Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Damned if we do, damned if we don't

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 12:35 PM
Original message
Damned if we do, damned if we don't
We need to support our Dems, even if they aren't listening to us. The reason? Because choosing a third-party candidate in any race that matters is effectively voting for the Republican or, at the very least, stealing a vote from the Democratic candidate in the race.

We're caught between a rock and a hard place here and I think they realized it before WE did. The party doesn't have to listen to its base. The Senators and Representatives don't have to listen to the party's base. Because we have no viable options other than to support them even if that support isn't mutual.

We send them money, we vote for them, and we even work to get them elected. And in return we're marginalized, referred to as the "fringe" and blocked out of participating in any meaningful way with regards to policy decisions.

The alternative, of course, is to tolerate more Republican mechanizations.

I'm still amazed that people assume that the majority of people don't vote because of apathy. We're not the only ones who see this. I talk to people all the time who aren't politically stupid. They just don't see any meaningful difference between the parties. Oh, WE recognize the differences easily enough, but we're in the minority. People who are busy living their lives and aren't political wonks like ourselves catch this and that on the news, or in the newspapers, and think to themselves that, as far as they can tell, NO ONE is looking out for them.

It's hard for the average working American who's neck-deep in debt to imagine that some rich guy or gal has anything in common with him or her.

Most Americans don't really consider the repercussions of political decisions until they face the consequences of them. Many young women don't consider the ramifications of anti-choice legislation and court decisions until they are blocked from making the choice at all. Most Americans don't consider the consequences of the Republican War Without End until they're waving goodbye to a loved one who may not ever come back. (My wife's nephew is flying out Monday to Iraq).

What they see is that they're paying a buttload in taxes and getting almost nothing for their troubles. Nothing tangible, anyway. They don't feel they're being represented. Hell, most of US don't really feel like we're being represented, and we know the score. Imagine what it's like to be generally in the dark, or reliant on the corporate media to tell you.

I surprise one of my co-workers all too often. She's 20, and her parents are religious Republicans. She's generally ignorant, and admits it. But she's far from stupid. I'll mention something that's happening behind the scenes and she'll ask me, "how do you know that?" I just smile. We've already discussed the corporate media and its celebrity gossip fascination. She understands that there's no real news there.

A LOT of people see that. If she, a young woman from a religious family with political ideologies complete different from mine, can see how they're manipulating everything, I would imagine that most people her age can see the same thing.

We're in the trenches, fighting the good fight. Writing our Senators and Representatives, joining protest marches, working to see good candidates elected (I wish Darcy Burner was in my district. If she was, I'd be working for her campaign).

When Cindy Sheehan stands up and bashes the Democratic Party and our representatives in both houses of Congress, a lot of us flinch. But she's not speaking into a vacuum. A LOT of people are disaffected by what they see as the Democratic Party's failure to speak for us. WE are, when it comes right down to it. Well, most of us, anyway.

But we have few options. Support and vote for Democrats, vote for third-party candidates and give energy to the Republicans, or simply throw up our hands and walk away.

It's all a matter of figuring out which option is the least painful.

A rock and a hard place indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, we do have the primary challenge to use as a weapon
against some of the more reactionary elements in the Democratic Party. I campaigned for
Jonathan Tasini against Clinton in '06. We only got about 19% of the primary vote, but
for a relatively unknown union organizer, I thought that was pretty good. We'll be back
in '12, too, and if need be, in '18 and '24 and '30 and...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Not a particularly USEFUL weapon, as things stand now. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. Might I make a suggestion
I understand that those who are on the "fringe" feel that they are not being listened to, and it may be true. I have no idea. I have no idea how many there are, and neither do our politicians. And, therein lies the problem.

If, on the other hand, you could be easily identified with a button or a sticker, it would be a silent protest, but visible. Suppose you wore an "I'm on the fringe" button, or some such thing, while working for a candidate. Suppose workers all across America joined in the idea. Politicians would have to notice you, and if the majority of their workers were wearing the buttons, they would have to see that the "fringe" are an important part of their election team.

It could be like a union, if one candidate insists that you take the button off, then all "fringe" people walk off every campaign. This could be one way to get their attention.

Just a thought.

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. My thoughts from the "fringe:"
Edited on Sun Sep-09-07 01:53 PM by LWolf
I agree with the "rock and the hard place."

I disagree with the "effectively voting Republican," etc..

I do truly see the pov expressed, but I see it differently.

I see every vote cast for a party that doesn't listen as enabling the "not listening" to continue. I would never consider voting for a republican. I won't vote for democrats, either, if that means being marginalized, ignored, or pacified with propaganda but not much else.

If I want the party to listen, what, exactly, do I have in my tool box? I can make calls, write letters, get involved locally, support groups who are working for change, support democrats who are listening....if the party is still not listening 7 years later, what next? More of the same, with the same result?

It seems to me that the party is using my "rock and hard place" as a tool to keep me voting for them even when they don't listen. They are aware, and they are using it. I despise that.

It seems to me that the only way to get them to listen is to use the only tool I've got left. My vote. The other tools haven't worked. If they don't get the votes, the first thing that will happen will be a hate-campaign, ala Nader, to ensure that people who actually hold them accountable are the "enemy." If too many voters buy into that hate campaign, even the vote becomes ineffective.

If enough Democrats held them accountable, though, they would have to EARN our votes. By listening, and by acting on what we are telling them.

I don't want my vote taken for granted. Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I think it's a steel-jawed trap...
As long as the majority of people vote for the two dominant party candidates, someone who may support SOME of the ideology of each party, and therefore their candidates, yet chooses to take a third path (be it the Green Party on the left or the Libertarian on the Right), isn't actually doing anything to affect change.

Personally I'd like to see the Repugs split the vote between the Republican Party and the Libertarians at least as often as we do with the Greens. Or more so. If possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. I don't agree with this statement:
"Because choosing a third-party candidate in any race that matters is effectively voting for the Republican or, at the very least, stealing a vote from the Democratic candidate in the race."

Voting third party is not effectively voting republican. There is no net increase or decrease in votes to either the Democratic or republican parties by voting third party. It is much more closely no vote at all in its effect.

Voting third party is not stealing a vote from the Democratic candidate either. That makes the false assumption that the Democrat would have had the vote in the first place. That's like McDonalds saying that taking a Big Mac from their dumpster is the same thing as not spending the money to buy a new one inside. No one but the voter owns a vote before it is cast, at which time it is given to one candidate, not stolen from the others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. So a progressive voting for a green party candidate
Edited on Sun Sep-09-07 02:11 PM by Mythsaje
rather than a Democratic candidate because of an ideological difference DOESN'T decrease the Democrat's potential vote by one?

Sorry, I don't get that new math.


On edit: The same would be said for a "conservative" who chose to vote for a Libertarian candidate (say Ron Paul, who's fairly popular in some Repug circles). They might ordinarily vote Republican, but since they don't feel any enthusiasm for the chosen candidate, they go a different direction.

That DOES, in fact, skew the numbers in one direction or the other and can easily affect the race. I don't see how it could work otherwise.

The good thing is that particularly vibrant third party candidates can bring people in who would not ordinarily vote at all (I happen to think disaffection is as big an issue regarding the decision not to vote at all as is "apathy.")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. It's not new math, it's just math.
Democrats do not own peoples' votes. Thus, every candidate has the same number of potential votes - the votes that have yet to be cast. You can't steal a potential vote from anyone but the voter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I never used the word steal...
I said "give energy" to the Republicans. Which is exactly what I think happens in that case. You decide not to vote for the Democratic candidate--the ONLY one actually capable of beating the person they're up against--and you reduce their chance of winning by one vote.

No one is "stealing" anything. Except maybe helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

All but the worst DINOs are better than any Republican...and even then it's iffy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Semantics. You said it was the same as voting republican.
"You decide not to vote for the Democratic candidate--the ONLY one actually capable of beating the person they're up against--and you reduce their chance of winning by one vote."

Again, you suffer from the misconception that the Democratic candidate HAD THE VOTE IN THE FIRST PLACE. That's a false assumption, and I think I've already explained that clearly enough.


"All but the worst DINOs are better than any Republican...and even then it's iffy."

If the policy that is killing you and your family isn't changed by any of the candidates, how are some of them "better" simply by party affiliation? I'm sorry, I don't accept that generalization either, and I'm a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. I disagree with your disagreement
If the third-party voter would have voted Dem (or Repug) had there been no third party candidate, then it IS effectively taking a vote from the Dem (or Repug). It's only "more closely no vote at all" if the third-party voter would not have voted at all in the absence of a third candidate. IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. You are making the false assumption that the other candidates would have otherwise gotten the vote.
As I've said, that's not the case. That's the backwards math of accountants, an attempt to count potential as yours before the fact, and it would only apply if everyone HAD to vote.

And, yes, that's exactly my point. What makes you think someone who votes third party would necessarily vote for anyone else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Huh?
I didn't assume anything, and I don't think that. I said you are right IF the third-party voter WOULD NOT vote for someone else in the absence of a third party. You are wrong IF the third-party voter WOULD HAVE voted for someone else in the absence of a third party.

Let's say I voted for Ross Perot... but if he hadn't been running I would have voted for Clinton. My vote for Perot = the loss of a potential vote for Clinton. My Perot vote would be "much more closely no vote at all in its effect" only if I would NOT HAVE VOTED AT ALL had Perot not been running.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I'll try again. My issue is with tallying votes before they are cast.
Voting third party doesn't take any votes away from anyone, it gives a vote to a third party. Votes don't exist until they are cast, thus you can never take a vote from someone by casting it for someone else.

Using your example, if you vote for Perot, you haven't taken a vote away from Clinton - Clinton never had your vote, you did. If Perot doesn't run, you vote for Clinton, which isn't taking a vote away from bush - bush never had your vote. Your intent, while making for interesting probability equations, has nothing to do with it, because you only vote once for one candidate per election. Unless people were betting on how you would vote, but that gambling is a separate issue - just as the performance of a football team in a game may affect those betting on it, but the bets don't affect the outcome of the game (at least, it's illegal for it to do so).

I'm not wrong, you just don't get what I'm saying or you believe in a different reality than I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I guess I believe in a different reality then...
Who wants to see Drama A? (10 votes)
Who wants to see Comedy A? (11 votes) - WINNER
Who doesn't want to see either movie? (4 votes)

Yippee! I get to see a funny movie!

Oh wait, there's another choice...
Who wants to see Drama A? (10 votes) - WINNER
Who wants to see Comedy A? (9 votes)
Who wants to see Comedy B? (4 votes)
Who doesn't want to see any of these movies? (2 votes)

Oh man, now I have to sit through an interesting probability equation! :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Demonstably so. -n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
14. Voting for certain Democrats is essentially voting for a Republican
Edited on Sun Sep-09-07 03:35 PM by depakid
The fact that they have a "D" behind their name means NOTHING to me if they promote, enable or legitimize far right policies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC