Stein Wins!

           The world of politics, as well as the globe writ large, was shaken to its neoliberal foundations this week by the surprise victory of Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who did not qualify for debates and was accorded little media coverage, in the campaign for American president. Stein, a 74-year-old physician, will mark a trifecta of history as the nation’s first woman, Jew and third-party victor since 1860 to become commander-in-chief.

            Going into Election Day, polls as well as Las Vegas odds makers had shown the major-party candidates, Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump, locked neck-and-neck in a virtual dead heat, with seven key battleground states considered a tossup. The polls, it turns out, were dead wrong.

            A majority of American voters, it’s now clear, collectively decided that the two-party system, derided by critics as a “duopoly,” was no longer serving the country or their needs and needed to be sent a message: be responsive to our wants or needs, or we’ll kick you out.

            Pundits, editors and opinion researchers are reeling at this unprecedented and radical turn of events. “Odds that are more likely than not do not preclude an unlikely outcome,” polling expert Nate Silver of The New York Times said. “But this is different. Tens of millions of voters changed their minds, not about which candidate party to support, but about the system itself.” Moreover, voters deliberately misled researchers about their decision to cast ballots outside the two major parties.

            “It is really so shocking?” asked Ted Rall, a gadfly cartoonist and columnist. “Third-party voters have been vote-shamed for so long, it may have been easier to express themselves in the privacy of the voting booth than to fend off vote-shaming critics who told them that, say, ‘a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump.’”

            Shelly Jackson, a 37-year-old dental hygienist who has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, said she decided to vote for Stein after determining that she was unhappy with both Harris and Trump. “Neither of them had much to say, or at least not much to say that was credible or intelligent, about the biggest issues we face as a nation: climate change, stagnant wages, poverty, unaffordability of healthcare. After I did some research, I found third-party and independent candidates like Chase Oliver and Cornel West who were intelligent and thoughtful. Trump was obsessing over a murdered squirrel and Harris—even she didn’t know what she was saying. In the end, I went with Stein.”

            Until late on Election Night, Stein voters believed they were lone voices in the dark, casting protest votes that, as usual, wouldn’t affect the outcome. Typical was JoAnn LeCroix of Baton Rouge: “I told my male friends I was voting for Trump and my female friends I was voting for Kamala. That night, when I saw the results and Jill got to 270 electoral votes and CNN called it for her, I couldn’t believe it.”

            Acting on fears of increased government regulations and the belief that a Stein Administration might reduce America’s military projects around the world and make it easier for workers to organize, join unions and negotiate for improved wages and benefits, the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 38% on the news, to recover later during the day after the election as civil engineering-related and green-energy sector stocks surged in expectation of increased government inspection.

            Traditional U.S. adversaries including China, Iran and Cuba expressed joy at Stein’s win, promising friendlier ties with a Stein Administration if it seeks them. Ukraine’s President, Volodomyr Zelensky, said his country would be ready for U.S.-brokered peace talks with Russia. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his intention to launch a nuclear strike in the occupied Gaza Strip in anticipation of a shift of U.S. policy away from military and financial support for Israel.

            One of many signs that something dramatic had occurred took the form of an unprecedented joint press conference between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. “Jill Stein is a hater, a bad woman who totally cheated like a dog. No one has ever seen anything like it,” Trump said as Harris nodded by his side, calling on the Democrats and Republicans to unify against a common threat. “Looking at this holistically,” Harris said, “it’s holistically impossible not to arrive at a holistic conclusion that something has happened that should not have happened. There’s no way that tens of millions of Americans suddenly started thinking for themselves. Stop the steal!” Democrats and Republicans promised to file lawsuits to challenge the results, pressure Stein electors to defect and, if need be, use military force to prevent what they called “a coup from within.”

            Stein’s Green Party, with no members in either the House or Senate, will face challenges in pushing legislation through Congress, long-time Beltway observers predict. One person given anonymity to speak freely, said: “This is an epic disaster for the rules-based order and the stability upon which it relies. Citizens will expect changes to improve their lives—and now we may be forced to give in. This is what happens when you foolishly entrust democratic institutions to protect democracy.”

(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis. His latest book, brand-new right now, is the graphic novel 2024: Revisited.)

 

The TMI Show Ep 9: What Should Lefties Do About Kamala?

What do you do as a voter when your party isn’t that into you? On today’s TMI Show, in which there’s no such thing as Too Much Information, Ted Rall and Scott Stantis (guest hosting for Manila Chan) Progressive and other left-leaning Democrats are once again wrestling with a dilemma they’ve seen before: Kamala Harris has pivoted to the right of her party, eschewing progressive policies, campaigning with far-right Liz Cheney and supporting Israel against Gaza, and Ukraine against Russia.

Should progressives support Harris despite her snubs, hoping she secretly plans to move left of she wins? Should they punish her by voting third party or even for Trump? Or should they abstain from voting?

 

Said No Democrat Ever

Every election, including this one, Democrats like to say that it’s the most important election of our lifetime. Therefore, they say, we can’t possibly risk a Republican coming to power so we’re not allowed to vote for an independent or third-party candidate. That message might resonate a little more if they didn’t say it in every single election.

DMZ America Podcast #168: Interview with Chase Oliver, 2024 Libertarian Candidate for President

2024 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Chase Oliver sits down for a wide-ranging interview on domestic and foreign policy as well as the role and challenges of running as a non-duopoly candidate, with DMZ America podcast co-hosts, the political cartoonists Ted Rall (Left) and Scott Stantis (Right). Ted and Scott found Mr. Olver to be forthright, smart and engaging, and so will you!

 

Watch the Video Version: here.

Trump Out to Destroy Democracy

Donald Trump, his opponents say, threatens democracy. Democracy in America was already in big trouble long before Trump entered politics, though. It would be a pity to believe that defeating Trump goes far enough to defend democracy.

The Strategic Voting Fallacy

         Many people who typically vote Republican but dislike Trump, and others who typically vote Democratic but dislike Harris, are wrestling with a fundamental dilemma of the voter who lives in a duopoly.

A vote is an endorsement. A vote declares to the world: “I approve of this candidate.” There is no half-vote. A vote is binary: yes or no. If your vote helps someone win who goes on to do something awful, their sins are partly your fault.

If there are only two major-party candidates, and both seem likely to commit an atrocity if they win, the moral and rational alternative is clear: vote for a third-party or independent candidate whose odds of carrying out a heinous act appear to be low, or boycott the election.

For the 61% of Americans who oppose sending more weapons to Israel, this condition has been met. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are both enthusiastic supporters of Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinian civilians in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank. Both have promised to send more bombs, more missiles, more money and more intelligence to the Israelis. A vote for Harris is a vote for more genocide. So is a vote for Trump. If you vote for either the Democrat or the Republican, the blood of every Palestinian who dies or gets maimed after January 20th will be on you.

I am not saying this to make you feel guilty. I am merely stating a fact.

If they care to vote at all, pro-Palestinian voters can support Jill Stein, Cornel West, Chase Oliver or someone else. But then they must contend with the strategic voting fallacy.

Strategic voting, or “lesser of two evils” voting, is the act of casting a ballot in favor of a candidate you do not support, in order to prevent a second candidate you oppose more, from winning. By definition, because non-duopoly candidates are unlikely to win, a vote for someone other than a Democrat or a Republican is a “wasted” vote that, de facto, supports the major-party candidate you hate most. Aside from the self-alienating cognitive dissonance of consciously endorsing a politician whose policies of which you do not approve, strategic voting is deeply illogical and mathematically ridiculous.

First and foremost, it is statistically impossible—beyond the point of winning-the-Lotto odds—that your single vote could ever change the outcome of an American election at the state or national level. This is not to say that an election can’t be close. The 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential race came down to 537 votes that determined the pivotal state of Florida; the 1916 contest between Woodrow Wilson and Charles Hughes boiled down to 3,420 votes in California. But the odds that one vote can change the result of an American presidential election are so vanishingly small as not to be worthy of serious consideration by anyone with more than two IQ points to rub together.

A statistical analysis of the 2008 election published in the academic journal Economic Inquiry by Andrew Gelman, Nate Silver and Aaron Edlin proves this point. “One of the motivations for voting is that one vote can make a difference. In a presidential election, the probability that your vote is decisive is equal to the probability that your state is necessary for an electoral college win, times the probability the vote in your state is tied in that event,” the authors noted. “On average, a voter in America had a 1 in 60 million chance of being decisive in the presidential election.”

If you vote to “make a difference,” you’d get better results from playing a classic Pick-6 Lotto game; odds of winning the jackpot are 1 in 32 million. Unlike voting, it pays.

True, your vote might determine who sits in the Oval Office the next four years. It’s never happened before. It’s never even been close. Statistically, 537 votes in Florida was not close. Would you go to a job interview where your odds of getting hired were 1-in-537? It would be irrational, just as it would be crazy to avoid flying—even though the odds of dying in a plane crash (1 in 11 million) are much higher than your vote tipping a national election.

Strategic voting requires precise analysis of perfectly accurate polls capped by a completely subjective determination of whether a candidate has a viable chance of winning.

Setting aside the challenges faced by pollsters trying to sample a population’s opinions from mobile phones rather than landlines, a problem illustrated by the many polling organizations who failed to predict Trump’s 2016 victory, high-quality polls are subject to a margin of error of several percentage points. In a tight race, in which the margin of a win can be within that margin, a poll is as useful as a coin flip. Finally, strategic voters must ask themselves: assuming I can find a poll that I totally believe, where is the numerical tipping point where a race becomes so skewed in my state that I should free to vote my conscience, i.e. for a third-party or independent candidate, or not at all?

In Montana, where Trump leads Harris 56-39, it’s safe to say the former president has the state in the bag. Montana voters tempted to cast a protest vote against the Israelis’ genocide in Gaza needn’t lose much sleep by filling in the oval for Jill Stein. It’s a different affair in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, where Harris leads Trump by one point, 49-48, well within the margin of error—that is, of course, assuming these polls are right and that, if they are, they won’t change much between now and when you cast your vote.

What about a state where one candidate leads 55-45? A ten-point difference would be hard to overcome, and it wouldn’t be considered a swing state, but it’s not impossible—such things have happened before.

This is where the absurdity of strategic voting escalates even further.

What constitutes a close race? A close-enough race to believe (falsely, as Nate Silver and his friends proved in their study that your single vote could affect the outcome)? 51-49? Of course. (Though it’s not true.) 75-25. Of course not. (But that’s no less true than the 51-49 scenario.) 53-47? Maybe?

(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis. His latest book, brand-new right now, is the graphic novel 2024: Revisited.)

Assuming You Believe the Polls

Voters who refuse to consider supporting a third-party candidate often feel that to do so would be to waste their vote. Following that reasoning to its logical extreme, we should all vote for the candidate who is at the top of the polls at any given time (assuming the polls are reliable).

Oppose Democracy to Save Democracy

Democrats say they’re defending democracy–but only by opposing Trump. They’re happy to resort to anti-democratic tactics whenever they feel threatened.

keyboard_arrow_up
css.php