Doing "X" is equal to "Y" threads...

[Nazgul35]

let's get a grip here folks!!

Perhaps some reasoned argument should be allowed a little air in the mass hysteria amongst some of the ABB crowd (of whom I am a supporter). But these inane posts of accusing individuals of certain outcomes if they do not tow the Party line as described by the originator of the thread is silly!!

This is a partial repost of a post I had in response to a thread along similar lines. In order to understand our political environment, we need to be less one-dimensional thinking and consider that people are not robots who get their preferences set to a single dimension policy space....

Consider the following discussion about voters before you are tempted to run off and ascribe your own personal beliefs and policy preferences to all of humanity...you are less likely to come off as knavish and crude if you approach your arguments with some semblance of respect for your fellow human beings....after all, it is the freepers who are brutish thugs without two brain cells to rub together!

One must define the actors, institutional rules and context to forward an argument that doesn't descend into "you suck" "no...you suck" debate we are use to seeing over at Freeperland....

1) The actor we are interested in discussing here is the voter. How do voters make the decision to vote?

Glad you asked! The are voters who possess differing levels of information and different preference orderings when it comes to candidate choice.

Voters who are under informed can be presented with information in order to sway individuals toward your viewpoint....I believe that anyone would have a hard time arguing that the people who frequent DU are under informed with regards to the American political system...at least compared to the average American...so arguments that proceed from the point of assumption that people on this site just don't get it or are somehow impaired is specious at best...

As to preference ordering, voter one may believe that terrorism is the most important issue while voters two believes it is the economy. They may agree on every other issue in the campaign, but their decision of what is most important can lead to completely different decisions in candidates.

The level of commitment to their preferences can also vary....voter one may be only slightly more concerned about terrorism than his number two preference while voter two cares about nothing else than the economy...

2) The Institutional rules we operate under is plurality electoral laws. First-past-the-post creates strategic voting amongst the voters, causing them to abandon their more favored choice for a slightly less attractive candidate, if the alternative is a worse choice. Our electoral college is designed to heighten the performance of a two party system, making it almost impossible for a third party to emerge and remain viable for long periods of time...

But strategic voting is not universal, there are several situations where it can break down.

a) When the worse alternative has no way of being defeated...imagine a state where George Bush is leading by 68% in the polls switching from your desired choice to the second place candidate will not affect the final outcome....strategic voting will only matter in states where switching your vote will result in giving the second placed candidate the win...conversely, states that the Dem is winning in will also discourage strategic voting...in both examples, changing your vote will not affect the final outcome...

b) When you have concentration of supporters in a district. Consider the lack of strategic voting for George Wallace, whereas Anderson, Perot and Nader all experienced vote loss on election day due to strategic voting.

c) Based upon an individual's preferences, they see both of the alternative candidates at exactly the same point on the issue dimension. In otherwords, they might as well be the same candidate to this particular voter. Switching your vote makes no sense as this would not improve the outcome more than sticking with your original candidate.

3) Context. Largely ignored by most individuals in political science who practice rational choice (which is what I have been using by the way). The contextual situation can lead to a change in costs and benefits received by the individual voter. For example, voter one who cares about terrorism at election A, loses her job before election B. Now the issue of the economy has a major impact on this particular voter, so the issue of terrorism gets pushed down and supplanted with the economy. Also, voters preferences can be weakened or strengthened by the changing context.

Stop with the broad sweeping statements! While many here have obviously decided that the removal of Bush is the top of their preference order, that may not be the same for others, who may be concerned with the control special interests have in our government and see no difference between the two parties...in fact, what happened to the Kucinich, Clark and Dean campaign may have only reinforced their beliefs about what the party stands for....

I would also point out, that given the circumstances I laid out above, that Nader will have an almost non-existent impact on this election because of the way voters decide. Historically, those who have run in successful elections have always experienced a dramatic drop off in results the following Presidential election....Nader received 2% in the last election...he'll get even less this time.

Those who will vote with Nader 1)may not have been Dems to begin with ---> therefore they are not traitors to a party they do not belong to and 2) may not have voted for the Dem candidate, or at all any way --> so your assumption that with Nader in the race, that is a vote that would have gone to the Dems is not valid....it is more likely they would still vote third Party (no matter when the election is) or not voted at all....

We should really stop the hysteria about Nader....after all, the votes of the left don't belong to the Democratic Party....we should go out and earn them...not expect them! Those who are going into the general election expecting to not have to work for the voters votes are in for a rude surprise and need to snap out of it....this election is going to be hard work...no matter who is running!!!!!

[mgc1961]

1. Well said.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Nazgul, the voice of reason

So glad to hear you say it. I know other sage voices on the forum have said about the same thing, but they keep getting swept away by the flood of panicked folks that Ralph Nader is still alive and kicking and that there are more than two parties functioning in the U.S. of A.

Can't wait til we get some major election reform around here so we can lay this crap to rest, vote some tremendous no-strings-attached progressives into office at every level, and get some amazing policies created!

~Jen *still clinging to the hope of a better America and a better World*

[mmonk]

3. Part of trying to persuade voters

may be to point out certain cause and effect realities (whereby X is indeed equal to Y).

[RandomKoolzip]

4. Well said, Nazgul....

And I'm one of the rabid ABB types haranguing people for defecting the party!

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone with my rudeness in that regard. I let my emotions get the better of me sometimes, especially when it's something as important as getting Bush out of the White House. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Yep, $hrub out is priority numero uno

After, that, though, I'd love to tackle the election reform issue.

The sooner we can get good progressives (no matter from what party) into office, the sooner we can look forward to having better policies. But our best chance of doing that is switching to multiple parties, so that if the dems want to run a centrist they can, but a viable progressive is still available to voters on the ballot should they want to vote for one.

[ShimokitaJer]

6. Wonderful post!

I don't expect it to calm the mass hysteria, calls for purges, etc. that has captured DU the last few days, but unlike most of the posts I read on the topic, at least it can't hurt.

[Iverson]

7. too sensible

By failing to denounce Nader, you are outside the boundaries of acceptable liberalism.