How does my argument not work if enough people vote for Nader and thus McCain is elected?

I have no problem undermining the Republicans and Democrats – however voting against them in marginal numbers will not undermine them. If you believe it will, then which of us who is correct will be rather easily and empirically borne out by the results of the election.

i don’t grant that nader can’t win the election, though i grant that it is very unlikely. but since there’s more to voting than adding one to a candidate’s total, your argument doesn’t work.

i do think voting has to do with revolution, as i think i’ve explained clearly enough to understand. voting for the ruling class is a counterrevolutionary act because it legitimates the illegitimate. voting against the ruling class is a revolutionary act because it undermines its legitimacy. if you disagree, say why.

i don’t believe that chaos is necessary for progress. but i do think delegitimizing the illegitimate is a progressive act.

Again, if you grant that Nader will not win this election, you cannot get around the logic I put forth.

And finally, if you think that voting in this election can have anything to do with “revolution”, I don’t think you understand the nature of voting or the nature of revolution – mainly because the former has never cause the latter. And if you’re one of those Leninists that believe the system must fall into chaos in order for there to be progress, well, I hear the ISO is accepting new members.

if you take account of the confidence issue, then the value of a vote for the less evil candidate is, i figure, as follows:

Let

V = the value of your vote
L = the value of having the lesser evil for president
G = the value of having the greater evil for president
E = the effect of your vote on the outcome of the election
T = the cost of the legitimacy that you contribute to the system by voting for an approved candidate
D = the cost of not voting for the better candidate (which includes the value of voting against the system, the value of voting in favor of an alternative, the effect of your vote on the better candidate’s chances of winning, and the value of the difference between the better candidate and the lesser evil candidate).

V = [(L - G)*E - T] – D

i haven’t shown the breakdown of D, but it is similar to the breakdown of the left-hand part corresponding to the value of voting for the lesser evil. as the equation shows, T (and its correspondent within D) become important as either E approaches zero or L – G approaches zero. E is effectively zero in non-swing states, and L – G is very low when it’s a republican-democrat presidential contest. as the difference between the good candidate on the one hand and the democrat-republicans on the other hand becomes greater, the value of T and its correspondent within D become higher, because getting rid of the democrat-republican duopoly becomes more important.

this is more my position than yours – i think you mean to say something else.

I’ve been thinking I’ll leave the country if they win, but on second thought, maybe I should stay and become a midwife…

” These are the highest courts in the land, and no one can reasonably argue that an Obama administration’s choices would be more humane and less rabidly ideological than a McCain administration. ”

can you tell us what is meant by extraordinarily right-wing and rabidly ideological. do you have clear and universal definitions here or are you defining this from the place you are politically and ideologically.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/08grantednotedlist.html

this is the posted supreme court docket for the upcoming session. can you predict how the rabidly ideological and extraordinarily right-wing justices would decide these cases.