This is the website of Abulsme Noibatno Itramne (also known as Sam Minter). Posts here are rare these days. For current stuff, follow me on Mastodon

Categories

Calendar

July 2025
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Strategic Voting

I was talking to someone (whose name shall remain anonymous) about the whole voting for third parties thing, and although my response is long and rambling (the usual for me) I had fun with it, so I thought I would post it here as well.

I sent the following at January 8, 2004 06:44:53 GMT

On Dec 18, 2003, at 20:57, XXXXXXXXXXX wrote:

In a message dated 12/18/2003 8:35:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, abulsme@abulsme.com writes:

I don’t mind voting for people with little chance of winning, because they still better represent my views than the “major” candidates.  Some people say that is “throwing away your vote”, but they are very wrong.  You do not get bonus points for picking the winner.  The only way to truely throw away your vote is to vote for someone who is not really the candidate you think is best.

I don’t agree. I think the most important thing is to get Bush out of office.

Hmmm… well there is a difference right there. I think the MOST important thing is to ensure the outcome best reflects the popular will, as modified by the basic principles of federalism and republicanism. (As opposed to direct democracy, which is pretty crazy.)

So in other words, even if I think another person is the best, if the plurality of people disagree with me, then I *should* be overruled, and the person I disagree with should win.

And I want the results to reflect the true opinions of the voters (again, modified by federalist and republican [small r, not capital] principles), not those opinions distorted by strategic voting.

But then again, I am someone who every four years gets a bit agitated and upset that the original idea of the electoral college has been horribly distorted for over 200 years now.

The way it is SUPPOSED to work is that each state appoints electors (not necessarily by popular vote) and then those electors meet in the electoral college in early January to pick a president. I can even buy the notion that the electors should be elected by the public. But it should be the way it was intended, where they are not committed to any specific candidate until after they get to the electoral college.

But it has been screwed all up, and people are fooled into believing they are actually directly voting for the president rather than slates of electors as they really are. And the electors can only be elected by slate, and not individually, and states are winner take all, and the lectors are pre-committed to a specific candidate… URGH!!! All messed up!!

But anyway… that’s really an argument of the 1810’s… long ago lost and in the past… so we have to work with the system we have now…

But anyway, lets talk a little more about strategic voting…

He is doing a horrible job and I disagree with him on almost everything.

I’m with you on that part. :-) (Of course, I felt the same way about Clinton before him as well.)

If say, 49% vote for Bush (very unlikely, probably more like 70% but this is an example), 45% vote for Dean, and 6% vote for Kucinich, then Bush remains in office. (I know the election is not based on percents but this is an example!) If the 6% who voted for Kucinich had voted for Dean, Bush would be replaced by Dean. But since they didn’t, Bush would have won. If (for example) you like Kucinich the best, Dean the second best, and Bush the worst, then by voting for Kucinich you are getting the person you don’t like at all. If you vote for Dean, you would get your second choice rather than your first. HA I WIN!

OK. Good arguments. And many many people agree. But lets examine them and look at them with a different twist. And we’ll look for a second as if the popular vote was actually relevant, and then look at how it is given the way presidential elections really work…

Instead of the 49, 45, 6 split you hypothesize, Imagine it was Smith 32%, Dean 34%, Bush 33% and 1% other people. (Where Smith is someone made up, but whose views are COMPLETELY different from both Bush and Dean.) In this case Dean SHOULD be the winner. Although he does not have a majority, more people like him than either Bush or Smith. But… if people vote strategically regularly, then the Smith supporters would start thinking they didn’t have a chance, and would not vote for Smith. Instead some of them might vote for Dean, and some for Bush. Which benefits more would be somewhat determined by which views were closer to Smiths, but not entirely. And some people would vote for Smith anyway. In the end, either Bush or Dean could win, despite the fact Dean SHOULD win, because more people agree with him. But what is for sure is that the end result of the election will show support for Smith MUCH less than it really is, which will in turn hurt the chances of Smith (or those with similar views) in the next election. The views represented by Smith will end up marginalized and ignored, even though he represents 32% of the population!!!!

Now, if we had a true popular vote preferential voting system, where each person not only voted for their top choice, but ranked all their choices, with automated runoffs reassigning votes to 2nd and 3rd choices as the lower ranking candidates dropped off, then that would be a very good way of making your first choice, but still having your second choice be relevant. Unfortunately, we don’t have that sort of system.

In real life, what happens is that because EVERYBODY is thinking “I *must* pick one of the top two, or I am throwing away my vote” the whole system gets distorted and polarized, so that everything ends up clustering around more extreme views on various sides of issues, with less room left for middle ground and alternative views, because they are never given an opportunity to grow as minority views and eventually rise to that 2nd or 1st place status. Which is an aweful self-inflicted corruption of the system. If *everybody* actually voted for the people they thought were best, rather than who they thought could win, then the political debate would end up being much more vibrant and dynamic, which in the long term would lead to results which better represent the true opinions of the electorate.

Thus why I think strategic voting (voting for someone other than your true preference in hopes that the short term end result of that particular election will be better) is evil, and it is better to vote for who you think is best, plain and simple.

OK. I’ve probably lost you by now, but if not, lets switch to the other side of the argument and talk pure strategic voting… lets say I buy the idea and think strategic voting is good, and now want to vote in the way that will be most likely to result in Bush losing.

OK, first thing is, my strategy will be different depending on where I live. Different states have different dynamics, and different weights in the electoral process.

We’ll do PA and DC as examples.

First lets talk general election.

In DC, the place is so solidly Democratic it is a gimme. There is absoluelty no chance of a Republican getting DCs electoral votes, and there are not that many anyway. In DC in the General election, if you think a 3rd candidate is better than either Bush or the Democrat, but you hate Bush… you can safely vote for the 3rd person you like. Your view will be represented in the popular vote, the Democrat will still win DC and get the electoral votes, and you will not have effected the balance of Bush vs Democrat in the slightest. There are many states that are so solidly one way or the other that this is the case.

Where I am in PA however, it is a whole different story. PA, like a number of other states, are “swing states”. They are closely divided, and easily swing one way or the other in elections depending on the situation of the moment. In this case, if one buys the whole strategic voting thing, then the argument you gave holds sound, and someone wanting to make sure to get rid of Bush, should vote for the Democrat, even if they really would prefer a 3rd candidate. Because, as you said, their choice has no chance of winning, but if they give their vote for their 2nd choice (the Democrat) then that MIGHT make the difference in making sure Bush loses.

OK, now lets talk Primaries.

Again, it matters very much which state you are in.

Now a few things matter here. First of all is when your state has its primary. To put it bluntly, states that have primaries early matter, states that have them late are completely irrelevant. The only exception is in cases where the primary race is very close… it would be great if that happens again, but it has been a long time since it has.

For instance, DC’s primary is on Jan 13th… but no delegates will be awarded there to let Iowa and New Hampshire go first, so the actual delegates will be decided in the caucus on February 10th… by that time Iowa, New Hampshire, Delaware, Missouri, South Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Michigan, Washington (state) and Maine will already have voted (in that order). By that time there is a good chance someone will be so far ahead that everybody is sure they are going to win… but there is a chance that some interesting things will have happened and things are still close. By contrast, Pennsylvania will not vote until April 27th. Chances are very strong that by the set of Primaries of March 2nd the nominee will be decided already. It *might* not be the case… if so, it will be a very interesting year, and that would be cool. But chances are, by the time Pennsylvania gets to vote, it will pretty much be irrelevant. It might not be mathematically impossible for other people to win at that point, but anybody who was not the frontrunner at that point will probably have “suspended” their campaign to wait for the convention, or dropped out entirely. They may still be on the ballot, but they will not campaign, and will not get results worth mentioning. So if I am in Pennsylvania, my opinion on who should be the nominee matters a LOT less than someone who lives in the states that vote early.

This is another case where the system is somewhat corrupted… what is really happening is that people are electing delegates to the party conventions, and once those delegates are at the convention THEN they should decide who the candidate of the party is… really delegates should be chosen uncommitted to any candidate… in fact there should NOT BE ANY candidates until the convention… then those people chosen to be delegates should decide on someone… but again, now all delegates are pre-committed for the first ballot, and only become free agents if a second ballot is needed, which has not happened for decades… Plus… they really should hold all the primaries nationwide on the same day, so people in all states have some say in the matter, rather than just the early states…

In any case, the pattern for at least the last couple of decades is that anybody who doesn’t win in the first handful of primaries drops out and then whoever is in the lead gets “momentum” because everybody wants to vote for a winner (rather than who they think is best) and everything is decided well before the last states have their primaries.

This is again a place where people actually voting for who they agree with most, through the whole primary process, would lead to better results in the end (and much more interesting conventions!) but, that’s not what tends to happen.

But to be strategic? Well, if the goal is to beat Bush, then one should not even consider how well or not one agrees with the candidates, but ONLY how well they would do against Bush. Who would have the best chance of beating him? All the polls seem to have Dean at way behind Bush if the two are placed head to head. Are any of the others better? I’m not sure they are. Maybe Clark. My personal opinion is on a head to head, he probably has the best chance. I’d have to look at the most recent polls showing all the head to head match ups right before my states primary though, and just pick the one who was doing the best vs Bush. If the goal is truely JUST to beat Bush, then if I agree with the person or not is pretty much irrelevant. Just pick the one that has the best shot against Bush.

Again though, only in primaries before the result is already decided. If by the time my state comes around, the nominee is already a done deal, then I should vote for the candidate I agree with most, because they won’t win anyway, but their delegates may end up having some influence in the convention on marginal issues, or if the candidate who is ahead dies before the convention or some such, in which case they may get to vote on something where the result is not pre-determined, and I want people as delegates who best represent my own views. (Again, a situation where you wish you knew the ACTUAL delegates you were voting for, rather than just who they were committed to… but usually you don’t.)

In any case…. to sum up…

#1) I think strategic voting is something to be avoided in all cases, because while it may give results which are preferred in the short term, in the long term, anything other than people voting for the people they actually think are best (as opposed to people they think can win) results in massive distortion of the process, which is bad for all of us.

#2) If you DO go for strategic voting, it is a very complicated matter since we do NOT have a system based on popular vote in any way shape or form. (And that is for the most part a good thing… there are good reasons for things being structured the way they are.) In the general election, which state you are in and the dynamics of that PARTICULAR STATE have to be looked at both in terms of likely results in the state, and how much weight the state has in the electoral college. The country as a whole is irrelevant. It is only state by state that should be looked at. In the primaries, the dynamics of the individual states are very important, but even more important is where your state is in the primary schedule. What the best strategy for voting is will depend on if you are in an early state or in a late state and what the status of the delegate count is by the time they get to you and how much of a difference your state could make.

Anyway, it is all good fun to look at!

Even better is looking at alternative constitutional structures and examining how they affect both strategic voting strategies, and the expected results of how governments look and how they will (or will not) reflect the views of the electorate, or different parts of the electorate.

Fun stuff!!!

State Department Warning Chart

Charts are back on abulsme.com!!! Well, OK. For now “chart” is back. I have added a charts section to the top navigation of the site, looking to bring back a feature I had on this site in the olden days, where I had up a variety of charts on a variety of things. For now, there is only one chart in there. I will add more over time. I started collecting data for this one a couple months ago and now have enough data points to actually make an interesting chart.

State Department Travel Warnings Over Time

A chart of how many countries world wide have US State Department Travel Warnings as that number varies over time.  Serves as a proxy to chart roughly how dangerous the world is as the world situation changes over time.  Perhaps not the best measure of that, but an interesting one perhaps.

More charts on other exciting things coming soon!

AfricaFocus

A few weeks ago my dad launched his Africa Focus website. I had been waiting for him to send out an announcement to his mailing list that was specifically an announcement of the website, and was going to quote it here. But he was sneaky, and just started including links to it within the text of mailing list items on other subjects. I added the site to my “Check Daily” list a couple weeks back, but for those who missed it, here it is:

AfricaFocus

This website features high-quality analysis and progressive advocacy on African issues, with particular attention to priority issues affecting the entire continent.

The heart of the website consists of issues of the AfricaFocus Bulletin, produced and distributed one to three times a week to over 3,200 e-mail addresses, including individuals, organizations, and listservs. Current issues are featured on the homepage; a full archive is also available on the site. Approximately 70 percent of the subscribers are in North America and approximately 13 percent each in Africa and Europe.

The site also features convenient regularly updated news feeds from the BBC’s Africa service and AllAfrica.com. You can also customize part of the homepage to include the latest from AllAfrica.com on your preferred country or region. The site is fully searchable, and provides easy access to use Google to search the entire web or specific Africa-focused sites for additional information you need.

(Quote from About AfricaFocus)

Ace of Spades in the Hole

Iraq Council Confirms Saddam Caught Alive
(Hamzo Hendawi of AP on Washington Post)

U.S. military captured Saddam Hussein alive in his hometown of Tikrit on Sunday, eight months after the fall of Baghdad, the Iraqi Governing Council said. Celebratory gunfire erupted in Baghdad.

(via Google News)

Wow. They actually got him alive, and according to General Sanchez who is briefing live on TV as I write this, not only alive, but without a single shot fired, and Saddam is talkative and cooperative right now. He was hiding in a hole. They are showing pictures of him being examined and with his beard on and such. He looks like hell, but it is definately him.

Much better result than with Uday and Husay.

All of the things they have been completely screwing up in Iraq aside, kudos to all involved today. This is a major success for the administration, and will be a huge positive in the situation in Iraq. Good job!

Missing the Point

I have some things I have to run and do, so this will be short, but I wanted to comment quickly on the whole controversy about the administration restricting reconstruction contracts to countries who supported the US position on the war.

Everybody is talking about how either this is justified, or how it is shooting ourselves in the foot by once again alienating allies, etc. I did even see one place (by David Adesnik at Oxblog) where it was discussed that those were the wrong arguments and it should all be about what is good for the Iraqi’s and the decision should be made on that basis. That gets close, but still misses the point.

Yes, making this decision one way or another potentially has a lot of impact on all sorts of things, pro and con, in terms of how this will effect the US, our allies, and Iraq in the future. And things can be said for both sides. (I personally think restricting the contracts is asinine.) But… the main problem, that I haven’t seen discussed (maybe I just missed it)… is that IT SHOULD NOT BE OUR DECISION.

Yes, it is too soon to turn over full control to the Iraqi’s. The current council is not elected, and has many issues. Security and borders and foreign policy are certainly not things that can be handed over yet. But reconstruction, and control of the oil production, etc, is CERTAINLY something that can and should be governed by Iraqi’s. It should not be people in the White House, Pentagon, or State Department who are deciding which contracts are given to who to put things back together in Iraq. It should be the Iraqi council.

If we feel some additional funding is needed beyond what can be raised in Iraq proper (which I’m sure is the case) then that funding should be provided, and there should of course be some oversight against blatant corruption and mis-direction of the funds. But at this point the decision making on many of these matters should be firmly in Iraqi hands.

The fact that at this point we retain control of such critical economic decisions just leaves a bad taste in ones mouth of “to the victor goes the spoils” rather than any sort of noble purposes which would be legitimate in our presence there.

OK. Back to doing the stuff I am supposed to be doing right now.

Unfortunate, But True

Conditions favor Bush win in 2004
(Dick Polman, Philadephia Inquirer)

Presidential historian Allan Lichtman, among others who chart election trends, said: “Increasingly, all the underlying factors are lining up in Bush’s favor. It’ll be a tough road for the Democrats. Their chances aren’t impossible, just remote.”

Its a nice little summary of the historical trends which point to a Bush reelection at this point. Now, 11 months is indeed a long time. And a lot may yet happen. So it really is too early for a real prediction. However, if a couple things hold:

  • No major worsening in the Iraq situation
  • The economy continues on an upward course
  • No major new terrorist attack in the US
  • No major NEW international crisis
  • No major domestic screwup

    Then W has it in the bag. People will vote on their pocketbooks, and it will be a done deal. In a reversal of either of the first two, it hurts W. The second two, throw everything up into the air. Depending on the details, it could be either bad or good for W.

    With Dean rapidly consolidating the Democrats, he also looks like the presumptive nominee unless he screws up (which he very well could do, he has the potential). Dean would then have to make a major swing rightward to have a chance, and he may not be able to do that effectively. He certainly could not win the required number of electoral votes with his current voice absent a complete collapse on the Bush side.

    Well, we shall see. 11 months yet. Not time to call the winner quite yet. Maybe by March or June. :-)

  • Dean overtakes Libertarian

    On my personal results on the SelectSmart Presidential Selector that is…

    Periodically I’ll go take the quiz and see what the results are. They update the selector with new or better information periodically, but probably more significantly my views and opinions morph over time. I know W is driving me to the left of where I once was by his whole approach to everything. And while I generally keep a Libertarian philosophy to most things, I am softening on that and being more practical in some areas and beginning to say, “Well, OK, for THAT maybe Government involvement is OK…” End result, I am moving left. For the first time in the several years and couple of elections that SelectSmart has had these things, I have gotten someone other than the Libertarian as my best match. And that person is Howard Dean. Hmmm…

    Select Smart Presidental Selector

    Your Results:
    1. Your ideal theoretical candidate.   (100%)
    2. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT – Democrat   (56%)
    3. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH – Democrat   (55%)  
    4. Libertarian Candidate   (55%)
    5. Edwards, Senator John, NC – Democrat   (53%)
    6. Clark, General Wesley K., AR – Democrat   (51%) 
    7. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO – Democrat   (46%) 
    8. Kerry, Senator John, MA – Democrat   (45%)
    9. Sharpton, Reverend Al – Democrat   (43%)
    10. Bush, President George W. – Republican   (39%)
    11. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. – Democrat   (31%)
    12. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT – Democrat   (26%)
    13. Moseley-Braun, Senator Carol, IL – Democrat   (20%)
    14. Phillips, Howard – Constitution   (19%)

    Of course, my matching rate is still only 56%, which is pretty low. I listen to Dean in debates and while I agree on some things, I disagree strongly on others. And I look at him and just don’t think he has the right temperment to be president. I don’t know. The biggest issue I have with him is Iraq I think. Pre-War I probably would have agreed with him 100%. I think going in was stupid, provocative, and uncalled for for the most part. But *after* the war, I think getting out quickly is completely irresponsible. I agree with the “You broke it, you bought it” contingient, and think that now that we are there, we signed ourselves up for a multi-decade commitment, and we better as hell live up to it and do our best. Leaving now will only make things worse, not better.

    But anyway, these quizes are only a guide, and to give something to think about and to focus ones thoughts. As we get closer and closer to actual elections, I’ll pay more and more attention to the things that my “President*” wishlist digs up on my Tivo. Right now I’m watching a 60 Minutes II piece on General Clark from a couple weeks ago, and there is at least one debate ont heir waiting for me to watch it. We shall see.

    Anyway, everybody should take the quiz at least once a month I say. :-)

    Nice Trick

    W doing this and pulling it off is actually very cool. It is a nice gesture, and shows some bravado and is just downright fun. The press notes below are very interesting to read….

    How It All Went Down: Detailed Report Of Bush’s Secret Trip
    Mike Allen’s [WASH POST] Private Notes on DrudgeReport

    The event had been set up with Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and Paul Bremer, the chief civilian administrator. When the President arrived, the soldiers were still thinking those would be the speakers. General Sanchez said, “God bless you for all of your sacrifices,” and hurriedly introduced Ambassador Bremer. Bremer said he had Thanksgiving greetings from the President. But then Bremer, hamming it up, looked toward stage left and said, “Let’s see if we’ve got anyone more senior here.” Then the President came out and the room erupted even before he reached the stage, with soldiers standing on chairs, standing on tables to bark, hoot, yell and “Hoo-ah!” their approval.

    It also caught my attention, because while I was driving from PA to MA Wednesday the news was breaking about the new Al Qaeda threat that the “countdown had begun”…

    New Al Qaeda Kidnap Guide to Force Release of Detainees in US, Saudi, Yemeni Hands
    DEBKAfile

    …a message published over al Qaeda’s electronic channels and websites declared that the countdown has begun for the biggest operation ever carried out in the United States. “The big blow will fall very shortly. It will consist of a series of surprise attacks that will cut America off from communication with its armies in Muslim countries.” The reference is clearly to US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The largest number, around 115,000 soldiers, is present in Iraq. Muslims living in the United States are urged to “take advantage of the short time left” to escape the country and harm’s way.

    Talk about that had piped up on CNN in mid-afternoon, but they were mostly talking about turkey tips and if planes were delayed. I was yelling at the radio about why they weren’t talking about it. I couldn’t understand why that was not the lead story. I thought they should be talking to experts, etc. Certainly not about turkeys.

    I also thought “Tell me where the president is!” has he changed his schedule. Have any events been canceled. Has he returned the the Whitehouse from Texas, does he suddenly have a “cold” (like Kennedy in the missle crisis). Etc. They were not talking about it at ALL!

    A few hours later they finally talked about it a little more. Only a couple minutes though. Someone saying officials were downplaying it and saying not to worry about it that they had heard it all before and nothing happened.

    Um, OK. Doesn’t make me feel better. But even if so, why is the press just taking that at face value and not doing some investigation??? It seemed like real news that was being ignored in favor of complete holiday fluff.

    But one question was answered, they were not saying what the president’s reaction was and if his schedule was changed because he was ON HIS WAY TO FREAKIN BAGHDAD!

    Which is still really cool. The whole lights out stealth thing and everything. I’ll give W this, he is good with the dramatic gesture.

    And I guess this means he wasn’t all that worried about the “countdown”.

    But still… it seems rather ominous… and officials HAVE said that there is increased chatter and all that, but they have decided not to increase the “official” alert level, but unofficially authorities have been told to ramp things up a bit. but they don’t want to put the country on alert everytime anybody puts out a statement like that if they don’t have direct knoweldge of a specific threat.

    OK. I understand that. Makes sense.

    But still “the countdown has begun” to the “biggest operation ever” etc does not leave one with warm and fuzzies.

    Anyway, hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving! :-)

    (Edit: Also want to comment that when I went to write this entry early Friday I searched on Google News for references to the Al Qaeda “countdown has begun” memo and the ONLY thing I could find was the DEBKAfile entry… why is this?? CNN and Fox both mentioned it while I was driving Wednesday. They both downplayed it and gave very little attention to it, but they did talk about it. How can it not be referenced ANYWHERE other than DEBKAfile?? I was probably just seraching on the wrong things. Dunno. But you really would think that a threat like that would get a LITTLE more attention…)

    Nice way to Impress our Friends

    He made the Queen cry!!! Now, I fully understand the need for security, but this administartion really needs to learn something about humility and tact and respect for ones hosts when one is visiting somewhere. He went over and acted like he owned the place.

    Ground Farce 1
    Terry O’Hanlon in the Sunday Mirror

    Royal officials are now in touch with the Queen’s insurers and Prime Minister Tony Blair to find out who will pick up the massive repair bill. Palace staff said they had never seen the Queen so angry as when she saw how her perfectly-mantained lawns had been churned up after being turned into helipads with three giant H landing markings for the Bush visit.

    (via Fark)

    Goodbye Eduard

    I haven’t really kept up with Georgian politics since the USSR broke up, but I have a really strong memory in college of listening to the radio on the elevator on the way up to my library work-study job and hearing the news that Eduard Shevardnadze had resigned as Foreign Minister of the USSR. I remember being shaken by the news all that day. Shevardnadze leaving meant to me that things really were completely falling apart there. He had always seemed like one of the “good guys” in the Gorbachev government. It was a sad day that showed large changes coming. Eduard left to go be president of Georgia. Now that era is over too it seems.

    Georgian Leader Signs Resignation Papers
    AP on ABC News

    Opposition Says Georgian Leader Signing Resignation Papers, Thousands of Opposition Supporters Gather

    (via Google News)