Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (4153)	9/19/2000 12:23:29 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

"If you want a "feel good" vote," Nope, I want to vote for the candidate that best expresses my views on how the gov't should be run. Voting my principles is what causes the good feeling. "The math of a vote for a third party is simple -- it takes away a vote for either of the two people with a chance to win" And the bad news is that one of them will be elected in November. If I wanted to vote for a pandering big gov't demagogue I would most certainly vote for Gore. He definitely panders to the handouts I want, and the gov't granted 'rights' I prefer. There will never be a reason to vote Libertarian based on your arguments, because every election is 'critical' and there will always be one or the other of the big two that will eff it up. But the fact is that the current Libertarian base can't possibly do enough to change the results one way or the other. You are worried that Libertarian votes will detract from Bush, I submit that isn't true. Even if it were, it will be likely that Nader will take as many if not more votes away from Gore. I will vote for instead of against. Waste your vote if you will. Regards, Barb

To: Jim S who wrote (4153)	9/19/2000 1:21:22 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

Jim - [...The math of a vote for a third party is simple -- it takes away a vote for either of the two people with a chance to win, and multiplies the effectiveness of the smaller number of votes going to Bush or Gore. Thus, a smaller number of people will decide who will win the election...] Your statements could make sense as a public recommendation by an widely influential media personality, but still wouldn't make sense for you personally. The ONLY way that YOUR Libertarian vote can ELECT Gore is for your state to be exactly tied without your vote AND for your state to hold the balance of power in the Electoral College. This has to be orders of magnitude less probable than Clinton canceling the election altogether by whatever means, if he can't find a way to steal it again. In fact, the probability of Browne actually winning is far greater than the probability of your vote electing Gore. Your failure to vote Libertarian is not cost free either. If you can elect Gore, then you also can prevent the Libertarian Party from maintaining major party status in your state by falling under a vote count threshold. Regards, Don