their Israeli army base puppets to control the region n build the rail road from India to Emirates to haifa to EU n control all shipping n gas to EU n u have those sick evil phony monarchies on it with Israel n against the resistance , they want the resistance gone any price n ways , their puppets of the west n created by the west N Brit’s got them to do their evil jobs to control n create animosity within the Arab countries n they’ve done good job n last of it Iraq Syria n Yemen n now Lebanon n Gaza
I doubt he will vote for Team D or R if he votes at all. And he has lots of company.
By Daniel F. Stone, Associate Professor of Economics, Bowdoin College. Originally published at The Conversation
Many Americans are not thrilled with either of the two major-party candidates for president. As of Oct. 4, 2024, polls showed that 46.5% had an unfavorable opinion of Kamala Harris and 52.6% felt unfavorably toward Donald Trump.
Some of these unhappy voters are considering voting for a third-party candidate, or not voting at all. They may be thinking of those actions as a form of protest against the two-party system dominant in the United States, or against these two particular candidates.
For example, in a September poll 3.5% of Michigan voters said they planned to vote for a candidate other than Harris and Trump.
At first glance, these choices might seem perfectly reasonable: If you don’t like a candidate, don’t vote for that person. But my work as a scholar of cognitive biases – systematic errors people make in their thinking – makes me fear that this option does not best serve the interests of those voters.
Instead, protest voting is in fact likely to harm the democratic process, potentially leading to the election of the candidate the majority of voters overall, and protest voters specifically, most dislike. There are several reasons protest voters might make this mistake.
How Much Does One Vote Matter?
It’s clear that any one vote is very unlikely to swing the presidential election. And some might say that if one vote doesn’t really matter, then voters may as well vote however they want, or not bother to vote at all. Here’s why that’s flawed thinking:
Suppose there are 10,000 voters in a state who feel unhappy with both candidates. But they almost surely dislike one candidate more than they dislike the other. Perhaps they disagree with some of Harris’ views but fear Trump. Or maybe it’s the other way around. They don’t have to agree on why they’re unhappy about the candidates either – some who are unhappy with Harris but prefer her over Trump may think Harris is too far left, while others may think she’s not enough of a leftist.
Now suppose the rest of the state’s voters – those who are happy to vote for one of the two major candidates – are very narrowly split. Perhaps the gap is 5,000 votes. So, if the 10,000 unhappy voters do vote for one of the two major-party candidates, they can swing the election.
Again, these unhappy voters really do have a preference – they like one of the major candidates better than the other. So while each individual unhappy voter wants to keep their hands clean and not vote, they would each like the other 9,999 unhappy voters to step up and swing the outcome in favor of their preferred candidate.
Parents teach the Golden Rule to kids – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – and most people do actually believe in it and try to act accordingly. In this case, following the Golden Rule means that if you’re an unhappy voter and would like other unhappy voters to hold their noses and vote for the major candidate they least dislike, you should be willing to do the same thing yourself.
But not all unhappy voters think this way. Some are led astray by their intuition and choose to protest-vote even when their own values would indicate they shouldn’t.
A Boycott Error
One reason a person might still think a protest vote makes sense is because of the assumption that boycotting something they don’t like is an effective means of contributing to positive change.
A boycott against a person or organization you have a problem with often makes good sense. For instance, if there’s a restaurant in town with a reputation for being discriminatory, or just for being slow to get the food out, don’t go to it. Maybe it will close and make room for another business with better performance. Or maybe it will make some changes in hopes of growing its customer base.
But when you cast a vote, whether on Election Day or beforehand, boycotting the viable candidates isn’t going to help. One of them is going to win whether you like it or not. Boycotting in this context is an example of a misapplied heuristic – a rule of thumb that’s often, but not always, helpful. Boycotting here doesn’t help you achieve your goal of eliminating or improving something you don’t like.
Omission vs. commission
Another reason people might choose a protest vote is because of a phenomenon in which people prefer to make mistakes of inaction – omission – over making mistakes that involve taking action – commission. People feel less guilty when they haven’t acted directly in support of a bad outcome. But both action and inaction can be errors, and both can deliver undesired results that constitute bad outcomes.
The omission bias can help explain why some people are hesitant to get vaccinated against serious diseases: If they chose to get vaccinated and the vaccination led to a health problem, that would be a mistake of commission. Not getting vaccinated also might lead to a health problem, but that would be a mistake of omission. People tend to prefer the latter.
Similarly, voting for a candidate you’re unsatisfied with could feel like a mistake of commission. Not voting, or voting for a third party, risks a mistake of omission – an error often assumed to be less significant. But choosing the possibility of an error of omission over one of commission doesn’t ensure you aren’t making a mistake – it just changes your mistake to one that’s intuitively more appealing.
False Equivalence
A final reason people might opt out of voting or choose to back a third-party candidate is that they object to the assumption that they dislike one candidate more than the other. Instead, these people claim the two main options are equally bad.
But regardless of what your actual values and policy preferences are, that’s almost certainly untrue. The two candidates hold very different views on a wide range of issues, and have different records of what they have done – and not done – when in office.
People who claim the two different candidates are basically the same are misusing another mental shortcut: the human tendency to think in categories. Grouping distinct items in the same category can simplify thinking, but it can ignore substantial differences.
Some people think about 1-in-10 chances and 1-in-a-million chances as both being in the category of “possibilities.” But they’re very different: If you’re flipping a coin repeatedly, one is about equal to your chance of getting heads three times in a row, and the other is how likely you are to get heads 20 times in a row.
Seeking Your Most Desired Outcome
During the 2000 presidential campaign, I recall a friend said he wasn’t voting for Democratic candidate Al Gore because he thought Gore and Republican nominee George W. Bush were equally bad. But after winning – partly because of third-party voters who cast ballots for independent Ralph Nader – Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol to limit global carbon emissions, invaded Iraq, and passed tax cuts favoring the wealthy.
All of those were actions Gore would almost certainly not have taken. The two candidates were very far from being the same, and even though my friend didn’t see it beforehand, he should have been able to.
The U.S. will have a new president on Jan. 20, 2025: Trump or Harris. A third-party winner is not a real option.
In some states voters can rank candidates in order of preference, more clearly expressing their choices without wasting their vote on a candidate who can’t win. People who believe it would be nice to have more choices with realistic chances of winning could work to adopt that system – known as ranked-choice voting – in their communities, or seek to adopt other methods that could eventually yield more viable options in the future. But it won’t happen in time for this election.
Whether you like it or not, you face a binary choice: Vote for one or vote for the other. And please vote.
I liked Yves intro to this. The slogans “Don’t vote, it only encourages them” and “if voting mattered they’d ban it ” have always resounded with me. Having said that, I have voted in the UK general election – for the Monster Raving Loony Party, it really was his lordship Screaming Lord Sutch who stood in my constituency.
In the 2017 UK general election, my local MP was one of that stalwart band – in truth one of the leading lights – who did their utmost to ensure that their party would not win under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.
I will never vote for that person again while the said party puts them forward.
In all his campaigns Screaming Lord Sutch was not the “mad” candidate: just look at the state of our current British uni-party.
OMG Lord Sutch! Haven’t thought of him in years…. I actually had an album he put out: “Lord Sutch and Heavy Friends”, lots of pictures of Sutch with famous English rock stars (looking uncomfortable really…the music was poor). I only read about the politics years afterwards.
I was visiting Edinburgh in 1981 when I got caught up in a demonstration and actually got to see Maggie alight from her Daimler.
I still have my badge from that day:
How about we reframe the discussion on a 50 year timescale?
In the context of ‘Seeking your most desired outcome’, my most desired outcome would be that we reverse the decades-long trend of both parties ignoring the wishes of the voters, moving in lockstep on key issues (healthcare, wars, antitrust, foreign policy) and offering up a choice between progressively worse and worse options.
I think there are many things that can be done, but in a context where both major parties jealously protect their privileged position on the ballot and effectively smother any attempts at reform, relying on the fact that the only alternative is their equally-awful opposite number to suppress any opposition, withholding your vote is truly the only last resort option available.
Let’s say, for example, we consider Republicans unreformable but would very much like a left wing party that actually represents our interests – maybe not now, but in 20 years, or 50.
How will Stone’s argument get us there?
That’s easy – it won’t. It will just be more of the same that got us into this position in the first place.
Being able to credibly threaten to withhold your vote in sufficient numbers to gift the election to the opposition is a position of power. Ask Trump loyalists. They’re the reason why no Republican other than Trump has been a viable presidential challenge for the last decade, and the reason why the party establishment makes nice to him and angles for favors even when they’d like nothing more than to toss him under a bus, like the Democrats did with Bernie.
No, darn it!
Listen to what the economist tells you: you can only consider your vote as a discrete immediate act of choice in response to positive or negative feelings.
Any thing else means “thinking in categories,” and we all know that has to be placed in the class of bad things.
Shame on you for considering voting as a political tactic that might have a time horizon beyond right now this instant. And only vote for candidates in a category best characterized by a phrase from biology denoting the natural, physical capability of living, because you might not accept their election as inevitable if you thought about it as a social or political process subject to human will. No, stay away from that — listen to the economist!
I have to give Stone credit: not voting being like “not getting vaccinated” is a new one to me.
Stone belittles the hypothetical person who refuses to vote for a flawed candidate because of a sense of personal guilt, but the pressures on a strategic voter to conform really are immediate. You can either end up like Jen Kirkman tweeting “I LIKE that Hillary has murdered a lot of people,” in a ha-ha, just serious manner. Or, like pop star Chappell Roan, you can voice your futile opposition to the actions of your intended candidate and face mob retribution for your disagreement.
Like Democrat-in-Good-Standing Dick Cheney might say, a 1% inclination towards a certain candidate requires defending that candidate 100%.
My knowledge of US history is sketchy. But am I right in thinking that if Mr Stone’s rules were followed in the 1850s, Lincoln would not have become President? One must vote Dem or Whig!
The American Whigs ceased to exist because the party’s leadership refused to take a stand, any stand, but neutrality. As a group, that was the one thing that the membership would not accept. It is possible that the party would still exist if its leaders had allowed the debate, which just before the war started political debate included dueling and mob violence; Democratic Party still exist despite its temporary, but at the time apparently permanent, fracturing into at least two separate “national” Northern and Southern parties.
The old, pre 1970s Republican Party was essentially the pre civil war Whigs with its platform of continuous internal development and improvement (Henry Clay’s American Plan or System) of infrastructure, education, science, medicine, government, and business funded by the government and financed by taxes and tariffs. Stealing the intellectual property of all the great powers especially the Europeans was expected and encouraged. And since the Republicans started as anti slavery, it was the de facto party of civil rights and had very strong Black support.
Things have changed, haven’t they?
I believe the reason for the likely Whigification of the modern Democratic Party is its leadership refusal to allow actual debate and then action dealing with the increasing corruption, incompetence, poverty, and illnesses destroying the Party and the American nation. If no one shows up an organization’s official events and organizations, preferring to caucus separately, acting as a separate organization and platform, does it truly exist, aside from on paper paper? I am sure that very wealthy donors will keep the lights on, it will finish its transformation from an active to a performative organization; a political organization to a political play.
We had the situation in CA where one of the two Democratic candidates in the primary (Adam Schiff) used millions of his campaign money to promote Republican and former baseball star Steve Garvey into the general election.
This was a move to keep Schiff from facing Democrat Katie Porter in the general election.
Schiff will probably win as this is a blue state. But I won’t forget that Schiff removed, in my eyes, a better candidate of his own party.
Shamocracy..
Ha! in the 1934 gov race in CA, the national donkeys supported the Reptile over the socialist. And that was well before the donkeys morphed completely into rats.
Didn’t they also shiv Barbara Lee in the process?
And Lee was the only one clearly opposed to Israel’s ongoing attempt to drive Palestinians out of Palestine… and never had a chance of winning against Schaffer or Porter, those in control being who they are.
Not giving Schiff my vote
Why am I not surprised that this drivel was published by The Conversation? That site will publish anything. This “article” is a listicle of everything that liberals have been pushing every single election that ever happened in my life. And look where that got us to? The author is wishy-washy about ranked choice voting, but does he actually think that by voting in this election, whoever win will bring about a better voting system? Of course not. Why should they change something that brings them so much wealth and power?
The author talked about not voting is not useful if you want to influence the political system. Why didn’t he talk about all the dark money being spent on primaries to deny entry to progressive candidates? And why didn’t he talk about the helplessness of Democratic voters who saw the very candidates they voted for doing something completely against their wish, yet these voters couldn’t do anything to them?
And I question if the author have truly lived through the 2000 election. What does he know about Al Gore? He would’ve had pushed for the Afghanistan war. He would’ve had pushed for the Patriot act. He would’ve had pushed for financial deregulation and tax cut for the wealthy. You can just look at Gore’s record as a senator and Bill Clinton’s vice president. In fact all the things the author said that Al Gore wouldn’t have done, it’s actually Ralph Nader who wouldn’t.
This is bottom-of-the-barrel punch-clock academia. You can’t even make a case that the author tried to talk simplistically to the mass. He is either too dumb and believes all the dumb things that go off his mouth, or he is just cynical.
Frankly speaking, if the Democrats and Republicans really want apathetic voters to cast their ballots, the best thing they can say is: “There will be no revolution. Neither you or me are willing to risk our skin. Nothing will get better. But at least you’ll feel good voting. It’s least amount of effort to feel like you’re actually pushing for a change. So just shut up and queue up. May we get all of this over soon so that we can get back with our lives.”
Yes, the invasion of Iraq was Clinton’s idea. Bush just did it.
Punch clock academia
Nice! I’m reminded of that idiot deniro telling people to vote dem to make things nice again. AGAIN???????
It must be lovely to be one of those clueless rich “liberals”
“…drivel…” You win word of the day. In telling me my manner of thinking is wrong this simple-minded, arrogant academic utilizes high-minded terms like “omission bias” and “miss-applied heuristic.” I’m so impressed. As an economist, this guy should consider economy of expression.
Makes me miss the time Rahm just called progressives in Obama’s veal pen (RIP Firedoglake) who went after Blue Dog dems “fucking stupid.” Count me in, Rahm.
Lieberman would have recognized Jerusalem before Trump
The author cites Kyoto Protocol withdrawal as something Gore wouldn’t have done, without mentioning that Bush cited 1997 95-0 Byrd-Hagel Senate Resolution as justification for opposing Kyoto Protocol. Neither Bush nor Gore could have gotten it ratified because of bipartisan unanimity against it.
Don’t know what Gore would have done about Iraq but Clinton’s attack on Serbia set precedent for ignoring need for Security Council approval. Richard Holbrooke wrote an a WaPo opinion piece egging on Bush, saying Clinton didn’t need it why do you.
If you voted for either the Democrats or the Republicans, would that make you guilty of being an enabler?
In my conscience it would.
By the same token I haven’t voted “effectively” in the UK since the Iraq war. But I don’t feel dirty either. A pox on all their houses.
The condescension of the voter scolding is maddening. And I suspect as counterproductive as it was for Clinton in 2016. Offer something meaningful to voters or gtfo.
I’ll drop in some bonus voter scolding I just saw in the Guardian
Obama:
“We have not yet seen the same kinds of energy and turnout in all quarters of our neighborhoods and communities as we saw when I was running. Now, I also want to say that that seems to be more pronounced with the brothers,” Obama said.
“You’re coming up with all kinds of reasons and excuses. I’ve got a problem with that.
“Part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and reasons for that.”
What are you gonna do about it dude, drone them?
Short clip of aforementioned voter scolding from Obama (Twitter)
Ugh. I feel like I’m living through a version of “The Night of the Living Dead” crossed with “Groundhog Day.”
Add “Brother From Another Planet” to the list.
ahh yes and don’t forget the toenails
2020 election had 66% turnout, much higher than in O’s time.
Would it make you culpable or guilty of genocide and massive human rights violations?
Good point. Would it? The Democrats have shown that they are fully onboard with the genocide in Gaza and are emptying out America’s arsenals so that Israel can make this happen. And if Trump got back in, I doubt that there would be any change of policy as he always gave Israel whatever they asked for. He would probably recognize Gaza and the West bank as Israeli territory like he did the Golan heights. So the two choices here are S*** and S*** Lite.
I don’t know if it would make me guilty, but morally I cannot vote for harris because of her support for the war crimes, genocide in Gaza, and the stupidity of the Ukraine war.
Having a moral line you won’t cross is a good thing.
Of course, you are correct Rev. Why did “good Americans” vote for kleptocracy, war and genocide? The history books will not be kind.
Yes, an enabler of genocide and other war crimes. The moral thing to do is opt out entirely.
As a Social Psychologist, I can firmly witness: actual scholars of “cognitive biases” don’t identify as such. To do so would be hypocritically tautological, IMHO. And over time we’ve learned the obvious, that cognitive bias claims are incredibly rife with experimenter bias which is also, I guess, tautolish.
The frosting are the references to two of the most difficult to predict candidates (at least based on any systematic study I have seen) as somehow untested evidence of this bias?
My advice? Like I would suggest that while streaking streakers should refrain from name tags or identifying tats…science practitioners making arguments without clothes should leave their credentials off the finished product.
Many thanks to the Gunch. Useful considerations in all climates of viral endeavor.
Looking at my actual ballot here, one cannot escape the realization this is probably the last opportunity to vote Cornel West for president. Also, one might suspect the republic is a rotten corpse controlled by overlapping criminal structures specializing in fraud, mayhem and psychological warfare.
Of course, the recommended heuristic here is to vote for whomsoever your Muslim neighbors tell you to vote for, but choices are basically non-existent.
thanks for calling out this prissy and specious airing of cognitive biases to justify what amount to repeated appeals to authority…he’s a college professor after all!
Eugene V. Debs, Appeal to Reason, Oct. 13 1900.
So, to protest is not a valid option this academic lectures. Americans must comply and vote for one of the options in the binary system. Not that electoral participation has been historically high in the US even if you accept the distinction between voting-age and voting-eligible population. It is obvious this is a Democrat partisan believing that high turnout favours the Democratic Party. End of story.
They’re scared they’ll lose Wisconsin and Michigan, so the attacks on the third party vote are rolling out. Thom Hartmann was smearing Stein as a grifter yesterday. Orders to perform have come down from the Dem network.
Political parties are a bit of a side show for the unwashed … its economics all the way down … cornerstone to everything else[.]
Many thanks. Stein is evidently being targeted as she was in 2016 or as Nader was in 2000, for potentially depriving the Democrats of their rightful birthright (though they were happy for decisive third party interventions in 1912 and 1992). The MSM is currently littered with pieces like this, and has been going into ‘but Trump’ overdrive. This means that people are being obliged to suspend their critical faculties and overlook the staggering complicity, mediocrity and vapidity of Harris and Walz, because this is apparently a 1932-33 moment (as if it hasn’t already been 1933 for just over a year), and editorial policies will brook no dissent or deviation. Noting my own experience, I have been censored three times in the Guardian this week for noting the effective continuities between Trump and Biden or that Harris is self-evidently a void into which neocons will be able to project their malign fantasies, though doing so was no violation of their published ‘community standards’ (but yesterday they did publish a piece by Adam Tooze arguing that Biden has very largely continued and/or amplified Trump’s foreign policies). Apparently, noting any kind of equivalence between both parties is utterly infra dig. Harris is quite obviously, and by some distance, the least talented nominee since at least Harding in 1920, and even to make that comparison is perhaps insulting to the memory of that rather amiable and hapless man. Whether she is actually the least worst candidate remains moot, and she might well be if Trump really is in debt to certain major donors (which will be the most baleful and problematic outcome of the Democrats’ lawfare).
> insulting to the memory of that rather amiable and hapless man
He commented Debs’ sentence. It’s hard to imagine Harris doing anything like that.
Yes, Harding pardoned Debs from being imprisoned for giving a mildly anti-war speech that Democratic president Woodrow Wilson didn’t like.
.
As attorney general Harris kept prisoners in CA jails longer to use their labor.
Perhaps Harris is Joe Bidens final contemptible act as his life’s clock runs down.
Actually I had intended to post and comment Tooze from the Guardian here.
“Facing war in the Middle East and Ukraine, the US looks feeble. But is it just an act?”
Adam Tooze
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/10/war-middle-east-ukraine-us-feeble-biden-trump
Moon of Alabama too had him in a post:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/10/bidens-intent-is-to-sow-chaos-it-is-netanyahoo-who-works-for-him.html#more
However I hadn´t been through with Tooze. So thanks for mentioning (even if unpleasant context.)
I got relentless hectoring from a good friend because I voted for Nader in ’00 in a state that wasn’t in play anyway. Fanatical Democrats are, as they have been for decades, the most annoying people I’ve ever come up against not true of fanatical Republicans who have been, for a long time, more open minded–and I’ve always been on the (real) left, i.e., anti-war, pro-worker.
The author, Daniel F. Stone, is apparently the Chair of the Econ Dept. at Bowdoin, and has written a book on behavioral economics.
Above my pay grade to evaluate that, but the argument against voting third party is curious for an academic who claims to advocate “internalize your externalities”. Total non-starter.
Thanks for this, Acacia. I went over to The Conversation’s site to make a comment on this piece (had planned to simply provide a link to Yves’ post), only to find zero comments, because none had been allowed. So, not much of a “conversation“.
Comments critical of Stone would be disinformation. Can’t have that and thus must close Comments.
I think that the “author” of this piece makes the mistake of ignoring the phenomenon of “creep.” A non-mainstream idea begins as a “protest” of some sort or another. In this case, voting for a non-mainstream candidate. Over time, the simple fact of public recognition of the fact of there being an alternative at all will either grow into mainstream acceptance or wither and die. Either way, voting for a non-mainstream candidate sends a clear message to one and all: there is a ‘situation’ extant that defies the present “official” narrative, and there is a remedy available.
Voting is not just “making a choice from the “official” candidates on offer.” Voting is also sending a message. Baring Donorship, how else are Politicos to know what the people want? Secondly, how else do Politicos learn that there are ‘outcomes’ that redound ‘not necessarily to their advantage?’
If this is taken seriously then not only no new party, but no cause which has not succeeded in the past, could ever be supported. So, for instance, nobody should have supported the anti-apartheid movement, because apartheid had succeeded.
As I understand it, people like this are in charge of most of the economics departments in the world. Go figure, as they say.
I agree with you. I wonder how this economist would respond if the argument for voting third party would be made in the style of the diffusion of innovation and risk-taking entrepreneurship.
I got this far into this apologia for the exteremly lack of voter power in the US political system:
Why would you, as an unhappy voter, want for other unhappy voters to vote for one of the bad candidates? Wouldn’t you want them to vote for a good candidate instead?
Thus, following his logic, if you think that everybody should vote Stein, you are actually obliged to vote Stein. And if everybody did, Stein would get most votes and thus elected (or couped, or assassinated, this is the US after all).
Stone would undoubtly reply by introducing viable and unviable candidates. But “do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless that would put you in a small minority, then you better just follow what others are already doing” is not how I understand the Golden rule.
I wondered this too. The whole thing reminds me of a paper I wrote in high school where I tried to use logic to determine what the “right” set of values was. Years later I realized it doesn’t work that way; logic helps us implement our chosen values, not choose them–choosing values is a feeling thing.
It is so comically, adolescently arrogant to think that you can prove your value set is superior just like you can prove that 2 + 2 = 4. Which I suppose is why we get such funny statements from Stone, like assuming that in their heart of hearts, people making a protest vote don’t want other prople to do the same. In part two I am sure he will tell us about the logical fallacies that people with other impossible choices make. I am sure it will make perfect sense from his ivory tower.
Viability seems to be mostly a function of bought media capture, not a candidate’s professed policies.
Candidates are unviable until they’re not. Trump was considered unviable for much of the 2016 primary season.
Mostly what makes candidates unviable is people believing they’re unviable (the Keynesian beauty contest effect). While that’s powerful, it can also lead to very quick shifts if public opinion changes.
Here’s Sabby passionately rebutting Stone’s thesis : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP3wfk-2IHk
Excellent – good on her!
It may be due to having watched a couple videos voluntarily and the subsequent follow up by the wretched algos pushing stuff at me, but I’m seeing a LOT of videos from African Americans recently who are done with Harris and planning on voting for Trump, Stein, or just sitting it out.
I fail to see how voting for one of two empire tools furthers democracy. The “lesser of two weevils” is not the answer. Voting for third-party candidates or boycotting are really the only two legal options open to most people to bring political change – as ineffectual as it is in most cases. Third party candidates are not likely to win, but sounding out the “mood of the nation” is one way to move the Overton window as established parties may adopt parts of third party platforms in an attempt to woo voters.
I have already cast my early vote for Jill Stein, for what it’s worth.
The Dem campaign in full:
“Vote for butt cancer, it’s better than brain cancer!…
…Hey, why aren’t you voting for the butt cancer???!! Do you want the brain cancer?”
Traditionally, this is presented as having a choice between plague and cholera. In those times, both were incurable.
I see this as really just a “hit” piece. This pretend “academic” has obviously sniffed out the truffle of what will get him published. He seems to fill his career by watching sports, and “thinking” about it. He, and a good many other “pretend” academics who are obviously too immature to want a “real” job, that requires “work”, or critical thinking , really do seem to proliferate an astounding amount of ignorant thesis.
The list of this guys “papers”… seems he really is into sports. So that means he watches grown men play children’s games,; and he somehow feels this will enable him to “tell” people what to do. He is just not ready for the world of grown ups.
One of the dismal aspects of this guy being paid, and having a job; Is that there are kids who get taught by this befuddled professor. To think how these people who pay for an education are getting swindled by these academic institutions, who literally fill the ranks with pandering buffoons .
As the finster once said here, “It’s called vote shaming. We endure it every four years.”
If two parties agree on 95% of the issues but make a lot of noise about the 5% they disagree on. Measuring by the noise is a cognitive bias.
And believing they care about the 5% as opposed to strategically branding themselves to look different is just being stupid.
During the debate “Hair Furore” mentioned nukes 3 times (iirc about Ukraine not being that worth it) the sitting VP never said the word “nukes”, but said Stalin’s 1922 borders of the Ukraine SSR are sacred! Our “rules and norms”!
I will vote against rules and norms for Stalin!
the sitting VP…said Stalin’s 1922 borders of the Ukraine SSR are sacred!
She is proposing that a good chunk of Western Ukraine including Lviv goes back to Poland? Warsaw may or may not like this.
This does settle the Crimea issue. Crimea was part of the Russian SSR in 1922.
I think your vote would go to Lenin. He was still the big boss in 1922. Stalin was only dreaming of replacing him at that time.
Crimea was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR around 1957 by Party Secretary Krushchev. So the Democratic Party is fully behind Krushchev. Wonder if they also support him putting nuclear missiles in Cuba?
Instead, these people claim the two main options are equally bad. But regardless of what your actual values and policy preferences are, that’s almost certainly untrue. The two candidates hold very different views on a wide range of issues, and have different records of what they have done – and not done – when in office.
There are such things as KO-criteria. Reading comments on this site, it appears that for a number of people, the staunchly pro-Zionist and generally belligerent positions of both Harris and Trump make them simply unacceptable — no matter what opinions they hold on other topics or what record they can tout about their past performance.
Boycotting here doesn’t help you achieve your goal of eliminating or improving something you don’t like.
Boycotting in the sense of “not voting at all” will indeed have no influence; politicians care about their share of the actual votes, not about voting participation. This is precisely why a significant fraction of voters choosing a third-party, or voting blank has an influence. In politics, there is such a thing as being “badly elected” or having a “weak mandate”.
But after winning – partly because of third-party voters who cast ballots for independent Ralph Nader – Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol to limit global carbon emissions, invaded Iraq, and passed tax cuts favoring the wealthy.
All of those were actions Gore would almost certainly not have taken.
It seems to me that the “partly because” in the first sentence, and the “almost certainly” in the second one are unproven hypotheticals.
The whole discussion about voting for the lesser evil is tiresome. All readers here have probably lived through enough such situations where the “lesser evil” ends up doing the politics of the “greater evil”. Simply because it is more important for a politician to gather the acceptance and votes of the larger opposition than that of the small fraction of voters — 10000 people in the example given by Stone — who, anyway, “have nowhere else to go”.
The whole discussion about voting for the lesser evil is tiresome I believe that about sums it up.
I will vote for Stein because her platform more or less represents my views.
There are several intellectual pathologies endemic in the USA that seem to derive from inability to imagine electoral dynamics other than that which exists.
Just one example: when Team Red does internal politics to determine their legislative priorities after winning control of the House, Team Blue mocks them for indiscipline. When activists argued that Team Blue should do that to force Medicare for All onto the agenda in 2020, those activists were drummed out of polite company. It’s the same strategy of forming a faction and demanding policy as a block or support is withdrawn. And the same strategy can be used in advance of an election itself. For that to work, the faction needs to be ready to blow up the alliance and lose the election as often as it takes for the party itself to change. Stone is saying which side of that negotiation he’s on.
Voting third party sends the message to the parties to offer up better candidates. That’s a message that needs to be delivered.
Actually, voting third party should encourage members of the third party to work harder so that they can someday get into government. Voting Jill Stein so that Karmala Harris will make nicer is, in my view, a deluded doctrine. At least, as far as I know, it has never worked anywhere. I speak as one who voted CoPe in 2007 (holding my nose, they were hideous people) to try to get the ANC to move back to the good old days. Didn’t turn out like that.
A bit off topic but sharing a new reason I found to hate Dems.
I wish there was a way we could have an actual democracy with candidates that finally appeared on the ballot who were representative of the public’s major consensus issues to choose from. Can’t have much of a democracy if your choices are between bad vs worse.
Repubs seem to be pretty clear about their intentions and, when in power, actually deliver. Usually this is bad for the majority of Americans.
The Dems seem to be the default party to actually do stuff for the most people (I guess from stuff they did decades ago) but now suck at delivering anything that can’t also benefit the big corps like “health care”.
So pox on both their houses.
On a personal note, the Dems have found a new way to alienate me.
I have my own domain on the internet. So one of the things I do is, when I sign up for something I make up a new email address like companyA@[mydomain]. While we are on good terms it is a little more complicated for me to reply but I found a way. But the main reason for me to create these multiple email addresses for multiple sign-ups, is to see if they later turn to spam sources which are limited to this one email address.
So, back to the Dems politically.
Recently one of these email addys started getting a bunch of stuff from a local Dem candidate.
Umm, back story. The address they were sending to was one I created about 15 yrs ago. I bought a car that had a radio that could receive satellite XM radio. Nice for a while and I used email like ‘me_xm.mydomain’ when I subscribed. In not too long I realized that satellite radio would be great if I drove a lot especially through rural locations. But I didn’t really drive much — only a few minutes a day.
So I decided to end my XM subscription. It was a very painful process. If I remember correctly I had to actually mail some paper statement to them. I clearly remember never wanting to deal with the scumbags at XM again.
The ‘me_xm.mydomain’ email address has been inactive for a decade or more until recently one local office political Dem candidate started sending me messages.
Now the Dem spam to this – “nothing but spam” – email has increased with a bunch more of messages from DLCC reminding me that I haven’t given them any money lately.
Good work Dems.
Find a dead email address on some spam list and start spamming it like I’m a serious Dem that will send you money. Opposite accomplished.
“I wish there was a way we could have an actual democracy with candidates that finally appeared on the ballot who were representative of the public’s major consensus issues to choose from.”
That can’t happen as long as the main route to political power is provided by people/companies with lots of money to spend on candidates who will then owe them fealty. I.e. the electoral system must be changed, but how will you get the ‘lots of money’ people to agree to that? There would have to be deeply felt and widespread dissatisfaction among the mass of people. Of course, this may(!) be coming.
More often than not the money ain’t going to be used on actually engaging with the voters. The election consultant industry is not only disgustingly big but also self-sustainable — nearly all politicians’ aides are chummy with the consultancy because they’re all the same. If they aren’t working as aides then they work as consultants and vice versa.
Yeah… not even slightly convincing. The simplest question here is how is a forced choice freedom? And why should I participate in a process that ignores my opinions? Also, isn’t this why our constitution doesn’t mention parties? This cognitive bias expert displays all the intellectual capacity of a hamster stuck on a wheel inside of his cage.
I refuse to vote for the system that exists to visit war crimes on poor people in other countries while ignoring the needs of our suffering citizens at home. People are inventing stories about man made hurricanes because they rightfully believe that people like Hillary Clinton would punish them like angry gods if they could. Any chance I had of even considering Harris was washed away when she bear hugged the Cheneys. Her making signs that Gensler and Khan will be gone is just further proof Harris isn’t what this country needs.
It is impossible to talk to anyone in my circle about any of these issues though. Trump is Hitler and the Republicans are coming from hell to rape and pillage. There’s nothing undemocratic about what the Democrats did slotting in Harris. Another 4 years of the Collective Biden will fix everything. Rejoice comrade! Show your joy with a smile. Happiness will be mandatory whenever First Citizen Kamala appears, so practice being an appreciative citizen now. There are consequences for those who don’t.
What would the author say to the choice that all undecided voters should vote for they’re perceived “greater” evil, since their experience in voting for their perceived “lesser” evil hasn’t worked.
>Another reason people might choose a protest vote is because of a phenomenon in which people prefer to make mistakes of inaction – omission – over making mistakes that involve taking action – commission. People feel less guilty when they haven’t acted directly in support of a bad outcome. But both action and inaction can be errors, and both can deliver undesired results that constitute bad outcomes.
As far as I’m concerned I’ve seen nothing but bad outcomes for the average person voting for the Ds and Rs over the last few decades.
As far as voting 3rd party, I would agree with Trump’s statement to black voters in 2016. Still rings true today for everyone and applicable to voting 3rd(or other party).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-jasg-_E5M
And by the way, seeing a lot of ads on faceborg that have Bernie Sanders asking me to vote for Kamalala.
Shouldn’t he be supporting Jill Stein? Seems like her policies align more with what he’s been selling for decades. .
So we’re clear, I’m not supporting Trump, I just like the question he asked of Black voters and to me it applies to voting for other than the uniparty.
Yes, Bernie’s policies align with Stein’s, but in order to keep his job, he has to tow the line with the Dems.
No, Bernard Sanders is a sheepdog for the Ds. He panders to his followers with lots of blah blah, but at the end of the day, tells us to support the status-quo and vote genocide! How progressive
Excellent introduction. I’ll not read the article as it’s more of the same old stuff – keep the status quo. We have arrived at corporate feudalism. Working people’s lives don’t matter. Why would I vote for that? And I refuse to vote for genocide.
I have no idea what would motivate me to vote in this election, I just know it hasn’t happened.
Kamala has run to the right faster than any Dem in my lifetime. And the endless wars of the last several years is a red line for me (a real red line, unlike Sleepy Brandon’s red line in Rafah.)
Then the campaigning with Liz, this lovey dovey talk about small businesses. This warmed over neoliberalism doesn’t even depress me anymore, I just feel nothing toward it.
Probably this country has been irrecoverable since Bush was re-elected in 04, if not before that.
I thought the point made of a vote for Stein/Ware — if enough are cast, would help get the Green party to a nationally-recognized party was an important one. Not to mention the Green platform (they have a stated platform!) may align with many folks ‘ideal’ of a direction for our nation-state.
? Oh, BTW Hair Furore. Lesser of two weevils. Both new to me but wow— I LOVE it! Sort of like when I first heard the term Trumpeter.
Stein / Ware 2024. Not that it matters. Does it matter?
voted Stein/Ware because they’re against both wars, proxy & genocide, and i want to provide the numbers for the same reason –
have yet to see a comment about the electoral college and how that antiquated relic is a heavy thumb on the scale and very relative to this post – defeats the popular vote again and again –
Old argument. So what? Kamala and Donny support genocide. Other than that I see no difference writing home about. She is a blank slate. He is more of the same. I shall not vote for either one. The only other time I did not cast a vote for president was in 1964 when, having just moved, I was unable to register in my new location. This time I shall not vote as each revolts me.
I have an old friend who has always been vastly more interested in politics than I am (or ever was) who has convinced me of his thesis that democratic politics is a substitute for warfare — the violence is sublimated, but it never really goes away.
As such, voting is an opportunity to discipline (and punish, if you like) those who seek to be your elected representatives. In the absence of other forms of accountability, withholding your vote is one way of disciplining a wayward candidate without necessarily endorsing his/her opponent. So the Econ professor is, wait for it, wrong — not terribly surprising since he’s opining outside of his area supposed expertise.
I don’t live in the US, but if I did, I would certainly be looking forward to the opportunity to discipline a Democratic Party which has been avoiding anything like accountability in its primary process for at least a decade now — by voting for someone, anyone else. And should they come and complain about my decision because it cost them the election my response would be, “now that I have your attention, what are you going to do to EARN my vote next time?”
I see the Stone piece as just a diligent worker doing his job. He clearly states his PMC credentials. I see the PMC as analogous to the overseer class of the southern plantation economy. Their job is to keep the slaves in line. This is just hasbara to that effect. He attaches his name to get PMC social credits points with the owners in the big house.
Stones witty little reference in the link to Bayesian update somehow made me think of the Bayesian update recently experienced by that oligarch’s yacht.
That was not a nice thought.
I think the PMC function like a priesthood — promulgating justification for arrangements which benefit their paymasters.
I don’t understand this logic, and I’m not sure I can even call it logic. The author argues that because your single vote doesn’t really matter, using it to protest is a misapplied rule. Bullsh*t. It matters because it is the only way of not furthering the status quo, and the status quo is killing people. Why does he think so many people don’t bother to vote at all? Because of the fact that there is no real choice in D versus R candidates: they lead to the same place. Trump is a gift to the Democrats. They love having someone to rail against (as do the Republicans) and raise funds “fighting for you”. LOL. But once elected, the Democrats ensure the same outcome, by action or inaction. Why? Because they’re funded by the same people. The ultra wealthy who control real decisionmaking “vote” to preserve their power and wealth. Why on earth would I vote to continue this insane, corrupt process? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results isn’t insane: it’s just stupid.
Let’s see if Lina Khan gets to stay or is shown the door. If Harris wins and fires her, welly, I guess we’ll know whose promises are being kept.
I don’t object to a protest vote or staying home, at all, but I feel as though a lot of the people who do this are tacitly laboring under most of the same delusions as the people who participate in the two party system. Namely, that your vote matters, that our elections are free and fair, that the elites haven’t tilted the table so far that none of it makes any differences, that anyone in power really cares if you write in Bugs Bunny as a candidate. The whole system is set up so that most of the same things happen no matter what.
Honestly, I think student councils growing up were way too on the nose. You elected leaders, sure, but they were mostly hollow mandarins while the real authority was held by administrators who were in no way accountable to the student body in any direct or official capacity. A kind of political “kid’s choice” daycare kind of politics. I’m exhausted talking about the whole thing, but exactly like student government they throw them a budget and they get a few choices on mostly inconsequential matters to make it sporting.
Voting is just one tool in the box, one of the many tactics a person can use. The Economist is telling us that within the constraints of this perfect democratic system, using it to vote for Stein would mess up the system. If the system is oligarchic, then it may need monkey wrenches thoughtfully employed. The tactic we use should suit the job to be done.
Vote for the turd sandwich or the turd soup. Ya gotta eat something! What a maroon this guy is.
Heh heh, reminds me of an old down east joke, the punch line being “…this is the worst moose turd pie I have ever had.”
A bit different punchline. Is this the same story?
Utah Phillips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ajLnuw2oo
Lol, same joke more or less and an excellent telling, thanks. The dad joke at the beginning is a keeper as well.
Thanks.
There is no excuse for not doing everything one can to prevent Trump from getting re-elected. That means (at a minimum) vote!
I know that you are giving your own genuine thought here but from my distant perch, those that vote for the Democrats seem to be suffering from something similar to Battered Wives Syndrome. Neither candidate or party is worthy of voters in the US and that is the truth.
I’m reminded of song lyrics:
“But she’s a summer storm, (he’s) a hurricane
One just blows through town, one blows the town away”
Whataboutisms and false equivalencies won’t cut it. There is no excuse for not doing everything one can to prevent Trump from being re-elected.
You are right. For the sake of defending democracy, a regime that’s dedicated to warmongerism, censorship, surveilance, corporate welfare, corruption, lawfare, and actively promoting violence against political enemies has to be stopped at all cost (and no, that’s not Trump).
LOL. Projection.
Lol. Deflection.
Yes, you must vote Joyful Genocide, to “save democracy”. Democracy means doing as you are told, no critical thinking is required. So you will vote for genocide, kleptocracy, corruption and you will like it.
Really?
I suspect that some will vote for Trump hoping to watch the Democrats morph into a true opposition party.
Not that the Democrats will oppose much of a President Trump’s policies.
But they will give speeches in opposition as a young Illinois legislator, Obama, did against the Iraq War.
Then Obama morphed into the Libyian war and drone assassinating supporter who extended Iraq and Afghanistan military conflicts.
In my view, There is no excuse for being a “there is no other choice” Harris supporter.
Don’t forget he misted US citizens in Yemen…lesser evil my “a”
Voting Trump!
I look forward to the election deniers come next Jan 6th! Scaring Mike Johnson!
The exploding heads from 2017 need repeated!
No mention of the Electoral College that selects the President of the USA.
The reason to vote alternate parties is to get to the point where the Electoral College is challenged as part of the institution. IMO
A third party could win, but the Electoral College then reminds everybody that their vote does not matter at all for President. Getting the popular vote isn’t all there is to this battle.
———-
And then what Yves’ Lebanese friend says:
“…they want their Israeli army base puppets to control the region n build the rail road from India to Emirates to haifa to EU n control all shipping n gas to EU n u have those sick evil phony monarchies on it with Israel n against the resistance…”
Not discussed enough that the USA or Israel follow the tried and true way to conquer. None of this would be happening without the help from other Mid-East countries.
Other countries (or groups) are never oppressed without it partly being an inside job….usually some elite group (or aspiring elite) finding this the best way for them to keep power and wealth.
Israel would be modestly weaker if the USAF/USN were out of Adana (Turkiye), Bahrain, and al Udeid (Qatar) and the Brits out of Cyprus. All within range of Iranian weapons?
Iraq!
Yes ,in Indiana, its electoral votes will go to Trump (I will bet $20 on it). I checked the state government’s website for write-in for candidates and Jill Stein is not on there – probably dems struck again. Will vote for another write-in as neither is worthy. Also will not vote for ANY congress critter as they all rubber- stamp genocide.
And prove to me Gore would not have done the same – 9/11 was the result of years of U.S. meddling in the middle east.
re: “Other countries (or groups) are never oppressed without it partly being an inside job….usually some elite group (or aspiring elite) finding this the best way for them to keep power and wealth.”
Reminded me of a Burns poem:
“What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro’ many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few
For hireling traitor’s wages.
The English steel we could disdain;
Secure in valour’s station;
But English gold has been our bane –
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.”
Applies all over, including the USA.
The only power you have as a voter is your vote. If you give it without it being earned, you are wasting the only power you have, no matter how insignificant it may seem. In a functioning democracy, it’s the politician’s job to earn votes, not the people’s job to provide them free of charge.
We shouldn’t give votes without them being earned, but it’s not the only power people have. There are always other ways to influence the decision makers.*
*I’m very much in favor of unions, but hopefully this clip makes my point in general.
Vote? Democracy? Accountability? Meaningful choice? What a quaint notion.
“The US is an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery”
We should have political seats auctioned off to the highest bidders on live TV and livestream. It would not be “democratic” but it would be more transparent and fair than the sham we have now.
No matter, millions of duped, gullible, conditioned US denizens will do exactly as they are told and vote for one of the two teams. No matter the outcome, the Bipartisan Consensus, genocide, proxy wars, and oligarchy will continue. The decline of the health and quality of life for the average ‘merkan will continue to decline. Not to be doom and gloom, but I see no credible evidence to the contrary.
Election Derangement Syndrome, and Collective Stockholm Syndrome are pandemic, I can’t wait for the intelligence-insulting spectacle to be over
Typical thinking for an economist. Here he is right off the bat assuming the can opener –
“But they almost surely dislike one candidate more than they dislike the other.”
What part of ‘a pox on both their houses’ does this midwit not understand? We do not have just two parties in this country and there are almost always multiple other choices on offer. And yet every election cycle these clowns come out of the woodwork telling us how actually exercising the freedom of choice we do have just causes problems and isn’t really worth it.
This clown teaches at my alma mater. I’m glad my recent donation was an under the table one that didn’t go through the development office so that my limited funds could go directly where I wanted them to and not to support dubious scholarship such as this.
DEVO had guys like this pegged years ago.
“Freedom of choice is what you got. Freedom from choice is what you want.”
Yes ,in Indiana, its electoral votes will go to Trump (I will bet $20 on it). I checked the state government’s website for write-in for candidates and Jill Stein is not on there – probably dems struck again. Will vote for another write-in as neither is worthy. Also will not vote for ANY congress critter as they all rubber- stamp genocide.
And prove to me Gore would not have done the same – 9/11 was the result of years of U.S. meddling in the middle east.
Indiana is one of the three states where the Green Party have never made it onto the ballot — along with Oklahoma and South Dakota — according to Richard Winger.
https://ballot-access.org/2024/09/28/seventh-circuit-wont-reconsider-indiana-ballot-access-case/
I wonder if the professor has an unexplored cognitive bias of his own. Would he give the same advice to a conservative trying to decide between Trump and a third party?
He’d say “Vote libertarian” in a heartbeat; he’s a tenured economics professor and chair.
Once again, Yves write up is the part well worth reading. I have my ballot, the PSL is not on it (they’re Leninists, which I am not exactly, but…) so it is Jill for me. I wanted her yard sign, but I can’t afford it. Actually in my neighborhood I could put it up without fear of being firebombed, there are two Harris signs, one Trump sign, and one anti-Trump sign. Most people here know well that we are in some serious sh!t, but haven’t gotten to a more elaborate analysis of how we get out of it. I’ll just reflect on Emma Goldman’s or Lucy Parson’s apothegms about voting. The sun is out and that is nice.
The final line from the exercise in concern trolling by the learned gentleman:
Dear professor, I fear a cognitive error has crept into your disinterested analysis. It is not a binary choice. If it were you wouldn’t need to paternalistically chide the wayward on the folly of their opting not to vote for either Rant or Chuckles (particularly not Chuckles).
Don’t like that? Not what you had in mind for a democracy? Like it or not, that’s whatcha got.
Sound familiar?
This is more of a speculation about governing than the “selection” in Nov., but I’ll put it on this thread:
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/decision-2024/obama-urges-black-men-to-show-up-for-harris-as-he-campaigns-in-critical-pennsylvania/3995413/
I’m wondering if O can’t get Harris over the hump, will it diminish his usefulness to the party leadership? If he can’t be counted on to corral the black folks, what would his purpose be?
What difference does it make? Both candidates support oligarchy, corruption, genocide, proxy wars, kleptocracy etc.
Just speculating about this particular person’s usefulness after the election to oligarchy, corruption, genocide, proxy wars, kleptocracy, etc .
In the current US “First Past The Post” system, *NO* vote for an alternative can *EVER* help a Republican beat a Democrat or a Democrat beat a Republican. It’s impossible.
With Ranked Choice Voting, voters can choose an alternative first — and then make finer distinctions if they see any. If you see one of the two rich-wing candidates as a lesser evil — and more than that, one who is not KO-ed (as vao termed it earlier) by their policies or performance being agreement-incapable to you — then it’s an easier matter for you to vote that lesser evil as a second choice. You could even decide whether it’s worth your while, tactically or strategically, to compromise your values enough to put them first. And as long as you don’t go on to rank the evil you see as greater at all, that candidate will never get your vote under RCV.
But that’s where voters don’t get what they really want — settling for lesser evils, who are still evils, and whose success will breed more contempt of what voters want.
I believe voters don’t want lesser-evil candidates (or policies). I believe voters want good choices, good policies, good candidates — even (dare I say it?) good government.
And we know we haven’t been getting much if any of that. It’s been true for years now that, when surveyed, more voters said they identified with neither Republicans nor Democrats than with either one.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx
(I note that, after Gallup asks their main question in this poll — “In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an independent?” — they keep asking only one follow-up, only of those in the plurality who answer that they are independent of the Ds and Rs: “As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?” They never get around to asking the R and D leaners a follow-up like: “If you knew your vote would decide the election, which party would you really vote for?” Maybe if they did, they’d have to name names of other parties, if only to prevent the independent bloc from having a supermajority.)
PR does not exactly help address that. If you wind up with a coalition government, voters have very little control over how that coalition will be structured and who will wield influence in that coalition. (See Germany,). Or, if you have a runoff-based system, you can still have the electoral loser dictating politics against the wishes of even a supermajority of voters (see France). If you have ranked choice voting, you get very little differece (see Australia) or very convoluted system with very opaque insides that you can never really examine closely (see Ireleand). No electoral system, or, indeed any sort of election, can solve this problem. In the dimension that’s rarely mentioned, James Madison understood this even in 1788:
If the “people who are to choose them” are lost, then there’s no saving the system.
Your comment about no system solving the issue is well made. “Fair votes” is an oxymoron. All systems are vulnerable to Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. Being half Australian I find the desire for ranked choice really weird: if you argue for that you need lessons in both Aussie history and in Mathematics concerning the likelihood function of the rank ordered logit and its derivatives.
I’ve probably bored people like PlutoniumKun and the Colonel amongst others before with discussion of a system put forward by a mainland European group who took the generalised method of preference elicitation I co-wrote the definitive textbook on and constructed a special case in devising a voting system – best-worst (aka most-least) voting.
It is just as flawed as all the other systems but I wrote a few months ago how a hypothetical example of it in a USA context that I fleshed out for lulz turned up in reality in the 2016 Iowa Caucus in illustrating how it’s the ideal form of democracy to put “a plague on both your houses” since the likelihood function puts EQUAL weight on like and dislike (unlike ranked choice). Furthermore it’s not a theoretical curiosity but was used IRL in at least one of the Baltic states after secession from the USSR.
You know, I’d been looking for that textbook for a while. What’s the title? Is it published in US (or only in locales outside US)?
Thanks for the interest. Best-Worst Scaling: Theory, Methods and Applications. Jordan J Louviere, Terry N Flynn & Anthony AJ Marley. Cambridge University Press 2015.
It was still available in places like the US and Australia via CUP website and the dreaded Amazon when I checked 6ish months ago.
Yes. We have a PR system with two right-wing parties, one left-wing party and one confused party. After the election the larger of the right-wing parties (with black electorate) went into coalition with the smaller of the right-wing parties (with white electorate) in order to prevent the evil people (the left-wing party and the confused party) from taking power. The policies have remained the same (privatisation and austerity), surprise, surprise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqRNnIMDkUY
Lawrence O’Donnell Explains how Corporate Democrats Think
Follow-up question: would the Ds (or the Rs) listen any more to you if you show them they’re capable of NOT getting your votes if you go so far as to show them THEY’RE NOT capable of getting your votes? Or will they just never believe that?
As for the Electoral College . . . well, in the context of the current election that’s the very-long-shot but theoretical path for a Stein victory. Win a state or two in a close election, and you’re the third candidate the US House gets to consider — and as long as the House delegations in those states hold to the choice of their voters, she could wind up as the compromise choice after the Big Two block each other.
Down the line, we could keep in mind that the EC does have some merits — as even MIT math professors and baseball fans, “nine-year-olds could explain to a Martian”, can understand:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/from-the-archive-math-against-tyranny
and then think back to the 14th Amendment.
As part of enforcement of the other Civil War Amendments granting African Americans the right to vote, Section 2 of the 14th Amendment says that — if a state denies “or in any way abridge[s]” the right of its male citizens 21 and over to vote for President and Vice President (or any of a list of other offices) — it is to lose a number of US House seats in proportion to the denial . . . which would also cost it that many electoral votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It may have been expected to apply to only the “returning” Confederate states, but it doesn’t say that.
Both these amendments were, of course, adopted after the original language — so Congress and the states are presumed to have passed them knowing what else was previously in the Constitution, and agreed to any impact the amendments would have on that older language. In other words, the amendments supersede the original language — and the 14th, coming after the 12th, takes precedence over it in the same way. Several later amendments have changed who was eligible to vote, but nothing later has changed how the Electoral College itself works. (Unless you count the term limits in the 22nd Amendment in 1951.)
Fast forward to the 1960s, and a bunch of big Supreme Court opinions on voting rights. The one-person-one-vote line of decisions (such as _Reynolds v Sims_) holds that one way to not only abridge but actually deny the voting rights of a person or a group is to dilute their voting power — their ability to actually elect who they want by voting. Well, winner-take-all awarding of electoral votes does exactly that . . . it dilutes the voting power of anyone who didn’t vote for the state’s plurality winner. (The more candidates there are, the less likely that state winners are even majority winners — and if they’re not, that means more people whose voting rights are denied by dilution.)
Combine this solid Supreme Court precedent with Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, and the upshot is that a state legislature’s power to appoint Presidential electors however it chooses is no longer plenary. Instead, a state which doesn’t apportion its electoral votes to Presidential candidates/tickets in proportion to the share of popular votes they got in that state is *violating the Constitution* — and subject to the Mal-Apportionment Penalty of losing House seats and electoral votes. (At least the state’s “House-based” EC votes should be apportioned; one could make an argument either way about awarding the two “Senate-based” EC votes separately, or maybe even winner-take-both.)
This is related to why the National Popular Vote compact proposal is unconstitutional too. NPV would mean an even worse denial of the voting rights of pluralities or even majorities of voters in some NPV states — totally diluting their voting power based on results from other states which may very well have vastly different rules for who can vote, who can get on the ballot, when which ballots can get recounted, etc. (And the 11th Amendment specifically bans citizens of one state suing another state — unless Congress specifically authorizes such suits under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.)
I would support a direct-popular-vote Constitutional amendment once all states have the same good and fair rules in all those vital areas — or at least once all states meet good, fair, and strong enough standards for them. In the meantime, we can get closer to a direct popular vote without NPV by enforcing Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. Here’s one good source for more information on that section and the Mal-Apportionment Penalty:
http://asagordon.byethost10.com/
And if you’re intrigued by this proposal, here’s another from Professor Gordon:
https://greenpagesnews.org/taxpayer-voter-id-act-would-allow-more-citizens-to-vote/
Is it that complicated ?
By not voting or voting for the duopoly you will be voting for foreign wars and further corporate led disenfranchisement of the working classes.
Of course your corporate and government owned MSM networks will keep feeding you a toxic brew of non economic cultural talking points designed to ensure that you will dislike your neighbours.
In the end, our susceptibility to propaganda turns us into our own worst enemies.
No.
Genocide is a hard limit and I refuse to either condone or excuse the brutal slaughter of innocents, which both candidates have promised to continue even though it is a violation of US and International law.
I consider myself an independent type voter. Many of my friends, who are Democratic seem to have certain things in common: 1) They detest Trump; 2) They consideer Putin evil, 3) Ukraine should be supported, 4) They are troubled by Netanyahu (but what should Biden have done different)., and 5) They have an incapacity to try to understand any other viewpoint that doesn’t agree with theirs (lumping opposing views into the barrel of conspiracy theories). E.G. I have a low opinion of Trump, but I have tried to understand why he has appeali to almost half the electorate. My ‘liberal ‘ friends lump the latter into one size fits all and condemn them all, thus failing to reflect on what is Trump’s appeal (to some mystical to some racist & nationalistic, and to some fed up with the Democrats). why did Biden had such poor approval ratings while Trump has so many failings,, and why Harris, (who wouldn’t have done anything different than Biden (her own words), won’t get low scores if she won. E.G. If I say, it’s unfortunate, but Ukraine is not my problem or that if Putin is ‘evil’, then Biden is no better. or that conducting a genocide in Gaza isn not int he interests of the US, at all, my friends are agape. Democratic or Republican – a choice between two bottles of lethal poison. The latter is overtly toxic, the former is more subtle. IMO, The Democratic party has so aligned itself with a neocon foreign policy that it might as well adopt a swatiska as its emblem. I actually considered voting for Trump for two reasons: 1) as a protest vote against the Democrats and 2) There is the possibility of his communicating with Putin (who, however low the possibility), might be willing to put the settlement of issues in Europe and West Asia on a negotiating table. But Trump leans too far into Netanyahu’s camp for my liking. Out of conscience, my only choice to express a desire for peaceful co-extistance is to vote for Jill Stein, who has no possibility of winning. Otherwise, the people of the US will get the leadership they want and deserve.
In reply to Yves and Tom Stone, as well as T. Martin, I’d like to suggest another alternative to “altruistic punishment” or “third-party protest votes,” using my own case as an example:
I lean strongly towards Harris in domestic and economic policy, but the Gaza genocide is a red-line for me — completely unacceptable. I could just vote third-party or decline to vote as a protest or altruistic punishment (e.g., the “Abandon Harris” campaign). This would be more morally satisfying than holding my nose and voting for Harris, but strategically unsatisfying. I wish there were a way to put real, political pressure on Harris and the Democrats, which means making a real demand, backed up by a power move, not just moral posturing.
I think what I am wishing for is not a movement to “Abandon Harris” but one to “put your Harris vote in escrow:” we would vote for Harris if-and-only-if she supports a full cease-fire in Gaza backed up by withholding offensive weapons to Israel. If enough would-be Harris voters did this, it might make the difference in Michigan or other swing states and might — just might — set a precedent for the Left making actual, backed-up demands and actually using its power to change party policy…
Sounds like an institutional version of “hold their feet to the fire”. If you really want representatives that can be recalled when they fail to represent your interests, then look no further than the original Soviet model.
Under the current USian system, the only escrow option is to simply refuse to vote for any pol that doesn’t fully represent your interests. And bear in mind the incessant empty promises and backpedaling of the party hacks (of which Harris is only the latest and emptiest of hacks). Instead, you can vote for a third party.
So if you vote, don’t vote for what you believe in, don’t stand up for your values, don’t support the platform that is closest to what you’ve been fighting for your whole life outside of conventional mainstream politics; instead betray and sabotage yourself and vote to maintain the system that has ensured you are and remain discounted, and has steadily eroded your rights and those of your loved ones and the communities you are part of. I say this as a gay immigrant and senior citizen and artist from Mexico and a person of color, living under the poverty level and facing disabling health issues, who is keenly aware of how the governments of Western wealthy nations founded upon racist genocidal violence and benefitting from mass exploitation worldwide are intensifying their onslaught to grow their coffers. The answer is no, it is way too painful to be at the receiving end of the violence and witness it in the lives of hundreds of millions of people, on top of having to struggle daily to survive and to try to grapple with the traumas, both past and ongoing, stemming from the same violence. The tears, the intense stress, the heartache, the endless efforting just to avoid or deal with continuous attacks and pressures, the desperate need for solidarity not to give up and crumble in despair because it’s impossible to handle all of this alone, is too much, too devastating, and too intense to bear, and for these and many other reasons I refuse to vote for either of the dominant parties.
I guess one thing that people like the author of this piece don’t ever think is that, once the people who vote for the likes of Stein or West (or those who don’t vote) decide to vote for one of the two evils after all, they’d consider Trump the lesser evil than Harris? People like Ron Brownstein have long been mentioning how Trump has significantly disrupted the electoral coalition so that the “less likely” voters increasingly tend to prefer him over Harris. If the turnout is high, in fact, there’s good chance that the “new voters” will be more Trumpy than Harris-y. We have had, even on this site, several posters who noted that they’d like Stein best, but would prefer Trump over the current version of the Dems if they had to choose one of the two.
Really, the only thing worth thinking about is Monty Python’s Election Night Special.
So “vote the lesser evil” has been with America for over twenty years, and look where America is today. Biden/Harris is to the right of Ronald Reagan on many key issues, but Biden/Harris are accused of being commie socialists. And it’s not as if that even matters, the American empire is being beat by BRICS countries which are clearly BETTER CAPITALISTS than America.
I now vote for the candidate that says they will implement the polices I support (mostly Medicare for All). I do not try and compute the “lesser evil” at all. If I end up hearing “you’re why my candidate lost”, I normally end up saying “damn straight, I’m why they lost, and that party will never win until they get my vote”.
If Biden/Harris actually were commie socialists, I might consider voting for Harris.
Well, it was clearly the commie socialist FDR that saved American capitalism, and then maneuvered America thru WW2, leaving America as the predominate world power. No neoliberal president will be able to accomplish anything like that. So far, they’ve crashed the American empire in an amazingly short period of time, all while wrecking their own industrial base, and middle class. Now, they’re demonstrating an amazing ability to to wreck their so called “allies”.
IMHO, there’s a better argument for major-party voting in LA Progressive (here)
The author expresses his regret about not voting for Hubert Humphrey in the election Nixon won. Personally, I regret that too–although I was in California then, so … who cares? The electoral college made my vote non-difference-making. In any case, we would have a very different country if Hubert had been president. For one thing, Nixon stopped the feds from building affordable housing. Gosh, I wonder why affordable housing is so rare? Oh yes, and he started the drug war. Nixon was intelligent, but awful. The current major party candidates are just awful.
Incidentally, I can’t recommend Robert Caro’s (continuing) biography of LBJ enough in this connection. (Master of the Senate) It not only made me slightly ambivalent about LBJ–a vulgarian exactly as bad as Trump, a liar with multiple mistresses who stole his senate seat (account in The Means of Ascent also by Caro)…Humphrey makes an appearance, and one can understand how LBJ, a bigot of the first water, came to champion Civil Rights legislation and Medicare. Were it not for the Vietnam war, he would be judged a great president despite his flaws.
Incidentally, Nixon’s Secretary of State, Kissinger, was LBJ’s negotiator with the Vietnamese, and there’s evidence he sabotaged the peace, too. Nixon’s “secret” plan to end that war amounted to amping up the war crimes…but that’s another story.
What surprised me was how angry the “peacenik” commenters were in that LA Progressive article. Angry? And you’re lobbying for peace? How does that compute? Anyway, here’s my comment about that:
I’d suggest the peaceniks in previous comments re-examine their commitment to peace. Calling down the wrath of the heavens on poor Kamala isn’t peaceful either. It’s only natural to be angry at the malfeasance of the D’s who didn’t prosecute the war crimes of Bush/Cheney–and war criminal Cheney endorsed Kamala–didn’t prosecute Wall Street for the subprime/derivatives scandal, etc. But anger does not make for sensible thinking, nor does it make genuine peace.
I’d suggest that almost certainly Trump is a product of such anger–Republican pollster Frank Luntz reports the frustration with Obama’s supine response to the economic catastrophe he inherited made it the first time he witnessed his focus group members weep. Trump is the backward/upside-down candidate. Everything bad you can name about him (liar, bankrupt, womanizer, etc.) turns out to be an asset if he’s to simply destroy Washington. And that’s his agenda–destruction. He’s the hand grenade thrown into the cauldron of corruption in D.C. He’ll never lose just because you can name terrible things about him. Those terrible things are his assets.
The Italians elected a prostitute / pornstar to their legislature (“la Ciccolina”) to express their disgust with that nexus of corruption. Trump is just like that.
Meanwhile, I suggest people who live in swing states think seriously about settling for a strategic vote for a major party. If you’re not in a swing state, Jill Stein, or Cornell West makes perfect sense.
In fact, only a few people’s votes may count much at all this time out. But though I respect what anyone does (starting with people who, for some strange reason, just cannot opt for genocide), I do think one can–maybe should maximize that value of their vote. If your state is solidly red or blue, as the stinking and reductive corporate shorthand has it–by all means lodge a protest vote. I don’t think that Green Party politics is a viable approach, but by all means, if you can obtain them some funding next time out, go for it. I live in Florida. If Trump is up by more than six-seven points on Nov 4, I’m voting third party. If it’s close, I’ll try to get Harris across the line. Not because I like her–I’m of the conviction that one party reps neoliberal authoritarianism and the other neofascism. This isn’t my system, though, and I don’t take my vote personally, or find it insulting that Harris should be the D option; of COURSE she doesn’t rep change. I am AGAINST THE SYSTEM. But I do think life will be marginally better for women and POC if she wins, and that’s reason enough to opt for her in a system that I hold no allegiance to, anyway.
I’ve always wanted to be able to cast a negative vote. To expressly state that I do NOT want the particular candidate to be elected.
In the same way that politician approval scoring has both positive and negative ratings, then why not a similar principle in elections? Then, if a candidate has an overall negative rating, he/she is disqualified, leaving only those with positive scores to be included in the selection process.
This would go a long way to improving the quality of candidates.
The voting system you describe has been fleshed out mathematically and has been utilised IRL. See above.
If you live in a county that votes 94% Republican, you should vote for the Republican, since the Democrat has no chance, and the Republican best represents the county’s voters.
I relish good sophistry as much as the next mouth breather, but Mr…. Stone’s efforts ring more Jim Jones than Joseph Goebbels.
Not as easy as it looks.
The Democrats claim to be anti-Trump, but 36 Democrat senators voted for Trump’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which gave $750B to the Pentagon, the largest budget in history. “Defense” spending now eclipses the spending of China, Russia, France, India, UK and Japan, combined. The Democrats also rejected calls to disallow the development of “usable”, tactical low-yield nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have nothing to do with “defense” – it’s all about first strike capability.
The best political message voters could send would be mass abstention. The election outcome doesn’t matter because the ‘choice’ between different capitalist parties is a joke – neither offer a viable future. What both the parties are committed to is a drive to war. The choice being offered is would you rather die horribly and pointlessly with a Trump or Harris cowering in a bunker below the Whitehouse. Whichever way you vote, you are voting for war.
Why should workers vote? Democrats are corporate. Republicans are corporate. A vote is only meaningful if it can be made for what the voter really wants and needs. What voters need is an end to unemployment, a restoration and increased investment in health, education and public services. We need the wealth, which we create, to be invested in the nation’s future, that future being the capacity of workers to use their skill and ingenuity to provide a wholesome life for themselves, their children and their children’s children. Is it conceivable that the corporate state can give us that? If it is, then why haven’t they done so?
I don’t know if this nonsense was being thrown at the Tea Party and its successor MAGA, but apparently the Republican Party was more open to a different ideology, so it was possible for them to actually take over the Republican Party. And they certainly weren’t deterred by general election losses (and still aren’t). The result; they have triumphed, pushing the Overton Window right over a cliff.
Since the Democratic Party is fanatically anti-progressive, I am proud to say I am a member of the Green Tea Party.
Voting does not mean that you get what you want — wish fulfillment. In reality your life will always have its challenges b/c it’s complicated and you are mortal.
True, there are many power centers warping/corrupting the field.
Still, it is not very effective to think that by withholding your vote you can punish a person or party.
The vote is for you. You preserve your own power center by making it. You are a citizen with rights and you are claiming one of your rights. Why yield your right b/c you want to complain? Figure out another mode of complaint than your own self-destruction as a citizen.
What “mode of complaint” are you talking about here? People’ve protested, going on strike, barricading, even burning down the police precinct. Yet little changed, and the people who did so were vilified by the media and hounded by the cops. At this point only an armed revolution might do something, and if that is the case, then why even talk about voting?
People like you always talk without any context or nuance, without any insight into the mechanics which the “power centers warping/corrupting the field.”