Assume two candidates, Candidate A and Candidate B, are both running for President of the United States. Both Candidate A and Candidate B possess intelligence that a garden slug would pity. There is one key difference between the two candidates, however.
It is widely agreed by the American populace, the media, and the international community that Candidate A is a complete fool. Candidate A’s stupidity is the subject of constant derision of late night monologues and political cartoons. Nobody truly respects the intellect of Candidate A.
Candidate B, in contrast, though just as much a fool as Candidate A, is widely (and falsely) assumed to be extraordinarily brilliant.
Given these facts, which candidate ultimately poses a greater danger as President? I would argue that Candidate B, the false genius, is the far greater threat than the obvious cretin Candidate A. Why? The public will see the idiocy of candidate A, and consequently not support his idiotic policies. They will follow candidate B like lemmings over a cliff. Better the genuine idiot than the intellectual charlatan.
If both major party candidates are equally abominable, what do you recommend for this voter?
Should I:
1. Not vote at all?
2. Flip a coin?
3. Vote third party?
4. Blindly choose one major party candidate simply because of his party?
There are a number of flaws with the anti-third party argument:
1. About half of eligible citizens do not vote, possibly due to apathy or ignorance, but maybe because both major candidates suck. If half of these non-voters went third party, that would stir things up.
2. It is only the undecided voters in battleground states that decide the President. About 20% of voters are undecided, and only 10 to 15 states are battleground, so do the math and reach the conclusion that most third party votes will do nothing in the winner-take-all system.
3. Third party percentages are too small to affect anything other than neck-and-neck races. Ralph Nader is constantly blamed for causing Gore to lose to Bush in 2000, but the real question is: Why didn't Gore have at least a 10 to 14 point lead on Bush, which would have made Nader and Florida irrelevant? In fact, if Gore had simply not LOST his home state of Tennessee, we wouldn't be talking about Nader.
4. Blind party loyalty sends the message that principle can be fragrantly abandoned without consequence. If both the Democrat and Republican candidates support socialized medicine, unilateral disarmament, banning all guns, major tax hikes, open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, massive corporate bailouts, expansion of eminent domain, caving in to terrorists, etc., should conservatives vote for the Republican just because he supports a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning?
The fact is that no individual or political party is owed the Presidency. Nominate good candidates, and I will vote for that candidate. If you nominate losers, expect to lose.
Should I:
1. Not vote at all?
2. Flip a coin?
3. Vote third party?
4. Blindly choose one major party candidate simply because of his party?
There are a number of flaws with the anti-third party argument:
1. About half of eligible citizens do not vote, possibly due to apathy or ignorance, but maybe because both major candidates suck. If half of these non-voters went third party, that would stir things up.
2. It is only the undecided voters in battleground states that decide the President. About 20% of voters are undecided, and only 10 to 15 states are battleground, so do the math and reach the conclusion that most third party votes will do nothing in the winner-take-all system.
3. Third party percentages are too small to affect anything other than neck-and-neck races. Ralph Nader is constantly blamed for causing Gore to lose to Bush in 2000, but the real question is: Why didn't Gore have at least a 10 to 14 point lead on Bush, which would have made Nader and Florida irrelevant? In fact, if Gore had simply not LOST his home state of Tennessee, we wouldn't be talking about Nader.
4. Blind party loyalty sends the message that principle can be fragrantly abandoned without consequence. If both the Democrat and Republican candidates support socialized medicine, unilateral disarmament, banning all guns, major tax hikes, open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, massive corporate bailouts, expansion of eminent domain, caving in to terrorists, etc., should conservatives vote for the Republican just because he supports a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning?
The fact is that no individual or political party is owed the Presidency. Nominate good candidates, and I will vote for that candidate. If you nominate losers, expect to lose.
