| | Ted and John -- I hear your arguments. I understand your arguments. I don't totally agree with all your arguments, though you've said some things that make sense. I'll try again to explain my POV, and see if we can all get talking about the same thing:
Because we have an electoral college system, some individual votes count in a presidential election. Some votes don't count at all. Of the ones that count, some have a tiny chance of deciding the election, and some have an incredibly miniscule chance, verging on but not quite reaching zero percent. Voting costs money, opportunity costs, etc. There are various rewards that might accrue to a voter, from the chance of being the deciding vote, to influencing future policy by sending signals to politicians, etc. If you choose to be both rational and non-altruistic, it helps to be clear about the consequences of the above, and weigh whether or not it is in your self-interest to vote, and if so who to vote for.
As for whether CT is a swing state or not this election, this should become much clearer before John casts his vote. If the 3% poll reflects reality, then further polling will also reflect that, and we'll start seeing both McCain and Obama tromping around CT and running attack ads there and generally behaving the way they did in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio and Florida in 2004. Because the people running these campaigns are going to have a pretty good idea which states are in play as the election nears, due to internal polling and whatnot.
If the polls from here on out revert to the mean and consistently show Obama up 10%+ from here on out, and CT isn't visited by the candidates and little or no advertising is run there, then it is a fair bet that CT really isn't in play and the 3% poll was a statistical anomaly.
Anything remotely controversial about the above so far? If not, read on.
My individual vote is one of the ones that will not decide the election. I live in a state that will absolutely go for Obama. So, my reason for voting is to influence policy by sending a signal to politicians that if they want my vote in future elections, they better pay at least some attention to libertarian / Objectivist concerns. That value to me is worth more than the total costs of perhaps $10 it costs me to vote (time spent voting, commuting costs to the polls, etc.) Thus, I am voting for Bob Barr because he is the best available candidate, the one that most closely reflects my political philosophy. Voting for McCain would be foolish based on the values I hold, because I would be voting for an inferior candidate who also has no chance of winning the electoral college votes for Hawaii. Voting for Obama would be even more foolish, because he is the worst of the three candidates based on the values I hold, though only slightly worse than McCain.
It is more complicated for John, because he lives in a state where, while it appears unlikely to me right now, it is still possible for the state to go to McCain, or at least force Obama to spend time and resources shoring up his support there. Now, if John thinks that McCain is the best possible person on the ballot to be president based on the values he holds, then it's simple. He should vote for McCain, no question.
And if subsequent events show CT is a swing state, then voting for McCain is also the right thing for John to do.
But, if John feels that Bob Barr would make a better president, but he plans on voting for McCain because Bob Barr can't win, and subsequent events indicate CT isn't a swing state, then perhaps it would be constructive for us to talk about this more, because in that case one of us is wrong, and if it is me, I'd like understand where my logic is faulty so I can quit holding mistaken ideas.
Of course, you may be tired of this discussion, in which case we're also done here.
Ciao!
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 6/25, 11:35pm)
|
|
