The official Contrarian Views endorsement for the 2008 Primary season is … none. There is just too much to dislike about all of the candidates at this point. I’m sure I will end up supporting the Republican nominee over the Democratic nominee, but I wish we had better choices.
I’ve been almost certain for years that I would never, ever, vote for John McCain, but as I look at the Republican field, he almost seems more acceptable than the rest of the bunch. I do think Fred Thompson has the most positions consistent with my beliefs, so I am hoping at some point he will find a way to communicate his small government beliefs, but if he doesn’t get more energy real fast, it will be too little too late.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
David,
I align pretty well with Thompson, too. Alas, as you point out, it doesn't look like he'll win. I'm curious how it'll all play out but I'm getting worn out trying to balance issues given the complexity, vagueness, and confusion.
Regarding McCain, I just read some Rasmussen Reports on him which suggests that he is the most likely to win in the general election, and slightly in the lead for the primary: As Campaign Season Begins, Only One Presidential Candidate is Viewed Favorably by Majority of Voters.
Other interesting statistics on their site:
(1) 2008 Democratic Candidate Key Stats
(2) 2008 Republican Candidate Key Stats
(3) Daily Presidential Tracking Poll:
"""In terms of winning the nomination, Data from RasmussenMarkets.com suggest that McCain has a 27.8 % chance of winning the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney 23.7 %, Giuliani 23.5 %, Mike Huckabee 2.9 %, and Fred Thompson 2.9 %. Among Democrats, Clinton has a 63.9 % chance to win the nomination while Obama has a 32.0 % chance.
"""
And I just started reading The Volokh Conspiracy's series on select candidates from a libertarian perspective. So far, they seem to vary in the quality of content and argument. Some of the comments are also interesting.
Libertarianish Law Professors on Why They Support Their Presidential Candidates (all):
(1) Prof. John McGinnis on Why He Supports Rudy Giuliani for President
(2) Prof. David Beito and Scott Horton on Why They Support Ron Paul for President
(3) Prof. Brad Smith on Why He Supports Mitt Romney for President
(4) Prof. Rick Garnett on Why He Supports Fred Thompson for President
Kevin
Thanks Kevin,
That’s a whole lot of work to be posting on someone else’s blog. : - ) But it is good info.
This “likely” winner stuff has me intrigued. I think it is an important concept, but I’m not sure how to measure a likely winner. I’ve always thought Hugh Hewitt understood the pulse of mainstream conservatives, but Mitt Romney gives me the creeps, so I don’t see how he can be described as a “likely” winner unless he is running against Al Gore or Hillary Clinton.
Someone is going to be the next President. I would think an actor like Thompson would be better in front of the camera. Maybe he just needs to drink more Starbucks.
David,
Oy, yeah, sorry about that. You're right, I probably should've made it an entry on my blog. I just started writing it and it just kinda avalanched on me... and then onto you. :)
Kevin
Hmm ... likely winner ...
Does that mean that we figure out who is likely to win and then vote for them? Shouldn't we figure out who is better and then vote for them and MAKE them win?
Buz
Hi Buz,
Perhaps we should choose our President like American Idol chooses the next Pop Star; one candidate eliminated each round.
However, with the current system, voters how prefer Paul, or Keyes, would be wasting a vote because neither could win a general election as a Republican against any of the top three Democrats. I know I don’t know with certainty, but I can make a fairly obvious assumption. Therefore, it may be better to use my vote for a candidate other than Paul or Keyes.
I guess I was of the opinion that a vote cast is never wasted. If you stay home, then you've wasted your vote.
Hi again Buz,
I’ve voted for candidates who didn’t have a snowballs chance. I’ve also voted for my second choice because I thought my second choice had a better shot than my first choice.
I will continue to try to use my vote strategically, but I do wish we could eliminate one at a time instead of allowing a candidate to win with such a small percentage of the electorate when many candidates are running.
I think that strategic voting will always be an issue to some extent, but perhaps that extent can be minimized. Are you familiar with Instant-runoff voting (IRV) or the Condorcet method?
Hi Kevin,
I’ve heard about IRV but I was not familiar with the term “Condorcet”.
I really like the idea of ranking candidates when there are more than two choices, but I still think and “American Idol” style election would be best. : - )
Past Presidents could narrow the field to 12 Democrats and 12 Republicans and then each week, after a vigorous debate, all of the registered voters in America who are interested can vote for one Democrat or one Republican. One from each party gets eliminated each week until only three from each party remain. After that, one candidate, regardless of party, is eliminated each week.
After several months, we have the Next American President.
This method would probable reduce the amount of money in politics as well.
Hi David,
Past Presidents (Carter, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43) would narrow the field? That's the first time I've heard that suggestion. Hopefully, one party's presidents wouldn't die off before the others! :) Of course, somehow, the field must be narrowed. Maybe we could use a ranked voting method, but just to start it off?
I like the idea of the run-off voting you describe. Ideally, I think that it should have the same outcome as a ranked vote, though I wonder if people can make time to go out and vote 12 times. Then again, that process might involve more people in politics... which is good? :)
How do you see this reducing the amount of money in politics? It seems to me that there would still be campaigning before those 12 weeks start.
Kevin
Hi again Kevin,
I trust past President’s to be a little less partisan and a little more concerned with continuity of policies. It would even be entertaining to have past President’s critique the candidates after each explains a policy position. Past President’s would also prune out the candidates who didn’t have a chance. Radical change would be impossible, but I don’t know that we have ever needed or had radical change.
I was thinking all of the voting would be on-line with voters casting the same vote on two different sites so the votes could be verified, like double entry accounting.
I think if candidates knew they had a certain amount of time on National TV each week, they wouldn’t need to advertise as much in local markets or build networks of campaign offices with temporary workers.
Hi again David,
It would be interesting to have past Presidents critique the candidates, though I'm not sure how we'd compel them to do so and I'm still not sure we can expect them to be non-partisan. e.g. It would probably ruin Hillary if Bill didn't support her.
I'm curious about the numbers, but I suspect that a good percentage of voters would not vote online (elderly maybe?). Casting votes on two independent sites would reduce counting fraud, though I think voting fraud may be more likely online. Also, would this do away with the Electoral College?
It would be nice to reduce the need for fundraising to become President. Unfortunately, it seems that the amount of advertising is often proportional to the return.
Kevin
The only concern I have with the runoff election is that it would be a direct vote, which would allow New York, Miami, and Los Angeles to dictate who the next president would be. All the rest of us states could drop off the face of the earth, and the politicians wouldn't notice, until there was no more ethanol to run Al Gore's jet on ...
Buz
That's a good question, Buzz; Does run-off voting (either instant or repeated) imply or require abolishing the Electoral College (EC)? I think they can be independent issues.
Hi Buz and Kevin,
Yes, the Electoral College and runoff or second choices are independent issues.
I like the Electoral College mainly because it provides a cushion against fraud. But even if every vote was a legal vote, the Electoral College is still good for the reason Buz cited. It forces politicians to campaign in more states and address more issues.
Post a Comment