RoR: Forum

more on polls -

Does Obama Really Have a Big Lead? Fineman, Newsweek

...Instead, it was left to the McCain campaign to question the Times/Bloomberg poll in a study by its polling firm. Using dry, methodological language, the campaign made one central point, that the survey had had too many Democrats in it and too few Republicans: 39 percent Democrats and only 22 percent Republicans. No other recent poll had found that large a gap in a random survey of adults. (The Newsweek poll had a similarly large gap.)

Post 41

Friday, June 27, 2008 - 10:47am

"For readers and voters, says Hugick, the best way to judge the flow of polls is to look at them all. There are websites, such as RealClearPolitics.com, that constantly compile an average of all credible surveys. According to that average, Obama is ahead by 6.7 percentage points. Which means that, if we're still "outliers," so are the folks at Gallup."

If you cherry-pick just one poll, you can wind up with confirmation bias. That's why the RCP poll, while still unreliable, especially this early in the contest while most people still aren't paying attention to politics, is still less untrustworthy than any individual poll.

And let's not forget the seemingly insurmountable leads that Clinton and Giuliani held just prior to actual votes being cast.

Post 42

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 12:50am

There are so many things I don't like about voting.

Some people say it's a duty - Yeah, like those poor suckers lined up at gun-point to vote for Mugabe! Others say it is a privilege � More nonsense, most of us at this forum know that government isn't GIVING us anything. It is a right, but only in the unimportant, legalistic sense of the word - i.e., an administratively defined civil right. There is certainly no fundamental moral right to poke holes in ballots.

Voting usually feels competitive - we feel the urge to act for the purpose of making some pragmatic difference, of beating out the bad guys... No, that's not a bad thing, unless wanting to see our personal vote make a difference starts to matter more than what kind of difference. The kind of difference that matters lies in the principles and not the person whose name is on this year�s ballot.

In my heart and in my mind - to have any real meaning - voting has to be the most consistent outward expression of my inner political yearnings - without regard for any practical outcome (I can only make my choices - others will have to make theirs).

When I look at it hard, I see that wanting to vote my principles AND make a difference AND stop the lesser of two evils becomes a case of trying to eat my cake and have it too.

And then come these endless arguments about how much one vote counts. Is anyone really, deeply, feeling THAT is an argument of great worth?

Here is my two cents (and I don't think its worth much more than that):

1) When someone says, "You are throwing your vote away...." they are divorcing practice and principle. I always vote the candidate that most closely represents my principles. Sure, given my principles, it has always been, and most likely always will be (during my remaining life) a vote for someone who will lose. But how does that justify voting for someone who fails to represent your principles? If we all vote for the non-libertarian because he hasn't a chance, then how in Hell will a Libertarian candidate EVER get a chance.

2) Someone is always trying to explain that I must vote for the lesser of the two evils. But that just ensures we will indeed get one of those evils. And over time, as a policy, that will likely lead to evils of ever greater dimension Gee, that's kind of where we are now, isn't it?

Post 43

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 3:02am

Good points, Steve W. I agree.

And it's great to see you posting here again!

Ed

Post 44

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 4:36pm

Indeed...welcome back, Steve!

Post 45

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 5:21pm

Actually no one accused anyone of "throwing away your vote". I don't know why that phrase keeps getting thrown at me when I never said it.

Someone is always trying to explain that I must vote for the lesser of the two evils. But that just ensures we will indeed get one of those evils. And over time, as a policy, that will likely lead to evils of ever greater dimension Gee, that's kind of where we are now, isn't it?

Is that true?

What about the founding of this Republic and the compromise between the Northern and Southern states over slavery? It kept this Republic united against the British superpower where otherwise there would have never been an independent America with the freedoms we enjoy today.

I don't think compromise is intrinsically always going to lead to the most evil outcome nor always lead to an optimally good outcome. Nor do I think compromise should be used in every situation. It obviously depends on the context. A lot of history is replete with compromises resulting in salient steps towards freedom and a lot of compromises that resulted in disaster. The entire history of England was one giant long list of compromises towards a more free society. I think boiling this down into catch phrases can certainly make people feel good about their moral position in life, but I'm more concerned with salient actions, not catch phrases.

And the fact is Libertarians don't get elected not because of the attitude I have that I would rather not vote for the candidate that will lose overwhelmingly, Libertarians don't get elected because an overwhelming majority of Americans don't like their policies. I get no solace in "voting for my principles" while the liberal candidate is elected and I see my country's economy and security be ruined. What kind of principle is that? Certainly not a coherent one.

Post 46

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 6:23pm

2) Someone is always trying to explain that I must vote for the lesser of the two evils. But that just ensures we will indeed get one of those evils. And over time, as a policy, that will likely lead to evils of ever greater dimension Gee, that's kind of where we are now, isn't it?

I question the sanity of this position. It is in fact true that very nearly ALL progress toward freedom has been a 'compromise' between the 'lesser of two evils' (which could justly be rephrased as the best of available good)

When the Spartans, a totalitarian society with slavery and conscription, but never the less harboring the ideal of Freedom, fought the Persian empire built wholly on slavery and which did not even posses a word for freedom - holding to an idealistic position without 'compromising' to the lesser of two evils would have led to the enslavement of ancient Greece to the prison camp of the world, and derailed real progress for centuries to come.

Alexander used the most well trained army in the world to spread the foundations of the ideals of freedom to diverse corners of the world, an army built on conscription in a totalitarian monarchy but yet still harboring the notions that all people are equal and freedom is an ideal to be fought for. Opposing Alexander�s conquest would have lead to the empowerment of the mystical slavery empires of Persia and India.

Rome used taxes, conscription, and unjust wars to end barbarous tyrannies which worshiped mysticism and, when they ruled, plunged the world into a thousand years of regression and oppression. Opposing the Roman empire because it was un just in the name of a perfect idealistic free nation which had not possibility of existing would have plunged the world in those dark ages a half millennia earlier and probably made it harder to emerge from that dark age.

Wellington used conscription to defeat the totalitarianism of Napoleon in a conscripted army paid for with taxes. Opposing these would have lead to the victory of Napoleon and the totalitarian enslavement of all of Europe.

Conscription was used in the revolutionary war to found a new land of freedom, a land which would become a harbinger of freedom to the rest of the world for centuries to come. The US would not have existed at all without compromising on the issue of slavery with the South. To have opposed the formation of the US because of slavery and conscription would have had disastrous consequences on the salient progress of freedom in the world.

Lincoln used conscription and taxation to defeat the South, where a territory attempted to succeed from a more free nation to found a less free one, an act which would have cleaved one of the freest nations on earth in two with a blade of slavery. In this great struggle between freedom and slavery, slavery was used in the form of temporary conscription, to defeat a much worse enemy, permanent enslavement and complete conscription, and victory did much to end the stain of slavery in the whole world permanently.

Taxes and conscription in the US were used to defeat the murderous totalitarianism of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union. Without which, we would today be the Soviet Socialist Republic of Amerika, and participating in the Rebirth of Reason forum discussion on freedom would have seen us sent to the gulags of deserts of the south west.

At no time in the history of humanity has a perfect idealistic utopia of free markets and a government restricted only to law enforcement defense, and arbitration even been possible. To yield salient steps of progress toward freedom, in the name of upholding your own ideal, while ignoring the real world consequences of failing to achieving that ideal, succeeds in accomplishing nothing but making you feel good while undermining the very progress you would like to see come about.

I do not refuse to drive to work because it would be on roads built by taxes forcibly taken from other people, I do not refuse to buy corn because it is a heavily subsidized crop, nor do I refuse to buy products from the communist nation of China or Vietnam. These are not 'compromises' they are not bowing to the 'lesser of evil' They are living the best possible life, upholding our highest ideals, in the world available to us here and now.

In any nation founded on representative rule, no politician will perfectly represent all of your ideals, unless you yourself are running, and any vote then for any politician besides yourself is a �compromise� to the lesser of available evils.

A compromise is the abandonment in one's own soul of ones highest value. A compromise is giving up a greater value, for a lesser one. I value freedom as a real, tangible physical relinquishing of restrictions on my actions more than I value feeling good in my own mind of striving for, without ever having the potential of achieving, an imaginary floating abstraction of �perfect� freedom. A value is something which we act to gain or keep, and virtue is the behavior we partake in to acquire or perpetuate those values. Acting in a manner which sabotages the real world potential of acquiring what you value to whatever degree possible, in the name of staying true to ones own ideals in one's own mind absent any possible expression in physical reality of that which you profess to value, is a solipsistic sacrifice of the real world and your life in it to your imaginary world of absolute perfection.

Post 47

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 7:23pm

Michael Dickey -- interested post. Sanctioned it.

I think there is a compromise position available here, that strives to maximize freedom:

Assume you have three candidates available to vote for. One represents only 30% of your political ideology on average. Another represents 50% of your political ideology on average. And one represents 90% of your political ideology.

And only the 30% and 50% candidates have any realistic chance of being elected in this election cycle.

If you live in a swing state, or at least one where it's close enough that the major party candidates will feel compelled to commit time and resources to either nail it down or keep their opponent engaged there, then ignoring the best available candidate and going for the 50% candidate is a sensible compromise, since there is a tiny chance that your vote will decide the election, either directly or by diverting resources from the 30% candidate.

If you live in a state that, realistically, is simply not in play -- its electoral college votes are locked up for one of the major party candidates, no matter what the other major party candidates does -- then your vote will do the most good going to the 90% candidate, thus putting pressure on both major party candidates to notice that there is a significant block of voters out there up for grabs, if they alter their positions on issues to cater to that bloc of voters.

Now, if like me, you see the choices as between a 30% candidate, and a 31% candidate, and a 90% candidate: the only logical choice, even if you live in a swing state, is to go for the 90% candidate.

Which is why I'm voting for Bob Barr.

Post 48

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 8:54pm

Hi, Erica, Hi Ed J - Good to see you guys again. Thanks for the Welcome!

Steve

Post 49

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 10:03pm

Dear Mr. Armaos,

First: I did NOT have you in mind at all when I talked about �throwing away (ones) vote� � I�ve been hearing people say that to me since I voted for John Hospers many years ago. Hence I�ve had a long time to think about this issue.

Second: Regarding your point that compromises don�t necessarily go towards the evil�. I�ll readily admit that I did not make a cogent argument in my message � I just put it out there as a throw-away line. I�ll save any arguments for that conclusion for another time and place (because I do believe it to be more than just a �catch phrase�).

Third: You said, �Libertarians don't get elected because an overwhelming majority of Americans don't like their policies.� Actually, Libertarians don�t get elected because they don�t get the votes. Why they don�t get the votes is a more complex question.

- Many don�t vote Libertarian out of simple ignorance - they don�t know about the party or the principles,

- Many, as you say, disagree with the Libertarian principles,

- Some won't vote Libertarian because they think it's a party of kooks (and we do have some!)

- Many don�t vote Libertarian because they think they are throwing their vote away.

I was just addressing that last point.

If there were no reasonable Libertarian candidate on the ballot, many of your arguments regarding compromise would be valid. But when we have a candidate on the ballot, and if we vote for someone else, our vote becomes a sanction from the victim granted to the winning evil candidate.

And, on practical terms, please remember that I have not been party to putting into office any of those candidates that you rightly point out as damaging to our nation. On practical terms, this is a long war, and it is not about the battles framed around this moment's "issues" but about the underlying principles that government itself is to be judged by. I see it as impractical to not stay focused on and to vote for the best representation of our principles. By voting Libertarian I focus on the long term war of ideas which is the real issue, the real war, the place where real wins and real losses occur.

Steve

Post 50

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 10:23pm

Dear Mr. Dickey,

I�m frequently in disagreement with someone or another � but it�s very rare that they start by questioning the sanity of my position. Are you sure that is how you want to characterize me or my argument?

You may have missed the thrust of my argument. Let me make it again. Choosing between the lesser of two evils when there is a third option (someone far, far less evil � or not evil at all) is not how one supports their principles.

This is a very long war that we are in. I see no indications that it�s likely to be won in the next few elections. Almost anything is possible in politics, but, sadly, this is likely a very long road we are on.

The real battles - the actual war itself - is one of ideas. Without a win in that war, there will never be a lasting victory of any sort. I wish that the Libertarian principles were understood and approved of by more than a tiny minority � but they aren't and that is our current reality. And that is what the real war is about and that should define how we choose to battle.

Voting our principles is at least getting into the right battle � on the right side. For a long time, the Libertarian Party, at best, will only serve to bring our ideas to more people � and only if the party gets enough votes to stay alive.

If people only vote for the candidate that best represents their principles when and if the candidate is high in the polls, and if that approach is the one we should all follow, it makes a kind of poll-driven, social-metaphysician�s approach to candidate selection. If no one will support a candidate because they are unlikely to win, then, ipso facto, they never can win.

Voting ones principles is an issue of integrity and I have never considered THAT to be in conflict with reality � to the contrary, it is the most important of all connections to reality. To fail to vote for a candidate who best fits your political principles is a sacrifice of principle in a mistaken belief that it will bring practical gains. This split between the inner and outer and between principle and practice only guarantees long-term loss in all areas.

Steve

Post 51

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 10:25pm

Steve:

Third: You said, �Libertarians don't get elected because an overwhelming majority of Americans don't like their policies.� Actually, Libertarians don�t get elected because they don�t get the votes. Why they don�t get the votes is a more complex question.

- Many don�t vote Libertarian out of simple ignorance - they don�t know about the party or the principles,

- Many, as you say, disagree with the Libertarian principles,

- Some won't vote Libertarian because they think it's a party of kooks (and we do have some!)

- Many don�t vote Libertarian because they think they are throwing their vote away.

I was just addressing that last point.

Well, obviously the reason why they don't get elected is because they don't get a majority of votes. I thought that was obvious, only stating the reason why they don't get a majority of votes. Although I admit I haven't seen a comprehensive study on why people don't vote Libertarian, I would like to see one. We know right off the bat there's a decent portion of the population that doesn't like Libertarian policies because they are liberals, i.e. Socialists. Then there are independents, and then Republicans, and then the third party advocates. The overwhelming majority of people I've run into my life believe the party is full of kooks, and their ideas are "too extreme". Which I agree on the former, and would add to the latter their views on foreign policy are irrational. Granted this is anecdotal, but I would strongly suspect the overwhelming majority of people don't vote Libertarian because they don't like their ideas. I have a hard time believing that for a few decades now their ideas are still not widely known because so many people are ignorant, as opposed to people hearing a little bit of Libertarian ideals and dismiss them entirely as wacky. I mean either Libertarians have the worst marketers working for them, or it's truly a product of our nation's cultural attitudes towards Libertarian platforms.

Post 52

Monday, June 30, 2008 - 2:01am

John -- time and again I've mentioned to someone that I'm a libertarian, and they say "what's that?" Almost no one knows what that belief system means.

The bottom line is that most kids go through a statist indoctrination camp in public schools, and they are NEVER exposed to a single idea that a really big government is bad for freedom -- because the teachers get paid by that really big government, and its in their interest to churn out good little obedient taxpayers who fall in line with a liberal agenda.

I've been breaking the news about how government actually works to my children, who've attended public schools, and at first I was stunned at the gaps in their knowledge. The public schools they attend never brought up anything remotely related to libertarianism, Objectivism, or limited government, or mentioned the discrepancies between what the Constitution says and how our government actually operates.

So, it's gonna be a long slog trying to get people to even understand there is an alternative, much less think through it and realize the immorality of the altruism they've been told is a force for good.

Voting for a libertarian, while it may seem futile, is a small step in the right direction.

Post 53

Monday, June 30, 2008 - 3:46am

Dear Mr. Henshaw,

I agree with you - ignorance is the greatest obstacle to political freedom. A culture must renew almost all of its parts with every generation - especially it's knowledge and wisdom. Sadly, our educational system is so bad that our base of knowledge (outside of some sciences and technology) is actually diminishing with each generation.

When we write books and articles about Libertarian principles it is a very good thing, but too often we are writing to each other. The same problem exists with most of our Internet forums and with our annual conferences - we preach to the choir and the congregation argues among themselves.

But with the Libertarian Political Party we have a different story. When it grows but a small amount from where it is now, it becomes visible to the whole American populace - and it does so during the very time when they are interested in things political. All of a sudden, sound principles are heard by people who have never been exposed to anything but the Republican or Democrat's stale variations on statism.

I yearn to see the Libertarian candidate draw enough votes to seriously threaten one of the "lesser evils" - Not because playing the 'spoiler' as such is of value, but because that is the first step in the population taking a serious look at what we believe in. Until that step is reached - and held for a while - we aren't likely to move beyond - to real competition for the elected positions. But, as I've said before, getting this or that person elected isn't in the same league of importance as the winning war of ideas.

The war to win real and lasting freedom requires an educated populace. Nothing would be as important as freeing the educational institutions, but in the context of this thread, voting our principles and supporting the Libertarian Party should not be taken lightly, seen as futile, or dismissed as too small a step.

Steve

Post 54

Monday, June 30, 2008 - 5:20am

My US News & World Report issue came in April, with the cover story: The Return of Big Government.

On the cover, Obama, Clinton, and McCain all had these coy smiles -- like shysters who knew that they were all vying for central control of a nearly limitless largesse; as if the public in America is a clueless mass of producing machines.

It made me sick. It would make Rand sick, too. It would make Jim and Steve sick, but I'm not so sure about John and Michael -- who might consider themselves "realists."

Ed

Post 55

Monday, June 30, 2008 - 8:44am

It made me sick. It would make Rand sick, too. It would make Jim and Steve sick, but I'm not so sure about John and Michael -- who might consider themselves "realists."

Reading this made me sick. I think it made Mike sick too. But I'm not so sure about Ed - who might consider himself self-righteous in his pious condemnation.

Ok are we done with the recess taunts? Are you going to beat me up and take my milk money now?

John -- time and again I've mentioned to someone that I'm a libertarian, and they say "what's that?" Almost no one knows what that belief system means.

Would that be a registered or unregistered voter? And after having been told they are a registered voter did you give them a little taste of Libertarian platforms? What is the general reaction you get? And why did Ron Paul, the most libertarian candidate in the Republican primary, get trounced in those elections?

Post 56

Monday, June 30, 2008 - 9:11am

Steve and Jim, not to mention that it is an ordeal for the LP to even get on the ballot in many states.

Post 57

Monday, June 30, 2008 - 10:41am

Jim Henshaw wrote:

I think there is a compromise position available here, that strives to maximize freedom:

I believe, just as in foreign policy, that one must always deal that best blow one can against one's enemies with the resources and opportunities available. In this case, one must always do the most one can at any time to objectively advance the cause of freedom to the greatest degree within their available opportunities and resources.

then ignoring the best available candidate and going for the 50% candidate is a sensible compromise [emphasis added]

The concept of 'best available candidate', if bound by the criteria of objective progress in the real world, would automatically lead one to vote for that 'sensible' compromise. How does a candidate who has absolutely no chance of winning constitute the 'best available�? A candidate can be most identical to your values while not being the 'best available' or could be the 'best available' and yet not embrace most of your values. To me, the best available implies something bound by concrete reality, and not just how much they match my ideas in my own mind irrespective of how conducive they are to actually achieving those ideals.

no matter what the other major party candidates does -- then your vote will do the most good going to the 90% candidate, thus putting pressure on both major party candidates to notice that there is a significant block of voters out there up for grabs

Living in the same state as John, I am inclined to vote for the best of available good which has the most chance of making significant progress toward the good. If I did not, and lived in a state whose outcome was pretty much guaranteed, I might vote for the libertarian. But, like John, I despise their foreign policy stance and believe it more dangerous than the domestic civil and economic policies of either liberal socialists or conservatives, so I am not entirely comfortable giving my seal of approval to them.

Obviously there is no absolute answer on who you ought to vote for, it is an individual judgment call each person much make based on what they value and what they perceive to be of worth. I only find it absolutely necessary to note that virtually all progress toward freedom that has been made in the world has been through incremental steps brought about by compromising with the best of available good.

Post 58

Monday, June 30, 2008 - 2:10pm

"Would that be a registered or unregistered voter? And after having been told they are a registered voter did you give them a little taste of Libertarian platforms? What is the general reaction you get? And why did Ron Paul, the most libertarian candidate in the Republican primary, get trounced in those elections?"

John, good questions. I've heard a wide variety of people, both registered and unregistered, admit they don't know what libertarianism is (and far fewer had heard about Objectivism). My wife saw me reading Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" yesterday, and was dismayed that I was reading such a "bad" book pushing such an obviously wrong-headed philosophy. I started to explain what Objectivists mean by "selfishness" and "altruism", and how the former is good and the latter catastrophically bad, but she stared at me like I was talking rubbish. So I changed the subject, squeezed her buttocks, and let it go for another day.

Some people I manage to engage for a bit, and chip away at some of the collectivist notions they've been indoctrinated with. Generally at least some of the Libertarian platform appeals to them -- Democrats like many of the social positions, Republicans like many of the fiscal positions -- so I try to talk about what might resonate. Others give me that look that says they're simply not ready for the talk about the facts of life. The most receptive audiences have been my two oldest children, who ask the sort of questions that allow me to broach the topic by way of answering their questions. But, I don't push it or preach it. Either they're receptive and we have an interesting, engaged conversation, or I let it slide.

Ron Paul got trounced because the vast majority of the populace have been brought up to believe in the virtue of altruism and a large, intrusive government, or even if they have some small-government sympathies, they share your POV about foreign policy, or they were turned off by the racist newsletters or his immigration policy. Hardcore libertarianism just isn't that popular -- yet.

Post 59

Monday, June 30, 2008 - 6:22pm