apc3161
11-02-2008, 08:25 AM
As a result of the structure of our voting system, I believe there are unfortunately situations in which spoilers exist.
Take this situation for example:
Imagine there were three candidates, A, B, and C. Imagine candidates A and B were completely opposed to each other on every single issue. Also imagine that candidate B & C completely agreed with each other on every single point except one.
Imagine 34% of the population agree with the views of candidate A. 66% of the population agree with candidates B & C on the four points they hold in common, but they are split with regard to that last point where B & C disagree. 3
So here are the voting results
A: 34%
B: 33%
C: 33%
Even though candidate A's views only had support of 34% of the population while 66% disagree with his views, he won the race. Either candidate B or C was a "spoiler" in this race.
When you have the voting system we do now, spoilers are inevitable.
So what do I do?
1) I accept this and do vote for the lesser of two evils (everyone is free to make up their mind on whom the less of two evils is in this case)
2) I do NOT donate to any campaigns directly though. I only donate to PAC's and foundations that hold views I agree with. For example, if I donate money to the National Taxpayers Union, I know they will use that money to help McCain. But, McCain aide's know why he was given that money, and thus has to act in a way that the Taxpayers Union deems appropriate. If I just gave that money to McCain directly, they would assume I simply agree with all his views and thus he could act however he wanted to. But by giving that money to the Taxpayers Union and letting them spend it on my behalf, McCain's campaign knows what I'm most interested in and will take that into account when drafting new policies. As I said, if I were to directly donate to the campaign, they would take that as a sign that I simply agree with the man on all points, and am content with his current views.
The only candidate's I've ever given to directly without regretting it are BJ Lawson and Ron Paul. If I don't agree with most of the candidates views, I give to institutions instead for reasons stated above.
3) I realize the system is flawed, so I spread awareness about it. As far as I can tell, the best voting scheme is instant run-off voting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqblOq8BmgM
Thus I promote this scheme to friends, family, and associates. This voting scheme has the affect of letting everyone vote based on principle, without having to worry about the spoiler effect.
-----
I came to these views recently. Before I was a strong "vote on principle guy". After having thought about it a lot though, I've changed my view on that. Not because It's the situation that I think is best, but only because that is unfortunately the way the system is currently set up. So in the long run, we have to work to change the system, but in the short run, we have to deal with it.
Example. If no one had voted for Nader in 2000, there is no doubt that Al Gore would have one. I'm not saying I like Al Gore, but I think he would have done a better job than Bush.
Take this situation for example:
Imagine there were three candidates, A, B, and C. Imagine candidates A and B were completely opposed to each other on every single issue. Also imagine that candidate B & C completely agreed with each other on every single point except one.
Imagine 34% of the population agree with the views of candidate A. 66% of the population agree with candidates B & C on the four points they hold in common, but they are split with regard to that last point where B & C disagree. 3
So here are the voting results
A: 34%
B: 33%
C: 33%
Even though candidate A's views only had support of 34% of the population while 66% disagree with his views, he won the race. Either candidate B or C was a "spoiler" in this race.
When you have the voting system we do now, spoilers are inevitable.
So what do I do?
1) I accept this and do vote for the lesser of two evils (everyone is free to make up their mind on whom the less of two evils is in this case)
2) I do NOT donate to any campaigns directly though. I only donate to PAC's and foundations that hold views I agree with. For example, if I donate money to the National Taxpayers Union, I know they will use that money to help McCain. But, McCain aide's know why he was given that money, and thus has to act in a way that the Taxpayers Union deems appropriate. If I just gave that money to McCain directly, they would assume I simply agree with all his views and thus he could act however he wanted to. But by giving that money to the Taxpayers Union and letting them spend it on my behalf, McCain's campaign knows what I'm most interested in and will take that into account when drafting new policies. As I said, if I were to directly donate to the campaign, they would take that as a sign that I simply agree with the man on all points, and am content with his current views.
The only candidate's I've ever given to directly without regretting it are BJ Lawson and Ron Paul. If I don't agree with most of the candidates views, I give to institutions instead for reasons stated above.
3) I realize the system is flawed, so I spread awareness about it. As far as I can tell, the best voting scheme is instant run-off voting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqblOq8BmgM
Thus I promote this scheme to friends, family, and associates. This voting scheme has the affect of letting everyone vote based on principle, without having to worry about the spoiler effect.
-----
I came to these views recently. Before I was a strong "vote on principle guy". After having thought about it a lot though, I've changed my view on that. Not because It's the situation that I think is best, but only because that is unfortunately the way the system is currently set up. So in the long run, we have to work to change the system, but in the short run, we have to deal with it.
Example. If no one had voted for Nader in 2000, there is no doubt that Al Gore would have one. I'm not saying I like Al Gore, but I think he would have done a better job than Bush.