There is a solution to all this, as at least one other comment here has pointed out: Ranked choice voting (a.k.a., instant runoff or single transferable vote). This is the method used in Ireland's elections
What is in these guy’s heads? What is the problem? The end justifies the means: you calculate utilities of consequences and probabilities of getting them and do whatever it takes.
Politics is dirty and crooked—like life. Everything is corrupt. So what? All that matters are results, and most of us are desperate to get results at all costs—as we should be. Only the privileged can afford purity and ethics. Moral purity is the ultimate elitism.
We live in a stinking, rotten world and have to fight for all we're worth, by fair means or foul, to achieve our ends.
Politics is dirty and crooked—like life. Everything is corrupt. So what? All that matters are results, and most of us are desperate to get results at all costs—as we should be. Only the privileged can afford purity and ethics. Moral purity is the ultimate elitism.
We live in a stinking, rotten world and have to fight for all we're worth, by fair means or foul, to achieve our ends.
Keep trying. We aren't going to vote for anyone but who we choose to vote for--those of us who are voting are conscience will not be guilted. But you feel free to keep trying.
Yes, "millions of people do have real things to lose if we elect the wrong person," and that's why i would never vote for a Republican like Trump, Cruz, Kasich, or Clinton. Clinton's record as SOS is horrifying, and she is totally owned by millionaires and billionaires, by banks, corporations, and lobbyists, including Big Media. A vote for Clinton is a vote for endless war in the Middle East and for propping up the oligarchy at the expense of the poor and middle class.
3
If electability is the concern, the polls say the Hillary supporters should swallow hard and vote for Bernie.
4
My son and several have his college friends have said that if Bernie isn't the Democratic nominee they are going to vote for Trump. Just because they are registered Democrats doesn't mean they have any loyalty whatsoever to Hillary Clinton, As a matter of fact their rationale for voting for Trump vs staying home in November is that it is a double middle finger to Hilary.
And a double-middle-finger to all the women in their loves as well.
A vote for any republican is a vote against women and people of color.
Your son and his friends sound very thoughtless and selfish.
A vote for any republican is a vote against women and people of color.
Your son and his friends sound very thoughtless and selfish.
Maybe the DNC will see that their candidate needs more mass appeal, and suggest to HRC that she adopt a more working class friendly platform.
People vote for with their wallet. Always.
People vote for with their wallet. Always.
There is an easy answer to this. Ranked Choice aka Instant Runoff Voting is the solution. You rank the candidates in order of your preference. It allows you to vote for the underdog third or fourth party, but if they do not make the cut, your vote goes to your next most preferred. You voice is heard and you do not face a potential 'spoiler' role if you don't pick the winner.
1
All of the candidates are dishonest. How could anyone possibly expect the voters to be absolutely honest when faced with the choices we've been offered?
Strategic voting isn't a lie, because it is based on what the voter feels is the best decision.
As a left-leaning Canadian, it was a painful 10 years of secrecy and dismantling of our legislation in favour of corporations, such as the Fisheries Act. My city and way of life suffered greatly under Harper.
Most of our country is leftist, but that vote is split between 3 major parties, as compared to the 1 right winged choice. Watching the left come together, and accomplish a common goal was empowering. For once, I felt like my vote mattered.
As a left-leaning Canadian, it was a painful 10 years of secrecy and dismantling of our legislation in favour of corporations, such as the Fisheries Act. My city and way of life suffered greatly under Harper.
Most of our country is leftist, but that vote is split between 3 major parties, as compared to the 1 right winged choice. Watching the left come together, and accomplish a common goal was empowering. For once, I felt like my vote mattered.
8
A good analogy from Ken Gallinger.
He probably also knows that you have to understand the details and costs of a contract to make sure you don't end up getting burned. It takes a lot of work to know what you're getting into.
Don't vote for Santa Claus.
He probably also knows that you have to understand the details and costs of a contract to make sure you don't end up getting burned. It takes a lot of work to know what you're getting into.
Don't vote for Santa Claus.
3
Seeing as how the next president will get to pick two or more Supreme Court justices, I will have no trouble enthusiastically supporting the Democratic nominee regardless of who he or she is. Those who don't think they will bother to vote if their ideal candidate isn't nominated should consider that elections have real consequences that make a real difference in their lives. I wonder if the Nader voters who may have handed George W. Bush the election were happy about the endless Middle East wars costing trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, the huge tax cuts for billionaires that caused the deficit to skyrocket, and the near-disastrous collapse of the economy in 2008. Might they be saying "Oops, my bad?"
2
Bill Maher was adult enough to admit that his support of Nader in 2000 was a mistake. I hope others don't have similar regrets after 2016.
3
Yeah, but i see that election as being lost, not because of Ralph Nader, but because of Bill Clinton and his 'third way" of dismantling programs I was for, so to think I would vote for his wife to do the same would make me certifiable.
If Trump and Clinton are the candidates (both widely despised) we will have the lowest voter turnout in recent history.
I am selling clothes pins for the nose to get out the vote. But I can hardly make myself vote.
I am selling clothes pins for the nose to get out the vote. But I can hardly make myself vote.
3
I know just how you feel. But after voting against republicans for so long, clothespins don't work that well for me. That's why I recommend you try a prescription strength antiemetic like the one i'll use if I have to vote for Sanders. You can get them pretty cheap thanks to the aca.
2
No, you can't. Big pharm was favored in the ACA so their prices haven't been affected. Thanks, Obama.
This year, for the first time, California's June 7th election will finally count. We've got the yuuge-est prize. Our system is "hybrid"-- only a Registered R can vote for the R Presidential candidate. If you're registered as D, "No Party Preference," or "American Independent" you can vote for the D Presidential candidate. The rest of the ballot is "open" The "top 2" have a runoff in November--can be two D's, an R and a D, or 2 R's.
There will be a lot of strategic voting in CA this year. I phoned the Secretary of State and LA County Registrars offices, and they're getting a lot of calls about switching parties for the Primary. A lot of calls. D to R, No Party Preference to R. We have until May 23rd, and we can switch back the next day, or before the General.
This should be fun..
There will be a lot of strategic voting in CA this year. I phoned the Secretary of State and LA County Registrars offices, and they're getting a lot of calls about switching parties for the Primary. A lot of calls. D to R, No Party Preference to R. We have until May 23rd, and we can switch back the next day, or before the General.
This should be fun..
1
Speaking as a Canadian who lived under a government he despised for ten years I can tell you that people learn to vote strategically because they are forced to. After seeing people you loathe elected time and again you realize there may be no choice but to take second best or live with dead last.
Bernie Sanders is a good example of why to vote strategically. I like him and generally agree with him. But he couldn't even get elected in Canada, he stands no chance in the USA.
Bernie Sanders is a good example of why to vote strategically. I like him and generally agree with him. But he couldn't even get elected in Canada, he stands no chance in the USA.
7
Why? Polls show him outperforming Hillary in the general election.
2
As a dual US/Canadian citizen, I can tell you that voting in the recent Canadian elections was a great feeling, as Canadians rallied to make a real change and give the Liberals a majority and get rid of a right wing government.
I wish the U.S. voters would do the same and purge the Congress and fill it with good Democrats, independents and/or moderate Republicans if such creatures still exist. Unlike the U.S., money does not drive the Canadian elections, issues do and voters are much better informed.
I wish the U.S. voters would do the same and purge the Congress and fill it with good Democrats, independents and/or moderate Republicans if such creatures still exist. Unlike the U.S., money does not drive the Canadian elections, issues do and voters are much better informed.
8
"...money does not drive, the Canadian elections..."
Gad! Of course it does. Trudeau promised to run a deficit. The conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, ran as tight a ship as possible under the circumstances. He promised to continue running a tight ship. He lost.
And of course money flows out of socialist countries, removing elsewhere. Here of course I mean real money, i.e. purchasing power. Unless, like some Scandinavian countries, they have resources which can be gotten to markets.
The left in Canada has done everything possible to denigrate Alberta's oil industry. Yet Canada's Liberal party, dominated by the Quebec Laurentian elite, encourage the importation of oil from North Africa. Why?
Because members of the Laurentian elite have enormous interests in French oil companies and French Banks. Oil companies Total and Elf are French. Paribas is a French bank.
Conclusion: Money has everything to do with driving Canadian elections.
Gad! Of course it does. Trudeau promised to run a deficit. The conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, ran as tight a ship as possible under the circumstances. He promised to continue running a tight ship. He lost.
And of course money flows out of socialist countries, removing elsewhere. Here of course I mean real money, i.e. purchasing power. Unless, like some Scandinavian countries, they have resources which can be gotten to markets.
The left in Canada has done everything possible to denigrate Alberta's oil industry. Yet Canada's Liberal party, dominated by the Quebec Laurentian elite, encourage the importation of oil from North Africa. Why?
Because members of the Laurentian elite have enormous interests in French oil companies and French Banks. Oil companies Total and Elf are French. Paribas is a French bank.
Conclusion: Money has everything to do with driving Canadian elections.
1
If you have more than two candidates running for one positions, I've often thought that we need a first and second choice option - if we want support for the winner.
To vote in a open primary to secure a candidate who you thing will lose in the general election - fair enough if your state has open primaries, which invites nonparty members to have a say in what ( I think) should be a party decision. Its unethical to stuff the ballot box ) and I think harder to do now in most places) or to pay people to vote a certain way ( even tho' reportedly practiced by George Washington, ot at least his supporters). If you support a particular candidate of platform, you have the right to do anything legal to promote your interests. You are, as an individual, up against monstrous forces trying to influence voters; no rason why someone should not act on beliefs assisted by a political strategy.e
To vote in a open primary to secure a candidate who you thing will lose in the general election - fair enough if your state has open primaries, which invites nonparty members to have a say in what ( I think) should be a party decision. Its unethical to stuff the ballot box ) and I think harder to do now in most places) or to pay people to vote a certain way ( even tho' reportedly practiced by George Washington, ot at least his supporters). If you support a particular candidate of platform, you have the right to do anything legal to promote your interests. You are, as an individual, up against monstrous forces trying to influence voters; no rason why someone should not act on beliefs assisted by a political strategy.e
1
Casting a vote can be viewed in two (and probably more) ways - voting somebody in or voting somebody out. In the last federal election in Canada many of us chose the second option, voting somebody out, because we were disgusted with the incumbent PM (Harper) and his wanton destruction of some of the cherished institutions and ideals of Canada.
In that sense strategic voting can not be a lie if is to do what the voter wishes.
In that sense strategic voting can not be a lie if is to do what the voter wishes.
6
This is a pretty strange analysis of strategic voting in Canada, which in the last federal election played a central role in deposing the widely loathed Conservatives. Strategic voting, riding by riding, elevated the Liberals from third place to an elected majority, while crushing the NDP in the East. The article also should have mentioned that the horrid first past the post voting system that Canada inherited from the British has made Canadians quite cagey strategic voters historically. This is not something new.
In fact, there has been so much angst at the ability of the deposed Conservatives securing government and even a parliamentary majority due to vote splitting that the current government is committed to the elimination of first past the post and to its replacement with some form of proportional representation. The latter, if properly implemented, would eliminate the need for strategic voting. If only so many Americans didn't think of the Constitution as some kind of sacred document...
In fact, there has been so much angst at the ability of the deposed Conservatives securing government and even a parliamentary majority due to vote splitting that the current government is committed to the elimination of first past the post and to its replacement with some form of proportional representation. The latter, if properly implemented, would eliminate the need for strategic voting. If only so many Americans didn't think of the Constitution as some kind of sacred document...
5
I'm a Canamerican, and watched the Canadian elections closely, checking ThreeHundredEight regularly. On election night I was thrilled that the the Liberals won a majority government, and for four years, this time. I was even more ecstatic that Harper was finally thrown out the door. Good riddance..
One of Justin's "promises" was to change "first past the post" voting, but I don't see a feasible alternative. First choice-second choice on the ballot makes no sense to me, besides, all ten provinces and the territories will not go for this. The good news is, the next election is in four years, with no votes of non-confidence, clotures and Harper moves, except the one that moves him back to the tar sands of Alberta..
One of Justin's "promises" was to change "first past the post" voting, but I don't see a feasible alternative. First choice-second choice on the ballot makes no sense to me, besides, all ten provinces and the territories will not go for this. The good news is, the next election is in four years, with no votes of non-confidence, clotures and Harper moves, except the one that moves him back to the tar sands of Alberta..
1
Clinton supporters!
You say that Bernie and Hillary are similar enough that it doesn't matter which one wins.
Fine. However, many of us Bernie supporters think that Hillary will be a bad President especially based upon her dangerous and hawkish nation-building judgment, her lack of transparency, her Wall Street ties, etc.
So, we won't vote for Hillary ever; even in the general election if she wins the nomination.
The young people and the independents who are inspired by Bernie will not even show-up to vote in the general if he isn't the nominee.
Therefore you need to vote, now, to nominate Bernie or else the Republicans will win the general.
It's up to you.
Your call.
We're all in for Bernie!
You say that Bernie and Hillary are similar enough that it doesn't matter which one wins.
Fine. However, many of us Bernie supporters think that Hillary will be a bad President especially based upon her dangerous and hawkish nation-building judgment, her lack of transparency, her Wall Street ties, etc.
So, we won't vote for Hillary ever; even in the general election if she wins the nomination.
The young people and the independents who are inspired by Bernie will not even show-up to vote in the general if he isn't the nominee.
Therefore you need to vote, now, to nominate Bernie or else the Republicans will win the general.
It's up to you.
Your call.
We're all in for Bernie!
2
Nutty!
1
It's happening.
Ignore at the risk of your chagrin, gnashing of teeth, and blaming those Bernie-bots come November.
What's more important to you anyway: Hillary becoming President or the Republicans losing?
Young people + independents + usual Democrats = Bernie votes
OR
usual Democrats - Bernie only = Hillary votes
Do the math.
Which one wins the Presidency and recaptures Congress?
All in for Bernie!
Ignore at the risk of your chagrin, gnashing of teeth, and blaming those Bernie-bots come November.
What's more important to you anyway: Hillary becoming President or the Republicans losing?
Young people + independents + usual Democrats = Bernie votes
OR
usual Democrats - Bernie only = Hillary votes
Do the math.
Which one wins the Presidency and recaptures Congress?
All in for Bernie!
2
The math is wishful thinking. It should be:
Young people + usual Democrats = Bernie votes
OR
usual Democrats - Bernie only + independents (maybe holding their noses) = Hillary votes
Independents aren't ready for a socialist yet, and Bernie would bring out Republicans in droves.
Young people + usual Democrats = Bernie votes
OR
usual Democrats - Bernie only + independents (maybe holding their noses) = Hillary votes
Independents aren't ready for a socialist yet, and Bernie would bring out Republicans in droves.
3
To me in a democracy it is up to the individual how the exercise their vote.
3
Strategic voting is not a lie, as 'reader' says.
At the latest election in Denmark I voted for the Social Democrats - not because I love them or their policies, but because I thought they needed my vote more than the party I usually support.
It didn't work out, though, but in a country with many parties and proportional representation you don't have to stray far from your favourite party to find a 'replacement', so the dilemma does not really appear.
At the latest election in Denmark I voted for the Social Democrats - not because I love them or their policies, but because I thought they needed my vote more than the party I usually support.
It didn't work out, though, but in a country with many parties and proportional representation you don't have to stray far from your favourite party to find a 'replacement', so the dilemma does not really appear.
3
"The most hopeful scenario is that Trump winds up with 1,150 delegates or so. The Republican establishment hands the nomination to Cruz ......"
Uh, no. The "republican establishment" works FOR THE PEOPLE of the United States of America and they can go to h3ll if they even so much as THINK they're going to take away what the people want.
I can tell you a few things, we DONT want Cruz. We DONT want Kasich. We DO NOT want the criminal Hillary nor the whacko Sanders.
Guess where we're going with this folks....... yes, "establishment" -- you're being disrupted and unseated as I type this and you dont even realize it. Your party days are over. You lost.
We know you're scared. We'd be scared if our little world was imploding too. But its not. This is a great time for the people of the United States. We're going to rock your world.
In 2016 the people will speak and the people will prevail. You can take that to your establishment crony banker. Its over, establishment. Say it over and over with us....... ITS OVER.
Uh, no. The "republican establishment" works FOR THE PEOPLE of the United States of America and they can go to h3ll if they even so much as THINK they're going to take away what the people want.
I can tell you a few things, we DONT want Cruz. We DONT want Kasich. We DO NOT want the criminal Hillary nor the whacko Sanders.
Guess where we're going with this folks....... yes, "establishment" -- you're being disrupted and unseated as I type this and you dont even realize it. Your party days are over. You lost.
We know you're scared. We'd be scared if our little world was imploding too. But its not. This is a great time for the people of the United States. We're going to rock your world.
In 2016 the people will speak and the people will prevail. You can take that to your establishment crony banker. Its over, establishment. Say it over and over with us....... ITS OVER.
2
So let me guess - you want the whacko Trump? The people may speak and prevail in the nomination, but even "whacko Bernie" would beat him.
1
Trump is rather brilliantly pre-forming the issue in peoples' minds by saying he has more votes than any other single candidate and he should therefore be awarded the nomination. But that's not how the system works. It is closer to a parliamentary election.
In most parliamentary systems, the party that gets the most vote doesn't automatically become the party in power. It must form a coalition with other parties. Whichever coalition has the most seat gets the power.
This is how the conventions work. Trump getting the most votes doesn't mean anything if he is short of the magic number. If Cruz and Kasich delegates agree to a bloc, they could end up with more votes than Trump and take the nomination.
In most parliamentary systems, the party that gets the most vote doesn't automatically become the party in power. It must form a coalition with other parties. Whichever coalition has the most seat gets the power.
This is how the conventions work. Trump getting the most votes doesn't mean anything if he is short of the magic number. If Cruz and Kasich delegates agree to a bloc, they could end up with more votes than Trump and take the nomination.
I don't get all this obsession about being true or not - like true to some inner essence. Most of our decisions don't actually work that way - I mean, going to work in the morning is not perhaps true to your innermost preferences and view of yourself and the world, but it's necessary. I'd like to eat organic all the time, but I can't because it can be expensive, and it would be a pain to always be seeking out only organic foods. So I eat organic sometimes. Ideally, I would never drive a car or fly in an airplane. But I make these decisions sometimes, based on what's the most strategic choice. Why we have such a complex with our leaders is mystifying. What do we want of these people? I just want them to govern, and I will vote strategically to get the best government possible in the given situation, because that is immensely important to me. I guess I'm being true and honest in saying that having a functioning government that is as least oppressive, and most realistic, as possible is true to what I want. I don't want to a president to make nice speeches that make me feel good about my choices and validate my identity. I want them to get things done, in the most rational and level-headed way possible.
2
The strategic voting choice in Canada was made a little bit easier by the once preferred (at least by some of us) party, the New Democrats. During the election, they had veered sharply to the right while Trudeau surprised everyone by promising to run a deficit in order to stimulate the economy. Hence,the real choice was between Liberals who had seen the light and New Democrats who were beginning to sound like Tony Blair's New Labour.
6
I think that some of the article blurs the line between two kinds of "strategic" voting: one that involves casting primary votes for the opponent you want to LOSE in the general and thoughtful voting that includes factoring in whether your second choice has a much better chance of actually winning the election. The first seems dishonest to me, the second seems responsible.
2
Canada has three parties left of centre, the lack of strategic voting was the only reason we had a conservative party Prime Minster in the first place. He was never Canada's first choice.
6
To all you Cruz haters who are attempting to block Trump by voting Cruz, be careful who you vote for because you just might get him! Elections have a funny way of turning out, just look at 2000! You never know!
2
The dismal outcome of the 2000 election makes an excellent case for strategic voting. All the people who voted for Ralph Nader helped elect George Bush. That was certainly not their intention, but the Nader vote was just enough to make the election contestable. Imagine how different things would have been if they had instead cast their vote for Al Gore.
6
As a liberal voter in a state that is pretty conservative, strategic voting is pretty much all I can do to make my vote count. Indiana has semi-open primaries. That means you can vote in either primary, but not both.
A few years ago, I was able to vote in the primary for Richard Lugar when he had a tea party challenge from the vile Richard Murdock. Murdock ended up winning the primary, but losing on election day in a surprise upset by Joe Donnelly (my vote).
This year the Indiana primary could be a serious road block to Mr. Trump. It's one of the largest prizes before California and could be the difference in him securing the proper delegate count. So, I will once again be voting in the republican primary.
A few years ago, I was able to vote in the primary for Richard Lugar when he had a tea party challenge from the vile Richard Murdock. Murdock ended up winning the primary, but losing on election day in a surprise upset by Joe Donnelly (my vote).
This year the Indiana primary could be a serious road block to Mr. Trump. It's one of the largest prizes before California and could be the difference in him securing the proper delegate count. So, I will once again be voting in the republican primary.
1
Honesty has never been an important part of the political system at any level. Politicians endlessly game voters. Voters would be stupid not to game right back.
1
Article says much about the people running for leadership roles in North America.
Hold your nose as you vote.
Hold your nose as you vote.
Sometimes, blocking a particular candidate (among many) may seem more important to a particular voter than indicating a first choice. Is anything wrong with allowing the voter to express that? Crossover voting in primaries allows a form of such expression, which may have a depolarizing affect on the outcome. What possible benefit comes from electing the candidate who is least acceptable to those who would have preferred someone else?
Beyond allowing crossover voting, there are other ways to avoid the dysfunctional effect on Congress of having the winner too far out of synch with the other party. In a 2-candidate election, the rules might be changed to allow a voter either a positive vote or a negative vote. This would not affect who wins, but then we would all learn a lot more about the reason why the winner won -- i.e., whether people were highly in favor of that candidate, or whether they more greatly detested the alternative candidate.
Beyond allowing crossover voting, there are other ways to avoid the dysfunctional effect on Congress of having the winner too far out of synch with the other party. In a 2-candidate election, the rules might be changed to allow a voter either a positive vote or a negative vote. This would not affect who wins, but then we would all learn a lot more about the reason why the winner won -- i.e., whether people were highly in favor of that candidate, or whether they more greatly detested the alternative candidate.
2
A more interesting article about strategic voting would have focused more intently on Bush v Gore 2000; not because, as this article incorrectly posits, Nader voters led to Bush's victory, but rather because of the significant number of registered Democrats who voted for Bush that year--exactly the kind of voting this article claims to be addressing.
Or perhaps an article about ethics in voting could focus on the absurd amounts of money the Democratic Party has spent "strategically" blocking third party candidates from ballot access.
These are hypothetical however, as this piece seems more about reminding liberals not to toy with voting for anyone but Clinton this time around. I squandered my last free article this month on a non-answer to an interesting question.
Or perhaps an article about ethics in voting could focus on the absurd amounts of money the Democratic Party has spent "strategically" blocking third party candidates from ballot access.
These are hypothetical however, as this piece seems more about reminding liberals not to toy with voting for anyone but Clinton this time around. I squandered my last free article this month on a non-answer to an interesting question.
2
Dump the whole stupid, convoluted system and go with Ranked Choice Voting. No more wasted votes, no more "strategic" voting, no more primaries/caucuses/delegates. Every state and every voter matters. One clear winner.
14
A problem with so-called "strategic voting" is that an election is then subject to manipulation by the media, or an organization with a lot of influence on the media. Moneyed interests can create a myth that, based on polls or other non-verifiable information, Candidate X is bound to win unless people vote for Candidate Z, who has no chance of winning but can deny the race for X. The media amplify the myth. Now we have voters who are voting under this influence and denying Candidate Y from winning. In other words, strategic voting is based on some pre-determined view of the outcome, which is subject to manipulation. A dangerous idea in a real democracy.
3
The election is already grossly manipulated by the media. The NYT currently has 6 articles on Trump front and centre and Bernie really gets precious little coverage.
5
There is nothing wrong with strategic voting if it is done with a larger purpose in mind. Then, of course, there is always one's conscience one has to answer to in the morning.
1
Voters should be strategic, especially if there is a danger of electing Trump or Clinton, as either one will have a bad effect on millions of people. While Hillary Clinton has lately taken more progressive positions, has the credentials, worked hard, and is very intelligent, the central thing is missing in HRC, which makes her dangerous as a President. St. Paul described what is missing
“If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”
I have learned over the years from the wisdom of other men and women that what St. Paul said is central to what a person is, and that charity also means good will.
Clinton’s career has not been about having good will, but rather, like so many of us, much more about advancing and protecting herself without much regard for others. This is how we hurt other people. Being fair to the people of America has not been the purpose of her work as a public official. For that crucial reason she is not a good choice for President. (Forget about Trump)
We need an experienced, hardworking, intelligent, tough progressive who the American people are coming to see has always cared for them and will give him a victory over whatever evil clown the Republicans nominate. That person is Bernie Sanders.
“If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”
I have learned over the years from the wisdom of other men and women that what St. Paul said is central to what a person is, and that charity also means good will.
Clinton’s career has not been about having good will, but rather, like so many of us, much more about advancing and protecting herself without much regard for others. This is how we hurt other people. Being fair to the people of America has not been the purpose of her work as a public official. For that crucial reason she is not a good choice for President. (Forget about Trump)
We need an experienced, hardworking, intelligent, tough progressive who the American people are coming to see has always cared for them and will give him a victory over whatever evil clown the Republicans nominate. That person is Bernie Sanders.
7
HRC is and never will be a progressive, she only started changing her tune when she saw Bernie pick up steam, let's get one thing straight, she is in it only for herself and no one else. The sooner everyone realizes this the better of we'll all be. Follow the money and see who backs her. End of story.
And as an Indie voter with no affiliation I've always felt left out of the game, the party bosses who run the cesspool that is Albany will never change how the game is played and how they play the system.
And as an Indie voter with no affiliation I've always felt left out of the game, the party bosses who run the cesspool that is Albany will never change how the game is played and how they play the system.
3
So Sanders is having an effect on Clinton's campaign, pushing her to the left. Isn't that the way it's supposed to happen? That a candidate who cannot win nevertheless affects policy and rallies voters to a cause? What's wrong with that?
BTW, Obama is not and never was a progressive. He is a conservative (in the true sense of the term, not the current meaning of "reactionary") Chicago DINO. He implemented Bob Doles 1996 presidential platform.
BTW, Obama is not and never was a progressive. He is a conservative (in the true sense of the term, not the current meaning of "reactionary") Chicago DINO. He implemented Bob Doles 1996 presidential platform.
1
Yes, influencing policy is how it's supposed to happen, but we all know that Hillary will do whatever her corporate sponsors want if she gets elected. She is a regressive and is only playing lip service to Sanders' progressive ideas. She will definitely continue to support fracking, TPP, regime change, etc. She is also a DINO.
2
By the same token, a vote for a Republican will help defeat HRC and ensure that the Democratic ESTABLISHMENT (that is, the Clinton "third way" phonies and their moderate Republican allies) doesn't get a free pass to continue financial deregulation and trade agreements that benefit global capital movements, while providing a few modest domestic changes, such as providing a few pennies for the poorest Americans. Moreover, the next election will see that today's Bernie supporters are in position to name the Democratic Party nominee.
6
Brilliant, just fabulously brilliant. Your plan should work to perfection for
the GOP. Everything will turn up roses!
the GOP. Everything will turn up roses!
Your vote isn't a lie if you're trying to stop a lunatic and you do what's best for the country. What's dishonest if third party voters flock to the Democrats in the general election? They are simply voting in the best interests of themselves and the nation instead of making a "statement vote". It's called choosing your battles carefully.
1
Wait, who's the Canadian we're supposedly asking?
Is it the guy who doesn't bring a hammer to a home improvement job?
Thanks, I'll ask an American instead.
Is it the guy who doesn't bring a hammer to a home improvement job?
Thanks, I'll ask an American instead.
3
I think the hand-wringing over strategic voting is largely a non-issue in the United States. As the article states, the more elaborate versions of it are likely to be ineffective.
And the most important examples of strategic voting are so clearly vital that there is no question that people need to be free to vote strategically or not as they see fit, namely how to vote when there are three candidates. If the GOP hands the nomination to Cruz and Trump runs as an independent, how should a conservative voter vote? In 2000, should a left-leaning voter have voted for Nader or for Gore? In 1980 I had to decide whether I wanted to vote for John B. Anderson.
Some people might choose to vote strategically in those situations, some might choose to vote for the candidate who they truly like best.
The various suggestions about alternative voting systems that have voters rank the candidates can reduce but not eliminate the quandary of strategic voting. This was shown decades ago by Kenneth Arrow's famous Impossibility Theorem and subsequent research. Unless we permit people to bid with money instead of voting (there's been Nobel Prize-winning research there as well), there is no election scheme that is both "fair" and that eliminates strategic voting. (And yes, most of us would agree that letting people make dollar bids instead of voting would itself be unfair.)
And the most important examples of strategic voting are so clearly vital that there is no question that people need to be free to vote strategically or not as they see fit, namely how to vote when there are three candidates. If the GOP hands the nomination to Cruz and Trump runs as an independent, how should a conservative voter vote? In 2000, should a left-leaning voter have voted for Nader or for Gore? In 1980 I had to decide whether I wanted to vote for John B. Anderson.
Some people might choose to vote strategically in those situations, some might choose to vote for the candidate who they truly like best.
The various suggestions about alternative voting systems that have voters rank the candidates can reduce but not eliminate the quandary of strategic voting. This was shown decades ago by Kenneth Arrow's famous Impossibility Theorem and subsequent research. Unless we permit people to bid with money instead of voting (there's been Nobel Prize-winning research there as well), there is no election scheme that is both "fair" and that eliminates strategic voting. (And yes, most of us would agree that letting people make dollar bids instead of voting would itself be unfair.)
2
Advocates for electoral reform in Maine have placed an initiative on the ballot this fall to enact rank-choice voting for all statewide offices in both primary and general elections. Not only does it eliminate the need for strategic voting, but as importantly it forces candidates to broaden their appeal beyond their core supporters and significantly reduces the amount of negative campaigning accordingly. Imagine what effect such a system would have had on the current Republican presidential primaries!!!
9
None of this strategic voting would be an issue if we used some form of multiple preference voting. First-past-the-post plurality rule voting, in which a voter has no way to express ranked preferences for more than one candidate (either immediately or in a later runoff election) simply does a terrible job of identifying the will of the voters when there are more than two candidates.
24
I agree that systems like instant runoff can potentially work pretty well. To be fair, though, Americans often complain about our system without having seen the perhaps equally problematic sides of many multi-party systems.
In Turkey, for example, they have four parties: an Islamist party (AKP), a right wing nationalist party (MHP), a left wing party (CHP), and a Kurdish party. They also have a very high electoral bar for those parties receiving parliamentary seats. The result has been over a decade of autocratic, Islamist rule by AKP. Many of AKPs' policies are deeply unpopular, but they get large parliamentary majorities and the ability to rule unchecked despite often getting a minority of the votes. In a two party system like the one we have in the US, they would have been forced from power years ago by their political overreach.
In Turkey, for example, they have four parties: an Islamist party (AKP), a right wing nationalist party (MHP), a left wing party (CHP), and a Kurdish party. They also have a very high electoral bar for those parties receiving parliamentary seats. The result has been over a decade of autocratic, Islamist rule by AKP. Many of AKPs' policies are deeply unpopular, but they get large parliamentary majorities and the ability to rule unchecked despite often getting a minority of the votes. In a two party system like the one we have in the US, they would have been forced from power years ago by their political overreach.
1
I see this as another NY Times pro-Hillary piece, thinly diguised. It will backfire, because honest polls have already shown that Sanders matches up better against any Republican candidate, including Trump, than Clinton. That makes Clinton the less likely to win, in effect sanctioning the argument that the party must unite behind Sanders, even though some may not like him as well.
7
Comparing Sanders' current poll matchups against Republicans to Clinton's tells us very little about November because Clinton has faced the right wing attack machine for decades, whereas Sanders never has. If Sanders wins the nomination, general election voters won't get to vote until the right wing has spent months savaging him (something they've completely -- and notably -- refrained from doing so far). With Clinton, it's very unlikely that there will be any new attacks that on a variation on decades-old themes that the voters have already heard.
I'm not saying Sanders wouldn't win -- I think he would -- but be wary of "honest polls" because they can only capture the *current* mood of the electorate.
I'm not saying Sanders wouldn't win -- I think he would -- but be wary of "honest polls" because they can only capture the *current* mood of the electorate.
9
"With Clinton, it's very unlikely that there will be any new attacks that aren't a variation on decades-old themes that the voters have already heard."
Except, Alex, that the composition of the audience will be different. Many who will vote this November weren't even alive, or were too young to remember, when Bill Clinton got caught up in his sex scandals and (crucially) when Hillary not only "stood by her man" but actively worked to discredit his accusers one by one. Young voters are less likely to look kindly upon her conduct on this issue than older voters, who on the Democratic side probably still view her conduct as regrettable but necessary for the greater good. Trump's ability to highlight this could help to at least somewhat neutralize the gender gap vs. Clinton in November.
Except, Alex, that the composition of the audience will be different. Many who will vote this November weren't even alive, or were too young to remember, when Bill Clinton got caught up in his sex scandals and (crucially) when Hillary not only "stood by her man" but actively worked to discredit his accusers one by one. Young voters are less likely to look kindly upon her conduct on this issue than older voters, who on the Democratic side probably still view her conduct as regrettable but necessary for the greater good. Trump's ability to highlight this could help to at least somewhat neutralize the gender gap vs. Clinton in November.
3
To be brutally frank, Rich, whilst uptight moralists like me still care very much about the private betrayals of our public figures, it seems clear that my kind and I, on the so-called left and right, are mostly last-breath dinosaurs from a long vanished era.
I doubt very much if American youngsters mulling over their student debt and their likelihood, or lack of it, of getting a well-paid job afterwards give a toss over Bill Clinton's past infidelities and his wife's alleged support, or over Benghazi, or over the Clinton private email server while Secretary of State. These kids might care a bit more that Clinton got paid as much as she did to give talks to Goldman Sachs, but I doubt even that will register strongly with them.
No, like most voters, they will vote mostly for Sanders out of pure self-interest because, while Clinton is not, Sanders is promising to give them free or almost free tertiary schooling – and for that reason alone.
I doubt very much if American youngsters mulling over their student debt and their likelihood, or lack of it, of getting a well-paid job afterwards give a toss over Bill Clinton's past infidelities and his wife's alleged support, or over Benghazi, or over the Clinton private email server while Secretary of State. These kids might care a bit more that Clinton got paid as much as she did to give talks to Goldman Sachs, but I doubt even that will register strongly with them.
No, like most voters, they will vote mostly for Sanders out of pure self-interest because, while Clinton is not, Sanders is promising to give them free or almost free tertiary schooling – and for that reason alone.
6
I thought that the last paragraph was telling. I was listening to a radio show today featuring The Beast's Michael Tomasky. He was saying that there is a case to be made for "offensive" voting vs. "defensive" voting. The theory is that voters for Sanders are voting offensively, not meaning offending, but on the offense. They can afford to take a chance that Bernie Sanders as a nominee might very well lose. The white middle-to-upper middle left votes offensive for Bernie, their favored candidate, aiming to disrupt the status quo, and if it doesn't work out, they will still be OK. The black and Hispanic voters are voting defensively, for Hillary, because they CANNOT afford to take a chance on an aged, single-issue Jewish candidate with a thick Brooklyn accent. That sounds about right to me. Disregard the polls that show Bernie besting Hillary against Trump in a hypothetical. Bernie has not faced a billion dollars in attack ads yet. What I think Prof. Pollack is saying, and I agree, is to vote not for your preferred leftist candidate, but the one who has a better chance to save the world from a full-scale Republican revolution.
12
I am an ex pat Canadian, but I grew up in and around the Detroit border. StratVotes are more logical in a Parliamentary System.
1. In Canada for example your party gets government funding if you reach a certain level of support at the polls. It guarantees that minority parties don't go under because they don't win any seats. So if you know that one party is dominant in your voting constituency then if you are conservative you want to help other " more" liberal parties, like Greens get more funding, to dilute the more centred Liberal votes. The Canadian Conservatives have two left parties in the Liberals and the New Democrats ( agricultural/labour mild socialism), it means that Conservatives do better because of plurality victories. StratVotes are for plurality voting.
2. Here in America we are witnessing the power of pluralities and so called wins in the Trump/Conservative catastrophe. Winner take all is not really applicable beyond two choices. But..
Voting to defeat someone is valid in a battle, not in a sudden death situation. If you are allocating power by regional or multiple contests there are many StratVote strategies available. Trump may well pull off a double plurality win if the rules of a majority contest are side stepped in Cleveland. He will get less than 50% of the delegates and he is getting those delegates with less than 50% of every contest and less than 50% of the total vote.
3. StratVote needs real thinking, it goes off in your hand...like a grenade.
1. In Canada for example your party gets government funding if you reach a certain level of support at the polls. It guarantees that minority parties don't go under because they don't win any seats. So if you know that one party is dominant in your voting constituency then if you are conservative you want to help other " more" liberal parties, like Greens get more funding, to dilute the more centred Liberal votes. The Canadian Conservatives have two left parties in the Liberals and the New Democrats ( agricultural/labour mild socialism), it means that Conservatives do better because of plurality victories. StratVotes are for plurality voting.
2. Here in America we are witnessing the power of pluralities and so called wins in the Trump/Conservative catastrophe. Winner take all is not really applicable beyond two choices. But..
Voting to defeat someone is valid in a battle, not in a sudden death situation. If you are allocating power by regional or multiple contests there are many StratVote strategies available. Trump may well pull off a double plurality win if the rules of a majority contest are side stepped in Cleveland. He will get less than 50% of the delegates and he is getting those delegates with less than 50% of every contest and less than 50% of the total vote.
3. StratVote needs real thinking, it goes off in your hand...like a grenade.
2
I am a Canadian and I have always voted my conscience. I voted NDP the last federal election and my candidate lost to one of Trudeau's newly minted Liberals.
I said before the election that this November's US election will be more important to Canada than was was our fall election.
Last week my wife's absentee ballot application arrived bringing home her inner conflict of Hillary or Bernie. The experience Hillary brings to the table and her unqualified competence is a given but what do you say about a truly inspiring speech in Madison on Monday and a pandering and amoral speech in Milwaukee on Tuesday designed to appeal to a specific demographic.
Bernie Sanders would be welcome at our home any time. The Clintons not so much. Nobody brings to the table as much as Hillary Clinton in terms of experience, intelligence and expertise but for people like ourselves whose only commitment is to honesty in our personal dealing sometimes being the best is not enough sometimes there is no substitute for integrity.
Strategic voting for me is the slippery slope that leads to the abandonment of democracy it may seem reasoned and inspired but can anyone truly say that voting for Gore rather than Nader would have made the USA any more democratic than it is today.
I said before the election that this November's US election will be more important to Canada than was was our fall election.
Last week my wife's absentee ballot application arrived bringing home her inner conflict of Hillary or Bernie. The experience Hillary brings to the table and her unqualified competence is a given but what do you say about a truly inspiring speech in Madison on Monday and a pandering and amoral speech in Milwaukee on Tuesday designed to appeal to a specific demographic.
Bernie Sanders would be welcome at our home any time. The Clintons not so much. Nobody brings to the table as much as Hillary Clinton in terms of experience, intelligence and expertise but for people like ourselves whose only commitment is to honesty in our personal dealing sometimes being the best is not enough sometimes there is no substitute for integrity.
Strategic voting for me is the slippery slope that leads to the abandonment of democracy it may seem reasoned and inspired but can anyone truly say that voting for Gore rather than Nader would have made the USA any more democratic than it is today.
3
Does anyone else think that maybe Hillary's Madison speech might have been pandering to people like ourselves rathert than deeply held principles and convictions?
1
PS,
We know Hillary was pandering to us on Monday but all politics are local.
We know Hillary was pandering to us on Monday but all politics are local.
1
Yes, absolutely. And think of what our economy would be without the trillions in war debt. Think of a world without ISIS, a direct result of God telling Bush to go to war, according to the man the Naderites put into office.
Bernie Sanders supporters are very fortunate in that the strategic way to vote in the upcoming primary is to be true to themselves and vote for Bernie. Head-to-head polls of the general electorate (not just Demicratic party members but also Republicans and also the largest voting block of all, Independents) show that Bernie beats all Of the Republican candidates under consideration and by a much wider margin than Hillary does. It is the Hillary supporters who have to decide whether to vote for Hillary in the primary even though she is more likely to lose than Bernie would be on the general election in November.
6
"she is more likely to lose than Bernie would be on the general election in November."...You are imagining things. Sanders has not yet been vetted to the American voters by the Republican Party, and the Republicans are salivating at the opportunity. Clinton knows she will need the Sanders' voters so she has been very careful not to antagonize them. Those early polls that show Sanders running better than Clinton against Trump - how many of those polled know that Sanders is a Jewish socialist who has praised Castro and the Cuban revolution? Well, if Sanders is the nominee, in the fall the Republicans are going to beat that like a drum, and when they get done the polls won't look remotely like they do now.
31
You are deluded if you actually believe that Clinton "has been very careful not to antagonize them". Every other day, something happens within the campaign which further disenfranchises the young Democrats and independents that Sanders has energized. Admittedly not all of this comes directly from Clinton, but is it on her behalf, and speak further to the "rigged political system". The DNC in particular has shown extreme bias in favor of Clinton. Also, the tampering with voter registrations in Arizona's primary was a huge mistake - as it could only have been to help Clinton, and will backfire unless justice is done (and ALL provisional ballots cast for Sanders are counted toward the AZ delegates). It is this rigging of the system which will prevent many Sanders supporters from switching to Clinton if she wins the nomination, and also eludes indictment.
3
Oh, please. You don't think powder has been held by both Sanders and the Republicans with Clinton. Just wait. I'll bet my house that they have the speeches she's so afraid to release, that they have inside intel on the FBI investigations, intel on the operations of the Clinton Foundation...just wait...or better yet, vote for Sanders...
Votes are almost always lies because one is voting for "the lesser of evils". There is absolutely nothing wrong with voting strategically. IMO, one would be a fool not to. It's also an unintended lie because we're voting on the basis of candidate promises, which are mostly lies (or simply completely unrealistic). What I think most Trump supporters don't realize is that even if elected, this is only a slightly greater than zero chance of him getting passed into law anything he's promised. Due to a lack of education in the U.S., they simply don't understand how the three branches of U.S. Government work.
I don't expect Bernie Sanders to win the nomination. But I'm voting for him anyway in the NY primary because the more votes he gets, the more it sends a message to Hillary Clinton to push her policies more to the left and the more it sends a message to Conservatives that large numbers of Americans oppose their views. When Hillary does win the nomination and I (am forced) to vote for her in November, is that a lie because I really wanted Bernie?
IMO, this article is much ado about nothing. It's implying that if one votes strategically, one is dishonest. That's ridiculous.
I don't expect Bernie Sanders to win the nomination. But I'm voting for him anyway in the NY primary because the more votes he gets, the more it sends a message to Hillary Clinton to push her policies more to the left and the more it sends a message to Conservatives that large numbers of Americans oppose their views. When Hillary does win the nomination and I (am forced) to vote for her in November, is that a lie because I really wanted Bernie?
IMO, this article is much ado about nothing. It's implying that if one votes strategically, one is dishonest. That's ridiculous.
16
You just explained the 'fun' we had in the NH primary. There is nothing at all dishonest about 'send 'em a message' voting.
Does anybody really believe that Hillary wanted to self identify as a 'progressive' until Bernie came along? Might have messed up that famous Third Way Clinton triangulation for the General Election.
Does anybody really believe that Hillary wanted to self identify as a 'progressive' until Bernie came along? Might have messed up that famous Third Way Clinton triangulation for the General Election.
3
I understand voting for Sanders to push Clinton more to the left, but wonder if there is evidence of that concept actually working? I mean that for any candidate, not just the two mentioned. If a candidate wins, they could just as likely decide to govern according to how they want to, regardless of what they said on the campaign in response to the other nominee getting votes.
1
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states, like Vermont and Alabama, that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states, like Vermont and Alabama, that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
6
"No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes."....You make a good point, but also ignore the importance of winning the entire state. Take Illinois as an example. There are about 6 million residents in Chicago and its suburbs and about 6 million more residents that live outside the Chicago area. If the presidential election were to be won by popular vote, the Presidential candidates would concentrate on running to the Chicago urban vote because it is the largest number and can be done more efficiently. But with the electoral college, a Presidential candidate in Illinois cannot ignore having to also appeal to the rural downstate area lest he lose the whole state. Nothing is perfect.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, all voters in Illinois are politically irrelevant in the presidential general election.
Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of FL (29 electoral votes), OH (18), VA (13), CO (9), NV (6), IA (6) and NH (4) is not a foregone conclusion. So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.
More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.
Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
38 states had no campaign events, and miniscule or no spending for TV ads.
The predictability of the winner of the state you live in, not the size of the population of where you live, determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of FL (29 electoral votes), OH (18), VA (13), CO (9), NV (6), IA (6) and NH (4) is not a foregone conclusion. So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.
More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.
Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
38 states had no campaign events, and miniscule or no spending for TV ads.
The predictability of the winner of the state you live in, not the size of the population of where you live, determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
4
Like many tv shows focused on crime and violence that have been so destructive to our values, this most informative article gave me the idea to write in Bernie Sanders if Hillary wins the nomination. If enough of us wrote him in, he might win, given that he polls higher up against Trump than does Hillary, and she loses by one point (so I last heard) when up against Kasich.
What would be the most strategic vote given this scenario--if all present Bernie supporters used the write-in option? I guess the question now to answer, hypothetically, is how Bernie would poll up against Kasich.
What would be the most strategic vote given this scenario--if all present Bernie supporters used the write-in option? I guess the question now to answer, hypothetically, is how Bernie would poll up against Kasich.
1
There is no need here to itemize the numerous problems with current U.S. election/voting practices. But it seems to me that Approval Voting best enables the voter's preferences. On a non-partisan ballot of all candidates, people vote for one or more candidates for each office; the one with the most votes wins. This 1) dilutes the "spoiler" effect of more than two candidates, 2) identifies the voters' second choice if the "winner" is removed for cheating; 3) expedites filling a vacancy if the "winner" is recalled, and 4) informs the Electors in choosing the President and Vice President, with consideration given to compatibility of the pair.
This is just one aspect of restoring a Representative Democracy through draft legislation titled The Fair Elections Fund--a Whole New Ball Game, at www.thefairelectionsfund.com.
This is just one aspect of restoring a Representative Democracy through draft legislation titled The Fair Elections Fund--a Whole New Ball Game, at www.thefairelectionsfund.com.
I voted for the Member of Parliament I thought could defeat Harper's Conservatives, in my case, the NDP - and their candidate did win. With something other than first-past-the-post, I would have voted Liberal.
Unlike Americans, Canadians have a choice in political parties, the three national parties are vaguely center-left; I would have voted for the Green Party if they were able to defeat the Conservative candidate. If Trump is the GOP candidate, that is not a democratic choice, just as me voting for a Harper Conservative would have been an impossibility.
Unlike Americans, Canadians have a choice in political parties, the three national parties are vaguely center-left; I would have voted for the Green Party if they were able to defeat the Conservative candidate. If Trump is the GOP candidate, that is not a democratic choice, just as me voting for a Harper Conservative would have been an impossibility.
2
Strategic voting worked for us. Despite our cynicism my partner and I hesitantly voted for Trudeau in the Canadian election. In retrospect, strategic voting worked: the positivity of Trudeau and the Liberal Party in Canada is infectious. We would vote for him again and that vote would be a choice, not a strategy.
The gutter politics of 2016 in America may force some to vote strategically. In Canada the media & local groups put the word out so that strategic voting lit up election night. That's basically how it worked in Canada.
But the election is so long in America and that may be a hindrance: more opportunity for political theatre to sway votes. In Canada the election was quick.
The gutter politics of 2016 in America may force some to vote strategically. In Canada the media & local groups put the word out so that strategic voting lit up election night. That's basically how it worked in Canada.
But the election is so long in America and that may be a hindrance: more opportunity for political theatre to sway votes. In Canada the election was quick.
12
A voter's choice is their own. There is no law, or serious ethical position that should cause a voter any pause in voting for whomever they want for whatever reason they want.
The idea that a voter "should" vote for the person they most want to be elected to a position is naive and foolish. A voter can, and should, vote whatever way they think is best able to achieve the outcome that they desire. Anything else promotes the possibility of gaming a system by promoting organization to cause vote splitting.
This is the only point in the whole democratic process at which individual citizens have an unfettered right to make their voice heard about what they truly want.
The idea that a voter "should" vote for the person they most want to be elected to a position is naive and foolish. A voter can, and should, vote whatever way they think is best able to achieve the outcome that they desire. Anything else promotes the possibility of gaming a system by promoting organization to cause vote splitting.
This is the only point in the whole democratic process at which individual citizens have an unfettered right to make their voice heard about what they truly want.
7
This article includes two great omissions. The first is that the main political party in Canada that suffered setbacks from strategic voting was not the Green Party, but rather the New Democratic Party (NDP) led by Thomas Mulcair. The NDP is a social democratic party, with principles most resembling those of Bernie Sanders. The problem the NDP faced in the most recent election was similar to that being faced by Senator Sanders today, which is to say that a number of people liked their ideas but felt that they were less practical. However, since Canadians united behind a terrific dislike of the incumbent Stephen Harper, those people chose to elect the Liberals, trusting that this party was most likely to remove Harper.
This brings into consideration the second major omission in this article, which relates to how the election system works in Canada, which is very different from that of the United States. In Canada, citizens do not directly vote for their prime minister by name. Instead, each voter chooses a local representative belonging to one of the political parties. The party that has the most elected representatives then chooses its leader as prime minister. This makes strategic considerations much more important in Canada, because support is dilute, and representation by province is rarely homogeneous.
What works for Canada may not work for the United States, and vice versa.
This brings into consideration the second major omission in this article, which relates to how the election system works in Canada, which is very different from that of the United States. In Canada, citizens do not directly vote for their prime minister by name. Instead, each voter chooses a local representative belonging to one of the political parties. The party that has the most elected representatives then chooses its leader as prime minister. This makes strategic considerations much more important in Canada, because support is dilute, and representation by province is rarely homogeneous.
What works for Canada may not work for the United States, and vice versa.
10
You cannot compare the Canadian experience to the American one. In Canada we have responsible government, in the United States, representative government. Elections in congress do not create a president but elections in Canada result in a prime minister. Apples and oranges abound in comparing and contrasting these two democracies.
15
Different systems, yes, but the principle of strategic voting -- voting for someone other than your first choice -- applies across countries.
Nine years of Stephen Harper was anything but "responsible" government, as proven by the November election results in which enough Canadians voted strategically so as to replace him with Justin Trudeau.
I am an independent who voted for Kasich in the MA primary - not to stop Trump, whose lead was unstoppable - but to stymie Cruz and Rubio from claiming a strong second place. I hate Trump, but both Cruz and Rubio are even worse. I am no supporter of Kasich, either.
I discovered I was far from alone in what I did.
I discovered I was far from alone in what I did.
11
The name and party that were not mentioned, oddly, were Thomas Mulcair, disappointing leader of the NDP.
2
We lost an excellent NDP Member of Parliament due to a complicit media which saw a threat in a government that was Democratic Socialist.
That being said the Liberal Party of Canada was was better aware of how to win elections and much like Hillary Clinton moved way to the left and managed to run to the left of our "Democratic Socialists."
Somehow even with all the political intrigue we have a Federal government with a 70% approval rating something I have not seen in my close to seventy years. We have a firm grip on democracy and even this proud card carrying member of the NDP will support our government until the next election.
As for Thomas Mulcair he may not be as pure a Social Democrat David Lewis or a lovable as Jack Layton but he is certainly up to the task of leading my party into the future.
My feeling is that we may have really lucked out with Justin Trudeau as we cannot underestimate the importance of this November's American election Only Trudeau can successfully separate us from the yoke of America should Trump, Cruz or Clinton be the next President. We may be part of North America but our future is with the Western Democracies.
That being said the Liberal Party of Canada was was better aware of how to win elections and much like Hillary Clinton moved way to the left and managed to run to the left of our "Democratic Socialists."
Somehow even with all the political intrigue we have a Federal government with a 70% approval rating something I have not seen in my close to seventy years. We have a firm grip on democracy and even this proud card carrying member of the NDP will support our government until the next election.
As for Thomas Mulcair he may not be as pure a Social Democrat David Lewis or a lovable as Jack Layton but he is certainly up to the task of leading my party into the future.
My feeling is that we may have really lucked out with Justin Trudeau as we cannot underestimate the importance of this November's American election Only Trudeau can successfully separate us from the yoke of America should Trump, Cruz or Clinton be the next President. We may be part of North America but our future is with the Western Democracies.
16
I am a dual American-Canadian citizen and understand very well the US and the Canadian voting systems. In the recent Canadian election I voted Liberal, not because I like Trudeau especially ... I actually have quite a bit of disdain for the Libs ... but because I intensely disliked the then Prime Minister. I seriously thought of voting NDP but then got frightened that with so many people thinking like I did the NDP might actually win. With dual citizenship I get either the best or the worst of all possible voting worlds ... voting in two countries.
4
You cannot yell at people into voting. You need to inspire them. And HRC needs to do something drastic to get working class people to vote for her.