When Third Parties Go Your Way

Discussion in 'Politics' started by saturneptune, Mar 26, 2012.

  1. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    There have been several intense exchanges over the last few weeks about voting for a third party helping Obama vs voting conscience. What about when a third party vote helps elect your choice, instead of stopping the greater of two evils, as most of you put it?

    I am glad some people in Florida decided to vote for Nader in 2000, or we probably would have had a President Gore. Not that Bush turned out all that great, but he caused a lot less damage than Gore would have. So in that case, would you have held to your principles about not voting for a third party as a wasted vote?

    If the election of 1968 had been one week later, Humphrey would probably have won, because Wallace was taking away votes from Nixon daily, and Nixon just barely hung on. Because at the time we did not know about Nixon what we do today, you would probably would not have wanted to see votes for Wallace defeat Nixon.

    I guess my question is, do you think a third party vote is always wasted as you do this year, with the ultimate goal of stopping Obama, or do you shift your position on third party votes dependent on who it helps? Does changing one's mind dependent of the outcome show a double standard?
     
    #1 saturneptune, Mar 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2012
  2. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,130
    Likes Received:
    221
  3. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that is an excellent idea. Never thought of that one before.
     
  4. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    It seems good.
    Am I misunderstanding but isn't it just a popular vote?

    However it's classified, It seems to have one of the same underlying weaknesses as the present system:

    IRV depends upon the percentage of voters who vote who can indeed vote.
    The closer to a 100% turnout the greater a true representation of the will of the people.

    I suppose one could say that those who stay home have expressed their choice.

    HankD
     
  5. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,263
    Likes Received:
    619
    Of course it depends on how you desire the outcome. But generally speaking third party votes are usually wasted votes. In the case of Florida in 2000 both Democrats and Republicans who voted for Nader wasted their votes since each vote for Nader took away votes from the major candidate they most closely align with on most issues.

    Voting for Wallace in 1968 was the same situation. If more conservatives had voted for Wallace we would have ended up with President Humphrey. I shudder to think how much further down the tubes this country would be if that would have happened. Of course liberals in 1968 would have been ecstatic if more conservatives had voted for Wallace.

    If more conservative-leaning people had voted for John Anderson in 1980 thus taking votes from Reagan, we'd have had four more years of Jimmy Carter.

    Here in Minnesota we actually had a third party candidate win the governorship. That was Jesse 'the body' Ventura, a professional wrestler. That was a disaster. Just last election we had a third party candidate siphon votes from a fine conservative Republican Tom Emmer, thus propelling ultra-liberal former senator Mark "evacuatin' Dayton to the governor. Dayton got 43.6%, Emmer got 43.2% and former Republican Tom Horner running as an Independence Party candidate got 11.9%. Yes, there was a recount.
     
  6. revmwc

    revmwc
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    69
    The biggest one we got was Bill Clinton thanks to Ross Perot, that split the conservative vote right down the middle and Caused G.H.W. Bush to be defeated.

    Walace and the American Party pulled votes from the Democrats as well. Wallace was a Democrat but one of the last fiscal conservative ones. He pulled votes from both sides and made it a real close race. Then he was shot in the next election period and was never able to recover his momentum.
    You mention Nadar but Buchanon pulled votes away from G. W. Bush and that would have made Florida a none issue had folks not voted for him. If their are minor party candidates on the ballot they will pull from both Dem's and Republicans. Until we have a Strong third party like Wallace had in our ntion a vote for one of them will put one of the major parties candidates in office. Perot did it in taking away major votes for G.H.W. Bush and we got Bill Clinton.
     
  7. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,263
    Likes Received:
    619
    I don't think so.

    Nader got 97,000 votes, certainly almost all of them pulled from Gore's column.
    Buchanan got 17,000 votes, certainly almost all of them from Bush's column.

    There's an 80,000 difference.
     
  8. revmwc

    revmwc
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    69
    Their were others who pulled from both.
     
  9. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the Light,
    I have two questions for you. One is what ever happened to Jesse Ventura? The second is what do you think of Saltys idea of the second choice in case of a third party? Oh, while I am thinking of it, you said his term in office was a disaster, was it a disaster compared to other governor's?

    I just thought of something else about Minnesota. Didn't Hubert Humphrey have a son or grandson run for office? What ever happened to him? Minnesota has got quite a political history, not only Humphrey, but Mondale.
     
  10. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, Nader was more like Gore and Buchanan more like Bush. Back when you and I were going back and forth about a third party, why did you assume the third party would pull votes from the Republicans more than the Democrats since there is not a sign of one yet? By the way, I really enjoy your posts when we at least agree a little.
     
  11. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,263
    Likes Received:
    619
    He's got a conspiracy theory TV show on cable TV (can't remember the channel.) Also he's suing the TSA for having a body pat-down done before he boarded a plane. And he's mad because a Navy Seal wrote a book and said he had punched out Jesse at a bar in California.

    I haven't studied instant runoff voting but it seems to me it won't help minor parties become contenders, if that is what you were thinking.

    His governance wasn't that bad, if you like nothing getting legislated (I kind of fall in that camp) but he was a constant embarrassment. As governor he was the referee in a pro wrestling match. He said that religion was a crutch for weak-minded people, he said the streets of St. Paul were laid out by drunken Irishmen, said he wanted to be reincarnated as a bra, his 20-something son regularly partied in the governor's mansion and trashed it, etc. etc.

    Hubert's son Skip was attorney general of Minnesota (I think) and was one of the losing candidates for governor when Ventura won. The other losing candidate was Norm Coleman, who went on to become a U.S. Senator after Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash about a month before election day. The Dems pulled Walter Mondale out of moth balls to substitute for the deceased Wellstone.

    Minnesota politics are not boring. There was also Harold Stassen, a moderate Republican that ran for President like for 40 years. Also Eugene McCarthy was a U.S. House member in the 50's and a U.S. Senator in the 60's, and the first Dem to run against LBJ in 1968. Think about that--Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, and Paul Wellstone all from one state. Yick!
     
  12. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,130
    Likes Received:
    221
    The basic premise of IRV is that no candidate will be certified until he receives 50% of the vote.

    For Example
    Round 1.......Round 2......Round 3
    A- 31%............43%..........49
    B- 29%............30%..........51
    C- 24%............27%
    D- 10%
    E- 4%
    F- 2%
    ...100%

    There are different variations of IRF - but it allows you to vote for several candidates in priority of your preference. Therefore you can vote for a third party - at the same time you can indicate your 2nd and third choice. In the example above, without IRV, candidate A would have won despite winning less than 1/3 of the vote. In that case the the second choice of the 3 lower vote getters are then given to the top three. And then the voters for the 3rd place candidate have their third choice now count.
    In this case the initial overall second place candidate ends up winning because of IRV
     
  13. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,263
    Likes Received:
    619
    Look at your example again. Candidate B was not the first choice of a plurality of voters, yet Candidate B ended up winning! This means that although he wasn't the first choice of most voters he won. Do we want that?

    Let's try it again with 100 voters. First round.
    Candidate A got 32 first choice votes.
    Candidate B got 38 first choice votes.
    Candidate C got 16 first choice votes.
    Candidate D got 19 first choice votes.

    After round 1, no one had over 50% so Candidate C is eliminated and his votes transfer to the other candidates.

    Second round
    Candidate A got 38 votes.
    Candidate B got 38 votes.
    Candidate D got 24 votes.

    Candidate D is eliminated and his votes transfer to the remaining two candidates.

    Third round
    Candidate A got 51 votes.
    Candidate B got 49 votes.

    Candidate A beats Candidate B, even though he had almost 19% fewer first choice votes in round 1 than Candidate B.

    Really? We want this?
     

Share This Page

Loading...