On voting for a third party candidate

In a comment on the “It’s Romney” post, which sparked a discussion on whether voting for a third party candidate is “throwing your vote away,” Todd made an interesting and rather compelling argument that I think deserves a post of its own:

I feel like the people who mock third-party candidates are akin to those who play chess by refusing to consider anything but the current move. That is to say, they rule out any long-term strategy by focusing solely on the short term. I.e. “What is the best move you can make now to improve things immediately after that move?” But, of course, that isn’t always the best strategy, either in politics or chess.

In the world of economics, we speak with our purchases. You can hate on McDonald’s all day long, mocking them to your friends and on Facebook, but if you still eat there, if you still pay them, McDonald’s doesn’t really care.

It’s the same with politics. To the degree that political parties and politicians hear anything from the average person, they hear our vote (I’m cynical enough to realize that what they really listen to is money, but that’s a different topic). So if you go on and on in blog comments about how Romney isn’t all that conservative, he wasn’t the best possible candidate, and so on … and then you still vote for Romney, here’s what the Republican Party will hear: you liked Romney.

Don’t be too surprised, then, if you get more candidates like Romney in the Republican Party. Because they know that, even though you claim to like fiscal (or whatever) conservatism, you’ll still vote for the Republican, regardless. There’s no market force, as it were, to push the party in the direction of actual fiscal conservatism — they’ll get what they want from you, either way.

Yes, denying them your vote and voting third-party might lead to a temporal gain for the other major party you really don’t like. But, if the third-party votes are significant enough — if the GOP sees that it can’t actually count on your vote no matter how lousy the candidate — then they might actually have to deal with that by straightening up their act.

Such a chastened party might then actually run a candidate you approve of. But you’d have to play the long game to find out.

And most voters refuse to play the long game.

First of all, do you agree, and, if not, how would you answer him?  Second, what ARE some third parties with candidates that might be worth voting for?  I know of the Libertarians, the Greens, and the Constitution Party.  Can anyone speak to their candidates, or have they been chosen yet?  I heard Roseanne Barr is running for the Green Party nomination.  When voting to make a point, do the candidates matter since you don’t have to worry about their actually getting elected?  And are there some better third parties than those?  (And by my count, there are more than three.)  Is there a Distributivist Party, a Monarchist Party, a Two Kingdoms Party?  I realize that if such parties exist, they aren’t likely to get on the state ballot.  There is that bi-partisan party whose candidates will be selected via the internet.   If any of you are sold on some other party, feel free to make your case.

Health care and “broken markets”

Here is a different argument for the mandatory insurance requirement in Obamacare from Donna Dubinsky:

The private insurance market does not function as a normal market. If you are not employed and you want to purchase insurance in the private market, you cannot unilaterally decide to do so. An insurer has to accept you as a customer. And quite often, they don’t. Insurers prefer group plans, with lots of people enrolled to spread the risk. Can you blame them? The individual consumer is a lot of work, is a higher risk and produces relatively little revenue.

The Government Accountability Office studied this problem last year and found a range of denial rates that vary by state and by insurer. On average, 19 percent of applications nationwide are denied. One-quarter of insurers denied more than 40 percent of the applications they considered. These denials are not limited to deadly illnesses but include many minor reasons. Expect to be denied if you have asthma, if you take just about any prescription medication, if you are more than 15 percent overweight. Expect to be denied if a doctor has recommended any procedure for you, no matter how insignificant. Basically, expect to be denied.

I’m astonished that this information was not laid out in oral argument and that no questions were asked about it. I believe that lawyers on both sides of this argument, and the justices hearing the case, have always been employed and always been covered by employer-provided health insurance. Perhaps it simply does not occur to them that if they were to try to purchase insurance, they might not be able to.

The justices repeatedly asked: If the government can require you to purchase insurance, what else could it require you to do? What are the limiting conditions to this breadth of control?

The government muffed its response. To me, the answer is obvious. There are two simple limiting conditions, both of which must be present: (1) it must be a service or product that everybody must have at some point in their lives and (2) the market for that service or product does not function, meaning that sellers turn away buyers. In other words, you need something, but you may not be able to buy it.

Let’s test the examples presented to the high court: Can the government force you to eat broccoli? This proposition fails on both counts. Nobody must eat broccoli during their lives, and the market for broccoli is normal. If you want broccoli, go buy it. Nothing stops you.

Can the government force you to join a health club? Again, double failure. You don’t need to join a health club. Maybe you should, but you don’t have to. And, if you want to join one, plenty of clubs would be happy to admit you. Indeed, can you imagine a health club turning people down because they are too fat, the way insurers turn people down because they are too sick?

How about burial services? While this example passes the first condition — it is a service that everybody will need — it fails the second. There is a clearly functioning market for burial services. If you want to purchase a burial or a cremation, no seller of those services will turn you away.

The health insurance market meets both criteria. Everybody will need health services at some point. And as long as the United States doesn’t provide national health care, the only reasonable method for most people to pay for those services is through insurance. But here, the market simply does not work. Sellers of health insurance turn away purchasers, and in great numbers.

Although the Affordable Care Act is huge and enormously complex, the point of the legislation is straightforward. It aims to fix the market for health insurance by prohibiting sellers of the service from declining buyers. Why did Congress not pass a simple law just requiring insurance companies to accept all applications? Because such a law would not repair the market and would probably make it worse. With only sick people seeking insurance — because healthy people would wait until they got sick, knowing that insurance was guaranteed — coverage would become overwhelmingly expensive and impossible for most Americans to afford.

The only answer is to expand the pool and spread the risk, which lets insurers have a rational business model. Short of government-provided health services or a government-sponsored national insurance plan, the Affordable Care Act is the next best shot at fixing this broken market.

via The case for Obamacare – The Washington Post.

Could you answer this argument for Obamacare?

Easter

 

Good Friday

 

Good Friday, Easter, and your Baptism

Baptism is what connects you to Good Friday and to Easter.  If you have been baptized, Christ’s death is your death, and Christ’s resurrection is your resurrection.  So says the Bible in words that I don’t understand how non-believers in baptism can get around:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.  (Romans 6:3-5)

“God hidden in the death of Christ”

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (who has announced that he is stepping down) has some perceptive comments about Luther, the Reformation, and the Theology of the Cross:

“The Reformation put a question of the utmost gravity to all Christians, a question about the continuity and dependability of human response to God. It affirmed that the Church was capable of error; that no amount of scholastic tidiness could guarantee fidelity to God; that there was in the Church no secure locus of unquestionable authority. It pointed eloquently to human brokenness, the failure of reason and order. But it did so only to claim triumphantly that the Church’s security lay in this very failure, in the insecurity and un-rootedness which drove it always back to its spring in the Word made broken flesh. Against the self-sufficiency of Christendom is set – rightly and decisively – the cross. To Christians looking for a sign, an assurance, it offered only the ‘sign of the Son of Man’, God hidden in the death of Christ… Luther is a reminder to Catholic and Protestant alike that the strength of Christianity is its refusal to turn away from the central and unpalatable facts of human self-destructiveness; that it is there, in the bitterest places of alienation, that the depth and scope of Christ’s victory can be tasted, and the secret joy which transforms all experience from within can come to birth, the hidden but all-pervading liberation.” (p. 160-61)

via Rowan Williams on Martin Luther and the Cross-Shattered Church | Mockingbird.

The quotation is from his book Wound of Knowledge: Christian Spirituality from the New Testament to St. John of the Cross.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X