Replies

In states where Bush could be expected to do very well (>55% of the vote), voters wishing to put a shot across his bows could vote third-party with a clear conscience, a) to keep the state more competitive and b) to build third-party politics for the future. Those wanting to make it more competitive in this way would be voting strategically......something Karl Rove certainly couldn't complain about, as a strategist himself.

Well, the experience with Buchanan getting the Reform Party's nomination and funding and ballot access in 2000 weren't exactly encouraging. Sarcasm simply fails to describe it, virtually from beginning to end.

Ever seen how weird and scary the Libertarian Party conventions are on CSPAN? Yeow. And I'm not easily scared off by a little oddness but that's like the ward of a mental institution.

Well, that doesn't mean it will be forever a bad idea. But America historically tolerates only two parties. So one of the others has to die off first. I don't see we're at such a political juncture.

Naturally, as I've said on thousands of other occasions, your vote is your own. But in every election Rove and other strategists calculate a certain number of I'll-punish-'em voters and the return of chagrined ex-I'll-punish-'em voters and the possibility that within a particular state that a third party may, due to close competition between the Big Two, be decisive. Or that a state/local ballot issue might draw out voters that would skew historical results in that state.

Well, it's a numbers game. For every person who decides to punish Bush by voting third-party, some others will 'punish' him by voting Dim, others yet will 'punish' him by staying home.

The better question is: how many GOP voters will 'punish' their party in a given election as compared to the number of Dim voters who will punish their party in that election, as Green voters did in 2000 and as Deaniacs might in '04?

If the numbers of malcontents in both parties look essentially similar, they have simply marched into obscurity as far as the presidency is concerned. Their far greater impact will be not taking part in electing state/local candidates that they might agree with.

The better question is: how many GOP voters will 'punish' their party in a given election as compared to the number of Dim voters who will punish their party in that election, as Green voters did in 2000 and as Deaniacs might in '04?

I understand your preoccupation with the numbers aspect of it, and yes, that's where the strategists will look, because that is what their problem is, to get to majority.

But the voters have a completely different problem, and that's what I was addressing. The voters' problem is accountability to the public within the Party, for following the Party line. Representative George Nethercutt, for example, broke his promise that he made under the Contract with America to term-limit himself, back when he so laudably upset Tom Foley. The voters should have had a chance to retire him (via the primary) without voting in a 'Rat. England does this regularly with votes of confidence.

The key here is that by refusing to stage primaries regularly, the Parties get away with murder when they flout their own platforms or support bad or incorrigible candidates like Wilbur Mills, Phil Crane, Barney Frank and Slick Willie.