Dave Sill wrote:
>
> Spike Jones <spike66@ibm.net> wrote:
> >
> > Nowthen, suppose we go ahead and accept things the way
> > they are, recognizing that the winner of this election will be
> > either the Democrat or the Republican. I dont know the exact
> > numbers, but suppose that currently the likely voters are as follows:
> >
> > Republican: 45%
> > Democrat: 46%
> > Green: 2%
> > Libertarian: 2%
> > undecided: 5%
> >
> > If this is the case, then obviously this election is going to be a
> > cliffhanger,
>
> You really have to look at it state-by-state, though. It's the electoral
> breakdown that matters, not the popular vote.
Sure, but it still averages out. Enough of a razor thing margin in enough states
does give you a landslide in the electoral college.
>
> > and the outcome is important as all hell,
>
> Is it? Sure, given the choice between Gore and Bush I'd rather see Bush
> elected. But they're idealogically so close that I don't think it matters
> much which is elected. And who knows...if Gore is elected and goes overboard
> his liberal agenda it could cause a swing back toward smaller, less
> intrusive government. Or maybe not.
Compared to Browne or Nader, yes, they are ideologically close, but still each
is on opposite sides of a razor thin line. There are crucial differences which
are of paramount importance.
>
> > so then
> > suppose further that:
> >
> > 1) You decide you will donate 500 bucks to some political
> > party and 20 hours of your time campaigning for them.
> >
> > 2) That you are a Libertarian
> >
> > What is the most logical thing to do? Vote Republican, your
> > *second* choice, and donate your money and time to...
> > the GREEN PARTY! Your last choice! The Eco-nazis!
snip
> > So, Mike, you are absolutely right, dammit. {8-[ The logical
> > thing for a pragmatic Green to do is to vote Democrat and campaign
> > for and donate to Browne, while the most logical thing for a pragmatic
> > Libertarian to do is to vote Republican and donate to Darth
> > Nader. Libertarians for eco-totalitarianism. Greens for Browne.
> > Ill be damned.
> >
> > What am I missing? spike
>
> You're missing the long view. Despite the fairly close polls at this time,
> the election will probably be another electoral landslide. Your 100 votes
> subtracted from Gore still won't have any effect on the outcome of the
> election, even multiplied by hundreds if you could convince others to do the
> same thing. So while this strategy maximizes your effect on the coming
> election, its not going to be enough.
When you switch someone to Nader from Gore, yes, he only loses one vote, though
if you can talk someone into voting for Bush as well, then you have a two vote
change. Since votes are typically bought in the market for $2-5 each, $500 will
change 100 votes away from your opponent, while your pro Bush vote is 1, for a
change of 101. Each person you convince to follow your strategy also changes 101
votes, and everyone they convice likewise. Its an exponential growth thing. If
you convince six people, and they convince six people, etc. within 6 levels of
argument, you've won the election. Its multi-level politicking.
>
> So we should be looking at the next election, the one after that, or the one
> after that. We should be growing the Libertarian Party. First we want to get
> it to the point that most people are aware of it--enough that LP candidates
> will get press commensurate with their poll numbers. Next, maybe the LP
> presidential candidate draws enough votes to have changed the outcome of the
> election. At that point, Demos and Repubs will start adopting Libertarian
> ideas to draw Libertarian voters, and even without a Libertarian President
> we'll start to see some Libertarian initiatives. Eventually, a Libertarian
> candidate will be a serious contender and the duopoly will be a thing of the
> past.
Both sides have been adopting libertarian ideas that fit with their own agendas.
You just can't seem to get either side to get away from their opposing buffet
style attitudes toward the Bill of Rights. We all have our own ideas of which
ones are more important, we are only human. This is where you need to apply a
little of that extropic 'practical optimism'...
>
> You're also missing the fact that it's morally reprehensible to support your
> enemies. If every Libertarian did as you suggest, the Greens would get a
> huge boost and the LP would be seriously set back.
Its standard ChiCom insurgency strategy to strengthen the hand of extremists
among your opponents to increase the pressure on the population to sympathize
with your side. This is why dems are kings of negative campaigning, saying how
nasty, selfish, mean, and cruel their opponents are, painting them as
extremists, and why the media gives idiots like Buchanan so much airtime versus
someone like Harry Browne.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:17 MDT