What I sent to a potential Nader voter

[RichV]

I don't want this to turn into a Nader-bashing thread. There are enough of those around here. I just wanted to post below what I sent to some friends who keep telling me they wants to vote for Nader in a battleground state because "Bush and Kerry are the same." After an explanation (with cites) about their vast differences, I posted what follows. Maybe it will be of use to somebody else:

To offer another analogy, consider this. There are three groups. In the spirit of this year's election, we'll call them Group Arbusto (A), Group Brahmin (B), and Group Corvair (C). The three groups have to decide by plurality vote what beverage to have with their dinner. There are 11 total individuals, in the following factions -- 5 in Group A, 4 in Group B, and 2 in Group C. Group A slightly outnumbers either of the other particular groups. The groups have the following preference orders, from highest to lowest for their dinner beverage:

Group Arbusto -- Bellatore champagne, Killian's Irish Red, Bass Ale
Group Brahmin -- Killian's Irish Red, Bass Ale, Bellatore Champagne
Group Corvair -- Bass Ale, Killian's Irish Red, Bellatore Champagne

In a straight-up plurality vote if everyone votes their true preferences, Group A will win. This results in Group A getting their champagne, and everyone else being forced to drink it as well, despite the fact that a *majority* (6) of the 11 individuals actually prefers anything BUT champagne. Now, Group B and Group C can clearly see that they both prefer a tasty beer to Group A's glass of bubbly. Their tastes in beer differ a bit, but both groups have wildly different preferences than Group A. But they DO both like beer. Given Group B is nearly equal to Group A on its own, the members of Group C have a stark choice. They can vote for Bass Ale (their FAVORITE!) and get stuck with yucky old champagne, or they can compromise a bit and get a beer that just isn't quite as good. It's pretty good (and even better with a lime), and a HUGE improvement over the champagne, but isn't exactly what they were after. However, it IS beer, and they would much prefer that to champagne. So should Group C vote for Killian's? I would say they should, or else they will be squarely stuck with drinking champagne with dinner even though that is the outcome they least prefer. It is possible that members of Group Corvair have good reason to be firm in their votes for Bass Ale, but shy of punishing both themselves and Group Brahmin, I can't see what it is. All they're doing is helping Group Arbusto get their champagne.

And that, my friends, is why Nader voters in competitive states should vote for Kerry even if it means diverging slightly from their sincere preferences. To do otherwise, intentionally or not, is essentially caving in to four more years of champagne.

Oh, and I absolutely agree with Smash. Even if your state isn't competitive in the presidential race, get out and vote for other offices down the ballot. The Senate *may* be up for grabs this time, and there are always state and local races to be decided. And you get a free sticker. Everybody loves stickers.

[Ricdude]

1. You've just established the basis behind...

...Instant Runoff Voting.

The fact of the matter is, there are four basic schemes for preference resolution (i.e. voting). There exists sample sets that produce different results for each possible voting scheme. Therefore, the question arises: "What best represents the will of the people?"

It is my belief that in politics, preferential voting schemes (i.e. instant runoff) more accurately reflect "the will of the people" than straight plurality voting. I think the ability to express a first choice to identify the platform that most closely represents your viewpoints should not be capable of "throwing" the election to a platform that does not "most closely" represent more people.

So, in summary, IRV!