xTYBALTx

Your dilemma is one which all constituents of governments with first-past-the-post single plurality systems must grapple. Do you vote for so-and-so, with whom you agree on most of the issues, or with Mr. BigShot, the guy with the ability to win and with whom you agree on some issues.

There's no right answer, but tactical voting is really the way to do it. You can't control everyone elses votes, someone other than the person you want to win is going to win the general election, so you realistically have to choose between the viable candidates.

Of course, there can always be disagreements over which candidate is viable or not - think of Ronald Reagan's come from behind victory as an example - but you just have to use your best judgement. If you decide to go the tactical voting route, make sure that your preferred candidate is in fact not viable.

As a side note, voting for third parties and losing candidates has its' place, but I don't think Apo is particularly interested in making a statement. I think he wants to see his preferred candidate in office. Correct me if I'm wrong.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

xTYBALTx

I'm with you on that one. It's tough to call at this point though. I could see it going any of the three possible ways - all Republicans, all Democrats, or split. Makes it tough to decide whom to support.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

Rincewind

Support the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His Noodely Appendage is best for everyone.

Regardless of how you vote though, He will win.

__________________
~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

<---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

SmokingTarpan

A humorous and somewhat logical way to look at it: If you vote tactically just to keep the Republicans in the seat for sure, you lose your power to disown him and say "Well, I didn't vote for him" when he screws up royally.

The idea of tactical voting is another piece of paper to put on the pile of reasons why I don't vote. It borders close to the "If I can't have what I want, neither can you" line of reasoning.

If I were in your place, I'd vote for who I actually wanted to win. Forget following the crowd, you might just be surprised by the results anyway. And if not, at least your vote was yours, and not someone else's. And you can say, "I didn't vote for him," too. :P

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

CingularDuality

Apophis, just ask yourself:

WWFSMD?



On a more serious note, I always vote for the candidate that I prefer unless I KNOW that he will lose that particular vote. Only when I know that he'll lose will I cast a vote other than for the person that I want to see in office.

So, in your case, knowing what I do now, I'd vote for my preferred Repub in the primary, then if he's losing by a huge margin in the general election, then I'd vote Libertarian.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Diceman

On a relevant note, I thought I would link to this story: CBC story on the Edible Ballot Society

I remember doing research for a poli sci class I took a number of years ago, and came across their webpage (which is no longer up, which is why i haven't linked to that instead). Anyways, their philosophy is that voting in a FPTP system is not only unproductive because of the distortion of the will of the electorate that results, through vote-splitting, tactical voting and the like, but is actually immoral because it legitimizes a distorted system.

It made for interesting reading. You could also download ballot recipes from their web site. I imagine that they are offline now because Elections Canada went after them - it's illegal to destroy or purposefully deface an elections ballot here....but that's just a guess.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

Wulfyn

I'm of a similar opinion to this. It is a disaster in the UK when there is a hung parliament (where a single party has enough seats to form a government by having more seats than any other party, but has less than 50% of the total seats in the house) because the government needs to pander to other parties, and typically gets nothing done.

However I feel that the poor performance of the UK government in recent times is that it has had such a strong majority. Typically there will be enough government rebels in the backbenches to vote against their own party if the law is particularly absurd. With a strong majority this does not happen, and the governemnt can get through anything they like. This is bad news, as the key to successful politics is to have a strong enough opposition that only the really good and important laws make it through.

__________________

xTYBALTx

Fixed =]

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

RandomGuy

I'm with Tybalt. In Canada we've had two different minority governments which have a harder time getting things done... and that's the way I like it. Canada has plenty of redundant, reactionary, contradictory or poorly-written laws already.

Back to the topic:
Apo if you vote for your preferred candidate in the primary. If he loses then no big deal, you end up in the situation you expected for the election. Now if he wins, doesn't that say something about his popularity and electability?

Wulfyn

I consider this to me more along the lines of "If I can't have what's best for me I'll have what's second best for me instead of either what is worse or leaving it up to other people to decide my fate for me". All voting is about not giving other people what they want - what's the point of voting if you can't vote for your own interests?

__________________

leejo

Wulfyn I think tactical voting is exactly voting for your own interests. Any vote I cast is an effort to shape my government such that it benefits me, or at least leaves me alone as much as possible.

How we each do that is our own decision and left up to our own best judgment. But I don't accept that if I vote for Chaffee even though I don't particularly like him but because if he doesn't win the primary the Dems may take over congress and I don't want that.....whew. Whatever the calculus is, and however convuluted and silly it may appear to anyone else, it's the individual's decision.

The way elections are structured, I have to choose a single candidate. But it's a mistake, I think, to think of the election as my selecting one candidate or the other, one at a time. What I am actually attempting to accomplish is to shape government to my advantage. Sometimes I select a candidate who best represents me. Other times I may hedge against having someone I don't like be in power, or giving rise to a situation that I don't believe is in my interests. I use my vote the way I think suits my interests best.

Wulfyn

Absolutely - and that's what I mean about tactical voting, compromising in one area to achieve a gain in another.


Of course, as in the example you gave, it can work both ways.

__________________

leejo

Oh yeah! People are perfectly free to vote stupidly! And a good tactic may fail.

Kerostasis

It might. Or it might say something about the thousands of people from the other party who would never even think of voting for him, but tried to help get him elected in the primary in the hopes that he would fail in the general.

That, to me, is the worst form of Tactical Voting.

__________________

leejo

It is a bit of weasel move, isn't it? IMO folks ought to be straightforward and honest about their positions. If I vote for a guy I don't particularly care for but with the understanding that he stands the best chance of preventing the other side's win, then that's sort of like the old "my enemy's enemy is my friend" rule of strategery. But voting for someone because it helps elect a person from another party seems like political perfidy to me.

But, if it isn't illegal, it's legal. This stuff only just keeps us from killing each other in the street like they settle matters in many places in the world. It's bound to be messy.