Politics 2.0: Hack the Vote

Ibrahim | ZenCollegeLife.com says on September 9th, 2008 at 9:29 am

Excellent Post. The simple ideology of voting in this manner truly is liberating. I find that though I agree with Obama’s stances more so than McCain, I still can’t say that I support everything he stands for. Your post has opened my eyes to more opportunity than I knew I had. Thanks again!

Mark says on September 9th, 2008 at 9:36 am

Are there really that many candidates running in the election? As a Canadian I didn’t think that there were more than two parties represented in ballots across all states.

Vincent Le Pes says on September 9th, 2008 at 10:22 am

Great article. I have been thinking for years now that the only way we will ever have a true democracy in America would be to adopt proportional representation. Our winner takes all system is the reason we feel so compelled to vote against the bad candidate instead of voting for who we really believe in. Many modern countries have adopted this and even America has used it in the past to break up local political monopolies.

Will says on September 9th, 2008 at 11:13 am

I’m afraid I must respectfully disagree with you on this for several reasons:

1. While one person may not have a statistical influence, the virality of ideas do, and the message of groups do. If MLK had marched on Washington alone, few people would have noticed. It was the application of critical mass that truely made the difference, but ultimately the critical mass was achieved by each individual deciding to be a part of something bigger.

2. The strength of real multi-party systems comes not from having a party that represents an individuals exact beliefs, but rather from the need to build coalitions with people who don’t agree completely with your party’s point s of view. The true benefit of a multiparty system comes in the compromise that naturally results from it. However that requires more than 2 parties with a significant influence.

3. We need more pragmatists in our political system, not more idealogs. It is precisely because Bush surrounded himself with true believers unwilling to ask tough questions that the last 8 years of lost freedom, lost global influence, and lost economic stature have occurred.

I’m curious to know frankly if the Nader voters knew in 2000 what they know right now, if they would have cast their votes the same way. For that matter one could ask the same of the Perot voters of 1992. Of course that is the real conundrum of politics. Hindsight is 20/20.

David says on September 9th, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Don’t forget to consider unintended consequences…if you remove the electoral college process, national candidates will merely represent large cities and there will be no campaigning in sparsely populated states and sparsely populated areas.

Is that a big deal? Maybe not. But don’t try to change something without considering all the possible effects.

dan says on September 9th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

I’m all for a “none of the above” option. If it gets the most votes, the position is vacated.

Jonathan says on September 9th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

I have to agree with Will on this one. If neither of the major party candidates represents your political leanings AND you truly have no preference between the two AND a third party candidate represents your beliefs more closely, by all means, vote for that person. I’d LOVE to be able to do this in every election. But as a pragmatic voter, even though I wasn’t a huge fan of John Kerry in 2004, I voted for him in the wild hope that we could get rid of W. There truly were many things to fear from another four years of a Bush/Cheney White House, and on this occasion, it was appropriate to vote my fears. As unfortunate as it is, all three of those conditions I mentioned would have to be true for me to feel like I could vote purely on the candidate’s individual merit.

Mike says on September 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

I also agree with Will on this. Until the electoral system is reformed, you really do only have two candidates to choose from in the presidential race. Voting your ideals is, essentially, throwing away your vote (the tool of choice) for some self-satisfying, but ultimately futile, stand.

Don’t like the system? Work to change it (check out FairVote.org) – but use your vote wisely in the meantime and vote for whichever two-party candidate you most prefer (and if that means least fear, then so be it).

Lenny says on September 9th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Every time democrats starts to loose and ‘country and freedom in danger, in their opinion’ we starts hearing about wrong election system. Thats one ‘change’ to change. And instead of thinking twice before election, people elect someone (read – someone for ‘big changes’) and then starts whining about taxes, national security and so on. And every time republican president elected we hear about disaster. R.Reagan during his presidency was ‘worst’ president too, remember. And somehow now he is one of the best. Don’t you think we have much better electoral system than many have. We have a bad politicians, that’s true, but system is fine. People should be more involved before election not after to try change something.

Garland Walton says on September 9th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

As true as some of your statements may be, I hope you never teach young people that “our individual votes will not make a difference with respect to the outcome of the election.” This article was depressing (probably because it’s technically correct). A “your vote doesn’t matter” message is quite damaging; isn’t there enough apathy???

Joe says on September 9th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Hmm…I don’t know if this was a well written article or not. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to comment here.

I have to agree Garland’s comments. The article is thought provoking. However, I had to re-read it a couple times to get to what I ‘think’ the author was trying to say.

I, too, was left with the message to just not vote because it doesn’t count anyway. How is that liberating?

Despite this message, I will still go to the polling places. I still feel its my responsibility to vote No on 8 (in CA) and other state and social issues.

jake says on September 9th, 2008 at 8:29 pm

Oh my god. Are you kidding? Do you actually think this? So when the colts and the bears played this weekend you bet on….. the Red Wings.. right? This is the most retard piece of garbage I have ever read. I feel retarded for even commenting on it.

Jason says on September 10th, 2008 at 3:19 am

For those of you like Mike, who think voting your ideals is “wasting your vote” I respectively disagree. Like it has been said many times, one vote will not make the difference in an election outcome due to the sheer size of the turn out and electoral college. Even more extreme, thousands of votes won’t make the difference in a state like California or Texas where the outcome will be very one sided. However, if you vote for a third party there is a chance your vote can have a real effect on the policies of this country. In the 1920 & 30’s many american’s voted for the socialist party’s presidential candidate because they agreed with their ideals more. After collecting almost 17% of the popular vote in the 1924 election, socialist policies were seen as a very valuable part of a ticket. As a result, the democrats adopted the policy of inacting a little plan called… social security. By voting their ideology socialist were able to have one of the major 2 parties adopt more socialist ideology. This is why we have a 2 party system in America, if a 3rd party gets enough votes either the Democrats or Republicans will adopt those policies to get more votes. So instead of wasting your vote, voting for your ideology can probably have a greater impact then a vote for the status quo (democrat or republican) which forces no one to change…

Pi says on September 10th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

ya – was almost a good article until the 3rd paragraph! stats on the number of people that vote arent where they should be – mentalities such as these will only drive these stats down further – im hoping the moral of the story is for voters to get involved based on belief not fear-shld leave it at that…

Ryan says on September 10th, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Jake, I think you’re right…you SHOULD feel retarded, because with the statement you made, you must be!

You use an analogy about two football teams playing each other, and that to bet on the red wings (hockey) is stupid. While the facts in the analogy are correct, they have no bearing whatsoever on the article’s intent. The fact of the matter is there ARE more than two teams (candidates) in this game (presidential race)!! So, your analogy holds no water on that point. Also, trying to equate voting and betting money is not a valid point either. If I was to BET on the winner of this election, I would ABSOLUTELY choose either McCain or Obama, who are the only 2 candidates with a real chance to win. However, when you vote, your motivation is substantially different than when betting. When betting, you are looking to gain, financially. When voting, you are looking to support the candidate that represents your beliefs. You are not “losing $100″ when voting, you are expressing your views on life, the world, issues etc., by selecting a candidate that most closely represents them.

So, Jake, think a little bit more before making a “retarded” statement.

dan says on September 10th, 2008 at 11:09 pm

What? Nobody likes my “vacate the office if we think that they are all losers” option? I’m serious! If we had that power, perhaps we could get these weasels to keep more of their campaign promises! Always the hot air! I see it much like the strike at the Israeli hospitals – during the strike, the death rate declined!

Bill says on September 11th, 2008 at 11:14 am

First, I am confused why the article is here – it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with “hacks, tips and tricks that get things done quickly by automating, increase productivity and organizing.” What it seems like to me is an attempt to get voters who may not be inclined to think strategically about their votes, to vote independent, furthering the author’s Independent agenda. I am not attacking the author or his agenda, I am merely observing that as an economics professor, I would imagine he understands the math involved – that voting independent is only beneficial in a specific set of circumstances (and detrimental otherwise), and that to make the claims he has made, he must be trying to persuade people to vote independent without fully considering the implications.

Let’s say you’re indifferent with regards to the major candidates, and know one will win, but don’t really care which one. Then, the author’s general point makes sense. Look for another candidate that you like better, and show the country that one more person wants to see that 3rd agenda heard. You’re making a statement, not choosing the president.

But if you feel strongly that one of the major candidates would be bad for America, you must vote for the other, or you are helping that candidate you don’t want to win. That’s not voting out of fear as the author claims, that’s voting strategically to (in your opinion) protect America. Don’t listen to the author’s rhetoric about the “wrong reasons” and fear. There are many ways to support an independent agenda other than actually wasting a vote.

There is some validity to the idea that your vote doesn’t really count if you live in a state where it’s a sure thing (you still have to consider the risk that it’s not sure this time – 10-20% Obama could win in TN, and decide if you’re comfortable with that risk) But in Florida, had 167 people done what the author suggests, a different man would have won. Maybe they would have been fine with that (as I said above, maybe they were indifferent), but in a very close election, voting for a 3rd party is like not voting at all.

The system we have works the way it does for a reason. The concept of “majority” is important. Large diverse groups get behind candidates they may not fully agree with to try and maximize the things they want, and minimize the things they don’t want. Voting for someone who is going to lose in an effort to get everything you want and nothing you don’t is foolish. You’re just letting other people decide what you get. If you’re just making a statement, fine. But don’t vote independent if you really care who wins.

Jon says on September 11th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Voting your true feelings could have interesting side effects. Suppose for a moment that there were a well funded American Fundamentalist Party (1, there may be: I haven’t googled around for them, and 2, anticipating the quip, not the Republican party: that’s the crux of the experiment). The Fundamentalist Party sets forth a candidate who promises to quit pussyfooting around on these social issues the Republicans keep ignoring, pack the supreme court with reactionary conservative judges, repeal Roe v. Wade, get Darwin out of public school and put God back in, along with mandatory Bible reading as part of the English curriculum. Voting their hearts and consciences, tens of thousands of evangelicals vote for the fundamentalist party. The result after November 4th? 45% Dems, 40% Reps, 10% Fundamentalist, 5% other (Green, Libertarian, Constitution, etc). It’s a plurality victory for the Dems, but a decisive one. The Fundamentalist party split the base for the Republicans and handed victory to the party that represents essentially NONE of its views.

Countries without a nearly ironclad two party system tend to decide on supreme leaders after party coalitions form behind individual candidates from larger parties. The US system is not set up to accomodate that kind of process. We elect our president in one shot. If you don’t think having many parties could cause some terrifying outcomes under the current system, read up on the 2002 French presidential election.

If you really and truly agree with almost nothing either of the big parties offer, by all means vote for a 3rd party candidate. Especially do this for local elections where third parties stand a greater, grassroots chance of getting elected. In presidential elections, we have adopted the habit of picking the lesser of the evils not from despair and apathy, but from pragmatism.

Mike says on September 12th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Jason – it’s true that a 3rd party has had some impact in the past, including supplanting an existing party. I would contend that those happened in a specific set of circumstances, and also the landscape of American politics (including the modern media) has changed so substantially that I’m not sure it will occur again under the current 2-party system.

Jon’s example perfectly illustrates the problem with our current electoral system. I strongly encourage anyone with a real interest in this to visit http://www.fairvote.org and get involved in electoral reform – a course of action far more likely to result in changes than voting 3rd party in presidential elections. Something like approval voting or instant runoff voting (IRV) stands a real chance of 3rd party candidates winning major elections, including the president. If nothing else, the threat of 3rd parties under reformed voting systems will produce the sort of platform change among the Dems/Repubs like in Jason’s example.

Lenny – don’t confuse post-election whining with dissatisfaction with the electoral system. I suspect the whining you describe will never change, even if the way we vote does :)

Mike_of_Arabia says on September 15th, 2008 at 3:32 am

Ok Children, here’s the deal: in a strictly absolutist sense – yes, an individual vote usually doesn’t make a difference, especially in a national election (although it has in local elections in the past). As stated above, in a multi-party system the way business is done is by forming groups, coalitions and movements. This forces compromise and more than one solution or idea to be considered. (And our electoral college is in place help ensure an equal voice among the several States and prevent a tyranny of the majority over the minority)

The fundamental idea that is incandescently stupid here is thinking that it’s okay to wait until a national election to vote your conscience and think you’re a serious part of the process. That is like waiting until game day put on a uniform and see if your shoes fit.

We have four years between presidential elections to advocate and lobby for our preferred causes. That’s when you do your leg-work, promote your causes and potential candidates at the local, state and national levels. Contribute to groups and pac’s that most represent your ideals and values and that work to further the views that you most believe in. Believe me, if you make enough noise the politicians will listen. They are trying to keep their jobs. Then on “game day” vote for the major party or candidates that most represent you. In our system, a third-party vote in a national election is a wasted vote.

On the national level we are dealing with a pretty large machine. It takes time to effect major change. Which in and of itself is actually a net positive. You rarely want radical shifts in policy – foreign or national, every four years. That would be immensely chaotic ultimately very detrimental.

So in short, get off your lazy butt and get involved in the process on a regular and consistent basis and stop waiting for four years to speak up only to complain about your lack of choices. You’re only going to get out of the system what you put into it!

Dave says on September 16th, 2008 at 9:19 am

Although an individual vote may have little consequence, an individual can make quite a big difference. There are actually three major groups of voters in a national election: Democrats, Republicans, and those who don’t bother to show up at the polls. If one person in Florida had organized an extra rally or voter registration drive, chances are that many of these non-voters would have stepped up and voted. And if they got their friends to vote as well, chances are that the outcome would have been enough to tip the balance. Although we each get only one vote, we have the power to convince others to make their opinions heard.