tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3411243160477709698..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Choosing the lesser of two evilsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64418401353211407942008-09-04T09:46:00.000-04:002008-09-04T09:46:00.000-04:00Well then Richard, I hope you won't be wasting you...Well then Richard, I hope you won't be wasting your time or money complaining about the president that gets elected, since you won't be participating in the process.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01032066012408785861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56998698783402419272008-09-04T01:42:00.000-04:002008-09-04T01:42:00.000-04:00I will not be wasting my time and money voting for...I will not be wasting my time and money voting for another president.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05487275400147595502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90724216821073109712008-09-03T14:30:00.000-04:002008-09-03T14:30:00.000-04:00Voting for an obvious loser can sometime be a usef...Voting for an obvious loser can sometime be a useful protest vote to send a message to the party. A way of telling the party establishment that it can’t take your vote for granted.<BR/><BR/>This is useful if the party can’t win without your vote (i.e. the vote of a particular voting block, like the religious right).<BR/><BR/>However, if you have a pattern of casting protest votes, then you never get a candidate who advances any aspect of your political agenda. <BR/><BR/>Sometimes a strategic loss is better than a win, if the win is too costly in terms of the amount of compromise involved. But if you get into the habit of always voting for losing candidates because the electable candidates lack the requisite ideological purity, then it becomes throwaway vote. <BR/><BR/>To take a concrete case, I think Rudy had the right temperament to be a good wartime president. And he’d probably be pretty good for business.<BR/><BR/>But he was a militant, across-the-board social liberal. As such, I could never vote for him. Had he been the nominee, I would be sitting out the election. His priorities are too out of step with my priorities. <BR/><BR/>I’ve also touched on some of these issues at a more general level here:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/sifting-field.html<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/art-of-christian-compromise.htmlstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53033451841133972802008-09-03T13:10:00.000-04:002008-09-03T13:10:00.000-04:00Steve,Perfect timing. I am writing a paper for my ...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Perfect timing. I am writing a paper for my "English" class about this. I agree with you in principle, but I currently don't plan on voting for McCain. I was wondering if you will elaborate on your limits to compromise in the context of a presidential election. What would be a scenario in which you would vote for someone who has no chance of winning or in which you would not vote at all?wefellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11886450355145637429noreply@blogger.com