[EM] Re: Election-methods digest, Vol 1 #724 - 3 msgs

[Alex Small]

> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 19:10:39 -0400
> Subject: Re: [EM] voting methods praxis, value of spoilers
> To: Bart Ingles <bartman at netgate.net>,
>         election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com
> From: "James Green-Armytage" <jarmyta at antioch-college.edu>
>
> Bart Ingles wrote:
>>How do you know that this isn't what happened?  Except that perhaps
>> Nader and Gore couldn't agree on what constituted a 'reasonable
>>concession', or maybe that the Democrats didn't take Nader seriously
>> enough.  If the latter, I doubt that they will repeat the mistake.
>> :-)
>
> I reply:
> 	From what Kerry has said, and what Nader has said, I think that Kerry
> didn't even ask Nader to drop out of the race (or to endorse Kerry), and
> Nader didn't offer to do so under any conditions.
> 	Of course I'm not completely sure about this, but the point of my
> proposal for third party carrot-and-stick strategy is that the third
> party candidate (Nader in this case) calls as much attention as possible
> to the fact that he is offering to withdraw given a particular set of
> concessions, which he would also publicize as widely as possible. That
> is, the point isn't to make some sort of back room deal. The point is to
> make the deal public and transparent.


In another forum I've suggested a similar idea for libertarian candidates.
 The advantage that libertarians have is that they have some overlap with
both liberals and conservatives.  A libertarian candidate could put forth
a list of reforms and offer to drop out and endorse whichever candidate
supports these reforms.  Or maybe make it an endorsement of whoever
supports 4 out of 5 reforms.  Whatever.  The details can be sorted out by
the individual candidates implementing this strategy.

What's nice for libertarians is that they can put forward a list of
reforms that might appeal to liberals as well as conservatives.  A
libertarian candidate might put forth the following list of reforms:

1)  Repeal selected gun control laws (appeals to conservatives)
2)  Decriminalize the sale and possession of small quantities of marijuana
(appeals to liberals)
3)  Cut the income tax across the board (appeals to conservatives)
4)  Repeal the Patriot Act (appeals to liberals as well as certain
privacy-oriented conservatives)
5)  End farm subsidies (appeals to fiscal conservatives, urban voters, and
certain liberals who blame farm subsidies for exacerbating obesity
problems)

Or maybe some other list.  And obviously the issues would be different for
state office.  But the point is that there are ways for libertarian
candidates to put together a list of reforms that could potentially appeal
to liberals AND conservatives.  And by putting forward this proposal in a
close race a Libertarian candidate would achieve several things:

1)  In a close race, an offer to swing a few percentage points would
undoubledly get some media coverage.
2)  If a major party candidate endorsed the reforms and followed through
once in office, the LP would have a way to implement parts of its agenda.
3)  If a major party candidate endorsed the reforms and reneged once in
office, or if no major party candidate endorsed these reforms, the LP
would have a powerful argument the next time somebody says to Libertarians
"Oh, you HAVE TO support the Republicans because they're the good guys." 
Libertarians can simply point out that a Republican was given a golden
opportunity to get a lot of votes while implementing fairly modest
reforms, and failed to act on it.
4)  If the spoiler effect gets more publicity that might get a few more
people interested in alternative election methods.

Anyway, I think there are a lot of things that third-party candidates can
do with the spoiler effect.



Alex Small