I do NOT think figuring out how to consolidate votes is trivially eas. I emphatically do not think that premature consolidation around unpalatable compromises is the way to convince people that voting means something. In fact, I think giving people effectively no choice is an excellent way to turn OFF more people than might be voting for the 1-2% candidate.
Furthermore, I think that targetted get the vote registered, get the vote out campaigns are actually easier than suppressing my gag reflex in the name of solidarity over things I do not beieve in. And I think generating raw numbers can also test the mettle of the small candidates. Either they also address the problem of convincing people to actually get out to vote or they risk getting swmaped by other forces.
Under this scenario, not only do new voters enter the system but there is organized resistance to total narrowing nad constriction in people's sense of political choices! An thus greater space is created in mny political conversations.
But maybe I am just starry-eyed /-)
DoreneC
In a message dated 12/9/2003 12:15:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>
> >On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Brad DeLong wrote:
> >
> >> There's *lots* of blame to go around. But somehow Naderites are
> >> extremely unwilling to take their share...
> >>
> >
> >Of course I'd expect Mr. DeLong to take this position. The problem isn't
> >that 50% of the eligible (and as studies show, inherently left) population
> >doesn't vote, it's that 1-2% of the population dare to vote for a
> >candidate to the left of a typical DLC "new" (but not "new deal")
> >Democrat.
>
> Intellectual foul. 30 yard penalty and loss of down.
>
> There are many, many, many problems. Some are impossible to solve.
> Some are difficult to solve. Some are trivially easy to solve unless
> some left-wing celebrity wants to be a real asshole.
>
> The problem that is trivially easy to solve (unless some left-wing
> celebrity wants to be a real asshole) is to prevent the splitting of
> the left-of-center vote by having more than one left-of-center
> candidate campaigning.
>
> It's generally better to solve the problems you can easily solve
> first, and then turn to the more difficult ones.
>
> Unless, of course, your politics is a solipsistic taking of an
> "oppositional stance" rather than an attempt to make the
> world a
> better place.
>
> Brad DeLong