Dispatches from the Culture Wars

This is coming from the very same people who are constantly crowing about America's "moral degradation" and how we've lost touch with our "Christian nation" roots and have pissed God off.

Posted by: Wes | August 12, 2008 9:26 AM

See, Ed, Obama is not allowed to say that America has problems because he's an elitist. If he isn't an elitist, then he would be an angry man who just happens to be black (remember, the GOPpers aren't the ones inserting race in the race). Either that, or he's an Islamo-commununo-fascist-antiChrist

Posted by: Umlud | August 12, 2008 9:42 AM

I'm not a big fan of Obama. I don't plan to vote for him.

Elections in a democracy are not about casting your vote in the way that gives you the warmest feeling. Voting is about choosing who should have power. And voting for an outsider is not facing up to that responsibility.

Posted by: Sam C | August 12, 2008 9:45 AM

Ed, great post. I was somewhat dismayed that you said you don't plan to vote for Obama, though. Michigan is going to somewhat competitive in November, and it's hard to find a viable path to 270 for Obama if he can't hold on to it. I don't love Obama, but I know that preventing a McCain administration is a noble goal in and of itself. The Naderites played the same card against Gore in 2000 and look what that got us.

Posted by: penn | August 12, 2008 10:04 AM

Tom and Penn, this isssue was thoroughly hashed over on yesterday's post Political Chutzpah.I will not perpetuate the argument other than to note that anyone who thinks voting for a third party is a wasted vote has not thought about the math involved in counting votes.

So long as the odds of my vote affecting the outcome remain vanishingly remote, then it makes no sense at all for me to vote strategically (strategic voting = voting for someone who is not your preferred candidate, with the goal of influencing the outcome).

Folks can claim until they're blue in the face that it's really a vote for the bad guy, or a cowardly cop out, but both of those arguments are false because they're not based on an analysis of the effect of any one person's vote.

Penn brings up the Nader voters, who probably allowed Bush to win. But what he ignores is the fact that no single Nader voter could have made a difference. If no other Nader-preferrers vote Nader, then I safely can, knowing my vote won't cause the bad guy to win. If all other Nader-preferrers vote Nader, then I still safely can, knowing my vote still won't cause the bad guy to win.

Careful analyses must distinguish between group and individual--and for every individual, the mathematics don't change based on what the group does.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 12, 2008 10:15 AM

So who are you wasting your vote on, Ed? Or are you sitting on your hands?

Either Obama or McCain is going to win. I would really appreciate it if you were to help us make sure it's not McCain.

Posted by: Zeno | August 12, 2008 10:24 AM

James Hanley, thank you! Plus that's a very clear way of making the argument. May I suggest to anyone interested Bryan Caplan's book The Myth of the Rational Voter? It's great and focuses a lot on the mathematical reality that your vote costs you nothing and therefore you really are just "casting your vote in the way that gives you the warmest feeling."

Posted by: nicole | August 12, 2008 10:27 AM

It'd be nice if he was against the farm bill (politically suicidal, but nice), and the ethanol subsidies (though, again, he'd lose the entire Mid-West, much of the South East, and portions of the west if he did), but, considering that both candidates are supporters of the current subsidy regime (and our ridiculous industrial tariffs), why does it matter? What's McCain going to do; make an ad attacking Obama for his support on the farm subsidy bill so Obama can make an ad pointing out that McCain supported it as well, and has supported such bills for years?

The only people who oppose those bills are people who don't have to rely on Monsanto contributions or the farm vote, and a Senator from Indiana doesn't fall into that category.

Posted by: Julian | August 12, 2008 10:51 AM

For what it's worth, I'm one of those people who blame Nader voters (and Nader himself) for the state of our country/world.

There were some places in the country where it was understood that if it was going to be close, you should vote for the 'lesser of evils'. Evidently Florida didn't get the memo and they voted for the 'ideal' candidate. Thanks!!

Posted by: rmp | August 12, 2008 10:58 AM

@James Hanley:

So your argument is that there is no point in voting for any candidate, because your vote will never be the one that makes him/her win?

As for Ed; I don't have a vote in an election that is likely to affect my life at least as much as any election in my own country. You are perfectly at liberty to cast any vote or no vote; no-one can force you to do otherwise. If the non-voters, and third party voters, make the difference between McCain and Obama winning, I am perfectly at liberty to point out that your "individualist" vote down the party line (I believe you've said that you're going to vote Libertarian even though you disagree with the candidate's politics, for obscure reasons) has helped drop the rest of the free world in the brown and smellies, or whatever other wording I choose at the time. The difference is that I would have justification; you don't even have the excuse that you are voting for someone you agree with.

Posted by: Robin Levett | August 12, 2008 11:28 AM

bsci echoes my feelings about Ed's perceived position vis-a-vis not voting for Obama. While I'm not particularly fond of Obama, I despise McCain--and I particularly loath the notion of further Republican appointees to the Supreme Court and the Federal judiciary. That last point, above all, is the single most important reason for rational people to vote for Obama, regardless of their personal "premises."

Posted by: gary l. day | August 12, 2008 11:35 AM

James Hanley wrote:

If no other Nader-preferrers vote Nader, then I safely can, knowing my vote won't cause the bad guy to win. If all other Nader-preferrers vote Nader, then I still safely can, knowing my vote still won't cause the bad guy to win.

To which I say: No single raindrop believes itself responsible for the flood.

Another analogy might be vaccinations, both organic and digital. As long as "we" do our part in vaccinations, then Hanley might not get the smallpox. Unfortunately, when smallpox makes its triumphant comeback, guess who opened the door?

Posted by: Matt Platte | August 12, 2008 11:59 AM

I'm not going to insult you or anyone for not voting the same way that I do. The whole issue seems to be that your vote won't matter, so you're going to vote for someone you don't like to support his party line. But, what are the odds that your individual vote has any effect on the spreading of libertarian ideas? Isn't it more likely you'll promote Barr's racist, anti-choice, pro-drug war brand of libertarianism?

And since individual votes don't matter why should any of us bother to vote at all?

Posted by: penn | August 12, 2008 12:48 PM

James, if that 1 rain drop doesn't fall isn't the flood slightly less severe? Couldn't $0.01 less damage occur because that drop didn't fall. You could easily expand that drop to a bucket or an inch of rain, since those are all small units in terms of a flood. How is that different than the genocide analogy? Or how is that different than not standing up for any large scale social change? Abolition still would have happened if any individual decided they didn't want to bother. Civil rights in the US wouldn't be any different if any one of the protesters in the 60's decided to sit it out. WWII would have turned out the same way if any individual soldier or sailor decided to desert.

Posted by: penn | August 12, 2008 1:05 PM

Penn, exaggerating the raindrop analogy doesn't get you anywhere, except into the land of the ridiculous. Sure, 1 bucket won't change the flood either, but 1" of rain? 1" of rain is not a small unit in terms of a flood. And to say that the one drop could create even a penny less damage is to vastly overestimate the power of that drop.

But let's extend the analogy to people: 1 person can't make a difference, so 1 household can't, so 1 neighborhood can't, so 1 city can't, so 1 county can't, so 1 state can't...wait, that's BS at some point, just as the 1" of rain is.

The point at issue here is not how we should count collections of raindrops, but the fact that each person has but one single vote, that mathematically that vote will make no difference, and therefore the individual should not fell compelled to vote as though it would make a difference. I would note that so far everyone has attacked this argument either will normative claims or weak analogies--no one has yet critiqued the mathetmatical logid, or explained why that logic doesn't bear on the issue.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 12, 2008 1:18 PM

My first, instinctual, reaction was one of emotional disconnect: If Ed and I agree on so much why is he not voting as I do? The answer is, of course, that we differ slightly politically. While many are concerned that Ed and other third party voters are damaging Obama's chances, I submit that my biggest frustration is that McCain, who doesn't seem viable at all, has so many supporters. It isn't Ed who is the problem, it is the staunch party zealots who demonize the opponents. Rather than make accusations aimed at Ed's character and pose arguments to try and sway him, why not lobby one of those teetering "undecideds".

Posted by: B8ovin | August 12, 2008 1:30 PM

Ed writes:

I think votes can matter for a whole range of reasons that have nothing to do with being the one vote that swings an election (and if you had an election that was 50,554 to 50,553, which of the 50,554 votes would you decide was the one that swung the election? The last one?).

That reminds me of a cartoon in an old Mad magazine. It's the last inning of a baseball game and the home team is down by 1 run but with bases loaded and nobody out. The first kid goes up and strikes out. The second kid goes up and strikes out. The third kids goes up and strikes out...at which point the first and second kids sream in unison, "You lost the game!".

Posted by: Dave S. | August 12, 2008 1:31 PM

I will not vote for either of the two main candidates!

Does that mean I'm hurting Obama?

Posted by: Dave S. | August 12, 2008 1:33 PM

Ed, You want to support the Libertarian Party? Have you looked at their platform?
http://www.lp.org/platform
Section 2 includes:
"Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems."
" We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production."
We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. Might I note that this definition includes ALL funding for scientific research and pretty much every drop of technology funding besides the Patent Office.
"We favor free-market banking"
"Industries should be governed by free markets."
Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education. This one seems to go against a lot of what you talk about on this blog.

I could take more quotes, but you can look at the link yourself. I am not cherry-picking points. I am taking sections from major portions of their platform. Do you really support this more than the Democratic platform / Obama's positions? You don't like Obama's positions on directly funding faith-based initiatives and you are more libertarian than him on privacy issues. These are major issues, but Obama isn't totalitarian on either of these issues and I suspect you agree with him more than disagree. Why exactly do you think the best use of your vote is to support the Libertarian platform and give federal dollars to whoever the Libertarians nominate in the future?

You want to support individual rights and separation of church and state? Donate time/money to the ACLU. It's will do more for your goal than voting for Bob Barr

Posted by: bsci | August 12, 2008 1:38 PM

But let's extend the analogy to people: 1 person can't make a difference, so 1 household can't, so 1 neighborhood can't, so 1 city can't, so 1 county can't, so 1 state can't...wait, that's BS at some point

Vote totals are made up of individual votes and generally all votes are equal. If your vote doesn't matter, than I can do exact same calculus to determine that my vote doesn't matter. If my vote doesn't matter than my family's votes don't matter, and so on. At some point, someone's votes have to matter because elections get decided.

This current election is going to be decided between McCain and Obama. The only rational view in my opinion is for everyone to vote as if their vote will be the deciding vote between these two candidates.

Posted by: penn | August 12, 2008 1:44 PM

@Ed: Thanks for disclosing. I won the bet with myself - your choice should be no surprise for those who pay attention.

Posted by: bpilgrim | August 12, 2008 1:53 PM

I think that Sam C started an important aspect of the conversation about the value of one's vote. Quite honestly, he is pushing a notion that has an effect that is directly in opposition to that which he claims.

To vote for someone you do not agree with or approve of, just because it is likely they could win, is truly making your vote irrelevant. Not only does it force one to betray their own ideals (or as I prefer, suck satan's cock), it also has an inherently deleterious effect on democracy. When we vote against the very worse candidate, rather than voting for the very best, we are in effect conceding our democracy and our government to those who do not have our best interests at heart.

This is especially true here in the U.S. where the republicrats have a remarkable track record of putting the good of their party above the good of the country.

Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2008 2:10 PM

DuWayne, I honestly do not understand what's wrong with voting for the lesser of two evils. I do not want to see a McCain administration. I think that would be disastrous for this country and the world. I don't think Obama is perfect, but I will gladly vote for him to avoid the catastrophe of a McCain presidency. I want women to have the right to choose. I want to have Social Security. I don't want any more unnecessary wars. I don't want the federal government to keep throwing money at Big Oil hoping that they give some of it back. Either Obama or McCain will be president next January. Ensuring that McCain isn't the president is noble enough for me.

Posted by: penn | August 12, 2008 2:18 PM

I agree with Ed and I will also be voting for Barr. I'm not sure he really has made a conversion to true libertarianism, as opposed to conservative in sheep's clothing, but he won't get elected so whether his actions would coincide with his libertarian rhetoric is immaterial.

I find it amusing that bsci has quoted, and italicized to show his horror, the idea that we might be stripped of the federal income tax and the IRS.

The income tax, which didn't exist before 1913, and was unconstitutional until the ratification of the 16th amendment, is largely responsible for the exponential growth of the federal government.

When you look at Guantanamo Bay or the insane misadventure in Iraq and other foreign interventions or see the hand of the administration grabbing for more and more power, not to mention congress which has spent our money and our great grand children's money, you can see the result of a federal government drunk with money and power.

Of course bsci is probably fine with the idea of an over-arching and disproportionately large federal government so long as it is acting to impose policies and regulations with which he agrees.

If Barr can muster 5 to 10 percent of the vote It might compel the media to discuss libertarian ideas. That alone would be worth my vote.

Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2008 2:24 PM

Of course bsci is probably fine with the idea of an over-arching and disproportionately large federal government so long as it is acting to impose policies and regulations with which he agrees.

I know I am. Where are the strong libertarian countries we should emulate? Can you point to some?

He also quoted destroying environmental regulation and scientific funding in the US. He also quoted destroying Social Security, which has lifted countless seniors, widows, and orphans out of poverty over the last 70 years. He also quoted destroying the public education system which has served us pretty well over the last couple of centuries. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

Posted by: penn | August 12, 2008 2:35 PM

Gretchen, I also like the Australian model of elections. But, I just don't see how voting for an anti-choice racist helps promote libertarian ideals. It boggles my mind. Someone please provide a run-down of the best case scenario for Barr the Libertarian Party and libertarian ideas in general. The guy wrote DOMA for goodness sake.

Posted by: penn | August 12, 2008 2:42 PM

I have to laugh at the idea that it's somehow terribly wrong to vote for someone you don't think is that great if they might win, but it's perfectly acceptable if you're sure they're going to lose. And James, are you going to explain to Lance that there's no way his one vote can push Barr into that 5 to 10 percent range, so it's not a good reason for voting that way?

Posted by: Taz | August 12, 2008 2:45 PM

Gretchen, I certainly don't mean that we shouldn't try to innovate. But, economic libertarianism isn't a new idea. Unfettered free markets have been tried. They just haven't led to great nations. They led to the stock market collapse, and the Cuyahoga River catching on fire, and poor children not being educated, and Love Canal, and Robber Barons, discrimination, but not greatness.

Posted by: penn | August 12, 2008 2:53 PM

James Hanley:

It seems to me that your analysis here is somewhat naively based on the idea of Nash Equilibria--you claim that, ceterus paribus, changing your vote has no effect on your overall utility (or perhaps, voting for a third party increases it because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling). This is true. However, it's also silly.

Nash equilibrium isn't the only concept of equilibrium in game theory--the relevant one here is that coalition-proof equilibria (or n-coalition-proof equilibria). That is, what happens if n people act in concert, rather than just one person? This matters immensely in games with so many players (in this case, hundreds of millions of players). Furthermore, players can communicate--and communication ought to be considered strategic. In Florida, in 2000, a single energetic individual could almost certainly have made a big difference by canvassing heavily for Gore (or by fixing the butterfly ballot).

Furthermore, even if you believe that there is a vanishingly small chance that your vote decides the election, it seems to me that the expected value of policy effects are large. In this case, given, say, the importance of torture as a moral issue, the expected value seems *extremely* large. Strategic voting is much less of a wash when the stakes are high.

Posted by: Daniel Litt | August 12, 2008 3:02 PM

The "one vote doesn't matter" argument doesn't apply when you stand up in your popular blog and say who your voting for and why. You're probably swaying more votes than 1.

I'm not voting for any of them, but my excuse is that I'm a Canadian. Here I vote a bit like you to affect what issues become public business. Not sure I agree with the US libertarians. I'm much more of a LEFT libertarian than these folks. Another reason to vote here is the campaign financing system allocates something like $1.50 of govt money to a party's campaign for each vote that party got in the election before.

And by the way.... I don't blame Nader for running... I blame Ross Perot for not running.

Posted by: BAllanJ | August 12, 2008 3:06 PM

penn,

I've already said I can't stand Barr, so there's your answer to why I think he should be president-- I don't. Why do I want to support the Libertarian party? For one thing, as Ed said, simply sending the message that we need more choices is reason enough. But more importantly, I don't see Obama or McCain showing any recognition of the idea that the way to improve government might not be just to grow it and grow it whatever direction their heart desires. Neither one is remotely inclined to slam on the breaks, examine what we've got, and remove all of the crap before trying to add on something new.

I want a president who will, for example, end the travesty that is the war on drugs before trying to institute national health care. It's amazing how you could save money for the things you want by refusing to fund the things you don't, but this doesn't seem to have occurred to either one. Even if you're in favor of big government, big government for big government's sake is a moronic idea. I think the problem with libertarians is they spend too much time dealing with questions like "Who's going to build the roads, if they don't have taxes?" and not enough time on the reduction of government programs that no non-totalitarian likes. Libertarians aren't anarchists-- they want less government, not none, and they differ on where they want to cut back first. But cutting back is indeed the discussion we need to have, right away, and the Dems and Repubs just seem to have no notion of this.

Posted by: Gretchen | August 12, 2008 3:14 PM

Oops. I am perfectly aware of the difference between "breaks" and "brakes." Really.

Posted by: Gretchen | August 12, 2008 3:18 PM

Oh no! Ed admits - yet again - to being a libertarian. He chooses - after much hassling - to explain who he's voting for, and continues to get blasted for choosing to vote for a third-party candidate? I don't personally agree with the reasoning people continue to blockquote - one vote doesn't matter - because I'm more of the 'cumulative insignificants make a significant' school of thought. However, I also don't think that people should really spend time and effort to geet the man to vote in a way that he doesn't agree with. I don't read Ed's blog because I agree with ll his values or his electorial choices. I read his blog because of his insights and the consistent use of piercing logic to point out faults with those currently in power. I hope he continues to do so after the turn-over next year, regardless of who wins (including his candidate). I would hope there are others who feel the same. I don't think that Ed has ever tried to hide who he is politically, and I can't understand why some people can't reconcile his stnces on politics with his articles. Yeeesh.

Posted by: Umlud | August 12, 2008 3:39 PM

This reminds me of the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" argument that was popularized in a book a few years ago. Regardless of your personal justifications for voting for a third-party candidate you willing concede cannot win, it is apparent to an OUTSIDER who knows at least something about you that you are voting against your own larger self-interests. Just as we are dismayed by the Kansans' version of political self-immolation, we are baffled and irritated by your refusal to see what is obvious to the rest of us.

Posted by: drb | August 12, 2008 3:48 PM

Robin Levett wrote:

Please be consistent. If the way you vote isn't going to change the outcome of an election, because it is about a single vote and single votes don't change election outcomes, how will your single vote "raise the vote totals for the party to the point where they can't be ignored and dismissed as a fringe movement"?

Posted by: James Hanley | August 12, 2008 3:57 PM

Taz,

"I have to laugh at the idea that it's somehow terribly wrong to vote for someone you don't think is that great if they might win, but it's perfectly acceptable if you're sure they're going to lose."

My remarks were in regard to Barr's faithfulness to libertarian principles. If he does win he would surely implement policies that are more in keeping with libertarian ideals than either Obama or McCain.

I would far prefer him to either of them for this reason alone.

"And James, are you going to explain to Lance that there's no way his one vote can push Barr into that 5 to 10 percent range, so it's not a good reason for voting that way?"

I was using that number as a rationale to convince others to join me. I am aware that my vote alone does not represent 5% of the vote.

bsci,

"If you think the government shouldn't spend money on science and education, you are fully free to vote Libertarian."

The issue is whether the federal government is the proper venue for these expenditures and programs. We seemed to do pretty well as a nation when the federal government was a fraction of its current bloated extent.

We also managed to more or less mind our own business and stay free of foreign entanglements when the federal government didn't have the funding to support a massive standing military.

I find it instructive that most socialists, oops sorry progressives, adore a large centralized government, how else can they impose their coercive polices on others? If socialist ideas are so popular why not implement them at the local and state levels where the people that benefit from these progressive ideas, and who will have to pay for them, can have direct control of the officials responsible for instituting these enlightened programs and policies? Does socialism only work with OPM (other people's money)?

Why the reliance on forcing it down from above? I think I know, but why don't one of you enlightened progressives tell me the "real" reason.

Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2008 4:07 PM

Lance,
Can you give me examples in the past 50 years of medical discoveries in the US that didn't directly or indirectly (significant training or earlier basic research) depend in federal funding? The modern medical research explosion was and still is dependent on federal money. It's nice to say that someone else should fund this, but you're not saying who or how. "The magical free market elves" is a BS answer since many discoveries aren't things that are profitable in any practical timing metric (and would encourage less sharing of knowledge)

Oh, and we never had any foreign entanglements before the federal budget started to grow.
http://www.historycentral.com/USEFOFORCE.html
We colonized and had wars in proportion to the size of the country, pretty much since the beginning. You might not like it, but it's not purely the fault of a large federal government.

If socialist ideas are so popular why not implement them at the local and state levels where the people that benefit from these progressive ideas, I'm not going to get into this much because nothing here is talking about socialists, but many policies are created at local levels and successful policies do rise up to hire levels of government (along with people from these locales being elected to hirer office).

Posted by: bsci | August 12, 2008 4:28 PM

bsci,

Can you give me examples in the past 50 years of medical discoveries in the US that didn't directly or indirectly (significant training or earlier basic research) depend in federal funding?

... or were indirectly related to some one or thing that was at one time in contact with or had knowledge of....

Hard to refute an argument that is the width of the known universe even if it is only one atom thick.

The fact that the tendrils of the federal government have been involved in many worthwhile endeavors is not an argument that it is not too large and too unresponsive to the people, not to mention far out of proportion to the intents of the framers.

Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2008 4:53 PM

The issue is whether the federal government is the proper venue for these expenditures and programs. We seemed to do pretty well as a nation when the federal government was a fraction of its current bloated extent.

You mean back when the "horseless carriage" was the latest rage? :-)

We also managed to more or less mind our own business and stay free of foreign entanglements when the federal government didn't have the funding to support a massive standing military.

I don't really know if isolationism ever really helped anything. Did it? Did American non-involvement in either of the two World Wars really help the wars end faster or with less bloodshed? Not to say we should be involved in all foreign affairs, but there's got to be something resembling a happy medium between turn-of-the-century non-involvement and modern unilateral over-involvement.

I find it informative that you single out progressives, as if they are the only people engaged in maintaining a large centralized government. Is it your contention that if all progressives were "raptured" away, so to speak, the remaining non-progressive federal government would quickly choose to eliminate its powers, passing them off to the states? It's not just mythical "progressives", it's people who seek power over others who adore the centralized government. These types can be found in any government, largely because of the self-selecting nature of elections; only those who want power will go through the pain of getting it.

In this light, democracy can be seen as merely choosing the man (or woman) who whips you while you work -- pick one who will be light on certain transgressions, or another who will be light on others.

Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | August 12, 2008 5:32 PM

Ed: "The fact that I think McCain is preferable to Obama is not the only preference that I have, it is one of many. I've merely chosen which of those I think is more important under the circumstances."

This is sort of what I was trying to express earlier: people have different preferences, and that's okay. I don't happen to think your means or intermediate goals make sense, even though we probably share the same ultimate goals. But that's an area where people can reasonably disagree.

I do think, however, that there are more complicated issues involved with what votes make how much of a difference to what. As I think you acknowledge, as far as rational choice goes for an individual, your vote almost certainly makes zero difference either to whether Obama wins OR the Libertarian party gets more press. It's a worthless gesture in both cases.

But it makes more sense to think of these things, I think, from the perspective of the two major campaigns. There is a population of people that, if they voted at all, and if they were going to vote for one of the only two candidates actually in the running to become President, would vote for Obama. And another that would vote for McCain.

Of both populations, some significant number are also amenable to voting for a third party, and do so based on particular logic and preferences. From the campaign's point of view, the goal is to disproportionately get people in their opponent's "leaning" population to take seriously arguments for third parties, and disproportionately discourage people leaning towards them from doing so. And in this sense: the larger battle of rhetoric over third parties and in what population clusters take that rhetoric seriously, it really does matter. Your logic for voting for a third party is one thing if it only involves yourself. But if it convinces lots of other people, then the calculus changes. It can have appreciable affects. At that point it might make sense to continue convincing people or not, depending on exactly how your preferences work.

Theories of rational choice have, of course, be bedeviled by this problem for decades: if the logic makes sense, then everyone rational would follow it... in which case it would cease to make any sense (because then suddenly voting in the major race would become more and more pivotal) right up to the point where enough people followed it that it actually meant that third parties won!

Assuming that you, or someone like you, is influential in their arguments, we could speculate that there are 5 major outcomes possible, and ones strategy would have to rank them and take their likihood based on different strategies into account:

1. Libertarian party wins: big breakthrough for third party politics, changes everything
2. Obama wins, Libs get lots of press for a big showing
3. Obama wins, Libs get no real press: another fringe party as usual
4. McCain wins, Libs get lots of press for a big showing
5. McCain wins, Libs get no real press

Just to run through one way to think about it, we could say that:

I've ranked the 5 in order of desirability. #1 is extremely unlikely: a shoot the moon scenario. But it is the most preferable.

Unfortunately, pushing too hard for the Libs with the wrong audience is far more likely to lead to option #4 than it is to lead to #2. Pushing too hard for Obama, on the other hand, is far more likely to lead to #3 instead of #2. Then there's all the factors like how likely you think Obama is to win regardless of anything, or how likely it is that any real good will come of pushing for the Libs.

With it laid out like this, it's easy to see how different people can come to different conclusions about what's worth lobbying for and endorsing.

Posted by: Bad | August 12, 2008 6:27 PM

Ed,
Sorry for using the word "vain." It's definitely not the sentiment I meant to display.
Still, when I hear "conscience vote" I usually interpret it to mean that the person is voting for whoever they think would be best for the job whether or not that person has a chance of winning. You seem to be saying that you are planning to vote for someone you don't particularly like, who you might actually consider an inferior candidate to the major candidates and who is part of a party whose title and basic concept you like while you disagree with significant portions of their platform. "Conscience vote" is not the first phrase that comes to mind for this, but you're, of course, free to use your own terminology.

It will mean more attention for both the good parts and the bad parts, of course. Which means that if at some future point libertarian ideas actually have a chance of being enacted as policy,

This seems to be your ultimate goal, but I still do not see how a Barr vote gets you closer to that goal. If you want a major party to pay more attention to libertarian ideas, why don't you actively engage that party either as a local delegate or by actively supporting libertarian friendly delegates. That actually would put more libertarian ideas directly into that party's platform and it wouldn't require some hypothetical situation where a Libertarian Presidential candidate gets enough votes to make the other parties become more libertarian through an unclear combination of mechanisms.

Posted by: bsci | August 12, 2008 8:42 PM

Bob Barr really seems to dislike gay people. Yet his mustache is really fierce. Thinking about voting for him gives me a funny tingling feeling. I guess I have a lot to learn about politics, and about myself.

Posted by: J Dub | August 12, 2008 11:03 PM

Ed and others voting to raise the prestige of the Libertarian Party: at no level can I follow your logic or motivations in this case (the Prez election). I know I know, leaves me open to your saying: "so what - who cares what you don't understand CJ - your ignorance is no reason for me to change my thinking" etc.

But with all due respect: maybe I don't understand it because it IS incomprehensible. It seems so obvious: there are more benign AND effective ways to accomplish your objectives; that you have alternative processes you can use. But there is NO alternative to showing the Rethuglicans the Country has had enough of their horse shit other then a vote for Obama; that Obama for all his flaws and the Dems' flaws is our only way out of this mess now if there is a way out.

Work to make Obama better; make it clear where you really want to go; drive your agenda. But don't diss the power of any vote in this election. The stakes are too high.. not voting for Obama is voting for McCain and all the shit that will bring on us for generations -- that has to be the operating premise. Rationalize all you want but to some of us this is war - worse case scenarios do count when planning actions!!!

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | August 13, 2008 6:12 AM

you don't see how voting in the presidential election for the libertarian candidate gets one closer to the goal of people paying attention to libertarian ideas?

Rich, It doesn't seem like Ed wants to get closer to Libertarian ideals. He want to get closer to the general concept of libertarianism and about 1/3 to 1/2 of the ideals listed on the Libertarian platform. Many of the rest he strongly disagrees. What I don't understand is how a vote in a presidental election gets any closer to the specific ideas he cares about. If he was also working to change the broader Libertarian platform, that's one thing, but that doesn't seem to be his goal.

Posted by: bsci | August 13, 2008 7:56 AM

So long as the odds of my vote affecting the outcome remain vanishingly remote, then it makes no sense at all for me to vote strategically (strategic voting = voting for someone who is not your preferred candidate, with the goal of influencing the outcome).

I find it amusing, in a sad sort of way, that no one can justify a vote for a minor-party nutjob except by insisting that our votes don't really count. Well, guess what, chumps -- the Naderites in Florida made exactly the same mistake, and they were wrong, and now 4000+ Americans are dead in a pointless war and our basic freedoms are going down the tubes. Think your vote (or refusal to vote) doesn't count? Think again.

Even Noam Chomsky is making more sense than the minor-party noncompoops. That's saying a lot.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 13, 2008 9:09 AM

Ed: I really think you should reconsider not supporting Obama. You yourself just said his constituent interest-groups are nowhere near as scary as McSame's; and the proof of this is in dozens, if not hundreds, of posts right here in your own blog -- posts I've quoted and cited several times in MY blog as proof that the Republicans must be defeated for the good of the country. Iraq and Katrina -- to name just two issues in haste -- are Republican failures, and no Democratic failure even comes close to matching them. And I'm not saying this as a partisan Democrat; I'm saying it as a Reagan Democrat who was more impressed with Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. than with McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Hillary, or even Bill Clinton.

Noam Chomsky said it best: even if you insist that the differences between the two major parties are small (which we could have said in 2000 but certainly can't say now), the fact remains that thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent lives hang on those differences; and we only endanger those lives by pretending the differences don't matter.

I won't insult anyone's intelligence by pretending to believe that a win by Obama would solve everyone's problems. I suspect even his most ardent supporters don't believe this any more than I do. What I will say, however, is that a win by Obama will displace a party, a mindset, and a set of policies, that have done more real harm to our most precious freedoms than any other policy since McCarthyism or FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans. A win by Obama will not make everything right again; but it will create a better political atmosphere in which we, the people, can take meaningful grownup action to expose and start to solve our problems -- something we will NEVER be able to do as long as our political discourse is dominated by the deliberate infantalizing tactics of Karl Rove and the Christian Reich.

Some here have said that voting for a "libertarian" would cause America to take libertarian ideas more seriously. I don't agree: voting for a libertarian candidate for President hasn't even got the libertarians themselves to take their ideas seriously. Look at Ron Paul -- he's a Republican now. Bob Barr? He was a Republican until it became more embarrassing than beneficial. And too many other "libertarians" like them cling to the Republicans like crack-whores and bum-boys because they're too scared to abandon their sacred canon of "liberal=socialist=Stalinist=Nazi."

It's time we got back to the basic, common-sense idea of uniting for a common cause and against a common enemy. FDR shook Stalin's hand to crush the Nazis; is voting Democratic to crush the Cretinist Right really such a repellent compromise?

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 13, 2008 10:08 AM

This early, i really can't tell which i would side with, but i am leaning towards obama. Furthermore, the GOP base is not even warming up to mccain (of course, i could be wrong) and even though it's still early in the game, this just proves to show how we see our candidates to-date. i know i will get burned for this, but i think mccain is a warmonger. i get the impression that he doesn't care to what happens to our troops in the middle east and the other parts of the world. Can't we just all get along? i think it is time for a purification; i think it is time for a change; i think it is time for obama time. Now that the candidates are set for the US Presidential Election, Barack Obama and John McCain are beginning to set the tone for their campaign, i just want to share this video that i saw earlier in pollclash that the two presidential candidates talked about their plans to solve the huge taxes that we are paying..well you can see the video in http://pollclash.com

Posted by: Jacque Denise Yap | August 13, 2008 1:16 PM

AtheistAcolyte,

"I don't really know if isolationism ever really helped anything. Did it?"

Hard telling since we have no idea how the World Wars would have played out had we stayed out of the hideous mess. Besides who is talking about isolationism? How is refusing to be drawn into a foreign war the hallmark of an isolationist?

If we had not intervened in Korea and Vietnam it would hardly have made a difference to the eventual outcome, to us at least. South Vietnam would have fallen, as it eventually did anyway, without a single US casualty and there would be only one Korea, albeit an impoverished and politically repressed one.

Besides, it is a false premise to demand that a country is isolationist just because it refuses to engage in a foreign war. There are many other ways to be engaged in foreign affairs without landing troops on foreign soil.

"I find it informative that you single out progressives, as if they are the only people engaged in maintaining a large centralized government."

I have singled them out because the discussion in this thread is about the current US political landscape. The Republicans pay lip service to wanting to decrease the size and scope of the federal government, whether they mean it is another discussion. The Libertarians have made this issue the basis of their platform.

This leaves only the Democratic Party, currently dominated by its "progressive" wing as lone advocates for "big government", hence my reference to "progressives".

Taz,

"Why wouldn't it be OPM if done at the state level?"

At the local level a lot more of it is "your" money. Taxes and regulations will be imposed upon you, up close and personal, by people in your own community. It's much more difficult to make sweeping appeals to "it's the government's money" when you see it being taken from you directly and given to people or programs around you.

I believe that is why most local and state governments practice much greater fiscal control and tend to eschew ambitious social programs.

"Libertarianism should be about individual freedom, not which level of government is allowed to do what. If it's wrong for the fed it's wrong for the states."

I wasn't arguing about what was right or wrong, just that socialism seems never to be approached at the local level with only a few notable exceptions mostly in northern California.

Posted by: Lance | August 13, 2008 3:10 PM

bee,

Did you not read my comment, "The Republicans pay lip service to wanting to decrease the size and scope of the federal government, whether they mean it is another discussion."

Just as Ronald Reagan talked the libertarian talk but never walked the libertarian walk the neo-cons in W's administration were all too eager to play with the bright big shiny military industrial complex they inherited.

In case you haven't noticed McCain is talking like a libertarian and since we don't have a crystal ball to see if he will actually implement these libertarian policies I can only point out, as I did, that he's "talking the talk".

Obama, on the other hand, is happily extolling the many massive programs he will institute to save us all from everything from rising seas to corporate greed. He is a charismatic speaker and a charming man. He is also unabashedly in favor of expanding the role of the federal government in just about any facet of American society you care to name.

Hey, I voted for him in the primary. I think he has great integrity and is a man of the people despite the republicans smear tactic of making him look "elitist" just because he is educated and can speak clearly, something "W" could never manage.

I don't think it would be a disaster if he were elected, in fact I expect he will be the next president of the United States and to be honest I find that idea exhilarating in some ways. I just don't happen to share his vision of the role of the federal government or his political views in general, so I won't be voting for him.

If his views are in keeping with yours then by all means go ahead and vote for the man. Just don't get bent out of shape when I point out that he is the only major candidate calling for a greater role for the federal government.

Because he is.

Posted by: Lance | August 13, 2008 4:34 PM

James Hanley:

:Yes, you idiot, that's exactly my point. My vote, and your vote, and Ed's vote, and my mother's vote--not one damn one on its own determines the election."

First of all, please feel free, at your convenience, to go fuck yourself, James. I called your ideas stupid, not you personally.

You talk repeatedly about "brilliance" yet you would have us believe that your "point" is that not one single vote determines the outcome of an election! Now there is a brilliant insight!

But that really wasn't your point, after all, was it James. Your point, if I can find it among the haystack of bullshit that conceals it so brilliantly, is merely a sophistic rationalization for your upcoming Quixotic tilting at the Barr lever.

Your point is that by doing an "analysis" of Barr votes, you have thereby created a magical vote, a raindrop not made of water, a vaccine without an antibody.

Because your magic vote can promote Libertarianism without helping elect John McCain. Your magic vote is an individual vote without association with victory or loss, without consequence if McCain wins, without sanction if Obama falters. The magic vote which doesn't determine elections. Yours alone, that magic vote, eh, Jim?

But, of course, the reality is that your vote is just the same as every other vote. It counts, or doesn't count, for just exactly one vote. And it, like all the other votes exists not in La Mancha but in the tallies of your home State. Where it does determine the outcome of the election, just like every other vote.

Now, you can feel free to cast your vote in the (mistaken) hope that it will promote the interest of third-party politics. But if McCain wins in your state by a margin less than the Barr vote totals, feel free to share your perpetual motion machine mathematica with the other Barr voters. It will, no doubt, make them feel better too.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | August 13, 2008 8:55 PM

I would love to see a study that asked the following of the Nader voters in Florida.

If the day after the election you were give the option to revote, would you vote for Nader, Bush or Gore?

I'd pay real money (ok, at least a case of beer) to know the result of that survey.

Posted by: rmp | August 13, 2008 11:03 PM

First, no one is saying that it's wrong to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: Don't Panic | August 14, 2008 1:48 AM

And James (although I did not have you singularly in mind above) you may have some math or logic formula to support you (whether I buy it or not is unimportant) - and you can blast me for not winning the math debate with you (cannot even judge that myself - you have the rules) - but essentially your position is selfish - selfish and esoteric - it ignores all rules of engagement in battle - it relieves you (Ed included) of making stand against true evil as opposed to the normal "evil" of government - it cleverly masks intangibles (subtle clues, etc. - as one more vote would be) and how intangibles in life do count. You want to give that incremental push to something so insignificant that it wil be lost in the wind - as opposed to making a statement that counts that can and should be heard around the World. I give up. Your smartness defeats us.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | August 14, 2008 6:27 AM

Concerned Joe, to respond to you I have to set aside the argument about one vote's effect. What you are arguing is that it's illegitimate to vote for McCain, and, it seems, that it's illegitimate to not vote for Obama.

I have explicitly said that I won't try to tell people how to vote, yet you won't grant me that same liberty--youdo want to tell me how to vote! And yet you call me selfish and petulant. How astonishing is that?

Posted by: James Hanley | August 14, 2008 9:47 AM

What you are arguing is that it's illegitimate to vote for McCain, and, it seems, that it's illegitimate to not vote for Obama.

No, we're saying it's IMPRACTICAL not to vote for Obama, and that voting for minor-party flakes serves no practical purpose. Uniting for a common cause, and against a common enemy, does indeed serve a practical purpose.

Oh, and before we go on about how useless it allegedly is to vote for Obama in a red state, I'd like to remind you that large numbers of old-style small-c-conservative Republicans are starting to endorse Obama because they're sick of Bush Jr's insane theocratic stupidity. And quite a few red states are now cinsidered "in play" this year. So it's very possible that a blue vote in a red state could count a LOT more than we expect it to.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 14, 2008 9:59 AM

Raging Bee, you may not be saying it's illegitimate to not vote for Obama, but that's definitely how I read Concerned Joe's comment.

As to your argument that it's impractical to not vote for him, let me say again (1) my vote won't affect the outcome, so it's not practical for me to vote for him, either; (2) if I honestly don't favor Obama more than McCain, how could it possibly be practical for me to vote for him. and (3) I'm still undecided, and the probability of me casting my vote for Obama is roughly 1/3.

Let me just ask this question, that I would really be pleased to see answered:

Q: Do people have the right to vote third-party, regardless of the outcome?

Posted by: James Hanley | August 14, 2008 10:19 AM

rmp,

Actually, no, I don't know that. Re-read the posts, especially Concerned Joe's. I'm sure he and others will support the legal right to vote third-party, so maybe I should have asked whether they think it is morally legitimate.

Anyway, I have to take my kids to swim practice, then off to interview a job candidate. I'll check back later to see if the Obama supporters will agree that it is morally (ethically?) legitimate to vote third party.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 14, 2008 10:29 AM

James, in the past I've voted for independent candidates (Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, Tim Penney) so I do have a certain amount of sympathy for promoting something other than the two party system. However I still believe if that Nader voters in Florida were give a chance to revote, that things would have turned out differently. As someone who is extremely discouraged by what has happened over the last 7.5 years, I'm very touchy about the subject.

I know it's a pipe dream but I'd love a system where we got to cast 2 votes. If after tallying the vote the candidate that was your first choice wasn't within 'striking distance', then they would retally using your second choice. If such were the case, I'd happily vote #1 Green Party and #2 Dem Party.

Tis but a dream, I know.

Posted by: rmp | August 14, 2008 10:42 AM

you all are not doing what is right by making the collective statement you know you really should be making. Don't agree with more of Obama than you do of Barr or McCain yet not vote for Obama. hat is intellectually dishonest

Posted by: James Hanley | August 14, 2008 11:59 AM

Raging Bee:

let me say again (1) my vote won't affect the outcome..

And let me say again, you are dead wrong.

And:

It is morally legitimate to do what is most likely to achieve the best result in the real world. And voting for Obama is, by any reasonable measure, the tactic most likely to bring real improvement to our real country in the real world.

I have no problem with you believing Obama's a better candidate, I understand the argument. What I do have a problem with is your assumption that all right-thinking people must agree with your preferences. Even if I do end up voting for Obama (still a real possibility, I haven't ruled him out), I say to hell with that kind of bullshit. I believe right-thinking people can end up voting Democratic, Republic, Libertarian, or Green, even if I disagree with them.

As the judge Learned Hand once said, "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure it is right." Your words reveal that you are too sure you are right--since you imply it's illegitimate to vote differently than you will--which means you have abandoned the spirit of liberty. To hell with that--by still being undecided I am clearly showing that I am not too sure which is the best candidate, and so I am supporting the spirit of liberty, the liberty of other people to vote differently than I do, without claiming their vote is illegitimate.

And while I know I can come across as--heck I can be--very arrogant, claiming those who hold different preferences than me, and vote differently, are not acting legitimately, is a level of arrogance and conceit that I simply cannot attain. I humbly recognize that others have the right to hold different political values than me without thereby becoming illegitimate. If you cannot allow others that liberty without casting aspersions on the legitimacy of their voting choice, then you and I are irreconilable enemies--because I stand firmly on the side of individual liberty.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 14, 2008 12:22 PM

Wow, Hanley, you're spending an awful lot of time and effort assuring us that your vote doesn't count. Well, if you really believe that, then why are you wasting ANY time talking about how you plan to vote or not vote? Are you really that desperate to avoid feeling any sense of adult responsibility? If that's the only way you can justify voting for a minor-party asshat, then that pretty well proves that voting for said asshat is NOT JUSTIFIABLE. Period.

I really don't know why this is such a problem for you. For me, it's really simple: my vote MAY count, therefore it is my duty to see that, IF it counts, it counts the right way. So either it won't count, or it will count against my worst enemy, the Christian Reich. Either way, my conscience will be clear. (Yours may be a problem.)

But my state will be decided by over ten thousand votes.

How do you know that? Of all the millions of people who will vote in your state, WHICH "ten thousand" will "decide?" How do you know you won't be one of them?

If you cannot allow others that liberty without casting aspersions on the legitimacy of their voting choice, then you and I are irreconilable enemies--because I stand firmly on the side of individual liberty.

So "standing firmly on the side of individual liberty" means we can't tell you you're wrong?

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 14, 2008 1:00 PM

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties violate libertarian values.

Therefore you don't have to recognize there's any significant difference between them?

Your entire "analysis" of the candidates is so uninformed and simpleminded as to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you really don't give a shit what's going on in your country. And this gem really takes the prize:

Obama's not a bad person, but he's an ignoramus about economics, and having spent his whole career in the charitable and governmental sectors, I think he honestly believes they are the primary source of our well-being.

So people who work in the public and/or charitable sectors to help others can't be trusted? And they don't understand economics? What a fucking joke! For someone who calls himself a "libertarian," you're sounding awfully Republican, and awfully desperate to find an excuse not to oppose the Republicans -- just like most other so-called libertarians.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 14, 2008 1:21 PM

Rush Limbaugh is complaining that Obama is running down America?

Just last night during the Olympics coverage, I saw the very depressing John McCain ad which emphasizes that "Washington is broken."

How is that different from what Obama said to the kid?

Posted by: anon | August 14, 2008 1:39 PM

But to me it's like asking whether I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick, or have my testicles crushed...

Wow, your paranoid hatred of non-"libertarians" is downright pathological. Do you really fear your fellow Americans this much? Do you cover your crotch every time someone reaches out to shake your hand? Seriously, you sound like someone who has been chronically abused, and thinks everyone else is just as malevolent as your abuser because that's the only human contact he knows.

I think Obama's fairly trustworthy--that is, I don't think he's fundamentally dishonest.

If that's how you really feel, than you have no excuse not to vote for Obama: the Republicans, Bush, McCain, Rove, and the Religious Reich have demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they all ARE fundamentally dishonest, in everything they do, from law enforcement to warmaking to disaster relief. And their fundamental dishonesty has caused more harm to innocent Americans (not to mention innocent Iraqis) than anything any Democrat alive is ever likely to do.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 14, 2008 2:14 PM

James, "But as a parting shot, I see no-one has explained how my vote will change the outcome.".

I see you haven't responded to my posit about whether the Nader voters in Florida would vote the same way if given the chance.

James, "But when the total number of votes are so high then, no, it's mathematically impossible."

This word impossible, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: rmp | August 14, 2008 2:19 PM

I really wish people would drop the "one vote doesn't matter" crap because it's worthless. Yes, in an election of this size, one vote changed one way or the other is not going to determine anything. So what? It's completely useless in a discussion about how and why people are voting because it applies equally to any vote for or against anything. It's a true but completely useless point.

Posted by: Taz | August 14, 2008 2:52 PM

Anna said:

"Be honest here, statements like the above cannot be proven and are just ridiculous"

Honestly now, I can't see what I said that got your knickers in such a twist. :D

Was when I said that it is ridiculous that the rich and powerful vote because they understand that votes determine elections? This can't be proven?

What is pretty clear - perhaps even you will agree - is that the percentage of eligible voters who do actually vote is woefully small in the US. And whenever I read about Joe Blow and why he doesn't vote, it is always the same story - "My vote doesn't mean a thing".

I wonder where that silly notion comes from?

Certainly not from the honest subsection of the rich and powerful - they vote in much higher proportion to the average. Or do they also believe, as you do, that their vote "has absolutely no impact whatsoever? Hmmm.... what could a voting strata that consistently turns out for the vote actually believe?...

Posted by: Gingerbaker | August 14, 2008 3:14 PM

Ah Gingerbaker - Silly is the notion that the rich and powerful vote because they somehow know more than average Joe Blow is elitist. I choose to believe that given low voter turnout, there is rational decision making on the part of those who do not vote or feel apathy do so. So what if the rich has higher percentage turnout, it doesn't matter why they do so and it doesn't equate to them knowing more or acting more rational. Voting is a tool (a small one) to be involved in goverment. It truly depends on the circumstances as to whether a vote is significant and I contend that my single vote in a presidential election won't be a factor in who becomes president. It is neither ignorant or irrational to think that. Hanley for Prez :)

Posted by: Anna | August 14, 2008 5:06 PM

OK, first to respond to coriolis, who asked a good question that I didn't respond to, whether Nader voters would change their vote if they could go back. Answer: I don't have any insight into any Nader voter's psychology. I assume some would, but it seems likely some wouldn't. Anyway, let's take a single Nader voter--if s/he could go back in time and changer his/her vote, would it change anything? I'm not sure what you mean by the meaning of impossible, but I can clarify my meaning: a probability so mathematically remote that I would be irrational to wager 1 red cent on it happening anytime during my lifetime.

To Coriolis' other points: First, McCain's economic knowledge is, I think, minimal. One of the reasons I'm not convinced I should vote for him. Then there's this:

in terms of actually changing anything there is practically no point in voting in a democracy with more then ~50000 people.

Taz, yes it applies equally to any vote. That's been my point. But it's not a useless argument because some people have used the counterclaim. that one vote can change the outcome, to push the claim that it's wrong to vote third-party. I think defending third-party voters is an important argument.

To gwangung, that's the spirit! You I can approve of, as I have no objection to anyone trying to convince me that Obama is a better choice than I currently think he is.

And now to Raging Bee, who seems to have gone off the deep end:

Wow, your paranoid hatred of non-"libertarians" is downright pathological. Do you really fear your fellow Americans this much? Do you cover your crotch every time someone reaches out to shake your hand? Seriously, you sound like someone who has been chronically abused, and thinks everyone else is just as malevolent as your abuser because that's the only human contact he knows.

"I think Obama's fairly trustworthy--that is, I don't think he's fundamentally dishonest." . If that's how you really feel, than you have no excuse not to vote for Obama:

All your argument is just a pathetic attempt, not to provide an actual argument for why I should vote for Obama, but a really juvenile and pathetic attempt to make me feel bad if I don't vote for him. Sorry, though, although I am currently undecided, I am unswayed by your ridiculous attempts to guilt-trip me into an Obama vote. Your last post is so over-the-top ridiculous that words fail me in the effort to express my overriding contempt for the bottomless depths of stupidity it reveals.

And, now, definitively, I've said my last word. Obviously some people are so hateful of anyone who might vote against their preferred candidate that they can't see reason about an individual's vote, and can't accept that a decent person might have a different view of the world. It's sad, just very very sad.

Raging Bee, Ginger, I'm not going to make any claims that you need to justify your vote for Obama. And you can be damned sure I don't feel the slightest need to justify my vote to you or anybody else.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 14, 2008 6:19 PM

Coming way late to the game, but boy, was this interesting!

After reading far enough in the posts, I finally understood why James Henley's subtlties re. the one-vote issue were beyond me. I am not a professional political scientist! His argument reminds me of the logic people use in a national park when they pick the ONE wildflower, or throw the ONE penny into the Yellowstone geyser: well, my ONE action is not the one that makes the actual difference... am I finally grasping the concept JH?

And JH, re. the Cuyahoga River? "In a well-functioning market, all costs are internalized into the company and there are no externalities." I love it! Is that part of free market fundamentalism? My short summary of my political philosophy is that libertarianism and communism fail for the same reason: they misrepresent human nature. Many(if not most) people are venal, self-serving IDIOTS! You need a bit of a safety net (not so much that the entire system collapses of its own weight a la the USSR and communist satellites), but not so much that the disconnect between poor and rich get so big that the system collapses (a la the Gilded Age and the panic of 1893.) But, then again, I am not the professional political scientist, so I'm sure I must have it wrong.

bsci: you go, (girl/guy) for keeping your cool and continuing your excellent arugments even when Ed got really agitate and told you to fuck off. Ed, my humble suggestion for future reference, is to quit mentioning in the beginning of your post that you do not intend to vote for Obama if this discussion upsets you so. I, for one, enjoyed it tremendously, and don't care what reason people have for voting, even if I think it is wack, as long as they do vote. I'm with the poster, though (forget the name) - how many Nader voters wish they had a do-over now that they had a taste of Bush? (heh-heh).

My only reason to vote for Obama, if nothing else: SCOTUS.

Posted by: ildi | August 14, 2008 6:32 PM

Taz, yes it applies equally to any vote. That's been my point. But it's not a useless argument because some people have used the counterclaim. that one vote can change the outcome, to push the claim that it's wrong to vote third-party. I think defending third-party voters is an important argument.

Posted by: Taz | August 14, 2008 7:32 PM

I don't expect America ever to become a libertarian paradise, but I do hope that we can continue to keep limited government in the U.S. I'm a bit stunned that some people find that beyond the pale, an illegitimate political argument that I apparently have no right to promote.

Posted by: Taz | August 14, 2008 10:11 PM

JH: "I'm a bit stunned that some people find that beyond the pale, an illegitimate political argument that I apparently have no right to promote."

I have to agree with Taz on this one; people are just arguing with you, not saying you have no right to promote it - though there is considerable disagreement as to your justifications for promoting it. (In the same vein, I was a bit taken aback when Ed threw out the f-bomb at bsci, I thought precipitously.)

"Oh, I fully agree that libertarianism is not the direction human nature drives us. But keep in mind the naturalistic fallacy--just because something's natural doesn't mean it's good."

How does "misrepresents human nature" morph into that? As with my first quote from you, it appears that you have a tendency to put words in people's mouths that they did not say. It makes it hard to continue any relevant discussion. Let me elucidate. My negative reaction to the premise of libertarianism as a viable political system is that the assumption about human nature is that everyone is a budding stockbroker, banker, lawyer, etc. and is poised to cut themselves the best deal in this world. Conversely, communism's premise is that we are all willing to contribute as much as we are able in a hive mentality to our society, and in return society should provide us as much as we need. (As a professional political scientist, I'm sure you'll correct me if this is an inaccurate assessment.)

Most people in my experience, however, do well to function in our complex society, are perfectly willing to get a free ride if they can, and "there's a sucker born every minute." Either through trust or ignorance or stupidity or greed, people are hosed all the time. As a utilitarian, I advocate a political system that minimizes the harm while maximizing the benefit, and I don't think libertarianism does that.

"why would you trust any of them with anything beyond the minimum of power" I wouldn't - not government, not corporations; government is more controllable than corporations. For that reason, I prefer it when both parties have power, which btw they still don't have right now, since Congress doesn't have veto override. The 70s were scary when the Dems were in total control, just scary in a different way than under Bushco.

I would add to the poster's comment above re. show me a successful libertarian system that there currently isn't one, because they quickly crash and burn and turn into something else. I would love it if you could give an example otherwise.

Finally: "Anyway, let's take a single Nader voter--if s/he could go back in time and changer his/her vote, would it change anything?" How about if you asked every single individual, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM changed their minds. Would that have not changed the outcome of the election? (I'm just saying all of them to make the math easier; I don't remember how many would have had to vote for Gore to make the difference.) See, this is why I struggle with your 'my one vote does not change the outcome' meme.

Posted by: ildi | August 14, 2008 11:07 PM

I started out curious how smart freedom loving caring people (like Ed and suspect JH) would not vote our collective best practical interests in this most important election. After all the discussion I will have to just settle for my old standby: "-isms" are religious in nature - they grip people and make them irrational.

That is why I am an atheist - someone who has no belief in gods nor the supernatural - I am not a believer in atheism. If Atheism exists and asks for me I'll run like a deer from it! My point - one can take sound thinking and proper principles and ruin them by wrapping it all in an "-ism".

I conclude that beyond the principles here and there that we all could embrace JH and Ed really believe in Libertarianism as a movement; again all bets off when the "-ism" becomes important to you. Look I am not saying people don't have a right to whatever, just I am disappointed that someone for instance like Ed - HIGHLY respected by me - is in an "-ism" frame of mind especially when his one declared vote might actually sway enough others to make a difference! who knows?!

I leave with my thought that remains in me: it is intellectually and civic-ly dishonest to not vote for Obama if you know you'd definitely vote for him in a 2 person (McCain / Obama) race. It is irrational and selfish (my opinion - so what); my reasons stand below:

- your disregard for the damage of a McCain vs. an Obama presidency (energy should be in getting best hope for brighter future elected and schooled)

- your nil risk factor analysis of what one vote (always collectively taken) might do or show (because mandates do count) in this most important election - especially in MI (and Ed your declared vote could mean some and maybe many more)

- your ineffective use of a national election to make a point when so many other more effective and less dangerous alternatives exist (this fact is what makes it really sad)

- your giving any weight no matter how small to essentially a bigot simply to make an esoteric point with little practical purpose (this fact is what makes it really really sad)

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | August 15, 2008 5:05 AM

Taz, ildi, and Raging Bee, I respectfully disagree that Raging Bee and Gingerbaker were simply disagreeing with me. I think their comments suggesting it's illegtitimate to vote Libertarian, or that I "have no excuse" to not vote Obama are indicative. Their general argument was that a libertarian vote is an inexcusable and illegitimate vote. I'm not putting words in their mouths--anyone who wants to scroll back up can find one of them saying, "you have no excuse not to vote for Obama" and the other saying "it's legitimate to vote for someone who will make the country better off, and that's Obama."

It's noticeable again in Concerned Joe's latest post:

curious how smart freedom loving caring people (like Ed and suspect JH) would not vote our collective best practical interests in this most important election.

And then look at Joe's later line:

it is intellectually and civic-ly dishonest to not vote for Obama if you know you'd definitely vote for him in a 2 person...race

Repeatedly this has been the tone, that it's dishonest, dishonorable, illegitimate, inexcusable, to cast a vote for the Libertarian party in this race. Meanwhile I've never suggested it was wrong to vote for Obama, or suggested liberalism (your "ism," Joe) was somehow disreputable--i just have a different, partially overlapping, set of values.

Sorry Taz and ildi, with whom I feel I can respectfully disagree, i think the words of Raging Bee, gingerbaker, and Joe clearly do suggest that if they were able, they would suppress :ibertarian's right to vote. Notably, despite my express invitation, not one of them has even once said that they think a person has the right to cast a vote for the Libertarian Party, and that such a vote can be legitimate.

The stench of moral superiority virtually streams from my comuter monitor.

But here's the funny thing: I stick to my original argument that my vote has no possibiltiy of affecting the outcome, so I can't figure out why everyone is so freaked out about it. People--I do not have the power to cause McCain to win! My one, measly, miniscule, powerless little vote will...not...cause...a...McCain...victory!

But we could go this route: if you really thnk my vote for Obama is so crucial, it ought to be worth something to you...I like scotch, bourbon, Napa Valley wines, and Leinenkuegel beer.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 15, 2008 9:09 AM

ildi:

How about if you asked every single individual, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM changed their minds. Would that have not changed the outcome of the election? (I'm just saying all of them to make the math easier; I don't remember how many would have had to vote for Gore to make the difference.) See, this is why I struggle with your 'my one vote does not change the outcome' meme.

But to your question, you moved the goalposts. We're talking about the effect of "one" vote, but you ask, "what if they all changed their votes." That's talking about multiple votes, not just one.

Let's ask what would happen if we had a time machine and could take back all the newspapers from the last 7 1/2 years to show to prospective Nader voters. I think you and I agree that probably some of them would change their vote. But we're focusing on the effect of a single vote. Lets call the voter "Jones."

What if all the Nader voters except Jones changed their vote to Gore? Gore would win, because lots of votes changed, and Jones refusal to change won't affect the outcome.

Now what if, surprising to you and me, only Jones changed his vote and went for Gore. Gore would still lose, and Jones's vote still won't make the difference.

It's very comon to say, "yeah, but what if lots of people..." But my argument isn't about lots of people, it's about any one single person. And whatever that one single person does will be more than offset by what lots of people do.

Anyway, it's a bit weak to blame Gore's loss just on Nader voters, as there are several other just as likely causes, either of which would have offset the Nader voters. Two I can think of off the top of my head, the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach that caused numerous likely Gore voters to accidentally vote Buchanan, and Gore's failure to win his own home state. From my personal perspective, when a candidate can't win his own home state, he's got no right to bitch at people who "should have" voted for him (and as far as I know, Gore hasn't, showing considerably more class than many of his supporters).

But in the end, think of my argument this way. Remember that it's about any one individual's vote. Let's say it's my vote:

1. On election day, I'm driving to the polls having decided to vote for Obama. On the way, I'm hit by a truck and killed, so I never get to cast my vote. Will McCain win as a result?

Or,

2. On election day, I'm headed to the polls to vote for Obama. Ed Brayton, thoroughly pissed off at me for abandoning the true "ism," pays a homeless man to whack me, take my ID, and cast a vote, under my name, for the Libertarian candidate. Will McCain win as a result?

Some shallow folks here might think those are foolish stories that miss the point. But they're stories that talk about my vote, without brining in my "bad intentions. In each case my intentions were what the liberals here would like, but due to circustances outside my control, my vote didn't go for Obama. If in neither case would McCain win as a result, then neither can McCain win as a result of me purposefully casting my vote for the Libertarian.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 15, 2008 9:27 AM

Meanwhile I've never suggested it was wrong to vote for Obama...

No, you've just called Obama an "ignoramus" and a violator of "libertarian" "principles" without providing a scrap of proof; and consistently bent over backwards to pretend you have no power, no responsibilities, no effect on anything, therefore you don't have to act like an adult and think about the consequences of your actions. And you've completely ignored nearly all of the substantive points made here by several respondents that refute your claims.

Sorry Taz and ildi, with whom I feel I can respectfully disagree, i think the words of Raging Bee, gingerbaker, and Joe clearly do suggest that if they were able, they would suppress [L]ibertarian's right to vote.

Ah yes, when all else fails, pretend you're being persecuted by people who really want to send you to the Gulag. Because whenever someone disagrees with a libertarian, it really means they want to take away your rights.

But here's the funny thing: I stick to my original argument that my vote has no possibiltiy of affecting the outcome, so I can't figure out why everyone is so freaked out about it.

We're not "freaked out," we're contemptuous. Don't you have enough social skills to tell the difference?

My one, measly, miniscule, powerless little vote will...not...cause...a...McCain...victory!

And donating one measly quart of blood won't save anyone's life either, right? And giving a measly few dollars to the Red Cross won't help anyone anywhere. I see where your rationalizations are going: you don't want to do anything for anyone, so you justify it by pretending none of it will have any effect. Hey, if you don't want to do anything decent for your neighbors, then we can't force you to do it. Just don't pretend the window-dressing of "libertarian" snobbery makes you special.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 15, 2008 9:46 AM

Umm, Obama's a liberal. How much evidence do you need that he would violate libertarian principles?

Argument by labeling. How much more evidence do we need that you're clueless and irresponsible?

Remember, you're the one who's tried to control other people's vote, not me.

Equating attempts to argue and persuade with "control?" That's classic paranoia.

And, by the way, you still haven't been able to bring yourself to just write the words, "It's legitimate to vote third-party." So don't pretend you're really willing to let other people make their own choices.

I don't use the words you demand I use, the way you demand I use them, therefore I'm not letting you make your own choices? Get help.

You are completley unable to demonstrate that one vote can make a difference...

And you're completely unable to demonstrate that your vote WON'T make a difference. Given decades of observation of how voting works, I think the burden of proof is on you here.

...as I was saying, donating a pint can save a life.

Are you SURE of that? I mean, with all those other pints out there, are you SURE yours is making ANY difference? By your own logic, the answer here is "no" -- you being just one guy and all.

Look at Ed, for god's sake--just a few weeks ago he asked people to donate to help out his friend with medical needs. He's a libertarian, but he is happy to help out others.

Exactly -- he's not pretending his efforts won't count for anything, as you do in regard to your vote.

...you'll hang onto your wilful misconceptions about libertarianism.

"Misconceptions" that are reinforced by "libertarians" like you. But you won't take any responsibility for that either, will you? I mean, you're just ONE of MANY "libertarians" who have been reinforcing such "misconceptions" since 1980; so your measly efforts can't possibly account for anyone else's misunderstanding, right?

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 15, 2008 11:03 AM

James please give me some effen credit - gee whiz - I've said it as clear as I could -- IF IF IF you would vote for Obama in a 2 way contest it is not honest to vote 3rd party in this election -- and I will add because it is implied and inferred by most I am sure - unless that 3rd party candidate is so outstanding and the margin the candidate will achieve so significant that there are REAL PRACTICAL over riding strategic reasons to risk a McCain victory to give the 3rd party support. In this election the latter is obviously NOT the case.

Sorry -- maybe you don't fit this category and I accept that if the case - but my guess is Ed knows McCain will be further disaster -- that Obama is MUCH less an evil and that every vote in this close election may matter -- but if I used the word immoral I misspoke and sincerely apologize - however intellectually and civic-ly dishonest fit -- and BTW "it is" is different than "YOU are" ... I never called you immoral - or meant to do so. Again sorry if I misspoke somewhere along the way.

James - my scenario - my statements are to people who are supporting their "ism" over real practical value. Again -- by not voting for Obama when you can agree w/ say 90% of him well voting for Barr who has in so many ways been anti-libertarian through the years - what is that? I say it is not kosher.

And James --- you never see any point we've made as valid -- address my criteria - my summarization of reasons.. in the context of my scenario. How is our reasoning so wrong -- and why would you ever thing any one here really would outlaw your wasted vote no matter how dangerous we think it is this election.

Have a good day (sincerely - no sarcasm)

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | August 15, 2008 11:34 AM

Raging Bee, if you don't think donating a pint of blood will actually help a real live individual person stay alive...I honestly don't know how to talk to someone like you who has such a vast amount of trouble with basic logic.

I didn't say _I_ didn't think donating blood would save a life; and you know this, but you refuse to let yourself understand what I said. No wonder you "don't think this public debate is going anywhere."

Posted by: RAging Bee | August 15, 2008 12:53 PM

JH, "You may call me a sophist if you wish, but my argument is based on the voting literature". You are a sophist, and I would not be surprised to find you're twisting the voting literature to suit your own 'individual vs. collective' fantasy. I'm sure you've had loads of fun tweaking peoples' tails in this thread, so have a nice day! (sarcasm intended)

Professional political scientist, indeed.

Posted by: ildi | August 15, 2008 1:14 PM

Jimmy, Jimmmy, Jimmy:

Where did I lie?

You're leaving the discussion? Goodness, gracious, now who's got their feelings hurt?

Posted by: democommie | August 15, 2008 1:42 PM

It is truly amazing to read post after post by James Hanley stating that he doesn't have to justify his position.

Nope he doesn't! No one should. It is our right and priviledge, but somehow he and Ed have been attacked relentlessly for even considering alternate choices. Now as I see it, at first, he civilly tried to explain this - and because of that was accused for trying to justify himself.

ConcernedJoe:
No he doesn't need to follow anyone else's voting criteria, period. It does not make him arrogant, immoral, wrong or selfish. He never questioned you or anyone else's reasons for voting. I respect your passion but it doesn't amount to claiming that Hanley is wasting his vote.

Bee said

And you're completely unable to demonstrate that your vote WON'T make a difference. Given decades of observation of how voting works, I think the burden of proof is on you here.

HAAAAA. Show me a U.S. presidential election were one vote made a difference oh please do. Do you really think that he should provide the proof? He has it, the numbers here don't lie. But that is not what you are attacking him for. If you believe that your vote has more value, than good for you but don't try to guilt trip others into blindly accepting your values. He never questioned your reasoning or rational for voting. Honestly even if he flipped a coin on his vote, it would be valid and still wouldn't matter one bit in this election.

Skewer me as you please I am off to enjoy a beautiful day.

Posted by: Anna | August 15, 2008 1:48 PM

democommie

Where did I lie?

That's where you lied.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 15, 2008 3:13 PM

Let me add that each time you sneer at me for being educated on this matter, you sound quite similar to the creationists who sneer at the educated biologists. I'm not calling you a creationist, but you are closely following their tactics.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 15, 2008 3:18 PM

Raging Bee:

I didn't say _I_ didn't think donating blood would save a life; and you know this, but you refuse to let yourself understand what I said.

Are you SURE of that? I mean, with all those other pints out there, are you SURE yours is making ANY difference? By your own logic, the answer here is "no" -- you being just one guy and all.

My vote, here in Michigan, will be one of close to 5 million cast, and there will be a difference of tens of thousands of votes between the candidates. That means the winning candidate will have tens of thousands of extra votes--he can wave them around as a "mandate" if he likes, but those extra votes don't help him win.

But some guy who's been in a car accident and is bleeding out isn't going to have tens of thousands of extra pints. He's going to need each one given, hospitals often run short, and my pint of blood may in fact go into him and play an important role in saving his life.

I keep saying that your analogies don't work, but you keep trying to argue by bad analogy.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 15, 2008 3:25 PM

Peter Beinart of the CFR was on Larry King Live and essentially said that Barack Obama is not farther ahead in the polls because white people are uncomfortable electing a black man to the presidency.

All he was saying is that there are lots of Americans who are still prejudiced against black people and that Obama has to deal with that. How is this "shallow political rhetoric?" Does racism not exist in America?

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 15, 2008 3:57 PM

Dave L. There is a lot to read through, and I don't blame you for not reading them all. This actually has been covered--in fact another commenter corrected me. I was taking the same line as Ed, and somebody pointed out that if a single vote doesn't have any effect on the outcome, then it can't have the effect Ed and I were arguing for.

Because the logic of my argument was correct, it meant I was wrong in thinking that my vote would help the libertarian cause. Ed is wrong on that count, too.

And since I despise Bob Barr, being forced to recognize that my vote wouldn't help the Libertarian Party made me drastically lower my odds of voting Libertarian in November. While still undecided, I am leaning toward voting Obama just because I like the idea of knowing I voted against the color barrier. It won't determine whether the color barrier is broken, but my vote will have meaning to me because I stood for something I believe in.

I absolutely don't mind answering this question, because the earlier discussion exemplified what can be great about this blog. I made two claims, somebody pointed out I had contradicted myself, and my thinking was changed as a consequence.

(Sorry for the bold "yelling," but there's been a few people on here putting words in my mouth about whether votes have meaning. I've said repeatedly that voting is meaningful, but some people are so eager to cast me as a satan that they'll ignore any exculpatory evidence.)

Posted by: James Hanley | August 15, 2008 4:18 PM

James - I am sure if we were all sitting around over beers this would all seem clearer and points of agreement higher. But we ain't so I remain brief and maybe unfair - but seriously -- if you really think that voting for Barr advances the cause of a brighter World more than a vote for McCain or Obama - hey it would be immoral for you not to cast the vote for Barr.. there I said it. Our problem - at least mine is that I cannot see for the life of me how that can be so (given any rational assessment of the candidates and Ed's previous posts). You all think the Barr vote maximizes results apparently. I and others I think not. I remain sad I cannot convince you or Ed that you are making a mistake because I think the stakes are so high this election and we need all intelligent people to shout out the stupidity. But that is my hangup I guess. You all are letting rationalize your actions I just cannot fathom. Go for it -- your right - you ain't stupid or bad. But I feel bad we all have failed and you are delusional. No offense - really - we all do stupid stuff in our own delusion bubbles -- and we all have those pesky bubbles. Peace out.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | August 15, 2008 4:36 PM

Concerned Joe

if you really think that voting for Barr advances the cause of a brighter World more than a vote for McCain or Obama - hey it would be immoral for you not to cast the vote for Barr.. there I said it. Our problem - at least mine is that I cannot see for the life of me how that can be so (given any rational assessment of the candidates and Ed's previous posts). You all think the Barr vote maximizes results apparently.

But as I've noted, I don't think Barr is a good candidate. I despise the man. I was planning to vote Libertarian to help promote libertarianism by increasing their turnout, until it was pointed out to me that my own argument undermined that--if my vote can't determine the outcome, it certainly can't determine that libertarianism will be "more successful."

So now I'm leaning away from voting Libertarian. And as we've argued, I've kept thinking about the candidates. It would be a lot easier for me if either Obama or McCain was clearly more attractive to me, but neither is.

I want a president with experience, and that favors McCain (I think an inexperienced president can do a lot of damage, even if honest and well-intentioned, by making the mistakes of inexperience).

But I want a president who has stronger support for due process rights, and that favors Obama.

But I want a president who supports free trade, and this, by a small margin, favors McCain.

And I go back and forth. At the moment, as I've said, I'm leaning toward Obama because I like the idea of voting to break the color barrier. I wouldn't vote for Obama just because he's black, if I thought he was wholly inadequate or wholly opposed to my issues, but when the candidates are fairly even in my mind, I don't have any problem using that as a tie-breaker.

But there's still 2 1/2 months to go, and doubtless I'll continue to go back and forth. Hey, I'm a swing voter! First time ever!

And I wouldn't call Ed delusional. He honestly believes we need a more libertarian public policy, and he can't support that by voting for either McCain or Obama.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 15, 2008 4:55 PM

I was taking the same line as Ed, and somebody pointed out that if a single vote doesn't have any effect on the outcome, then it can't have the effect Ed and I were arguing for.

Because the logic of my argument was correct, it meant I was wrong in thinking that my vote would help the libertarian cause.

I disagree, only because I don't think the equation is the same. A single vote doesn't have an effect on the outcome of determining the winner of the presidential election, but part of your argument for that seems to me to rely on the fact that it doesn't matter whether the candidate wins 55% of the vote or 80% of the vote, and that no elections come down to even close to a single vote differential, which I accept. However, it does affect a different outcome, the one that I think Ed has in mind, if the Libertarian party garners 20% of the vote vs 2%. Every vote increases that percentage by a very small amount, and would theoretically increase the attention that Libertarian ideas receive at the table.

Haven't thought that all the way through, and it seems to be unique to this situation; a single vote for one of the major parties by contrast doesn't even have that benefit, as their platforms are already getting lots of attention.

Posted by: Dave L | August 15, 2008 5:10 PM

Raging Bee, ok, I accept this as a real argument. It's not just another analogy. But it's too vague, not specific enough about what will happen.

If a majority in one state oppose the Republicans, but don't vote for the same candidate, then McCain has a greater chance of getting a plurality

Even if it's much closer this year, Ed's single vote can't change the odds enough to conceivably affect the outcome. That's what I'm saying. Even if the election gets really close here, and the differential narrows to only 10,000 votes (a difference of less than 1%, which would be amazingly close), Ed can only bring McCain 1 vote closer by voting Libertarian, narrowing the gap to 9,999.

You face greater odds than that every day without worrying about it. Getting into your shower you have a much higher odds of getting hurt. Driving to the grocery store/work/school is a huge risk compared to the odds we're talking about.

We do these much more risky things on a daily basis and don't get into big arguments about it. So I sincerely don't see any reason to get concerned about something that's a much more remote possibility.

Are you not familiar with how electoral votes are allocated?

Posted by: James Hanley | August 15, 2008 5:34 PM

oops forgot the second quote of Bee

I did not want credit for this statement

the major "libertarian" names, Ron Paul and Bob Barr, are too closely connected with the GOP to call themselves "independent." They're in the GOP's pocket, and the GOP allow them to exist in order to divide their opponents

Posted by: Anna | August 15, 2008 5:48 PM

Jimbo:

"Ah, I can't resist. You claimed that my argument convinced you your vote was meaningless. That despite my explicit statements--repeated several times--that your vote does have meaning.

That's where you lied."

Holy shit! Do you not recognize sarcasm, for fuck sake? Jesus H. Christ, what a moron.

Posted by: democommie | August 15, 2008 7:18 PM

Democommie,

With as many people as were claiming that my argument meant votes were meaningless, I thought you were just another one who had missed the point.

If you weren't actually claiming that, then I did miss the sarcasm. And if you were being sarcastic, then, no, you didn't lie.

Sorry, the argument was getting a bit tense!

Posted by: James Hanley | August 15, 2008 7:42 PM

Democommie, if the sarcasm was directed at me, then you do think that was the thurst of my argument. In which case you are a liar. How sad. You are incapable of grasping the logic of the argument, so you attack the more educated person as actually being "irrational," and yet it apparently doesn't occur to you that the education may actually have taught me some things that you don't know about. I mean, really, 6 years of grad school and 6 years of reading the literature since = 12 years in the business, yet you think you know more about what happens with voting than you. It is indeed very much like the creationists who say the biologists don't really know what they're talking about.

You're not just a liar, you're an arrogant fool. But, as you say, that's your privilege. And if you've failed to understand the logic by which 1 vote cannot outweigh tens of thousands of votes, there's really nothing more I can say. The logic is correct, so either I am incapable of explaining it clearly, or you are incapable of understanding it.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 15, 2008 11:37 PM

James Hanley & Anna:

Since neither of you seems able to grasp that when I am talking to you, I will preface the comment by addressing you directly, I guess I'll have to do this, this way. You may then decide that what I'm saying applies to either or both of you.

You tell me, on the one hand, that your voting for Obama, McStain or Bob (GOP fundie) Barr or, not voting at all, will not affect the outcome of the race. On the other hand, you tell me that MY vote does matter. How is that possible? Explain it, in very simple terms, after all you think that I'm stupid, apparently, as well as being a liar (I still haven't gotten fucked yet, btw).

You say that Raging Bee contradicts herself, point out the contradiction, parsing her quote, not your own opinion.

Political science is, unfortunately, not empirical. If it was the political scientists would have long ago figured out how to make the world run properly. Regardless, medicine, accountancy, bio-chemistry and a number of other disciplines are, in fact, empirical. Despite that large numbers of licensed practitioners in those disciplines are utter hacks who, deliberately or haplessly, violate their canons of ethics, commit malpractice and malfesance or are just plain bad at their chosen profession. So, six years of higher education and 12 years of working in the field, while it certainly gives you a much greater knowledge of the jargon and mechanics of voting does not guarantee that you are right.

Now, as far as this "anti-libertarianism" schtick goes, THAT does sound like the kind of cheap, shitty trick that the GOP and their dogwagging tail, the KKKristian reichwing are so fond of pulling out. If we disagree, we hate you, how juvenile to suggest such a thing. I hate almost no one (full disclosure, I really hate the Three Georges, Bush 41, Bush 43 and Steinbrenner) but I suppose I could find room in my heart to hate a few more folks.

Posted by: democommie | August 16, 2008 8:07 AM

Political science is, unfortunately, not empirical. If it was the political scientists would have long ago figured out how to make the world run properly.

Political science is a mix of empirical and non-empirical. Some people are purely non-empirical political philosophers, and on the other end, some are purely empirical analysts of political behavior. I lean toward the latter end. And the matter I've been discussing, voting behavior, is one of the more empirical, and really really thoroughly studied, subjects within the discipline. Believe me, I never get on this blog and say I am confident as a political scientist that X is true, unless it has been shown to be. When I say I am a professional, I mean that I will never use my academic status to make claims of a subjective nature. That is why I would never say "As a political scientist, I can tell you that you should for...." That would be unprofessional.

As to your argument that if political science was an empirical field, the world would be run properly, I have three rebuttals, each sufficient to prevent the world from being run properly:

1) Our primary study is behavior, trying to understand what people do as political beings, and why.

2) Often when political scientists do have good ideas for how to make the world a better place, they get ignored and scoffed at by people who think they have a superior knowledge despite not having studied the topic at issue, and by politicians who need to pander to the masses. There's no way for political scientists to directly enact good ideas--they're dependent on people like George Bush, and with people like him in elected positions, how can you place the burden on us academics:

3) The most important reason is that "run better" is so subjective. What you think is a better run world, someone else thinks is a worse run world. I think same-sex marriage and free trade are a better world, Pat Buchanan would disagree. You seem to see that as an empirical standard, and us political scientists as unempirical because we can't achieve it. The reality is that "better run" is a non-empirical standard, and so political scientists like me turn toward more empirical matters.

For example, I can say, empirically, that free trade increases the wealth of the country. But I can also say, empirically, that free trade will create severe economic disruptions for some people/communities/states. But I can't tell you, empirically, which is the more important consideration.

So, democommie, I don't mind having discussions, and even arguments, with you. But the moment you start lecturing me on what my discipline is about we cross over into bizarro world, a world in which you seem to believe that your lack of immersion in my discipline gives you greater understanding of it than my decade-plus of immersion in it. Believe me, simply paying attention to the news and following political events does not equal political science. If you doubt that, please to a local university library and pick up a copy of the American Journal of Political Science, or the American Political Science Review, or the Journal of Theoretical Politics. I guarantee you won't be able to understand the vast majority of the articles--not because I'm accusing you of stupidity, but because you won't have the depth of education in the particular field. You might, indeed, be just as intelligent as I am--i have no real basis for saying differently, as you and I don't know each other--but you haven't invested the effort I have in learning this particular field. I'm curious as to what you do for a living. Whatever it is, I probably know a little bit about it, but I have no doubt you could spend hours enlightening me with field-specific knowledge I know nothing about.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 16, 2008 10:54 AM

Anna:

Bullshit, not even close, you know it. But you're done here, so that's cool.

Mr. Hanley:

A mix of empirical and non-empirical means non-imperical. It's been demonstrated by many others, Alan Keyes springs to mind, that intelligence and study do not equal being right. You assume that your work qualifies you to dismiss me or anyone else who disagrees with.

"Fuck you for being a lying piece of shit. Regardless of who wins on election day, I hope you do put a gun in your mouth after voting."

I really think that says it all--your response to being frustrated is interesting.

I hadn't noticed, until just now, that you said your regretted your vote for Clinton in '92. Why, because you were duped? But you're a political scientist, dude--you would certainly know better than I that Bill Clinton wouldn't make a good president (although I very much doubt that either of his opponents in '92 or '96 would have made any better president).

It appears that you are, at heart, a republican, you ought to just own up and learn to live with it.

Posted by: democommie | August 16, 2008 2:03 PM

Jimbo:

What was your little joke. Please tell me it was "Fuck you." that's a joke I use all the time when I disagree with someone, it just never works.

You like to insult me because of your supposed superiority. You smug bastard. If you could make arguments that you didn't have to constantly tweak I might have a bit of respect for you.

Posted by: democommie | August 17, 2008 5:38 AM