voting strategically
Sep. 7th, 2008 04:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioMost of the time we vote in elections to address that particular election -- a tactical move (and an important one), in the grand scheme of things. I'm coming to the conclusion that no third party can ever advance so long as everyone does that, so I'm strongly leaning toward making a strategic vote this year, recognizing that the payoff will be delayed if present at all.
Obama or McCain is going to win this election; there is no doubt about that. Thus, many would say, voting for anyone else is throwing away my vote. It's not -- my vote, if accompanied by enough others, could help break the lock the Democrats and Republicans have on the election system. Our voting system is broken; it's set up to favor the two major parties, so it's not a level playing field. There are two ways to attack that -- change the rules (which does not benefit those in power, so it's not going to happen, and yes I've written to my representatives in Congress anyway), or get enough votes to appear on the radar. Both are, of course, highly unlikely, but if everyone says "it won't happen so I won't try" then it certainly won't happen. I'm not ready to give in to self-fulfilling prophecies.
One vote for Obama or McCain does not matter for that candidate -- not even in a swing state, I don't think. (Has PA's stake in any election been decided by as few as 10,000 votes?) One vote for someone else also does not matter for that candidate -- he can't win. But it does matter, a tiny little bit, for his party, and maybe for other parties in general. Enough votes can mean ballot access next time. Enough votes can mean someone else showing up in election returns, which can lead to people asking "who the heck are those guys who got 2%?", which can help in other future races. Enough votes could mean media coverage (with the same result). Or it might not, but it certainly won't if the votes aren't there.
Now granted, minor parties should stop trying for the big races and work up from smaller ones. That would be the right long-term approach that might bear fruit in my (hypothetical) grandkids' generation. But if the only tools available to me (given that I'm not willing to run a campaign) are major elections, I'll work with those as opposed to working with none at all.
I care about this, but let's be frank: demonstrably, I do not feel strongly enough about this to dedicate significant resources to it; I am not a community organizer, a lobbyist, or a campaigner. I'm just one person -- who leans toward a minor party -- with one vote, and I want to use it judiciously. I'm the moral equivalent of the folks who donate $10 to a campaign -- definitely in "every little bit helps but this bit doesn't help a lot" territory.
Four years ago I voted for the lesser evil because I perceived a real national risk should the greater evil win. Doing my part there didn't make a difference, and I find Hillel's words running through my brain: if not now, when? When will it ever be "safe enough" to vote for a minor-party candidate for president? It's real easy to fall into the trap of believing that next time will be different and "just this once" I should do the expedient thing, only to have "next time" never come. Is the tactical situation now so important that I should sacrifice a strategic vote for it?
So I'm leaning toward voting for the long term, but I'm open to arguments otherwise. (See also, if you like, the discussion from four years ago.)
Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-07 09:19 pm (UTC)The problem with a "long term" approach is that you ensure the party furthest from your beliefs will win -- hopefully not your intended result. An example of this was Ralph Nader in the 2004 election, and potentially Ron Paul if he decides to run in this election.
Living here in CA where my vote truly doesn't matter, I would hate to see your vote in a swing state "wasted" on a third party. This is not to say a third party never works -- witness the Bull Moose party of Theodor Roosevelt.
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-07 09:35 pm (UTC)I'm not sure my one vote is going to cost the less-bad candidate to lose. Ralph Nader was trying to win (which was delusional). I know we can't win the election; "winning" would be making enough of an impact to influence future elections. So I guess I'm trading the possible win of impact against the possible win of this election. One vote doesn't matter either way, but I think it does proportionally more good when cast for the minor party.
(I sure hope Ron Paul doesn't run; that won't accomplish anything. It would be better for him to throw his weight behind Bob Barr.)
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-08 12:36 am (UTC)That's why I'm trying to ram it down the Barony's throat (over a surprising amount of resistance).
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-08 03:47 am (UTC)That's curiosity, mind you, not (necessarily) prelude to a counter-argument. I can see two schools of resistance: one, if the proposed system is viewed as more hassle than the current one. That's probably harmless in the long run. The second, though, would be if they don't have as much confidence in a different system to get the "right" answer compared to the status quo. In that case, you have to balance the pluses and minuses of "theoretically valid" election results that are perceived as somehow suspect.
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-08 04:09 am (UTC)Every time I think of voting for a third party, I remember Florida in 2000. Yeah, we're all prisoners of the 2 party system, but the 2 major party candidates are *not* equally evil (Nader's infamous comments notwithstanding).
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-08 06:09 pm (UTC)The proposed system is actually less hassle (although that needed to be demonstrated, so it wasn't obvious). Lack of confidence in the new system is probably the issue. And the comparison requires some intricate math, which I've been unable to explain simply and clearly.
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-08 06:33 pm (UTC)Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-09 11:47 am (UTC)I read an interesting (but slightly disingenuous) analysis of the instant runoff system and its failure to support monotonicity; there's a version at http://rangevoting.org/Monotone.html The gist of it is that under certain circumstances, it can be gamed, and if you support candidate A, you can remove candidate B (a strong contender) from the race by adding candidate C (a weaker contender whom you don't support) to your vote, thus assuring that A wins. It's finicky and impractical, but still it gives instant runoffs a bad smell in the engineering sense.
But it's still better than what we've got.
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-09 11:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-07 09:49 pm (UTC)The other thing is, both parties seem increasingly hell-bent on throwing out the most extreme examples of their party line. When this happens, at least half the country feels alienated, because their interests aren't being recognized by their government.
Rusty and I joke that we wouldn't want to be president because at least half the country is gonna hate you right off the bat, but that wouldn't be the case if just once the parties offered some moderation. I'm not sure I'll be voting for either party until they do.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-07 11:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 01:49 am (UTC)Quinnipiac, Rasmussen & Opinion R, the three polls taken within the last week in PA show Obama leading 47-42. Plus the fact that if every tie and PA went to McCain, the electoral count would still be 280-258 in Obama's favor.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 04:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 04:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 06:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 10:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 11:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 12:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 03:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-07 11:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 12:34 am (UTC)Having said that, do you really feel that the Libertarian candidate, if elected, would do a better job of running the country? I don't mean theoretically, based on his political posture; I mean practically, given the existing political infrastructure. If you can answer "yes", then by all means, vote for him.
Remember that you're not voting for a party; you're voting for a pair of individuals (who happen to be backed by a party). The Libertarians haven't put forth any pleasing candidates that I can remember. Like most modern presidential candidates, they get their votes as either "least of the evils" or "party-line voting". Feel free to make me better informed about the current candidate; my disappointment in previous years has prevented me from properly researching this year's candidate.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 01:27 am (UTC)Bob Barr has more (applicable) experience than many past and present candidates (including one of the big two, actually) -- he's been in Congress long enough to have some clue how Washington works. Would he do a better job? This leads me to the question of what are the best-case and worst-case scenarios under the three candidates we've been discussing.
Let's do worst-case first. I take it as given that the Democrats will control both houses of Congress; if you think that's a faulty assumption then say so and we'll discuss. Worst-case outcome for an Obama win is increased spending on entitlements, increased taxes to pay for that, and a move toward government control of more parts of our lives (like health care -- which is screwed up today, but do you want folks who can't reliably maintain roads and bridges to be in control of your health?). Worst-case outcome for a McCain win is further erosion of civil liberties, implemented through executive orders to bypass Congress. Worst-case outcome under Barr would seem to be gridlock.
Now, on the positive side: Barr and the Democrats in control of Congress both want to restore civil liberties, so that's a win. They both want to end the war in Iraq, so that's a win. They both want to balance the budget but disagree on how; I think things will still get better. Barr seems to grok that you need to do things incrementally; many past Libertarian candidates have not seemed to, so I have more confidence in Barr than in his predecessors. Barr would hinder attempts at increased government involvement in health care, education, and the market, which to me is a win (YMMV), and does not appear to be in the pockets of the unions (which can hinder some of those). I think Barr and the Democrats share enough goals to be able to improve things, while disagreeing on enough things to avoid handing over a blank check.
(I guess I should mention that I am deeply distrustful of single-party rule no matter which party it is. Look at Pittsburgh, for instance. I want to force governance toward moderation -- at least until I get to be queen of the universe so I can fix it. :-) )
What are the best-case scenarios under Obama and McCain? I'd rather let their supporters offer them, if they're listening.
Feel free to make me better informed about the current candidate; my disappointment in previous years has prevented me from properly researching this year's candidate.
Which areas are most important to you?
Gridlock
Date: 2008-09-08 02:31 am (UTC)I have a feeling we are going to see this continuing on the national level regardless of who is elected president, however the impact of the president will be on the war, justice and other federal agencies, the supreme court, and our civil liberties.
Re: Gridlock
Date: 2008-09-08 02:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 02:33 am (UTC)I disagree. Worst-case outcome for a McCain win is that he dies on day two, and Sarah Palin controls the nominations for 3 Supreme Court appointments that are currently "liberal". This is the woman who tried to have a librarian fired for not deaccessioning certain books. The erosion of civil liberties would be implemented through executive orders to bypass Congress, upheld for another generation by a SCOTUS that would make Rehnquist look like a brie-loving liberal.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 02:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 12:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 04:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 12:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 02:34 pm (UTC)One approach would be to pick a single state and switch it over, as a test case. Unfortunately there's no way to pick which state.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 06:47 pm (UTC)Is that why the richest people from around the world choose to have their health care in this country? Is that why doctors choose to come here in droves for their training? Why virtually everyone who has received care in other countries prefers to have it here? There are reasons why we have high infant mortality and low life expenctancy. Quality of health care is not one of them. We pay a premium price for premium health care.
Doomsayers have been predicting the imminent demise of the health care system for the last 40 years, because clearly it cannot possibly get any more expensive without drowning under its own weight.
Picking a single state doesn't work. The goal of universal health care is to drive costs down with monopolistic pricing. Doctors can leave a state; it's harder to leave a country.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:16 am (UTC)Do you happen to know what fraction of health care costs passes through doctor's salaries, and what fraction goes directly to infrastructure or pharmaceuticals? I'd always assumed salaries were a relatively small part of the cost of an average hospital stay.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:48 am (UTC)Jeez. /Now/ who's emotional? ;>)
But now I have to admit that I don't understand your meaning. A local minimum is a relatively stable situation. That's (in some sense) a good thing. The doomsayers claim that we're one MRI away from bankrupting the country with burdensome health care costs. So.... I'm lost.
You are correct that salaries are a surprisingly small percentage of costs (compared to other industries). Once upon a time, I knew the exact number. But I didn't just mean salaries when I said "monopolistic pricing".
At the moment, it is still feasible to refuse Medicare patients. That wouldn't be an option in single-payer.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 03:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 03:10 am (UTC)I'll bet that a) we could find an alternative system that we both thought was preferable to the current system, and b) we could agree on small changes that would produce measurable improvements.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:33 am (UTC)Is there no improvement possible short of "nuke and start over"? I find that hard to believe.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 03:11 am (UTC)The flip side of this could be interesting too: would medical practices (or insurers) be willing to sell affordable plans that cover all your routine care (only), if they were not on the hook for catastrophic losses? Could that get things down to the point where the average family could afford regular checkups, preventative care, and routine tests? Again, I lack data; it's just an idea to explore.
I'd also like to explore the effects of reducing drug regulation, letting people buy from anywhere that's selling and reducing barriers to getting things onto the market.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 03:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 03:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 04:29 am (UTC)I agree that the high end/low end split is very interesting. I've seen it proposed, but I'm afraid I don't recall where. They're not fully separable, of course, in that skipping screenings increases your risk of incurring the costs of high-end therapy later.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 01:11 pm (UTC)I think I'm going to make a new top-level entry (tonight) specifically on reforming health care. That'll be easier and will probably reach more people than the folks who are willing to unfold the collapsed threads here. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 03:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 06:37 pm (UTC)Agreed.
>Worst-case outcome for an Obama win is...
Agreed. Especially on health care, which I happen to know something about, and am thus totally biased.
>[erosion of civil liberty via] executive orders to bypass Congress
Hasn't worked (fully) for Bush; McCain gives little indication of pursuing it. I suppose you've outlined worst case, but it's extremely unlikely by my estimates. I think single-payer health care is far more likely.
>restore civil liberties, so that's a win
Agreed.
>end the war in Iraq, so that's a win
Depends how. Sudden withdrawal is very bad. Knee-jerk public-poll responses are also bad. Please educate me on Barr's position.
>They both want to balance the budget
Here I must firmly disagree. The Democrats pay lip service to balancing the budget, but even after they increase taxes, they find ways to spend even more money. It's all about the special interests, IMHO. As an admitted fiscal conservative, I give this point to McCain. With a Libertarian (or Republican) president, the best you could hope for on finances is gridlock.
>Which areas are most important to you?
Tough question. Six months ago, I wouldn't have said "tax policy", but it has since come to the top of my lists of concerns (details upon request). I recognize that Libertarians align with me on this topic.
Support for Israel. Liberals insist that Obama will, indeed, be a staunch supporter. Conservatives don't have to say a thing. I score this a minor difference on a major issue.
Health care. I have a strong bias, here, but it's at least an informed bias. Again, I align with you. Major difference on a major issue.
Civil liberties, broadly speaking (abortion, wiretaps, habeus corpus). Tough to score, because McCain is very different from Bush. Also, I'm not as incensed by the current state of affairs as some people are. I'm inclined to call it a medium difference on a medium issue. I don't see Roe v Wade realistically threatened under any president.
I would say that Iraq is of interest, but not singularly high on my list. (details upon request)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:28 am (UTC)Huh? Have you read McCain's revenue predictions? It doesn't look to me like he's going to get any closer to a balanced budget than Reagan or Bush. Or are you counting on gridlock to balance the budget, once the Bush cuts expire in 2010?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:41 am (UTC)On the other hand, look at his VP.
[Iraq]
Depends how. Sudden withdrawal is very bad. Knee-jerk public-poll responses are also bad. Please educate me on Barr's position.
Barr wants to turn control over to the Iraqi government expediciously, but not cut and run. He says he would not announce the deadline because that would give the insurgents an advantage. I don't know what kind of timeframe he's thinking.
Balancing the budget: it's true that neither major party has done squat there once you factor in the raids on social security. I guess that counts as the Dems "not wanting to" balance. (Where the budget is concerned there's a whole lot of lip service from all quarters, alas. I think Barr would actually try hard, though of course Congress gets a say too.)
Support for Israel. Liberals insist that Obama will, indeed, be a staunch supporter. Conservatives don't have to say a thing. I score this a minor difference on a major issue.
I'm not aware of Barr saying anything specific about Israel. His platform includes reduced foreign aid. He also believes that the military exists primarily for defense; how defense of allies factors in I do not know.
Civil liberties: you align pretty well with libertarians here, which should come as no surprise. I don't share your optimism about Roe v. Wade.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 03:04 am (UTC)>On the other hand, look at his VP.
Sadly, I know almost nothing about her that I can trust. Every source seems obscenely biased in one direction or the other. I'm waiting for the smoke to clear. I doubt I'll like her politics, but I doubt I'll care much. Statistically, John McCain is very very likely to survive for 4 years.
>Barr wants to turn control over to the Iraqi government expediciously, but not cut and run.
Eh. Everyone says that. Foreign policy is where Libertarian politicians are usually most divergent from my own views. I strongly oppose isolationism.
>[fiscal] I think Barr would actually try hard
That's his big selling point, right? Minimize government. I'm all for it.
>Civil liberties: you align pretty well with libertarians here, which should come as no surprise.
Hah! I think you'd find me oddly well-versed in Libertarian theories (against my will, I dare say).
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 11:34 am (UTC)Someone edumacate me on this. In general though, I'm not sure either party can really claim to have made any real effort to balance the budget or reign in spending.
Regarding Israel...have we ever really had a President who WASN'T a staunch supporter of Israel? My understanding is that Obama has had to tout his support more vocally because of the rumor that he was a Muslim.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 12:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 01:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 01:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 02:59 am (UTC)I did when John Anderson ran in 1980 - and so did enough other people to get him noticed, albeit not elected.
Some number of people did when Ross Perot ran in 1992 (and fewer when he ran again in 1996).
Third party candidates have won major offices within my lifetime. James Longley was governor of Maine (and one of my political heroes, whose basic platform was that he hated everything). James Buckley (Conservative Party) was a senator from New York, where both the Liberal Party and Conservative Party had significant membership in my youth, though they seem to have vanished from the scene now. They did, typically, endorse Democratic and Republican candidates, but often ran their own candidates for state offices.
If third parties are to be viable (and eventually supplant one of the majors), they should focus on the races where they have the biggest stake. That can include major races (senate, governorship, presidency). They shouldn't run candidates for the sake of running candidates. A guy I know was active in the Green Party in L.A. and was asked to run for office by them. He looked at the candidates from the majors and pointed out that one of them pretty much supported everything on the Green platform. Under those circumstances, running would have been a waste of the party's money.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:48 am (UTC)The problem to me with candidates like Ross Perot and, to a lesser extent, Ralph Nader is that it's really about the individual candidate and not an organized platform. Ross Perot had enough money to run an ego campaign, so he did; the issues he stood for seemed to emerge later, as a consequence, rather than as the reason he ran. I'd rather see the party (or at least platform) first and the candidate who will represent it second, emerging from that, than the other way around. While we vote for an individual, we also vote for a policy direction -- and I don't want that direction to be "whatever $candidate thinks is best".
(I wasn't paying enough attention in 1980 to form an opinion on John Anderson.)
As you pointed out, third parties can win state and local races, and I agree that that's a better place to focus. Were I a party organizer, that's what I'd be thinking about. As an ordinary voter, I can only vote for the candidates who actually run. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 01:41 pm (UTC)IMHO you should vote for who you agree with the most, regardless of party. Elections should be about the individuals running, not the parties they belong to. If you don't agree with the two people most likely to win...so what. You should never feel preassured or guilted into voting for anyone. The US will not implode regardless of who gets in office. Our system is set up to survive these sorts of things, and if it swings to far in one direction, it will eventually swing back in the other.
My main question is...how do we work toward eliminating the party system altogether? The 6-7 million Baha'i international community has an interesting way of election their leadership that involves no campaigning, no parties and little drama. I'm sure it isn't perfect, but it seems to work pretty well. Look under elections in the following link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_administration
Non-partisanship
Shoghi Effendi sternly deprecated partisan politics and certain other practices current in western democracies, such as campaigning and nomination. As a result:
Nominations and campaigning are prohibited. Bahá'ís, according to Shoghi Effendi, should not seek to advance themselves above their neighbour.
Voters are urged not to consult with each other about the suitability of individuals.
Voters are strongly encouraged to study and discuss, in abstract, the five qualities named by Shoghi Effendi as being necessary in those elected to serve, without reference to individuals.
Individuals should be selected only on the basis of the five mentioned qualities, without reference to material means or other characteristics, except insofar as they provide insight into the five qualities.
Those elected are expected to serve, though in cases of extreme personal difficulty, such a member may request that the body to which they are elected excuse and replace him or her.
In the event of a tying vote for last place, if one of these individuals is a member of a minority, this individual is automatically awarded the position. (In the US, this refers to racial minority.) If this is unclear, or if there is disagreement as to whether the minority rule applies, a run-off election is held in which votes are cast only for one of those tying.
Shoghi Effendi saw these (and other) aspects as essential to preserving the full rights and prerogatives of the electors, guarding them against manipulation.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 11:27 am (UTC)Bahá'í elections use what is described as a three-stage councilor-republican system to determine electors. Who the electors are and who the eligible members are depends on the scope of the election. At all levels, only residents within the jurisdiction of the body being elected are eligible for membership. In general, adult Bahá'ís in good standing resident in the jurisdiction are both the electorate (either directly or through delegation) as well as the pool of potential members to serve on the body being elected.
Voting itself is held using a system sometimes called plurality-at-large. It is similar to a simple plurality election except that there are multiple positions open for election. In the typical case, there are nine memberships on an Assembly or House of Justice (barring by-elections), and therefore voters are given ballots with nine spaces, or are given nine separate ballots. Electors write the individual names of nine eligible Bahá'ís, without repeating. The nine Bahá'ís with the most votes win. In cases of tie votes for the ninth-least-populous vote (for example), a run-off election is held.
Electoral scope
Local or regional
At the local (city, town, county) level of administration, the Local Spiritual Assembly, adult Bahá'ís in that particular locality get to vote once a year for their nine-member Local Spiritual Assembly.
In the United States, Canada, and India, regional councils are elected by members of these Local Spiritual Assemblies in an election conducted by mail. Again, no nominations occur, each Local Spiritual Assembly member is directed to submit the names of those individuals who are resident in the region they feel are best suited to serve.
Some larger Bahá'í communities, such as in the city of Toronto, Ontario in Canada, are slated to move to an indirect delegated system similar to that used in National elections.
National
The selection of the National Spiritual Assembly is indirect using an electoral-unit delegation method. The nation is divided into voting districts or units. In each district the members are charged to select one or a few delegates who will represent them at the annual national convention, and who will vote for the members of the National Spiritual Assembly. The members at the local level then elect the individual(s) whom they believe will best represent them at the national convention, and who is the best qualified to vote for National Spiritual Assembly members. No input is provided to the delegate on whom to vote for in the national election. The number of delegates per country is determined by the Universal House of Justice according to the size of the national community[citation needed]; the National Spiritual Assembly determines the geographic area covered by each unit/district.[citation needed]
See also: Statistics on National Spiritual Assemblies
Global
Every five years from 1963, members of all National Spiritual Assemblies are called to vote at an International Convention at the Bahá'í World Centre in Haifa, Israel for members of the Universal House of Justice. These members act as delegates in a manner similar to National Bahá'í elections. Those who are unable to attend send postal ballots.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 06:56 pm (UTC)The tactical vs. strategic question is an interesting and subtle one. I don't think voting third party strictly for its own sake has a lot of value: the meme that that's simply a protest vote is too deeply ingrained, and I don't see that getting shaken out. For it to make a difference, people have to be perceived as voting *for* specific alternatives, to give them political viability. Barr makes the Libertarian Party more plausible, although at the cost of making it more like the big parties. (That is, he will probably do a bit better than usual because he's adopting a "big tent" approach.)
That said, the tactical considerations have gone up a notch in my book. While I'm suspicious of McCain's instincts in foreign policy (and I am quite sure his economics would be a disaster), I think he'd muddle along somewhat adequately. Palin, OTOH, is downright scary to me: she's exactly the kind of know-nothing populist I've come to distrust most deeply, and appears to share too many of Bush's flaws -- while the Democratic rhetoric about McCain being another four years of Bush is somewhat overblown, saying the same about Palin might well be true. She looks to be bad enough that keeping her away from the White House becomes Important.
Or to look at it another way, I'm *also* voting strategically, but with a different strategy. As far as I'm concerned, the greatest danger the country faces right now isn't the two-party system, it's the growing tendency towards extremism. So I'd far rather have a pragmatic centrist (which, when you actually look at his history and style, Obama is) in favor of any of the more-extreme alternatives on offer, precisely because I think it's very important to herd the politicians back towards the center. I may not agree with him on every issue, but I think he's likely to bring back a more appropriate and thoughtful style of governance, and is likely to get better results overall as a result.
(Or to put it even more simply: I trust a smart technocrat more than I do *any* party affiliation. Obama's closer to that description than any candidate I've seen in a fair number of years...)