A 'Big Picture' Blog
There are many serious and controversial ideas within these wide-ranging blog posts and frank discussion is encouraged. We ask that you keep the discussion relevant to the post at hand. The idea is to keep the commenting real.
Comments are moderated for spam, personal attacks, baiting language and sloganeering. No comment will be denied for its point of view.
Thank you for reading and sharing your views.
Please use the social media bar at the bottom of your browser to spread the word.
Having read all of the arguments thus far at the Noam Chomsky/John Halle blog post, including those presented elsewhere as pingbacks among the comments, and supporting articles where links have been provided within comments, my respect for the Lesser-Evil Voting (LEV) point of view has grown, though I am no closer now to changing my mind than I was at the outset. Some of the arguments, both pro LEV and con, where they differ from mine, I have found to be excellent, and though this should not be a beauty contest, so has been some of the writing itself. In particular, http://editor.currentaffairs.org/2016/07/why-leftists-should-have-no-problem-voting-for-hillary-clinton/ on the pro side and http://topwallshd.com/the-logical-and-practical-bankruptcy-of/ on the con side are equally compelling.
I am saddened to see Halle, Donahue & company indulge in ad hominem sneering in some replies to those critical of LEV, which is a disservice to their own arguments and the debate, and according to Danial Falcone at CounterPunch ( http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/14/what-readers-need-to-know-about-noam-chomskys-position-on-lesser-evil-voting/ ), Noam Chomsky himself will not condescend to respond to those pointing out the many leaks in his LEV boat, least of all those apparently too-low-to-kick critics at CounterPunch. I admit the quality of writing there is erratic, sometimes appalling, and the views expressed betimes juvenile as well, but again, this should not be a beauty contest, and much at that venue is superb, needs to be said, and is just not to be found anywhere else.
My respect for this point of view has grown in that I would no longer fault a 'pragmatic' voter holding their nose to vote for Hillary Clinton in a swing state, though I myself would nonetheless vote conscience and take the long term, third-party-affirming pragmatism over the immediate, duopoly-affirming, stop-Trump kind, and I now find these are evil choices all around, with no clear winner.
Which leads me to the burning questions I have on the subject of third-party voting and building, answers to which may indeed compel me to change my mind on lesser-evil voting.