Voting only for the person that "deserves" or "earned" is silly

[kiahzero]

I keep hearing this comment over and over again... I had been responding to individual instances, but it seems to have propagated faster than I can respond, so I figured I'd just make a thread on the topic.

Elections aren't about pandering sufficiently to enough people to "earn" enough votes to win against your opponent. When you go to the voting booth, your concern should not be who's "given" you enough things to "earn" your vote. Your concern should be with your best interests, and the best interests of your country.

You know what? Sometimes, you're going to have to vote for someone who hasn't "earned" your vote. But if you continue to use this silly argument, you'll continually be pushing to lower your well-being and the well-being of the country.

It's interesting that there are a significant number of people on DU that think this way. It reminds me of lower-class whites, who can continually be convinced to vote against their own best interests by pandering on a few key issues, and a lot of accompanying rhetoric. They're voting for the candidate that's "earned" their vote, not the candidate that would make their lives better.

So, when you vote in November, maybe you should consider putting the test of whether a candidate has "earned" your vote aside, and instead vote for the candidate that it is in your best interest, and the best interest of the country, to vote for.

[vi5]

1. Al of this arguing over this is wasted breath...

I'm sorry but my personal experience is that the people I know in real life (emphasis on the fact that I don't know anyone on this board so this is not directed at them) who vote third party are petulant, whining, attention mongers who want to feel important and want me to beg for their vote.

Well, I've wasted too much time doing that in the past only to find out that what these people were looking for was not a reason why they should vote for the democratic candidate, but to be the center of attention in any political conversation which invariably they would become if I took it upon myself to convince them of something that I would realize too late that they could not be convinced of.

I'm done with it. Someone wants to vote Nader or feel that they are some kind of scary rebel to the system by doing so then let them. I'm going to focus on the tens of millions of non-voting undecided swing voters who don't view their vote as something to hold over my head and make me pay attention to them.

[krkaufman]

2. Hear, hear!

Well said, vi5. I think that's the best practice.

We *will* need to have talking points to counter Nader's "no difference between parties" spiel when talking to inquiring voters, but I'm not going to waste further breath/keystrokes on adamant anti-ABBers.

[hippiegranny]

35. fabu post vi5!

what you said! i love it when someone can boil it down to fit in a nutshell like that. yes! i was feeling so aggravated by the "earn my vote" rhetoric, but didn't know what to say to it that adequately expressed my frustration. it was great to have what was in my head finally outlined coherently. thanks.

[JVS]

3. Voting is a right. Not an obligation or duty.

[kiahzero]

7. I beg to differ

So would many. To me, voting is not a "right", or a "priviledge" - it's an absolute duty of the citizens of democracy.

[JVS]

10. It's a right in America. Nothing more, nothing less

[kiahzero]

11. Perhaps in your mind

I, on the other hand, view lots of things as duties that you may only see as rights - I see it as a duty to speak out against the government when it does things you view as wrong, for instance.

Seeing as this is simply a matter of opinion on both of our parts, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

[YNGW]

4. People should (and will) vote the way they want.

Even if that means voting for a third-party candidate.

Freedom of choice when voting. What a novel idea! :think:

[kiahzero]

9. Logical Fallacy: Strawman

Did I argue for legally compelling anyone to vote in any way? No? Then "freedom of choice" was never questioned.

I'm arguing that people should exercise their freedom of choice in a way that is far more rational and likely to produce an outcome beneficial to them and to the country.

Perhaps I made my mistake in assuming that voters are rational actors?

[maxanne]

12. in other words

people should vote the way you want them to.

[kiahzero]

13. In other words:

People should vote rationally, rather than by whoever does the best job pandering to them to "earn their vote."

[YNGW]

14. Maybe...

.... the candidate who says things to "earn" their vote is a "rational vote" to that person.

[kiahzero]

15. Clearly not

Because people are voting in a way that increases the odds of a negative outcome, and decreases the odds of a positive outcome. That's not rational.

[maxanne]

16. heaven forbid

that voters should actually decide for themselves in a democracy!

:scared:

In other words, people should vote the way you want them to.

[kiahzero]

18. This strawman again?

Perhaps you should read other posts in a thread before joining in...

I am not strong-arming voters into voting for the person I think they should vote for. There is no coercive force involved. I contrast this with numerous faux progressives who use their vote coercively - (I've heard more than once - Vote for Kucinich in the primary, or I'll vote third party).

I am simply making a counter-argument to the statement: "I'm not going to vote for X, because X hasn't earned my vote!"

[DemBones DemBones]

25. Where have you heard

"Vote for Kucinich in the primary, or I'll vote third party"?

As a Kucinich supporter, I've heard none of Dennis's supporters saying this. I have seen only one supporter suggest that he or she would vote third party if Dennis is not the nominee.

Dennis Kucinich is a Democrat who seeks to work within the party to change things, rather than to go against the party.

[kiahzero]

26. Trying to find examples

I'm not on my home computer, so it'll be a little bit difficult.

[DemBones DemBones]

30. Your statement suggested that

it was being said by many Kucinich supporters. If that were so, it should be easy to find examples.

[kiahzero]

31. To be fair to myself

I said I've heard more than once. I have since rephrased my claim to more accurately describe the poster's comments (see below).

[kiahzero]

29. Here we go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=373523#373993
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=372316

To me, this is extortion: Trying to win primary votes on the basis that if the party supports X, the party will not be 'punished' with an attack from Nader.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in the OP... the threat was not as clear-cut as I implied. Sorry.

[DemBones DemBones]

33. Now you're talking about

extortion? If anyone's attempting extortion, I believe it would have to be Nader himself. He did say he wouldn't run if Kucinich was the nominee. Didn't he later expand that to be Kucinich or Dean?

You found a thread started by someone whose history I don't know (i.e., I can't say for sure that s/he has not been supporting Kucinich all along, only that I don't remember this poster being part of the Kucinich group earlier.) The thread says that Nader wouldn't run if Kucinich was the nominee and the poster suggests voting for Kucinich as an anti-Nader strategy. I wouldn't make that argument myself, I'd merely explain the many good reasons for voting for Kucinich.

Still, nobody in that thread said "Vote for Kucinich in the primary, or I'll vote third party," while you wrote:

"(I've heard more than once - Vote for Kucinich in the primary, or I'll vote third party)."

Kucinich and his supporters can't be held responsible for Nader's statements or actions, and most of us will vote for the Democratic nominee in November. Kucinich and Nader are friends but Kucinich believes in working within the Democratic Party.

As far as the other thread goes, I haven't figured out what you meant by citing it. It's about abortion being made illegal if Bush wins and is a wake up call to anyone considering a third party vote.

[maxanne]

28. Oh,

I've read the whole sorry thread. I don't believe you're expressing any respect for people exercising their right to choose a candidate. And yes, you are essentially saying that people should vote the way you think they should.

I could make the argument that everyone would be much better dressed if I picked out their wardrobes - and this would indeed be true. It isn't going to happen, however, so I need to respect the right of my fellow humans to wear ill fitting, unflattering, horrifyingly unattractive garments. It is their right.

Just as it is the right of any voter to choose a candidate based on their own analysis.

[YNGW]

17. That's why...

... you don't get to define what is rational to others.

Some people's votes aren't for sale. You'll have to learn to face it, or not. I don't think people really care if others belittle their reasons for voting for a particualr candidate. I know I don't.

[kiahzero]

19. Of course their votes are for sale!

That's the whole point! The whole idea behind "earning" a vote is that a candidate must barter with the person, until the candidate pandered enough to the individual that he / she considers his / her vote "earned."

[YNGW]

21. Not in the sense in which I speak.

"Earning" my support means campaigning on the issues in a way I believe they should be addressed. Now, if you want to call that "selling", that's up to you.

What I'm not willing to buy into is "Candidates X, Y & Z are in the GE, and only X and Y even have a chance of winning, so if you vote Z you're really voting for X, so you need to vote for Y." That's what I mean my vote is not for sale. Nope. Not gonna do it. If I believe Z is the candidate that most closely speaks to my concerns, that's who I'll vote for.

And if people don't like that, that's their problem.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

22. So

Define rationally. And who's version of rational are we using?

[kiahzero]

23. Rational actors seek to improve chances of a favorable outcome

In game theory (commonly used to analyze people's choices in political science), rational actors make decisions to increase the likelihood of a positive outcome.

Let us assume, for argument, that Kerry is centrist, as some would claim, rather than the liberal that his record displays him to be (Note that I am using Kerry because he is the front-runner in the primary so far, and it is reasonable to assume he might win).

Define the variables -

L: the magnitude of leftward (positive) shift, should the candidate be elected.

p: the probability of the candidate being elected.

Obviously, this model is rather simplistic - I'm not trying to do a research paper here, just demonstrate a point.

While L(Kerry) < L(Nader) in this model (Here, Kerry is a centrist and Nader is a progressive), it is still positive, due to his unquestionable domestic liberalism. Meanwhile, p(Kerry) >> p(Nader). Due to the behavior of other voters, party resources compared to a man running by himself, and a lingering disdain for Nader by many liberals (I'm pretty that's self-evident), it is fair to say that Kerry's chances of winning are significantly higher than Nader's.

I argue that it is fair to define "the candidate a person should vote for" as the candidate that has the best chance of winning and the largest leftward shift upon winning
p(Candidate) * L(Candidate).

(As an aside, this eliminates the "If you want to beat Bush so badly, why not just nominate another Republican" argument. Another Republican might win handily, but would have a null or negative L value, and hence not be the candidate to vote for.)

Under this model, Kerry is the rational choice.

Adding in the negatives of voting for Nader of Kerry makes this even starker. Voting for Kerry decreases p(Nader), and voting for Nader decreases p(Kerry). If both candidates had equal p*L values, this would not be an issue. However, p(Kerry) * L(Kerry) > p(Nader) * L(Nader). Therefore, voting for Nader is more harmful to the goal of having the greatest magnitude L possible than voting for Kerry.

Hopefully that made some sense; if not, I'd be happy to clear it up.

[MadHound]

32. Trouble is that is a relative definition of what is "good for the country"

You are taking the short term view, ie getting Bush out of the WH is good for the country. Many third party, Naderites, Greens think that getting the massive corporate corruption of both parties out of our government is what is good for the country, and that is a long term view. So it really boils down to a short term vs long term views of our country's good. And I hate to tell you this, but taking the continous short term view has been proven to be a foolish thing time and again, in politics, business or one's own direction in life. Long term thinking is crucial, and sadly, both due to the inherent nature of a two party system, and the corporate corruption of the two parties, it is also in quite short supply.

[kiahzero]

34. I am thinking long term

Kerry would not only get Bush out of the White House, but move the country to the left. It may not be an extreme movement, but the movement would be there.

[spooky3]

5. good post!

[bowens43]

6. You seem to think that earning a vote and

being concerned with the best interests of our country are not the same thing. They certainly are the same thing. Your argument seems to be that principle and substance are less important then winning. Your argument is just a variation of the ABB argument, an argument that encourages and rewards mediocrity. Anyone who votes for a candidate who hasn't earned their vote, or votes contrary to their conscience, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[edzontar]

8. While I basically agree with your argument personally

I cannot proclaim it as a matter of dictate or doctrine.

The Dem job in November, whether you like it or not, will be to convince as many voters as possible to vote for our nominee.

In that sense, voters have to be "appealed" to...which is just common sense.

In the end, I don't think it should be that difficult to marginalize the Nader factor, and suspect that all this panic is a little permature.

[TheIdiot]

20. Why would you call it panic...

when this is nothing more than a wake-up call? If you just step back and look again, you'll see that we've ALL been pandered to! Now, let's look to what really IS best for the country. In John Edwards, there IS a difference!

[edzontar]

24. Panic is everywhere these days--in all the Nader threads

It manifests itself in calls for purges, election tampering, and other great ideas.

[DemBones DemBones]

27. Who has called for election tampering?

And what purges are you talking about? DU will purge people who try to organize against the Democratic nominee or for another candidate, Republican or otherwise. It's a forum for Democrats and those who support them.