Comment: Vote "Neither of the Above"

(See in situ)

Vote "Neither of the Above"

Many people have wanted a "None of the Above" option for a long time.

What Ron has just done is point out that they already have a "Neither of the Above" option: the "third party" candidates.

A vote for a minor party candidate says that, and more. It says "Here's a vote you could have had if you hadn't ignored my interests." And by pointing to a candidate with a recognizable political position it also says "... and here's how to change to fix that."

Because a minor party candidate doesn't stand a chance of actual election (at least so far) you don't even have to worry about what he'd do if he actually DID win. So you can vote for the candidate with the best STATED position to make the signal as clear as possible.

But the only thing keeping a mionr party from graduating to major party status is the expectation of the voters that it can't happen. If enough people simultaneously vote for party/candidate X it DOES happen. Thus, for instance, the governorship of Jessie Ventura. So the problem of overcoming the two-party lock is to get voters to realize their power and exercise it.

If a bunch of people realize, simultaneously, "the thing to do is X, the time is now, and enough of us realize it", it happens. Such an event, if it happens without explicit planning and agreement among them or orders to them, is called a "Schelling Point".

IMHO what Ron is trying to do is to get the electorate to realize their power and create a Schelling Point in the next presidential election.

He's doing this by breaking the meme of the "wasted vote" and spreading the meme of the protest vote. If enough people accept this paradigm shift at this point you can expect:
- a surprisingly large number of of votes for third-party presidential candidates this time - enough to show that there ARE enough voters to elect third-party candidates if they are willing to try and can mostly agree on one candidate.
- a "dry-run" in the next congressional election, with a significant number of third-party candidates elected to congress (and a salutory shakeup of the duopoly)
- then the next presidential election has the Schelling Point. The electorate is willing to vote for third-party candidates and possibly one of them wins.

So what this means is that, THIS election, it's VERY important to vote for a minor party candidate. ANY minor party candidate. Better to vote for one with a good position. But what matters is the total for ALL of them. The bigger the better. You don't have to have enough to actually beat even the lesser of the major party candidates. You just have to have enough to "shock and awe" the political establishment.

But if the total is more than that of the lesser of the two major party candidates, so much the better: You're set up for a "dynastic succession" like the one where the Republicans replaced the Whigs. Ron can use that to beat the Republican party over the head: "Change NOW or DIE!"

And if the total is more than that of EACH of the two majors the point is made. Next time a third party presidential candidate is obviously a potential winner.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.