[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: DONEGAN: Debunking the Lesser-of-Two-Evils Voting Theory
Source: The Truth in Media Project
URL Source: http://truthinmedia.com/donegan-deb ... -of-two-evils-voting-strategy/
Published: Feb 5, 2016
Author: Barry Donegan
Post Date: 2016-02-05 18:38:57 by Hondo68
Keywords: None
Views: 987
Comments: 13

Voters who do not live in a swing state will not cause the election of their least favorite major-party candidate by voting for their favorite third-party candidate.


Screen capture from an Oct. 15, 1992 presidential debate featuring candidates George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot.

Anyone who has ever supported a third-party presidential candidate in an election has likely had to defend their decision from partisans who endorse the lesser-of-two-evils voter theory. By the logic offered by proponents of the theory, anyone who votes for an independent candidate is at best wasting their vote, and at worst handing the election over to their least-favorite major-party candidate.

With as many as four potential Supreme Court replacements looming during the next presidency, partisans will doubtlessly wield the argument with ferocious intensity during the run-up to the 2016 presidential general election.

However, for the vast majority of Americans in the overwhelming majority of states, this cannot possibly be the case. In presidential elections where Electoral College votes are allocated primarily in a winner-take-all fashion and in which there are very few competitive swing states, most Americans’ electoral votes in a particular election are already predetermined before anyone even heads to the polls.

Anecdotally-speaking, as a libertarian-leaning Tennessean who identifies as Republican, I knew going into the voting booth in 2012 that all of my Electoral College votes were going to go to Mitt Romney. However, I was warned in advance that if I pulled the lever for a third-party candidate, it would swing the election to Barack Obama. Republican activists scolded me that I would then be responsible for Obama’s radical Supreme Court nominees and all sorts of other fearful outcomes that I needed to vote for Romney to prevent.

Ultimately, Romney did not end up choosing positions that would earn my vote, and I was forced to pull the lever for a third-party candidate. All 11 of hard-red Tennessee’s winner-take-all Electoral College votes went predictably to Romney. Though Obama did end up winning the election, my vote did not in any way assist him in achieving that victory. All of my state’s votes went to Romney.

Did I waste my vote? I could have traveled all the way to the voting booth just to give Mitt Romney an even larger victory in Tennessee by a single vote that would have had no impact on his chances against Obama.

Voting third party on the other hand has some tangible effects. In some states, third parties gain legal status and ballot access when they obtain certain percentages in state-wide races such as presidential elections, thus expanding competition among political parties. Also, major party candidates tend to look at any unusually-high percentages earned by third-party candidates in elections as signals that it is time to take on some of the key issues that are gaining traction among independents in that party.

For partisans, voting third-party can push a favorite major party closer to that person’s views. Meanwhile, there is nothing stopping such a voter from continuing to support major-party candidates in state and local races down the ballot and continuing to support the party in general without being forced to vote for an unacceptable presidential candidate.

According to Politico, “In the current Electoral College battlefield, 40 of 50 states have voted for the same [party’s] candidate in all four elections since 2000. And, of the 10 exceptions, three [North Carolina, New Mexico, and Indiana] were fluky… That leaves just seven super-swingy states: Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia, all of which backed Bush and Obama twice each, and Iowa and New Hampshire, which have voted Democratic in three of the last four elections.

For voters in those 7-10 states, a close race days out from the election might lend a bit of credence to the lesser-of-two-evils theory. Also, in Nebraska and Maine, the only two states that do not allocate Electoral College votes in a winner-take-all manner and instead do so proportionally, the argument gains a bit more traction. That said, Maine only has 4 electoral votes and while it is possible that two candidates might split electoral votes in those states, according to the Office of the Federal Register, “It has not actually happened.

[RELATED: DONEGAN: RNC Loyalty Oath Goes Too Far By Asking Candidates to Endorse Unknown Nominee]

Partisans will point to obscure potentialities like a state radically politically shifting suddenly as a potential outcome justifying a lesser-of-two-evils vote, but the odds of that happening solely on the basis of a third-party candidate surging are slim at best in any particular instance. Besides, if that were going to happen, voters would be aware of media-reported evidence of the political shift prior to election day and could make adjustments accordingly if they so desired.

Too often it is said that a third-party candidate has spoiled an election when popular vote election returns appear to show that candidate getting a number of votes that, if given to a major party candidate, would have changed the outcome. This assumes wrongly that 100 percent of that candidate’s voters were available to the major party candidate in the first place. As it pertains to the U.S. presidential race, such an argument also oversimplifies the complexities of the Electoral College system.

Ultimately, the lesser-of-two-evils voter theory wrests on a backwards principle — that voters should vote against their least-favorite candidate rather than voting for their favorite candidate. It is not the voter’s job to win the election for a political party or candidate. Candidates and political parties must earn the support of voters by choosing positions that will convince them to travel to a polling location and pull the lever in the voting booth.

In July of 2015, the Truth in Media Project released a Consider This video highlighting the fact that independent voters now outnumber Republicans and Democrats. Watch it in the below-embedded video player.


Poster Comment:

Reince Priebus Drunk: Romney/Ryan Pep Talk (Obama endorsement)

(1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: hondo68 (#0)

If you consistently support the lesser of two evils, you can be certain that evil is all you are ever going to get.

rlk  posted on  2016-02-05   18:58:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: rlk (#1)

If you consistently support the lesser of two evils,

I always thought it was the lesser of two weavels, but it is a shame that all you get to vote for is evil, where has the good gone?

paraclete  posted on  2016-02-05   20:28:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: hondo68 (#0)

By definition then ,your vote doesn't matter ,no matter who you vote for , unless you vote in a swing state. Good luck finding the perfect candidate in utopia. Every candidate is flawed . The founders recognized that there was no perfect person. That's why they added all the checks and balances that are being eroded .

"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato

tomder55  posted on  2016-02-06   7:43:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: hondo68 (#0)

We should switch to "Approval Voting" where everyone casts a vote for as many candidates as they like. Vote for all, half, one, or none of them.

Whichever candidate gets the most votes (which ever candidate has the "approval" of the most number of voters), wins.

This eliminates the "lessor of two evils" & "wasted vote syndrome" that supports the Republicrat party, and gives a real chance to 3rd parties & independents.

Which is, of course, why it will be hard to get legislated.

There are actually many different voting systems that have been devised. But the current pluralist (vote for only one) method is about the worst there is.

Pinguinite  posted on  2016-02-08   10:41:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Pinguinite (#4) (Edited)

everyone casts a vote for as many candidates as they like

It seems like the fanatics who only vote for one candidate have more influence over the results.

Hypothetical case: If a thousand people randomly vote for 9 out of the 10 candidates, and 10 people vote only for Hillary, she wins?


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2016-02-08   12:04:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: hondo68 (#5)

Hypothetical case: If a thousand people randomly vote for 9 out of the 10 candidates, and 10 people vote only for Hillary, she wins?

In this case, with 1010 voters, yes, Hillary would likely win.

9 candidates would get about 900 votes each.

Hillary would get about 910. Maybe some candidate would score above average enough to beat Hillary though.

But in your hypothetical, 99% of voters wouldn't care who wins, and 1% would, and that 1% would likely carry the day.

But if another 20 voters that despised Hillary and purposely voted for all except her, the 9 candidates would get about 920 votes each, compared to Hillary's expected 910, and she'd likely lose.

And Hillary has a lot of people that despise her. Of course.

But your hypothetical of 99% of people not caring would pretty much mean any kind of voting would be pointless, regardless of the voting system.

Pinguinite  posted on  2016-02-08   12:19:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Pinguinite (#6)

But your hypothetical of 99% of people not caring would pretty much mean any kind of voting would be pointless, regardless of the voting system.

it is apparent you have never heard of the donkey vote, of cource with current political symbols it doesn't have the same connotations or maybe it does, but using your analogy the 99% who don't care vote 1 for the first name on the ticket

paraclete  posted on  2016-02-08   15:56:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: paraclete (#7)

99% who don't care vote 1 for the first name on the ticket

Well, each paper ballot could have the candidates listed in a random order.

Pinguinite  posted on  2016-02-08   16:16:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Pinguinite (#8) (Edited)

Well, each paper ballot could have the candidates listed in a random order.

I'll rely on changing my name to A A Able because sorting in random order is too hard. It still doesn't matter what order they are in the donkey vote wins

paraclete  posted on  2016-02-08   18:05:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: paraclete (#9)

It still doesn't matter what order they are in the donkey vote wins

If each ballot lists candidates in a different order, then the donkey vote would cancel itself out.

Of course this has nothing to do with Approval Voting, as the same defect would apply to any vote system.

Pinguinite  posted on  2016-02-08   18:27:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Pinguinite (#10)

I have a better idea we should have a blind ballott where we only know how many candidates there are but not their order on a ballot paper. As I see it you may as well flip a coin. or you could decide an election by proportional representation, it is a much fairer system

paraclete  posted on  2016-02-08   19:30:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: paraclete (#11)

I have a better idea we should have a blind ballott where we only know how many candidates there are but not their order on a ballot paper. As I see it you may as well flip a coin. or you could decide an election by proportional representation, it is a much fairer system

Alternatively, we could just have a lottery system that selects random people from the population to serve public office.

I suspect we'd get a much more accurate reflection of the will of the people in congress that way.

Pinguinite  posted on  2016-02-08   20:58:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Pinguinite (#12)

Alternatively, we could just have a lottery system that selects random people from the population to serve public office.

Now that is a great idea, coupled with fixed terms, a bit difficult to get experience people in the right positions though, it would depend upon a dedicated bureaucacy, something like the UK system

paraclete  posted on  2016-02-09   0:28:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com