The beginning of the campaign trail, a chat session

Before the beginning

One day, not such a long time ago, in some secret abode of Free Speech, I happened to have a spontaneous chat with some people who were strangers to me.

This chat session is very interesting because it was the first time that I exposed my endorsement of Michael Badnarik to American voters. It was very instructive to see their reaction and to read their questions. As it happened, we had an interesting variety of participants in this chat: a person is going to vote Kerry, another Bush while a third was a Libertarian advocate who, of course, was going to vote Badnarik anyway.

I didn't change anyone's mind, but as I told them, I respect their decision, whatever it maybe.

I had not premedited to publish here what I told them, but because of the variety of participants and because I found their reaction and questions interesting, I decided to make my answers available to everyone.

This is not the exact transcript of the chat that took place. First of all, I want to protect the identity of the participants. Also, I do not hold the copyright of their words, so I rewrote their part, using my own words but so that my answers would still make sense (the meaning of their remarks has changed little though). Also, I think that 7 or 8 people took part in the chat, and here I make it look that we were only four. Finally, I have made some minor editing in my own remarks so that the whole reads better.

It took place just before I published in this web site the Cobb/Badnarik debate and the update on the USA page with my endorsement for Badnarik.

Here we go...

Vote what you mean

Why do I always have the feeling that in normal election, my vote is worth much less than a fraction of a vote? Vote your full vote here.

Do you mean something like Instant Runoff Voting. I like the idea to rank each candidate. That would mean an end to the duopoly of parties and everyone would be able to rank their favorite third party candidate first and put the Lesser-of-Two-Evils second, ahead of the other main candidate.

I would be for such a voting system, if the duopoly had not a complete control of the government. I don't thing anything would ever change short of shooting them all!

Personnally, I am not a big fan of Instant Runoff Voting.
Yes, the US is definitely a duopoly (as if you needed me to notice it!). Here's why. So, there is a definite need to campaign to change the voting system. The US may not be the first country to make the change: the vested interest are too strong. But if any country in the world makes the first step, then there is hope for the rest of the world. In the US, I currently endorse Badnarik. He is currently the only candidate I know of who supports Approval. At this time, that's the only thing that matters to me. I want one day my vote to count. I will upload more information about this next week. If you'd like to support my efforts to have meaningful elections, then I invite you to register in my message board and cast your vote in the forum according to real preferences, whatever they may be. Ask your friends to do likewise.

Single Issue campaigning

You only care about the voting system?

What about other issues? I find your approach very shallow.

Thank you for your supportive comments.

I care about many things. I have an endless list of things that I really care about. I know precisely who would better represent all the issues that I deeply care about.

The point is that, given the voting system, I know that if I vote for my favorite candidate, I know very well that my vote is wasted anyway. My favorite candidate has no chance whatsoever to win a major election, not that people don't like them or that their policies don't make sense. It's just that the voting system makes in neigh impossible for a third party to emerge.

So, until we change the voting system, my vote and my support for all the issues that I care about will be wasted.

So, if I want to promote all those issues, I have to promote a better voting system first.

That's why I also invite other people who would like their vote to be meaningful to join me. We may have different opinions on other topics, and we shall be able to express those different opinions fully and meaningfully when we use Condorcet or Approval. Meanwhile, why not cooperate?

Some people might think that dismissing with a two-liner the hundreds of hours spent by one one person on a project that is seen as the key to the other issues IS extremely shallow. Personally, I thank you for giving the opportunity to express myself better.

Blessings.

Spoiler effect

When you vote for a small candidate, it's a vote that doesn't go to one of the two main ones. One vote doesn't make much difference, but if people worked together, it could snowball very quickly.

Is this what you mean?

Yes, that's what I mean.

Have you ever heard of the spoiler effect? This is quite common in plurality voting. I don't know of any equivalent in Britain, but over there, in the USA, Perrot spoiled Bush The Daddy's reelection in 1992. Nader spoiled Gore's election in 2000 and might spoil Kerry's chances this year again.

In plurality, there is no room for a third party/candidate. That's why the Liberal-Democrat party is so small in the UK and that other parties are inexistent.

If enough people get to realize that they are spoiled of their freedom of expression and of their right to cast a ballot that truly represents their opinions and for that ballot to have the same value as any other ballot cast for the Lesser-Of-Two-Evils, then we can unite and systematically spoil elections.

Once a third party candidate systematically get 5 to 10% of the votes in every elections, the pressure will be very big on the two main candidates. Sooner rather than later, one of them will be tempted to claim those 10% back (probably the one who will always loose 42% to 45% for the other) and say: ok, look, I shall make the proper electoral reform so that Condorcet or Approval gets adopted if you vote for me.

When (not if) that happens, that will be the end of the duopoly, and we will then all be able to truly vote according to our preferences. By that time, I will be express myself on a variety of issues and nobody would find me shallow.

yours.

This year, a few votes will not change much, but if the effort is carried on over the next few years, at the end, the vote will tally up to a significant amount.

I always vote Libertarian, Badnarik this year, because that's who I really support. We may not win this year, but one day we will.

The wasted vote is the one cast for one of the two major parties. It just strengthen their stranglehold on power and doesn't do anything to fix the system.

Yes, we shall not allow the duopolies of the world spoil us of our freedom to cast a meaningful vote.

I am not a US citizen, but my campaign is world wide. I don't care which country uses Condorcet or Approval the first. Other countries will follow suit until Condorcet is the norm.

Why not vote this year for the candidate who supports Approval, so that one day you can vote for the Libertarian Party in a way that truly increase their chance of gaining power?

I tell you a good news. Keep watching my web site and you and your friends come and vote because early next week I will make an official endorsement for the US 2004 election: the only candidate I know of so far who has expressed support for Approval is none else than Badnarik.

I come a bit late in the campaign to make any difference in the result this year, but more elections are coming all around the world every year. My effort will be sustained.

I don't put too much credence on the "spoiler effect". There is no way to verify for whom the votes for a small candidate would have been cast, should that small candidate be "incapacitated". It's probable that those ballots would not have been cast at all.

We can't tell where the votes for a small candidate come from.

Never mind where the votes come from. If one of the Two Parties always loose with only 2% to the Other Party, then they will start to lurk on the 10% Third Party votes.

That's when we win, and that's when we get to truly find out how popular the Reform Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party are.

That's when we'll start talking about policies, not smear campaigns.

Service

Why are politicians always so selfserving?

We need wise leaders who can upkeep the spirit of service to the people.

Voter apathy is always a problem...

Voter apathy is one of the symptoms of a bad election system.

I guess that people are not interested in a Horse Race nor in Blood Sports.

I guess that people are wiser than it may seem at first glance ;-)

A wise person is a person who doesn't get involved in politics.

If (I) we succeed, that's when we'll have a chance to have wise men, men who will serve the people, not themselves as leaders. Do you know why we shall have such leaders to serve us then? Because precisely that's what the majority of people want. Don't you find it strange that the majority of people cannot year after year elect a leader that fulfil their longings?

If you come on board and support my initiative, you will see that we can be successful.

Blessings.

I had a dream...

I think you dream too much. Are you on a high or what? It'll never happen.

Yes, I am dreaming. And I shall go on dreaming. It feels nice to have a look at the solution when everyone else is complaining about the problem.

Have sweet dreams too! Be well!

About pragmatism

Perrot nearly got elected in 1992. Other third party candidates may do as well.

Do you think having more parties is the solution? Look at the countries where they have a multitude of them!

What difference would it make? How would it solve any problem?

The solution is not to have more parties but to reform the existing ones, working from the inside.

Both the Republican Party and the Democratic party are not what they once were. It's now just a bunch of looneys and socialists.

Don't get rid of the parties. A third party wouldn't change anything. Just get rid of the leeches.

Here you come again with your Republican ideology.

I may be voting Bush this year, but I am not a Republican. Just a pragmatist.

In any case, you completely miss my point.

Never mind!

Half of the pragmatist is trying to save America from Kerry by voting Bush.

The other half is trying to save America from Bush by voting Kerry.

It's about time for the pragmatists to start doing the right thing!

50% of the American will vote Bush because they hate Kerry, and another 50% will vote Kerry because they hate Bush.

As Badnarik puts it: All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, and their candidate wins, they'll still keep getting evil. If you don't like the way things are, how do you change it by voting for more of the same?

Voting for either of the two big parties would still leave me unrepresented.

I find the following poem quite apropos:

A nobleman selfserving and arrogant on one side
The alternative a rich merchant corrupted and as vile
From a dish of juicy apples and a couple of big overripe ones too
Why elect to have the least rotten of them two?

Sun Ch'ing - Warring States period Master.

Revolution

I admire you for trying to start a revolution. You match your actions to your thoughts.

Still, you know fully well that Badnarik will never get elected. He simply has no chance of winning.

What next, then? Do you nuke Washington? Hunger strike? What good is that to your family? How does it help your children? Not much, I guess.

I appreciate very much your concern. Me and my family are fine. We live quite comfortably and we don't need any help from the government, especially not the US one, since I have never set foot in the USA.

Now, I understand that some people live in dire circumstances in your country, and that they feel that they cannot afford to "waste" their vote and prefer voting for what they see as the lesser of two evils. They favor the short term benefits over the long term ones. I understand their point of view and respect their freedom.

I have no such feeling of urgency. My action has just started earlier this year, because of what I witnessed in the election where I live. My action is peaceful in nature and a long term one, based on a deep (not shallow!) understanding of the roots of the problems.

My aim is to inform people who are willing to be informed, share things with people who are interested in what I have to share. My aim is certainly not to impose my will on anybody. We both live in republics, and my action is legal and ethical. If it happens that a strong minority of people have the same way of thinking as I do, then we may get what we desire. If not, if I am the only one fighting this fight, then so what? The only thing I'd accomplish is waste my own time. I wouldn't have hurt anyone. At the end of the day, I'd still be as well off as I am today.

I started late this year and my site is still largely unknown. I currently endorse Badnarik, but if I am lucky I may help him get around two or three more votes this year. What is this to Badnarik? Nothing? Well, again, I don't care: my action is a long term one and worldwide.

I believe that I may reach much more people by 2006 or 2008.

Maybe a hundred ;-)

Thank you for your encouragement.

I appreciate the fact that you have solution for the long term. It sounds nice.

I am however worried about what may happen until then. If the wrong president gets elected this year, it will have repercutions for the decades to come. A new voting system is pointless if the country is a wreck by then. Just have a look at all the welfare programs voted at during the Great Depression.

Revolution will only mean civil war or the United Nations having sovereignty over the USA. I do not want either and I would fight weapons in hand to get rid off parasites feasting on the remain of the formerly great U.S. of A.

I am curious about one thing. You said you never set foot it the US. You don't have the right to vote here. What value does your endorsement of a candidate in a US election have?

You live there. You know the country and the candidates much better than I ever could. By any means, vote according to what you think is best. I never implied you to do otherwise.

My endorsement only means something to people who listen to me and agree with me. For now, I can count the number of such people on the fingers of one hand, and they are all non-US citizens. So my endorsement means just about nothing at this stage. You have nothing to worry about.

Any other question? ;-)

Let me get that straight: you say you are not a Republican. You admited you hate Bush. How come then you say you will still vote for him?

No wonder this country is a mess. You perpetuate the problem instead of creating the solution.

Ok, then, let me be "part of the problem".

Here is what I am worried about: how much taxes will I have to pay, will I be able to pay for my mortgage, feed and educate my children.

Also, I don't want the US to be an annex of the UN as promissed by Kerry.

For me, there are only two realistic choices and Badnarik is not one of them. I just can't stand the one, so I choose the other.

The Republican Party has moved off to some "center". It's not what it used to be under previous Republican presidents. But the Democrats really frighten me this year more than ever. Bush may be stupid, but we know where we are headed. Who can be sure of what to expect with Kerry.

Again, the Libertarian Party are simply not credible in a presidential election. At best, I may vote for them in a local or State election. At least, they'd have a better chance of winning there.

What else is there to do?

I have always voted for my favorite third party candidate before. I'll still do that except in the presidential election. I am just too scared of Bush. He must absolutely loose, or we may not be here next time around to speak about any third party candidate.

Really, I hate myself for having to do this, but this time I have to hold by breath and go to vote for Kerry. It's been 15 years I haven't voted for a major party candidate. I just have to do it.

Go and waste your vote, then. I wonder what could happen if everyone stopped thinking this way.

No, I agree with him. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and do what must be done.

Maybe, I could understand both of you if really there were a big difference between the two main candidates, if one really was a Hitler and the other one a significantly different alternative. But sometimes, it really hard to tell them apart. The rich will still get richer and the poor will still be worse off in four years.

By any means, do what you think is best, just like I told him. He feels best to vote Bush, you feel best to vote Kerry. All is fine by me. I have no right to interfere nor to judge your decision.

Do you live in a close state?

In any case, taking a long term perspective on things, do you understand how Approval and Condorcet could be the solution to your voting woes? You can vote for Kerry now but still support my action, for your own sake.

Everyone,

If you understand Approval and Condorcet and it makes sense to you to use such voting systems, I humbly invite you once more to support my action by joining me. Register and cast in the forum the ballot you will not be able to cast in this election.

I invite you all to inform yourselves more on this issue. Vote whatever you want this year, but don't be as shortsighted as most politicians. See beyond Nov,2. Stop by my site once a month or two and see what's new, cast a few more ballots, give me some related information you may have gathered. Tell your local politicians, from big and small parties, how you feel about voting method issues.

I read a lot of comments by Americans on this elections issues. I see how the american people are divided, how they are torn within because they have to make a moral choice that may affect their lives and that of others, how most of time American people say: I will vote for Kerry/Bush not because I like the guy, but because I am afraid of the other one. What kind of a choice is that? It may be the best choice to make this year, but it needn't be so in coming years.

Please realize that most of this kind of electoral distress wouldn't exist with either Approval voting system of, better yet, Condorcet voting system.

Please, support what would really make a difference in your political landscape.

Nothing will improve if people keep shouting at their television.

Libertarian

Augustin, many people here in the US agree with you.

I guess that the Libertarian ideals are supported by a majority of US citizens. The proplem is that few people follow up with their votes.

People seem to really believe that the two major parties are working for their interest, instead of working for a minority of corporatists. They are just too asleep to realize that they have the power at the tip of their ballot to actually change the system. Instead, they just choose to follow the Lesser of Two Evils.

The very same people say that the libertarian voters like me are wasting our vote. The state where I live is a Democratic haven, so I am wasting my vote anyway. I may as well make my vote count otherwise.

I would like to clarify one point about my support for Badnarik. I never said I agree with the Libertarian Party's platform. My endorsement for Badnarik (ok, we all know it has no value this year!) is a weak one, it's just because he said in passing in an interview that he preferred Approval voting to IRV. It's not one of his main issues, by far. It's just that I don't know of any other candidate who has even pronounced the words "Approval voting" or "Condorcet" in their speeches. Cobb from the Green Party actively promotes IRV and Proportional Representation.

My concern is only so that one day we can rank our preferences and so that we talk more about policies and much less about horse race. That's why I invite other people who may not like the Libertarian Party to vote for them anyway until we've gained for ourselves the right to cast a meaningful ballot.

Having said that, I do care a lot about your country's politics. I have watched several full length videos of presidential debates, and I probably know more about Nader, Cobb and Badnarik than the average American does.

Especially I watched a debate between Cobb (Green) and Badnerik. It was most enlightening. The debate was friendly and solely based on policies. The two candidates were pointing out in a friendly conversation where they agreed and where they did not.

Badnerik was well spoken, and to use his words, me too I have Liberty at heart. A lot of his arguments were convincing and I quite like the guy.

Right now, on my web site, I ranked him first on a Condorcet ballot because he supports Approval voting. But assuming that now we were already using Condorcet voting in the USA, I am not so sure I would rank him first. I have reservations about the extent to which he wants to get the State out of everything. I am not sure that, to use his example, it's the right thing to give complete freedom to shoot on whomever wants to grab your money at the ATM (What if the guy at the ATM just wanted to ask you the time?)

It sounds too much like anarchy, the wild US Far West ruled by the Law of the Strongest.

It really depends how far he wants to go. I believe there must be some amount of government. There must be some rules and limitations to our Freedom wherever our Freedom would curtail that of others.

Now, if we were using either Approval or Condorcet in the US today, I have no doubt that the Libertarian Party support rate would grow dramatically and I would see that as a good thing. If that happens, people like Badnarik would have more access to televised debates. He would have more opportunities to refine his positions and clarify how little government he really wants, how few rules he would keep. By that time, I would be able to better reassess my support for him, and rethink about how close to first rank I would put him on a Condorcet ballot.

Yours.

Taiwan

Augustin, how is the situation like, in Taiwan? Are the parties any better than here?

Thank you for enquiring about Taiwan.

I have a page that basically says USA 1836+1840 = Taiwan 2000+2004.

Obviously, in Taiwan, we don't have an electoral college. My very ill-informed brother-in-law thought it would be a good idea to have one here as you do there. I can't disagree more ;-)

Otherwise, presidential elections use the same voting method: Plurality voting, meaning that two main parties are emerging, actually splitting the nation into two camps, one fighting the other.

For legislative election, they have a multi-seat plurality voting system, meaning that a few smaller parties can be represented in the parliament. It is still plurality voting, so there is still a dividing line in the middle. We have what we call the "green camp" and the "blue camp", with one major and one minor party on each side, as explained in the page above.

Now I feel blessed that I quite like our president, from the DPP, who is reform minded, progressive and who has done a lot to deepen the democratisation process of this country and for Human Rights. His record on the environment is much weaker but better than for the alternative.

What really motivates me in my action is that I saw first hand how really divisive and destructive Plurality voting can be. Of course we can see that in the US (especially Florida 2000), but it was illustrated in a much more dramatic way this year in Taiwan.

If you read the page above, you would know that there can only be two big parties with Plurality Voting, and that such parties will adjust their positions in a way that each gets just about 50% of the votes, making any election a close one and sometimes dramatically so, like this year.

When each camp has one million supporters gathered in a rally on election day, it is 100% sure that one group of one million people will get very disappointed when hearing the election results. What good can a mob of one million disappointed, angry people do in the streets?

In taiwan, they stayed in front of the presidential office, day and night for a full eight days. The election was in March, but the result is still disputed today. Add to this kind of explosive mixture an election eve assassination attempt on the President, an attempt is believed by some hard-core, blue-camp supporters to be fake and blamed on the president himself and you can get an idea on how nerve wracking the whole election process was.

The fact is that a huge majority of the population is plainly fed up with the constant struggle between the two sides. Most people would just get it over with. A majority didn't especially like either candidate. The citizens disapprove of the violence, the shooting incident, the ongoing protests.

What saddens me is that very few, if any, understand the real cause of such a situation. How is it that a majority (well over 50%) of people cannot be heard? Only by changing the voting system would the situation improve meaningfully.

As a side note, Taiwan is probably one of the very few countries in the world that favors Bush over Kerry: Bush is seen as a better Guardian Angel of our little democratic Republic against the big Communist China bully. I am not sure it's true.

Blessings.

Fascinating. Thanks for the insight.

And thanks to those of you who felt interested enough to read this all the way through.