I agree with David that the question "How bad is too bad?" can be difficult. In 2000 my lesser evil was Harry Browne (I'm a very soft-core Libertarian, hence I call Browne the lesser evil rather than the greater good, but I digress), but I thought Gore was better than Bush. The question of whether Gore is still OK would be tough.
If I phrase the question in terms of regret, I can ask which I would regret more: Bush winning instead of Gore, or Gore winning instead of Browne. Because I consider Bush and Gore to be largely the same on many issues, the regret in the first case would be greater than the regret in the second case, so I'd only vote for Browne. On the other hand, in a race between John McCain, Jesse Ventura, and Al Gore, I see a large gap between Gore (3rd choice) and McCain (2nd choice), but a somewhat smaller gap between McCain and Ventura (1st choice). Hence I'd vote for both McCain and Ventura, assuming it was a tight 3-way race. On the topic of Approval and "Centrist Weasels": One nice thing about Approval is that a centrist who decided to take firm stands on issues, but side with the Dems on some issues and the GOP on others (e.g. fiscally conservative/socially liberal, or fiscally liberal/socially conservative) would do quite well. His supporters might cast "cross-over votes" for the Dem or Republican, but they would likely divide more or less evenly. On the other hand, any Dem or Republican who cast a cross-over vote would likely vote for the independent. The reason I call that a nice thing is NOT my own bias toward fiscally conservative/socially liberal candidates. The nice thing I see is the chance to (a) mix-and-match issues, resulting in more freedom of choice, and (b) break away from the left-right spectrum. If most candidates conform to one of two molds, it's easy to get polarization and acrimony. You get Senators reflexively rejecting people nominated by the president based largely on party affiliation. You get those cable news channels where they bring in a liberal and conservative to shout at one another on any given issue. You get lowest-common-denominator policy rather than best-of-both-worlds policy. It's likely that the guy appearing on Fox News tonight to yell in favor of gun control will appear on MSNBC tomorrow to yell against oil drilling in Alaska. Nothing wrong with either position, but the predictability and polarization is bothersome. If I can predict most people's stance on a tax proposal based on what they think of abortion, it signals that there's really very little discussion or thought in America, because the lines have been drawn. A system that helped candidates who mix-and-match issues from the two traditional camps might bring in truly new and innovative ideas. I truly believe that America would be a better place if we could just break the duopoly and bring in fresh new ideas, or at least innovative combinations of old ideas. Alex
