I'm retiring from voting systems again, which is why I haven't posted to or checked the EM mailing list lately.
A columnist suggested a solution to the current lesser-of-2-evils problem that's usable immediately, without a new voting system:
He said that Nader could designate, as his electors, the same people who are Kerry's electors, instructing them to vote for Kerry. In that way, the votes for Nader would count for Kerry. No more spoiler problem. And, with that assurance, Nader would get more votes than he ever has. He'd get a number of votes that would show his actual 1st choice support, which is surely many time the 3% that he previously got.
Considering the big meeting places that are always filled up when Nader comes to town, and considering the overflow crowds at the Michael Moore movie, Fahrenheit 911, there's no way that the boring and sleazy Kerry could be as popular as Nader.
One Nader leafletter told me that he heard that that same-electors solution is illegal. I hope that he's mistaken. I suppose that it could lead to a dispute about which candidate was elected. It seems to me that it was said that, in principle, an elector can vote for whatever candidate s/he chooses, regardless of whose elector s/he is. That being so, one wouldn't expect a constitutional problem if an elector has been designated by 2 candidates and got votes from both of their voters. Especially if that elector has been explicitly instucted by Nader to vote for Kerry.
It's understandable that the Republocrats would very much like for that arrangement to be illegal, because the last thing they want is something that would reveal to the public what the other members of the public want. We're supposed to believe that only whatever sleaze the Democrats nominate is a viable and serious candidate. Anything that would reveal otherwise is something that Republocrat politicians and their financial owners would obviously want to forbid.
So there's sure to be an argument that that same-electors arrangement is illegal. If so, then the wording of the Consititution should be checked out. Maybe it says that a candidate can designate any electors s/he wants to.
People should suggest to Nader that he designate Kerry's electors.
Another thing: If Nader doesn't do that, or if it is successfully forbidden, then it would be good for progressives to come to this agreement: This time, this time only, because it's a national emergency, all the progressives, including the Nader preferrers, vote for Kerry. But then, whenever the Republican is an ordinary non-Bush-like Republican, all the progressives, including the ones who have alwalys voted Democrat, will vote for Nader, Camejo, or someone like that. They'll vote for the best candidate, sincerely, without lesser-of-2-evils giveaway strategy. That would be the deal. I suggest that there should be such a deal among the progressives: This time we all vote for Kerry, and when this emergency is over we all vote sincerely for the best candidate, Nader, Kerry, etc.
But only if there's that agreement. What Nader preferrers are tired of is the way that progressives do the same pre-emptive surrender _every time_, as a matter of course, calling it "pragmatic". Every year they say "This is no time to vote sincerely!". Can you understand how Nader-preferrers get tired of hearing that every time?
These lesser-of-2-evils giveaway voters call that strategic voting. But strategic voting requires information. We have no information to inform or justify strategic voting! And progressives, and all nonrepublicans obediently follow the tv commentators, like a herd, and talk about how we've got to vote pragmatically.
Understandably the sincere-voting Nader-preferrers are tired of that unconditional obedience of the giveaway voters.
Do you see the humor in Democrats' claim that Nader and his voters are taking victory away from Kerry? If Kerry loses, it will be because no one is inspired to vote for dishonest, boring, sleazy Kerry. It won't be because a spoiler took away 3%. If Kerry would become honest and have policies that are different from those of Bush, then more people would vote for him. Kerry can't blame Nader for the fact that people (Nader voters and nonvoters) are too disgusted with Kerry to vote for him.
Of course Kerry isn't going to become honest. Don't you get tired of hearing progressives say "Kerry has got to make himself more interesting, and delineate policies that really distinguish him from Bush."?
Sure, if he did that, he'd draw more people to the polls, and would win as a genuine, worthwhile progeressive candidate. But of course Kerry would never do that. He'll remain the boring, dishonest candidate that he is, the one that his contributors want, even if that means that he doesn't get enough votes to win. And then of course he and other Democrats will blame Nader, for giving people an honest candidate, taking votes away from the media-anointed sleaze.
How funny for a dishonest candidate, for whom no one wants to vote, to criticize an honest candidate for taking away his votes.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
