Oh, sure, make a shameless plug for recommendations. You're just encouraging people to throw their vote away!

That's a joke, Ben. Seriously, I don't think your dilemma is an ethical matter, since politics doesn't seem to have much to do with ethics, near as I can tell. If you think the benefit accrues to your candidate, what the hell. If they can't tell the difference, it's their problem.

Go for it. I think I'm going to campaign for Barr.

Seriously though, if you can't convince 'em to vote Democratic, I see no harm in talking up 3rd party candidates. In the end, it's the own choice who they pull the lever for.

(Random aside - do people still actually pull the lever? I like that phrase. Sounds much better "who they fill in the little bubble for." Which is what I did.)

I think you should encourage them to vote in their own interests. If the Democrats and John McCain don't serve their interests, then maybe they should consider voting for a third party. Or they can just abstain from voting this time around and whatever happens, they won't be liable for it. But I think it's okay to continue convincing them that a John McCain presidency is bad for everybody mostly because I think it's true.

Hey, Ben, how about a little love on my post? I recommended and commented on yours, man.

Sincerely,

Ripper making a shameless plug

Ah, an ethical conundrum. Do you serve your own interests or your friends? I think you serve your friends. Personally I'd make the argument why the democratic candidate might make the better choice, even if they are making over $250K. In the end though each voter has a right to choose to vote for whomever they believe will serve them and the country best.

Sadly I would have to say this even goes or those who might vote Nader, but for the life of me I can't figure why they would. I've never forgiven him for killing the Corvair :) It was my first car and I loved it.

Ben,

We you not one of the more vocal commenters on the Allsburg thread about tribalism?

The premis of that thread was that Hillary supports are somewhat primitive do not use logic and reason in decision making. Thus the basis of the argument on that thread was if the symbolized death of Obama or someone closely knitted will satisfy their need for revenge to come to a place of unification of "the party".

What I did not understand is why a "death" would have to be the factor (as in "Lord of the Flies"), and why it could not be a true unification through a marriage or birth or even adoption.

I can't reconcile a death FOR HILLARY supporters as a reason to appease them. Why is it necessary to appease Hillary supporters up to this type of sacrifice? Is is some type of authoritative or superior sense that they hold?

This was before Sen. Kennedy's diagnosis and before Hillary's statement of Obama. But if these ideas are floating around maybe she feels she has a mandate.

But in any case, since you are still somewhat on the fence in your support of Hillary I don't think you can really convince anyone of Obama's merits. Especially if you take part in the type of thread as I mentioned. And your flanking for Hillary is obvious.

If your family and friends are racist. Why do you constantly talk to them? Their vote isn't that important overall. Just let them not vote and cancel things out.

I think you know this.

You know the history of what 3rd parties do to the overall election.

I'm with mooshinator. (Maybe because my kids call me the Moominator.) I was going to suggest asking them to articulate what they care about and what is "wrong" with the US as it relates to their lives (working too many hours for too little pay? no health care coverage? etc.) and what they are concerned about in terms of heading into the future (national and personal debt, foreign relations, etc.), and then making a gentle suggestion that they consider voting on issues over party. I think fewer and fewer people agree with the Republican platform once they really understand what it means.

I have had a lot of success with the corporate welfare discussion, basically revealing the billions of dollars we spend to benefit the very few while the vast majority of us struggle, rather than using those funds to create a more equitable and stable economy. Liberal "handouts" pale in comparison to conservative big-business and finance bailouts. But since the conservative argument is framed so effectively, most people never see past the smoke and mirrors.

You don't have to be disingenuous to use liberal talking points to clear a little of the smoke from the air. And a better educated voter is good for everyone.

It seems to me that the only unethical thing to do would be to lie to them, or to intimidate them in some way. Like you said, if you encourage them to essentially throw their vote away and a Dem wins, they will be better off anyway.

They probably know you are a progressive and will take anything you say with a grain of salt anyway, but good luck in giving them a rational way to vote!

For better or worse, we have a two-party system, not a parliamentary system. The legislative branch is set up for two parties, and the recent presidential elections have demonstrated that people who are moved to vote their "consciences" for a third party candidate end up shooting themselves in the foot. Perot backers got Clinton and Nader supporters got Bush. As a result, it seems ethical to get people on both sides of spectrum to understand they are better off working within and choosing between the two major parties.

Of course, this underscores the importance of the suggestions made by mooshinator and Liora for bringing Republicans over to our side.