Profile of the ultimate loser voter

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I think it's irrational to vote for something you don't agree with. All you are doing is sending the opposite message that you actually agree. That's not irrational? Third party votes are still counted. If everyone voted for what they actually believed, there would be a lot more of them and the major parties would have to change to take those views into account or risk becoming less relevant.

There is no single candidate with which I agree 100%. Thus, according to your logic it would be irrational for me to vote for any candidate. Is that really what you're espousing? Are things really really that black and white for you?

I'm guessing you're not that binary and you're going to concede that it's rational to vote for a candidate even if you don't agree 100% with that candidate's platform/policies/opinions. Assuming you do conceded that, the next logical question is: At what percentage level of disagreement do you think the vote turns from rational to irrational?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

There is no single candidate with which I agree 100%. Thus, according to your logic it would be irrational for me to vote for any candidate. Is that really what you're espousing? Are things really really that black and white for you?

I'm guessing you're not that binary and you're going to concede that it's rational to vote for a candidate even if you don't agree 100% with that candidate's platform/policies/opinions. Assuming you do conceded that, the next logical question is: At what percentage level of disagreement do you think the vote turns from rational to irrational?

I don't think he is suggesting that you have to agree 100% with a candidate to vote for them, just that it is more rational to vote for the candidate you most agree with. That approach could lead many people to vote for a third party candidate, and in so doing, could force the major parties to alter their philosophies to incorporate the popular third party views.

I think there is a lot of validity to that line of thinking.

Others believe that you should vote for one of the two parties no matter what, because it is almost assured that one of the candidates from those parties will win. As a result, it is important to vote against the candidate you think will do the most damage, if you can't vote "for" the candidate who most closely approaches your views (because that candidate might be a third party candidate with little to no chance to win). There is also some logic in that approach, although you do wind up "endorsing" the party you vote for, even if that isn't the message you actually intend to send with your vote. As a result, you only further entrench the two major parties, making it less likely your views will actually be adopted.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

There is no single candidate with which I agree 100%. Thus, according to your logic it would be irrational for me to vote for any candidate. Is that really what you're espousing? Are things really really that black and white for you?

I'm guessing you're not that binary and you're going to concede that it's rational to vote for a candidate even if you don't agree 100% with that candidate's platform/policies/opinions. Assuming you do conceded that, the next logical question is: At what percentage level of disagreement do you think the vote turns from rational to irrational?

No, I'm not that binary. I was talking about the hordes of posters on cougarboard who ripped endlessly on McCain during the primaries but who now are voting for him only because they like Obama less. Most of them live in a state (Utah) where it doesn't matter if they vote for him or not. So why not send a message to the GOP that you don't like the direction they are going by voting for someone else, yes, even a third party candidate.

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I think a strong case could be made that the ultimate loser voter is anyone who votes for a third party candidate.

Ok, make it. I'm thinking about going third party this year (for the third time in my voting life, btw.) I'd like to hear arguments why I shouldn't.

Background: I live in Wyoming. McCain will win Wyoming handily so my vote matters not.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by landpoke

Background: I live in Wyoming. McCain will win Wyoming handily so my vote matters not.

You're from wyoming?!? That explains a lot.

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by creekster

You're from wyoming?!? That explains a lot.

I've worked hard my whole life to overcome the hand life has dealt me. I'm pleased to see my efforts have been somewhat successful. At least in masking my disability.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by creekster

You're from wyoming?!? That explains a lot.

Seriously creek? That's all you got? What does it explain? His moniker, favorite college team, alma mater, choice of residence? I expect more from you monkey man.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Seriously creek? That's all you got? What does it explain? His moniker, favorite college team, alma mater, choice of residence? I expect more from you monkey man.

I was trying ot make fun of the fact that he felt the need to tell us. Apart from some yahoo that lives in Ohio, perhaps no one else is more closely assocaited with their residence than good ol Landpoke. I am not afraid to admit, however, that I failed miserably. Back to work now.

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Seriously creek? That's all you got? What does it explain? His moniker, favorite college team, alma mater, choice of residence? I expect more from you monkey man.

Lay off Monkey Man. He's like 90 or something.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by creekster

I was trying ot make fun of the fact that he felt the need to tell us. Apart from some yahoo that lives in Ohio, perhaps no one else is more closely assocaited with their residence than good ol Landpoke. I am not afraid to admit, however, that I failed miserably. Back to work now.

Don't you ever, and I mean EVER, call me a crappy internet search engine again.