Disappointed with Obama? Thinking about voting for Nader?
If you are anything like me politically, you might be closer on the issues to Ralph Nader than to Barack Obama, and closer to Barack Obama and Ralph Nader than to John McCain.
So, if Nader is a closer match, why not vote Nader?
Because it won't work.
Not because of some grand conspiracy between the two parties to keep everyone else out, but because of the electoral system itself - where a candidate doesn't need a majority of votes to win, only a plurality.
Consider this hypothetical scenario: lets say 60% of the electorate supports left-wing positions and candidates, while only 40% supports right-wing positions and candidates. It would seem that the election would, of course, lead to a victory for the left-wing majority:
But, that isn't how it works. Candidates don't need a majority, only a plurality (i.e. more votes than any other specific candidate). Watch what happens in this scenario, where voters favor left-wing positions and candidates over right-wing positions and candidates again 60%-40%, yet the right-wing candidate wins:
i agree with the author. my
i agree with the author. my views might fall closer to nader's, but he's simply not going to win. it would be great if a 3rd party candidate did win, but FIRST the candidate must have lots of support, THEN they would be someone who has a chance. it would be foolish to vote for a 3rd party candidate as of right now. the more people who decide to vote for nader just because they personally like him better, the more likely MCCAIN is going to win, because it takes away a vote for his one actual opponent.
if you really want a 3rd party candidate to win, start backing their party months and months before their election to boost their chances. because not enough people have done so in this election, a vote for anyone but obama is a vote for mccain.
I did support Obama, but I
I did support Obama, but I will vote for McCain. And I feel no guilt in doing so.
Here's the way I see it:
First off, I live in Alabama. Obama (or any other Democrat) has an exactly zero chance of getting this state. The districts are gerrymandered for the benefit of Republicans, as well as the Religious Reich having sway in everything. (Remember the Alabama Supreme Court Justice getting kicked out over the Ten Commandments flap? There're people who are still upset with that decision...)
Also, I want a politician I can trust (an oxymoron, I know) to keep his word. Obama said he would vote against telecom immunity. When the telecoms gave him $11 million in campaign contributions, however, he conveniently voted FOR the immunity.
While I know Nader will not win the election (the system is, as you shown, definitely against a third-party candidate), I will vote for him. The only other option is to "shut up and soldier," something which I will never do.
Alix is right. Voting for
Alix is right. Voting for Herpes just because it's better than Cancer is a very stupid choice.
lol, nice comparison.
lol, nice comparison. However, if people were in a situation where we HAD to choose between everyone in society getting herpes, cancer, or a runny nose - and we knew that, statistically, the odds that either herpes or cancer will be selected is over 99.9%, yet herpes and cancer had levels of support so close that a handful of votes one way or the other could alter the outcome - would a person really vote for the runny nose, or would they indeed vote for herpes?
Wow. So blame people for
Wow. So blame people for voting what they believe? That's a stroke of brilliance.
People like you are part of the problem of the two party system in America. When someone from either major party does something or stands for something that EARNS my vote, then they will get it.
Shame on your small mindedness. You must enjoy being a cog in the wheel for the two mediocre parties in power.
I think both parties suck
I think both parties suck (one much more than the other), and I think the two party system itself sucks. I think we should have a system where lots of parties are competitive, where we wouldn't have to choose between voting for the best and getting the worst, or voting for the lesser of evils.
Until the system changes, though, voting what one believes means voting strategically.
This is common sense. I've
This is common sense. I've been telling Nader supporters this since 2000. They didn't listen.
Thanks, douchebags.
I admire what he purports to
I admire what he purports to do: break the two-party system up into multiple parties, expand the competitiveness of other parties, and pass the policies Democrats want to pass but won't attempt because of _____.
If he were serious about these issues, he would be campaigning for constitutional amendments to move to a proportional representation system where 3rd parties would be viable. If he wanted to change the Democratic platform, or even have a shot at winning, he would be running in the primaries and not the general (Ron Paul knows this)
The author explaind just the
The author explaind just the differece between a relative and absolute majority.
To be elected as winner, you obviously only need relative majority, thus someone wins who has not the support of the majority of all(!) voters.
Basicly, if you dont want that neocon with his dumb evangelical runningmate to win, vote Obama, not Nader; making sure there isn't a relative majority for McCain.
Is there a joke in here that
Is there a joke in here that I am missing, or do you really think that this is necessary?
I wish it was a joke. I've
I wish it was a joke. I've been hearing a lot of people talking about wanting to vote for Nader lately, and I'm not really sure if all of them understand the electoral futility of voting 3rd party in a 2 party system.
Post new comment