Emrys Westacott's strategic voting fallacy

Communism had no chance of gaining power in Weimar Germany because the country was too close to Bolshevik Russia not to be aware that the thing was utterly evil. Thus, the 30 per cent of the population who derived all or part of their livelihood from the land would always vote for whoever beat the shit out of the Commies best.
Yet, in East Germany, the Communists did come to power. What made this possible? the answer is that they hadn't allied with the Social Democrats or other anti-Fascist forces and thus permitted Hitler to lead the Germans to defeat. Thus, Stalin prevailed and took a significant chunk of German territory.

Emrys Westacott, writing in 3 Quarks, takes a different view-

“In unity is strength!” This is one of the foundational maxims repeated by progressive forces everywhere.

As opposed to regressive forces which say 'Be disunited! Kindly separate from one another and go off to wander the earth as solitary outcasts. '

As history has often demonstrated, though, unity is easier to affirm than to achieve. And the consequences of failing to achieve it can be dire.

Unity does not matter. Coalition stability does. Thomas Jefferson said 'in matters of Religion, disunited we stand, united we fall'. What he meant was that the coalition which could make the country strong had to completely ignore religious differences. They weren't important politically. Equally political differences might not matter for coalition stability with respect to the management of a Religion.

History demonstrates that coalition stability is easy to achieve provided virtue-signalling shitheads are disintermediated. They tend to get excited about the sort of wedge issues which drive a stake through the heart of the mixed metaphor of a lazy writer.  Not that all lazy writers quickly turn to babbling about Hitler. But it is a safe bet that they will do so.

The direst of all dire examples of progressive disunity helping to bring about a horrendous outcome was that which allowed Hitler to attain power in Germany in 1933. Here are the results of the November 1932 general election:

This silly Professor doesn't get that Germany had proportional representation. There can no question of votes getting split as happens in 'first past the post' England or America.

Nazi Party 33.1%
Social Democrat Party 20.4%
Communist Party 16.9%
Catholic Centre Party 12.4%
German National People’s Party 8.3%
Bavarian People’s party 3%

So the Nazis plus other Nationalists had 52 %. Thus, the Catholics had to fall in line.  Yet our Professor says-

The Social Democrats and Communists combined received more votes than Hitler’s Nazis.

OMG! Does this guy think Hitler got elected President because Germany had a first past the post American style system? Hitler had lost to Hindenburg in the 1932 election. But he had done much better than the Communist candidate who only got 10 per cent. In other words, almost 90 percent of Germans voted for far right Militarists.

In any case, the Social Democrats were divided because, when in power, they'd had to concede more money to build battle-ships rather than help for the needy. Being unable to command a majority, they had conceded the power to rule by decree to Hindenburg whom they supported in the 1932 election as a better choice than Hitler. But Hindenburg's only objection to Hitler was that the man was working class! General Schliecher & Blomberg and all the other mad hatters in the General Staff believed, as did Hindenburg, that Germany could only survive if it embarked on a war of conquest. Jews had 'stabbed the Army in the back'. They must be punished. It was a shame it couldn't be done by a proper Junker with a monocle and dueling scars and fiercely upwardly twirled mustache. Still, needs must when the devil drives.

But in the early 1930s, even though the threat posed by the Nazis was becoming increasingly dangerous and apparent, those opposed to them could not form a united front.

Later the Comintern did back a 'Popular Front' strategy. But it failed completely. This is not to say pragmatic coalitions could not be stable. But that had nothing to do with 'unity' of any type.

The Social Democrat leadership viewed communists and fascists as essentially the same, and they chose to support the right-wing Hindenburg government as a “lesser evil” to (and as a bulwark against) Hitler.

Why? The answer is that the Comintern gave up the 'united front' strategy in 1928 and declared Social Democrats to be fascists.

They matched their words to their actions after taking power in East Germany. In other words, their strategy in 1933 bore fruit a dozen years later. But for Gorbachev, they might still be in power in Berlin.

The communists labelled the Social Democrats “social fascists” and also rejected the idea of collaboration against the Nazis. In January 1933, Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Less than eight weeks later, Germany was a dictatorship. Many of those who couldn’t work together to oppose Hitler would soon find themselves suffering and dying together in Nazi concentration camps.

Some were lucky enough to escape to Russia where they died in Gulags.

Twelve years later, more than seventy million people lay dead, victims of World War II, and much of Europe lay in ruins.

Why? The answer is the same as it was for why 40 million died in World War I. France didn't have an offensive military doctrine. Coalition stability means having a high enough, rapidly implementable, collective threat-point. In other words, what Schelling called 'commitment' was lacking on the part of the Allies. Thus the bargaining game was bound to break down. Germany gambled both times that coalitions facing it would lose cohesiveness and so the theoretical threat point they represented could be disregarded. Thanks to their own stupidity and bestial practices, the opposite occurred. Once a game becomes about raising one's collective threat point, people stop worrying about 'unity'. Churchill happily embraced Stalin who, in turn, got chummy with Roosevelt. Germany was bombed to shit, raped, denuded of much territory and forcibly occupied. Suddenly life became much better for Germans. They found it safer to have an Army which, now, does drill with broom handles painted black to represent guns.

Westacott with the imbecility typical of his profession passes from Weimar Germany, which had Proportional Representation, to the U.S Presidential elections which is first past the post.

A more recent example of disunity opening the way to disastrous consequences was the US presidential election in 2000. Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote, receiving over half a million more votes nationwide than Republican George W. Bush. But Bush eventually secured victory in the electoral college when the US Supreme Court halted a recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, leaving Bush the winner in Florida by 537 votes and hence also in the Electoral College.
Ralph Nader ran that year as the Green Party candidate for president, and in Florida received 97,488 votes. Had Gore received just one percent more of those votes than Bush, he would have become president.

Bush won by 573 votes. The Natural Law Party (which believes the Maharishi's 'yogic flying' can bring world peace) won over 2000 votes. They should have gone to Gore coz the guy was basically a hot air balloon dressed up in a suit.

Many have blamed Nader for being a “spoiler” who helped Bush get elected.

Many? Perhaps this is true of the circles Westacott moves in. But those circles are shite. Leave Ralph Nader alone! He is an authentic American National Treasure- like Screaming Lord Sutch on this side of the pond.

Nader and his defenders typically make two arguments:
Gore and Bush were as bad as each other.

True enough. Gore only differed with Bush about invading Iraq because he said he didn't think other countries would support it. But they did support it. Bush knew that because his good pal Blair was telling him so.

Nader described them as Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Against those who argued that Gore was the lesser of two evils, he said: “If they keep settling for the lesser of two evils, at the end of the day there’s still evil.”
Nader didn’t cause Gore to lose Florida, or the election. There were many other factors that were responsible, from Bill Clinton’s philandering (which tarnished his presidency and, by association, Gore) to Gore’s own weaknesses as a candidate, which resulted in him losing even his home state of Tennessee.How good are these arguments? Let’s consider them in turn.
Without question, there is plenty for progressives to disagree with and be dissatisfied about when considering the political philosophy and policy record of “centrist” Democrats like Al Gore. Nader’s criticism of the Democratic leadership for failing to seriously oppose the dominant influence over politics wielded by corporate interests is thoroughly justified. But his view that it would make no difference whether Bush or Gore ended up in the White House is absurd.

Why? If Gore wasn't interested in 'opposing the political influence of corporate interests' then he wasn't part of Nader's coalition. In effect, the coalition both he and Bush represented, was choosing between them so as to ensure its own stability going forward.

Try telling that it made no difference to all those adversely affected by the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq ordered by George W. Bush under the influence of Dick Cheney and co.

 Try telling anybody who has read Gore's speech re. the Iraq invasion that he would not have done exactly the same thing. What he said was-

This year...we are prepared to cross an international border to change the government of Iraq. However justified our proposed action may be, this change in role nevertheless has consequences for world opinion and can affect the war against terrorism if we proceed unilaterally.
Secondly, in 1991, the first President Bush patiently and skillfully built a broad international coalition. His task was easier than that confronted his son, in part because of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Nevertheless, every Arab nation except Jordan supported our military efforts and some of them supplied troops. Our allies in Europe and Asia supported the coalition without exception. Yet this year, by contrast, many of our allies in Europe and Asia are thus far opposed to what President Bush is doing and the few who support us condition their support on the passage of a new UN resolution.

 The fact is the Iraq invasion was a sort of gold-rush. The US wanted to monopolize the gains while 'new NATO' members as well as some strange ducks like Mongolia and Kazakhastan wanted to signal their good standing with the global hegemon.

Exactly how many people died as a result of this illegal act of war is disputed, but even the most conservative estimate put it at over 100,000.

Sadly, Professors of Philosophy don't get to say what is or isn't illegal. Only Judges can do that. If Westacott is right then a lot of Americans are guilty of war crimes. The USA owes trillions of dollars in reparations to Iraq.

In all probability it is much higher. In addition, one should also take into account all the people seriously injured, the grief experienced by the family and friends of those killed, and the long-term regional turmoil that the invasion precipitated or exacerbated, including civil war in Syria, and the displacement of millions who were rendered homeless and impoverished. Al Gore may have his faults. But it’s a reasonable assumption that he would not have responded to 9/11 by invading Iraq.

Sadly, this isn't the case. Saddam had no threat point but, foolishly, would not let this be proved so as to avert the disaster that followed. The US determination to monopolize very profitable 'National Reconstruction' turned what ought to have been a cake-walk into a blood boltered shambles.

Or, to take just one other legacy of the Bush presidency, consider his Supreme Court nominations: John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Nader laments the influence of money in politics. But Roberts and Alito have consistently opposed campaign finance reform.

This is not their own view. They say they consistently uphold the U.S Constitution. A particular type of 'campaign finance reform' may be unconstitutional- more particularly at a time when technology is changing rapidly- because it violates the First Amendment right to free speech. That is why the ACLU supported the majority verdict.

For instance, they helped to provide the 5-4 majority opinion in the Citizens United case that opened the floodgates to unlimited spending by corporations on elections, a ruling which Nader said “shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process.”

Not to mention the fact that the Dyson Corporation has hired my neighbor's cat to spy on me. To be clear I was just trying to clear a blockage in the hose of my vacuum cleaner- not doing anything sexual to it which might have voided my warranty.
A situation where domestic pets can be suborned by Capitalists to keep watch upon proletarians is a travesty of Democracy. I have sent repeated emails about this to both Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader. But they have been bought off by the cat-people from Planet X.

It’s reasonable to assume that had Gore been president he would not have nominated such ideologically committed conservatives to the Supreme Court.

So, Gore was against Free Speech. Big surprise. Three of the Judges deciding the Citizens United case were appointed by Democrat Administrations. All three voted the same way. The fourth, had been appointed by a Republican Administration. This suggests Republican appointees are less partisan. They end up on the same side as the ACLU. That's very sinister.

While campaigning in 2000, Nader indicated several times that he thought it would be better if Bush became president. And he campaigned accordingly. In the last stages of the campaign, he didn’t focus on states like New York or California where he could hope to increase his vote without risking Bush a victory. Instead, he campaigned furiously in swing states like Florida.

Because Nader is clairvoyant. He, and he alone, knew that Florida would decide the contest. Swing states are a good place for a 'third party' to try to pick up votes from disgruntled supporters of both the main parties.

Nader said that a Bush victory would be like “a cold shower for four years that would help the Democratic Party.”[1] But this seems to overlook the rather obvious fact that while the ‘cold shower’ is going on–and it lasted eight years, not four–all sorts of harm, much of it very long-term, was done to causes that Nader has championed throughout his life, including consumer protection; environmentalism; and the need for government regulation to curb corporate power.

So, either Nader was a hypocritical bastard or he was stupid- or both. There is a third possibility- viz. it was 'common knowledge' that it made little difference whether Bush or Gore was in power. Nor did it make any difference that the Supreme Court decided to protect Free Speech. After all, Bush had been elected before the Citizens United decision.

What about the second argument cited above?

It is as false as the first argument which amounts to 'you can't do what you want to do just in case it might have an outcome you don't like'.

It is, of course, perfectly true that there were many causal factors helping to determine the outcome of the election in Florida. But this is true of any event. My car ends up in a ditch. What was the cause? The icy road? The low quality tires? The vehicle design which makes for poor handling and long stopping distances? The deer that ran unexpectedly into the road? The fact that I was driving fast? The fact that I was driving drunk? Answer: all of the above.

But why stop there? Why not blame the inventor of the motor car or the people who voted to build a road which would become dangerous to drive on under certain conditions? Why not simply blame the Big Bang?

It is only worthwhile identifying causes if there is a structural causal model which enables better outcomes to be chosen.

If it was a fact that you were driving drunk- that was the cause. There's stuff you can do about your unfortunate tendency to end up in the ICU every time you tie one on.

Some of the causes cited are environmental conditions; some are triggering events; some are matters for which I may be held responsible. It’s perfectly true that if the road hadn’t been icy I wouldn’t have skidded into the ditch. But it’s also true that I wouldn’t have crashed if I hadn’t been driving so fast. How would you respond if I said that the accident was caused by the ice, not by my speed. You would surely, and very reasonably, say that I was trying to evade responsibility. I was aware of the environmental conditions and I should have driven accordingly. Similarly, Nader was fully aware of the electoral situation (the environmental conditions). Claiming that he was not responsible for Bush’s victory even though he actively campaigned as if he desired this outcome is analogous to me saying that my speed and my drinking had nothing to do with my crashing.

Nonsense! There is a sound Structural Causal Model linking drunk driving to road accidents. There is no Structural Causal Model linking Nader's actions to Gore's misfortune. Westacott pretends that something called 'the unity of progressive forces' has magical power. But if so, can't 'regressive forces' steal that magic by giving Gandalf a blow job? Certainly, the Republican party appears far more united under Trump than ever before. Does this mean a Trump victory is inevitable? Must Warren and Sanders and so forth bow out so the unelectable Biden or the pretty boy Buttigieg gets a clear run? If so, why bother with Democracy and Freedom of Speech and Public Discourse and so forth? What matters is 'unity'. To avoid unseemly contests for leadership, why not- as the Indian Congress Party has done- adopt the principle of primogeniture? Look how well that has worked out for the progressive forces in North Korea.

Disunity among progressive forces has also been seen as a crucial factor in bring about the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Although Hilary Clinton received almost three million more votes than Trump nationwide, Trump won in the electoral college. This time Jill Stein was the presidential candidate of the Green Party. Three states in particular were very closely fought and proved decisive.
Pennsylvania: Trump beat Clinton by 44,296. (Green Party: 49,941)
Michigan: Trump beat Clinton by 10,704. (Green Party: 51,463)
Wisconsin: Trump beat Clinton by 22,748. (Green Party: 31,072)
It would be a misrepresentation, I think, to say that Jill Stein was just as responsible for Trump’s victory as Nader was for Bush’s.

Why? Is it coz Jill don't got a dick and Emrys has to pretend that Jill isn't responsible for her actions for that reason?

Of those who voted Green in Pennsylvania, even if none of them switched their allegiance to Trump, over eighty-nine percent would have had to vote for Clinton for her to win the state.

Whereas if only a quarter of the Natural Law Party's voters had switched to Gore, he'd have won the election. Thus the Maharishi, and his Yogic Flying, was what gave us 8 years of Dubya.

Although one would expect Green voters to view Trump with extreme disfavour, it is likely that many of them take Nader’s attitude toward the two main parties and vote Green as a way of registering a protest against politics as usual. Nevertheless, one cannot help wondering what Green voters think when they read of Trump withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on climate change, of his appointing Andrew Wheeler, a former energy lobbyist, as head of the EPA, or of his rolling back over ninety federal environmental regulations.

Similarly, we must ask what Yogic Flyers who believe they spread 'peace rays' thought of Dubya's Wars.

A joint statement by several environmentalist groups issued recently declared that “Donald Trump has been the worst president for our environment in history.[2] So the question remains: Why would someone inclined to vote Green not think it is worth trying to avoid this outcome?

One answer could be preference intensity signalling. Essentially, a bunch of voters with high single-interest preference intensity could have high 'Shapley Value'. So a strategy of taking the pain can work. But it's a gamble.

It has also been argued that Bernie Sanders bears some responsibility for Clinton’s defeat.

Clinton bears responsibility for her defeat just as Gore bears responsibility for his defeat and so forth.

Clinton herself recently complained that Sanders should have stopped campaigning for the Democratic nomination sooner than he did, once it became clear that he couldn’t win, and that although Sanders eventually endorsed her, some of his supporters continued to attack her and to urge people not to vote for her right up to election day.[3]

If Sanders gets the nomination and beats Trump, Emrys would be singing a different tune.

It is very difficult to determine with any precision or certainty counterfactual claims such as, “If only Sanders had done X, Clinton would have won.”

Philosophers often make this claim. But it isn't true. What matters is having a Structural Causal Model which enables one to make desirable changes. Once one understands how a 'mechanism' works and how to use it better, the problem of counterfactuals disappears.

(This caveat about counterfactuals obviously applies also to what was said above about the effect of Jill Stein on the 2016 election.) Individuals vote the way they do for many different reasons. It certainly strikes me as strange that more than ten percent of Democrats who voted for the socialist Sanders in the primaries eventually voted for Trump.

How is that strange? Trump was saying he'd do stuff which would benefit working class voters while infuriating Liberals.

But the thinking behind voting behaviour is often opaque. It’s a mistake to assume that every registered Democrat is somewhat liberal, or that every Sanders supporter is somewhat left-wing.[4] It’s also possible that Sanders may have helped energize some Democratic voters and campaigners, thereby helping Clinton.

Democracy relies on the Condorcet Jury theorem which in turn relies on the Law of Large Numbers such that noise cancels out leaving only signal.

Will a lack of unity among those opposed to Trump lead to him being reelected in 2020?

Yes. At least that is what people will say. But then they will also say, in the next breath, it was the economy stupid!

I certainly hope not. At the same time, it’s hard not to grow anxious as the contest to determine the Democratic candidate heats up. On the whole, so far, the candidates have refrained from slinging too much mud at each other.

But the impeachment hearings did for Biden.

What so often happens, though, is that as those in the lead get closer to the prize, and as those falling behind grow desperate, the mud that’s slung starts being the kind that sticks, giving ammunition to the enemy. The spectacle of disunity itself can also turn voters off.

The spectacle of stupidity is yet more potent.

America in 2020 is not Germany in 1932.

Then why compare the two?

But the total subservience of the Republican party to Trump, whose autocratic outlook and naked cynicism are so apparent, has many serious students of political history worried that the US could be about to lurch irreversibly towards authoritarianism.

 Because many 'serious students of political history' are as stupid as shit.

Given how high the stakes are, everyone opposed to Trump and what he stands for should obviously make defeating him in November an absolute priority.

No. If you are opposed to Trump you would make defeating him in November an absolute priority even if the stakes are trivial. If you don't do so, you are not really opposed to him. You may not like him but dislike is not opposition. One reason intense dislike does not turn into opposition is because the stakes are high. But what raises the stakes? It is the 'opportunity cost'- i.e. the next best alternative. Jeremy Corbyn, in the U.K, raised the stakes at the last election. Suddenly millions of Labour voters had to switch to the Tories so as to kick that cretin out of Politics.

This should surely outweigh concerns about ideological purity or any desire to register an independent protest.

Why? If ideology matters, its purity matters too. If you like chocolate pudding, you don't want  small amount of feces to be mixed into it. If you never eat the thing, you may not care.

Similarly, if you want to 'register an independent protest', the only way to do so is by voting in an antagonomic manner.

When a ship is in danger of sinking, it’s all hands to the pumps.

Nonsense! Some people have to man the lifeboats while the Captain remains in the wheelhouse and the orchestra plays on so as to prevent panic among the passengers.

This ought to be the attitude of anyone who recognizes the danger posed by Trump and the current Republican party.

Some people who 'recognize the danger posed by Trump' may advocate a policy of assassination. Others may think the only way to resist Trump's evil is by getting naked and forming a human chain of people of all faiths and colors fisting each other. Similarly, a few may consider listening to the cretin Emrys a good idea.

Any other attitude is irresponsible.

Any? Howsabout an attitude of striving to write sensibly instead of just stringing together cliches? Would that really be 'irresponsible'?

“In unity is strength” is one good maxim to keep in mind. So, too, is another piece of traditional wisdom: the enemy of the good is the perfect.

So, precisely because it is good, 'in unity is strength' is not a perfect maxim- i.e. there is at least one case in which it ought not to be action guiding. If the stakes are low, little harm results in abiding by it. But, if the stakes are high, the thing should be discarded.

Party unity is a good thing if voters think Parties are themselves good. Currently, that is not the case. Parties are seen as corrupt. Trump won because he wasn't a Party man. The Republican unity which has ensued arises not from strength but terror at the vitriol dispensed by the tweeter-in-chief.

Emrys is saying 'don't vote for the candidate you want. Vote strategically.' This is the opposite of the conclusion that 40 years of Voting theory has come to. People should vote for whom they want. Mechanisms should be changed- either formally or informally- so that 'the Revelation principle' triumphs. Finding 'incentive compatible' mechanisms is the business of politics.

Some twenty years ago, I decided to get Satellite TV. However, as a Democratic Socialist, I wanted to subscribe to a Satellite Service affordable to the masses and which would not enrich Right Wing Media Barons like Rupert Murdoch. Thus, instead of signing up for 'Sky' and putting a mini-dish on my roof, I opted for watching the moon out of my window. Sadly, there was no day-time viewing option and calling out the engineer to restore transmission once a month proved to be far more expensive than the Sky subscription I finally settled for. There is a lesson here all who run can read. It is the action of a lunatic to constrain your own preferences in accordance with the meta-preferences you think others should have. In theory, if everybody in Society agreed that looking at the Moon was just as good as having a Sky subscription, then Rupert Murdoch and all he stand for would receive a slap in the face. But having to call out the engineer once a month to restore transmission is simply too expensive for ordinary working people like me. Emrys, in his ivory tower, may sneer at my addiction to TV. But how else can the toiling masses gain some little respite from the unrelenting squalor of their surroundings and tedium of their workaday lives?