CDR: Re: Parties

[Eric Murray]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:30:26PM +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Eric Murray wrote:
> 
> >Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive
> >in just because the media says that they're "not electable"?
> >That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest
> >that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore).
> >Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner"
> >than they are in voting their conscious.
> 
> That's commendable idealism, but in most modern countries the electorial
> process is practically guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in
> essence round out dissent. The fact that voting for the loser implies
> casting your vote for nothing, *even in matters which had nothing to do
> with the winner being elected*, simply means that there is absolutely no
> point in voting for someone who cannot win.

Of course if everyone feels that way, then we'll elect only the candidates
which have been pre-chosen for us.  Which is pretty much what happens
in the US, at least on a national level.  I refuse to play along,
especially in contests where I don't like the candidates from the two
major parties.  I prefer it to not voting at all.

If voters don't vote, then the major parties see them as merely
apathetic.  They don't care how many people don't vote as long at they
win.  If voters do vote, but for a third party, then the major parties
see them as voters who care, but not for them.  Meaning that there's an
issue or issues which they presumably voted for that the major
parties can co-opt in order to try to get their vote the next time.

So, while I agree with you that the system is rigged so that third parties
never get appreciable power, I disagree that voting for one is a waste
of one's vote.

-- 
  Eric Murray           Consulting Security Architect         SecureDesign LLC
  http://www.securedesignllc.com                            PGP keyid:E03F65E5