Political Question

[Xpycoctomos]

yep, another politics thread... get used to it. They'll be here until November or longer :)

Seriously though, I am curious.

Primaries are coming up here really soon. I am in the old "lesser of two evils" quandry.

There are basically three candidates. Two are neck and neck. You don't like one at all... the other you can live with. The third is your favorite but he is a distant third and probably (although not definitely) will not win.

Doyou pick your favorite even though he is probably a distant third and it might help out the guy you REALLY don't want to win or do you pick the guy you can live with to do all you can (even if it's a small drop in the bucket) to make sure the guy you don't want doesn't win.

Then I also think about the fact that even if your favorite guy can't win, every percentage helps. It's not totally about winning in the primaries but about exceeding expectations.

So, I don't know, just wantted to pick your brains. Thanks.

Xpy

[fuerein]

When I voted last I voted for someone who I knew had no chance of winning because both major party candidates didn't exaclty thrill me but I liked the third party candidate.

[Thekla]

I think we need true political discourse/dialog in this country.
Until then, politics will be like Siskel and Ebert, the end of show summary :)

I vote with the future in mind. I want to preserve whatever we can of democracy for the next generation. In my view, this can only happen with real inspection and dialog, therefor I always vote 3rd party (or 3rd wheel candidate) in national elections.

[Protoevangel]

In the past, i've gone both ways on this issue. Unless there is a real surprise, i think i'm probably going to have to go third party this election.

[nutroll]

I'm wondering whether anyone here has heard of Instant Runoff Voting? I don't know a lot about it, but it seems like it might be a good way to prevent this problem. Basically rather than choosing one of a field of candidates, you rank them in order of your preference. If there isn't a clear (over 50%) winner, the lowest ranked candidate is dropped out of the calculations, and their votes are distributed to the other candidates in proportion to the voter's second choice. If this is does not offer a clear winner, the next lowest candidate is dropped out and their votes are distributed based on the voter's rankings. The benefit of the system is that it allows people to vote for 3rd party candidates without worrying about helping to elect someone they really don't like. It seems like a fair way to allow people to vote based on who they really want, rather than voting based on who they don't want. From what I understand, all it would require to institute it is a ballot initiative in any given state.

[fuerein]

I'm wondering whether anyone here has heard of Instant Runoff Voting? I don't know a lot about it, but it seems like it might be a good way to prevent this problem. Basically rather than choosing one of a field of candidates, you rank them in order of your preference. If there isn't a clear (over 50%) winner, the lowest ranked candidate is dropped out of the calculations, and their votes are distributed to the other candidates in proportion to the voter's second choice. If this is does not offer a clear winner, the next lowest candidate is dropped out and their votes are distributed based on the voter's rankings. The benefit of the system is that it allows people to vote for 3rd party candidates without worrying about helping to elect someone they really don't like. It seems like a fair way to allow people to vote based on who they really want, rather than voting based on who they don't want. From what I understand, all it would require to institute it is a ballot initiative in any given state.
I've heard that concept proposed before. Has any place, US or otherwise, experimented with that kind of voting style?

[nutroll]

I believe there are other countries that use it, and within the US, I think there are some places that use it for more local elections. I don't think anywhere in the US uses it for national elections.

[Dime]

I will miss this election by a couple of months, but I would go with the statement vote in the primaries (especially if you live in a important state) , but a strategic vote i.e. lesser of two evils in the real election. that's just my two cents

[Thekla]

I will miss this election by a couple of months, but I would go with the statement vote in the primaries (especially if you live in a important state) , but a strategic vote i.e. lesser of two evils in the real election. that's just my two cents
your name reminds me of a page in a Shel Silverstein coloring book.

the instructions for the page are: "Draw a skinny elephant" ^_^

[Xpycoctomos]

I'm wondering whether anyone here has heard of Instant Runoff Voting? I don't know a lot about it, but it seems like it might be a good way to prevent this problem. Basically rather than choosing one of a field of candidates, you rank them in order of your preference. If there isn't a clear (over 50%) winner, the lowest ranked candidate is dropped out of the calculations, and their votes are distributed to the other candidates in proportion to the voter's second choice. If this is does not offer a clear winner, the next lowest candidate is dropped out and their votes are distributed based on the voter's rankings. The benefit of the system is that it allows people to vote for 3rd party candidates without worrying about helping to elect someone they really don't like. It seems like a fair way to allow people to vote based on who they really want, rather than voting based on who they don't want. From what I understand, all it would require to institute it is a ballot initiative in any given state.
The evil French do something like this. You can only vote for one candidate but they then take the top two winners of that to ensure a majority. I think it's superior to our system for many reasons, but mostly because it encourages a multi-party system whereas ours greatly discourages it.

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

To keep you all from waiting in such suspense... I went with my gut and chose the 3rd place guy who will probalby lose. I actually got to the booth and thought that I would feel more regretful about not voting my gut. I'll still feel bad if the guy I really don't want to win, wins. Especially if it's by 1 vote to guy number two on my list. LOL

Xpy

[Dorothea]

Hmmm. I don't remember your OP question, Xpy. LOL I'll just say that I plan to vote in my state's primary, which isn't until August. At that time, it may be easier...probably more narrowed down. I actually like that three different Reps have won the last three primaries/caucuses because it's kind of annoying when one sweeps and those that were better than that one didn't get a chance because people picked and circled around one they thought would be able to beat the Dem opposition, but what they stand for isn't really all what you stand for or most of what you stand for. I'd say Thompson's stances are closest to mine, but I don't know if he'll survive the next few primaries or months in this. I heard that many are waiting until they get to more conservative-voting states where more will vote for them there. Huckabee is still in my top three. I can stand Romney after him, but I really don't want to vote for Guiliani. McCain is ok, but I don't agree with some of his views.

[Xpycoctomos]

The guy I REALLY didn't want to win won by quite a bit. My guy lost... by quite a bit.

But in the end, like all three of them more than Clinton and Obama. I don't actually despise either of the dem candidates and I do feel that both could lead our country with confidence, there are just a couple issues that I vehemently disagree with them on and for that reason I hope that whoever wins the Rep primaries can beat the dem candidate in november.

I will say this though... I am SO glad there is a two-term limit. I ready to be DONE with this administration.