Comments on: Erik Paulsen the Frontrunner

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 01:51:52 +0000

I understand instant runoff voting. I just think its crap.

By: John S

John S — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:15:45 +0000

Top-notch people tend to have edges - the stand they took which might not have been A-grade with the party base, but which turned out to be right. Personally, my fear of third party candidates are that they are based on people using ‘my way, my way, my way or the highway’ ethos for selecting candidates to vote for. I’d rather not have to nominate BlandMan for the sake of keeping people who profess to want to see left of center policy made, but are willing to (effectively) vote for people who will make right of center policy because a candidate doesn’t agree with them down to the bottom. (think Florida Green Party for a great example of this.)

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:14:04 +0000

Dan, it’s not an either/or proposition. In fact, third party candidates, both left and right, would’ve benefit from instant runoff voting. By giving people a choice for first, second, and third candidates, let’s people vote their conscience and insures a majority candidate wins.

By: Blogger

Blogger — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:46:13 +0000

I felt Peter Hutchinson brought a legitimate 3rd party presence to the race. The issue, as mentioned above, isn’t why people voted for Peter Hutchinson. To many, he was the best candidate. The better question for Dems is why they couldn’t field someone less polarizing than Mike Hatch.

The best way to prevent a 3rd-party guy from stealing your votes is to put forth a top-notch person yourself.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:26:09 +0000

I would rather vote for Peter Hutchinson than have instant runoff voting.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:44:18 +0000

The only answer for all of the above is instant runoff voting for all local, state, and national races.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:40:19 +0000

“You will give up your support of the person who best represents you in order to back a candidate that can win. The problem with that of course is it destroys the basis on which democracy can be effective.”

It destroys the basis on which democracy can be effective? That’s absurd. If anything, voting for an optimal choice that can’t win makes my vote ineffective. Instead, I have made a choice between getting some of what I want and getting none of what I want.

Your vote for Hutchinson just demostrates that you got played for a chump. Hutchinson’s public career prior to this race has been marked by fraud and corruption. What’s the lesson? Nominate a lying sleazebag? Hutchinson was slightly to the left of Hatch, but basically had the same platform. But all he accomplished was to elect someone with positions far to the right of both of them. What was the point?

KH, if you were going to vote for Pawlenty over Hatch in a two way race, none of this really matters. Your vote for Hutchinson accomplished what you wanted. If you want me to admit that Hatch was a shitty candidate, I will. Hatch was a shitty candidate. We should have nominated someone else. But that really has nothing to do with the pointlessness of voting for a third-party candidate.

By: Kerosene Hat

Kerosene Hat — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:17:54 +0000

So there it is. You will give up your support of the person who best represents you in order to back a candidate that can win. The problem with that of course is it destroys the basis on which democracy can be effective. My vote for Hutchinson should get both Republicans and Democrats to respect the rational point of view he advocated so they can hope to acquire some of those same voters during the next election. In this case Democrats would be more likely to do so since they were the ones who lost and losing elections is the only real motivation Democrats understand. Berating the candidates and their supporters because voting their beliefs causes your candidate to lose is egotistical and naive. Yes, Bush and Pawlenty got elected because voters chose to support other candidates. If that makes you mad blame the abilities and philosophies of your own party and not others for exercising their constitutional rights. If you did that maybe your party would rise out of the gutter enough to deserve a little more support and you would seem less like a Democratic footsoldier helping to make the minority the scapegoat.

By: Blogger

Blogger — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:30:37 +0000

Ron Erhardt?

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:25:52 +0000

If the problem is that only well-known and well-financed candidates are contenders for the presidency, I don’t think that has anything to do with what the Democrats do or don’t do. It costs a lot of money and takes a lot of exposure to get elected president. While Clinton does have built in advantages, five years ago Edwards and Obama were unknowns. They made themselves known and got V.P. and speaking positions as a result. It wasn’t simply handed to them. If your complaint is that only rich and connected people are contenders for the presidency, I can’t help you.

The idea that people only support winners (I actually have supported numerous primary losers, like John Edwards in 2004) is more a function of human psychology than Democratic zealotry. It also may be a function of rational decision making. Lets say there are three candidates for the Democratic nomination - one I really like, one who is ok, and one I can’t stand. If the one I really like is polling at 1 percent, and the one who is ok is in striking distance of the one I can’t stand, my interests are better served by supporting the one who is just ok. Maybe the one with one percent has a lot of supporters who think the same way and that is why he or she is at 1 percent. But that isn’t anyone’s fault - that is how people think.