SocraticGadfly: Someone else who "gets it" on not voting Hillary, but voting Green

December 24, 2015

Someone else who "gets it" on not voting Hillary, but voting Green

Ben Spielberg, co-founder of 34Justice, says he "gets it" on Hillary being the lesser of two evils, but also, like me, and like Brains, also says that he "gets it" on that not being good enough if she beats out Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination.

Here's the start:
The Supreme Court and heads of agencies are, in my view, the biggest concerns in this vein. I'd have low hopes for Hillary Clinton's appointees but no doubts that they'd be better on balance than those offered by a Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. 
Yet I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. While I understand the lesser-of-two-evils mentality, I disagree with it; most of Clinton's policy positions are unacceptable to me. If Sanders loses the primary, I will probably vote for Jill Stein.
Laid out nice and neat.

He notes, that like me, Brains and others, he's prepared to be called an idiot. But, he shows the "but the SCOTUS" and other arguments are wrong, by quoting famous Texas iconoclast Jim Hightower.
The premise of these questions, however, is completely wrong, and not just because, as Jim Hightower documented at the time, voting records show that "Gore was the problem, not Nader," in the 2000 election. 
Bingo. Brains tackled the 2000 election bullshit in-depth, here

Here's where Spielberg really "gets it":
If my vote will impact the outcome of the election, I may have to decide which matters more: (a) the differences between a bad Democrat and worse Republican over the next four years or (b) the degree to which I'd undermine our chances to enact fundamental change to a broken political system in the long-run by pursuing a lesser-of-two-evils voting strategy.
Yep. That's bullshit which I would co-sign if I voted for Hillary. 

And, those who are “Democrats right or wrong” types? I can’t do better than Spielberg:
(T)hose who disagree can continue to accuse people like me of "helping the GOP" in the 2016 election by pointing out that the Democrats have extreme flaws and don't always deserve our support. But it would be a lot fairer of them to acknowledge that millions upon millions of people have suffered at the hands of lesser-of-two-evils candidates over the years, that an open commitment to support a lesser-of-two-evils candidate robs voters of bargaining power, and that the Democratic Party has brought voter discontent upon itself.


Go read the whole thing

That said, re some of Bernie's politics, like his political-based stances on gun control and him being a bit of a war hawk, I'm more sanguine about him than Spielberg, as is Brains in his first-linked piece.


Ed Darrell said...

Votes have consequences. Not necessarily a lesser-of-two evils vote; one may wish to consider the effects of any particular candidate on all issues one takes seriously. If more of one's issues benefit from any one candidate over others, that would be the one to vote for.

Comparative advantage, as opposed to comparative depression, seems a bit more hopeful, to me.

Gadfly said...

"Comparative advantage" puts it well as part of articulating reasons to vote FOR someone while still voting outside the two-party box.