I suppose I should go argue this with Teresa, but since I'm here: I'm guessing this is meant as an argument in favor of voting for the lesser of two evils? I would argue (at least when I'm in some moods) that voting your own conscience is a social act; by doing so, you make clear that there are those who don't agree with the prevailing choices, and in so doing, you may be able to shift the discourse in some small way.

And it seems to me that what the dominant groups should do in response, if the disaffected people have large enough numbers to make a difference, is to attempt to woo the disaffected people back. Saying "It's your duty to vote the way I want you to vote" isn't a very compelling argument; saying "What changes can we make to our approach that will make you more interested in joining us?" seems to me a more compelling one.

But I don't see the Democrats (other than Kucinich) saying "A few votes could make a difference again this time, so how can we adapt the party platform to convince Greens to vote for us?" I see them mostly saying things like "It's your fault we lost last time; if you don't want to be blamed again, you better vote for us."

Of course it's more nuanced than that, Jed, because the question has to be "how can we adapt the party platform to convince Greens to vote for us without simultaneously convincing middle-of-the-road voters to vote against us?".

That said, as someone who voted Green in 2000, i'll not be doing so this time around; not re-electing Bush is more important to me than telling the Democrats i'm pissed off at them.

Jed, Aphrael: David's quoted the last paragraph of a comment that was part of an ongoing discussion. If you're interested in knowing more about what I meant, the link's right there at the end of the quote.

I would not describe myself as being in favor of voting for the lesser of two evils (or the greater of two goods: an equally valid formulation), since it comes too close to the notion that voting is a sort of personal consumer choice -- as though the voter were a toddler refusing both the strained carrots and the strained peas, in hopes that if he holds out long enough, they'll offer him rice pudding instead.

No matter how many voters are "disaffected" (and there are other words for that), it's the votes that actually get cast that decide the election. "Enough disaffected voters to make a difference" isn't precisely a meaningless phrase, but the biggest difference you're talking about there is the one where the people who disagree with you -- you know, the ones who not only vote, but who vote for candidates who have a hope in hell of getting elected -- are the ones who call the shots. What always goes through my mind when I see protest signs that say "MAKE A DIFFERENCE" is that old Don Martin cartoon sequence that finishes, "Next, we work on aim."

Has it never occurred to you that the more successful your political movement becomes, the more it must necessarily include people who are not like you, and address issues you find distasteful? This is because we live in a democracy. The basis of our political structure is that it allows people with disparate needs, beliefs, backgrounds, etc., to sort out policies, make decisions, and work out a modus vivendi to suit the changing times. It rewards people who can make common cause, and bypasses those who can't. This is not a consumer-based model. You're not a catalog shopper, holding out until you get the exact product you want. You can be part of the Public Thing or you can stay hope, but if you stay home the Public Thing will go forward without you.

It suddenly occurs to me that this may explain why the Green Party is so notoriously short on the poor, the colored, the immigrants, and all the other deprecated categories. Those groups already know that when you can't get what you want, you take what you can get and keep trying -- and how ineffective it is to do anything else.