Tags: Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, Green Party, Hillary Clinton, Jill Stein, Libertarian Party, Presidential election, Ralph Nader, spoiler
How can you best fight against Trump?
How can you best protect
- the country,
- freedom of speech,
- political freedom here and world-wide,
- innocent persons,
- human fairness,
- the US Treasury,
- the human world,
- and the natural world,
against the damage that each of those would suffer if Mussolini-like Trump became President?
Some of the voters who are revolted by Trump are planning to vote against Trump without voting for Hillary.
They are planning to vote against Trump by voting for the Green candidate, or are planning to vote for the Libertarian candidate.
But a vote for anyone other than Hillary is only half a vote against Trump.
Here is why.
Although voting for one of the spoiler candidates doesn’t increase Trump’s tally, it also doesn’t increase his opponent’s tally. It has zero effect on the comparison of their two tallys, which is the comparison that will determine who becomes President.
A vote for Hillary doesn’t increase Trump’s tally by 1, but also does increase Hillary’s tally by 1.
That increases the difference between Hillary’s tally and Trump’s tally by 2 units.
That is two blows against Trump.
A vote for the Green or for the Libertarian candidate doesn’t increase Trump’s tally by 1, but that is only half the effect on the difference between Hillary’s tally and Trump’s tally that would be produced by a vote for Hillary.
Remember what happened when Ralph Nader acted (unintentionally) as a spoiler against Gore.
How did that turn out?
If you want to comment on this post, or if you want to see the comments by others, click here.
Tags: Green Party, Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, Roseanne Barr
Jill Stein and Roseanne Barr are the Green Party’s candidates for President and Vice President.
Since they cannot win, they can serve only as spoilers.
As Ralph Nader showed in 2000 and 2004, in a close election the small number of votes siphoned off by the Green Party is quite sufficient to make the Republican Party victorious.
In election after election, the Green Party has caused the defeat of the party whose aims are closest to it, and has helped the party whose aims are most antithetical to it.
It did so because its candidates – and its voters – want to make a statement. Making a statement is more important to the Greens than affecting policy. In fact, to the Greens, making a statement outweighs the ultimately negative effect on policy of their vote-siphoning.
So what if the result is to delay action on climate change, making the eventual problem much more difficult. So what if the result is greater economic inequality. Making a statement is the Green way.
To the Green Party, self indulgence is more important than effectiveness. Incremental progress be damned. Having no progress is better than incremental progress. After all, if as a result the situation becomes dire enough, the public will have no recourse but to turn to the Greens. After all, that was what the Communists in Germany thought while they were competing with the Nazis in the late 1920s and early 1930s. (Come to think of it, that didn’t turn out so well.)
The Green Party must be Karl Rove’s favorite non-Republican Party. After all, look how it helped in 2000 and 2004. To Rove, the Greens are “useful idiots”.
If the Green Party really wanted to advance the policies it espouses, it would put forward no candidates of its own in contests where it cannot win. Instead it would do everything in its power to increase the vote for the Democrats.