Party politics and the false dilemma logical fallacy

2008 November 30

By Joshua Walker
Article ID: 1262

Download audio: Play Now

I’m an American. Just a few weeks ago, the United States elected a new President for 2009. This is the first election that I decided to forgo party politics - I voted for the person I think was best for the job. I voted based upon my political principles, instead of just voting “against” the “other guy”. During this process, I’ve grown angrier and more frustrated at the “false dilemma” logical fallacy that is so prevalent in American politics.

What is a false dilemma?

A false dilemma is a logical fallacy where someone states that “either X is true or Y is true”. The problem is that X and Y might both be false or both true. In fact, there might be claims A, B, L, and Z that are also true and related to the topic. Now, it is possible that X and Y might be the only options and that if one is true the other is false; we should, however, be very careful with such claims and determine if X and Y are really the only options.

Republican or Democrat: You decide

I am constantly astounded by those who claim a differing political ideology, such as Libertarianism or Constitutionalism, yet always vote for the two major parties. The Republicans are usually considered conservatives and the Democrats are usually considered liberals, but even those ideologies have splintered into sub-ideologies, such as the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals. Sometimes these new ideologies are directly contrary to their parent. Yet even with these ever-evolving political philosophies, the individual is expected to sacrifice their ideals to the current party puppet- …I mean party “candidate”.

Americans are constantly flooded with propaganda telling them that there are only two choices and that the third parties have no chance at winning an election. This becomes its own self-fulfilling prophecy. If a man thinks he’s going to die tomorrow, he’ll find a way to make it happen, or die trying. If a majority believes that voting for a third party candidate is useless, then the prophecy will fulfill itself. If we all want change, but choose to vote for party sycophants simply because we are told to do so, then we are merely puppets and not free people.

The example of false dilemma propaganda that inspired me to write this article came from this news article at Yahoo.com. It begins by quoting a person saying that voting third party would be throwing their vote away. Since this person is - of course - just like us, then we also should not throw our vote away on a third party. Or is that more than a quote, and a recommendation from the article’s author? Later in the article, an “expert” is brought in to tell us that none of the third party candidates “resonate” with the American people, even though people constantly complain about the poor choice of candidates and the “vote for the lesser evil” strategy. There are figures and statistics dissuading us from opposing the political power structure because no third party candidate has ever won high political office. Unfortunately, repeating this fact helps to ensure continued failure of the third party candidates.

The major parties place themselves on opposite sides of every issue, even though many political positions have more than two sides. Take, for example, the abortion debate. You are either pro-life or pro-abortion. Taking a position that the federal government has no authority in this issue and that it should be left to the states is never considered. Consider the ANWR drilling controversy. You’re either for or against it. You can’t say that it’s irrelevant because the government has banned alternative fuel options for years and more drilling is only a band-aid on an amputation. The issues are always turned into yes or no options. This lets the parties take opposite sides and argue pointlessly, while ignoring any inconvenient facts.

Take responsibility and free your mind

Logical fallacies are dangerous. They are often used to persuade the uncritical mind into choosing something that’s hurtful and enslaving. They are also, ironically enough, ever-present in American politics. It astounds me when I listen to political speeches, as I hear one fallacy after another. Since fallacies are used to persuade the uncritical mind, politicians must assume that the majority of people are stupid. As so many people blindly swallow fallacies - like the false dilemma discussed in this article - I am beginning to agree.

The best way to deal with this is to question everything. Never accept anything at face value, particularly the words of a politician. Always check the facts presented, particularly those not presented as well, because what’s excluded could be more important than what’s included. As Digital Bits Skeptic is oriented towards skeptics, I hope in this case that I’m preaching to the choir.

Let’s free ourselves from the political machine. Ignore the pundits. Let’s vote our ideals, rather than sacrificing ourselves to the power hungry. Most importantly, remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

Other articles related to this topic:

10 Comments leave one →

2008 November 30

Stacy Kennedy permalink

The reason for the two-party problem in American politics is related more to the mathematical realities of our voting system than to rampant logical fallacy. In the plurality system we have now, voting for a third party candidate will almost invariably help one of the two major parties; generally the one furthest from the voter’s sympathies. This “spoiler effect” is why Republicans gave money to Ralph Nader: it’s a smart, economical, and legal (if borderline-unethical) way to guarantee fewer votes for their party’s opponent.

Don’t take my word for it; ask a mathematician. Better still, read William Poundstone’s “Gaming the Vote”. As long as we use the plurality voting system, third parties–and beyond–will never be viable in the U.S. Alternatives do exist, and it is time we all became aware of them.

2008 December 1

DB Skeptic permalink

I’d argue that while we have essentially a two-party system, we need a 3+ party system. As a libertarian, I get frustrated when my choices are between two philosophies that have good and bad points.

So the question is, how can we get to a third party system? We know it’s possible - state and city-level positions routinely have libertarian presence, for example. But 1) how did they get popular enough to get there, and 2) how to translate that success to the national stage?

I don’t deny what you said, Stacy, because while I haven’t read “Gaming the Vote”, I agree the “spoiler effect” is a problem that had to be addressed before a third-party candidate could run a “real” campaign. I also agree that, problems or no, we do need to become aware of alternative options.

Andy

2008 December 1

Ed M permalink

Why do we need more than two candidates?

Seems like the candidates reflect the majority of the population, and the political process is nothing more than narrowing down who we want to lead us. If there are no big third-parties, then it’s because the majority of Americans don’t want them.

2008 December 1

Rob Steenwyk permalink

Well Joshua, you certainly sound like you either wrote Ron Paul in, or voted for a Libertarian. If true I can sympathize, as I was a huge Ron Paul supporter and voted Libertarian in the booth.

I completely understand and agree with your reasoning, and a well informed electorate that wasn’t constantly being bombarded by the media saying “Pick X or Y” would certainly be a wonderful thing. However, as it stands now it is almost impossible for a third party candidate to be elected to a national or even statewide office. So there has to be an argument that can be used to actually get people to vote for a third party candidate, even if they full well know that it will not result in their candidate being elected to office. I think that argument is that there is no such thing as a wasted vote, it is simply not true. Every vote (theoretically) counts. True, your vote for this candidate will not result in her being elected to office, but it will tell the person that was elected that you are out there and willing to take your vote elsewhere.

From a libertarian perspective this would have the greatest effect on the Republican party. If the Republican party is consistently losing elections by 3-5% and they are seeing that the Libertarian party is garnering 3-5% of the vote, they immediately know the people that really need to go after and work for.

Another option of course is to change the major political party from within, and this can be done, albeit quite slowly. But is is already happening all over the country with Ron Paul supporters being elected to precinct delegate positions, a position that actually has a fair amount of power. A few thousand people elected to those positions nationwide can really change party policy as a whole.

The best way to go would be to have a preference system of voting, where the voter puts his favorite candidate as his number 1 choice and his least at the bottom, with everybody else filling in the middle. If this were to be put in place nationwide I am certain that things would be shaken up significantly, but for just that reason I do not ever see it happening. So for the time being I think those of us who actually vote on principle should do our best to either change the major party from within (and then make it easier for third parties!) or to educate voters on fallacy of a wasted vote.

Neither ways are easy, but both would have incredible payoffs.

2008 December 1

Joshua Walker permalink

Thanks for the feedback everybody. I understand that there are many issues facing the American people as we attempt to regain our freedom. My goal with this article was to point out one of the problems and see if I could wake a few people up to one of the many lies the media (aka the propaganda machine) tells us.

Stacy and Ed: I understand some of the strategical ideas out there in politics. The problem is we’ve become too mathematical about politics. Politics isn’t a 1 or 0 issue, which I’ve tried to make apparent with this article. Politics is about securing our freedom; something we must fight vigilantly for. At the end of the day, neither of the major parties works for our freedom. They are working together to further enslave us and our children’s children to a vice-grip of debt. Bush has spent us into oblivion and Obama is promising more of the same. Whether they spend the money on bombs or bailouts, we, the American people, pay for it dearly. They measure the national debt against Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is the sum of everything produced in our country. The U.S. government rulers are mortgaging YOUR hard work for their benefit and they continue because the American public has never told them where to stick it, because they keep lying to us to get us to vote for “their way”, which is the same as the “other way.” Pick your poison; they’re two sides of the same coin.

Rob: You are correct. I am a Libertarian in principle and I was (am?) a big Ron Paul supporter. I agree with your points. I would add that education and action must be continuous. We can never stop working to change the parties and to restore our freedom because the fight never ends. It requires eternal vigilance. We could elect the best people, and they could restore all our freedom, but even then we can’t let our guard down. There will always be a power-hungry politician waiting on the side-lines for his moment to bring us back down to slavery.

Give me liberty or give me death!

2008 December 1

Lauren permalink

Excellent article. I believe that those who argue that a third party can never win, while continuing to hand their vote to one of the, “Republi-crat” puppets are sometimes looking for an excuse for their own lack of political action. Of COURSE the odds are stacked against anyone who opposes the two main political parties. That’s why those of us who value freedom must work to change the system: by educating ourselves and the public, by continually hounding our elected officials, etc. When I was working in the Ron Paul campaign, I often encountered those who sympathized with his position, but who stated, “He’ll never win,” and instead gave their primary vote to one of the candidates they considered more viable. If all of those who used that defeatist argument would instead cast their vote as their conscience and reason dictated, the two main parties would begin to crumble.

2008 December 1

Rob Steenwyk permalink

“Why do we need more than two candidates? ”

Look at the huge amount of diverse opinions that are expressed in comments just on this site. Two people do not come even close to really representing what all 300,000,000 Americans really think about even major issues, not to mention the hundreds of smaller issues. The two major candidates essentially debated about two things in the ‘08 Presidential election, the election and the war on terror.

Throwing in a third or even a fourth significant candidate into the debates, even if they were only polling 10%, would ensure that more issues were debated. Let’s pretend that Ron Paul magically ran as an independent and received enough support to allow him to be in the debates. All of a sudden instead of an argument for or against the war in Iraq, there would be an argument being raised that every war we have been in since WWII was unnecessary and that a policy of non-interventionism is best.

Instead of talking merely about whether to increase social security or to stop pork barrel spending (a joke, it wouldn’t put a dent in federal spending), there would be a real debate on whether or not to repeal the income tax and DRASTICALLY cut federal services and giving states more power.

Can you imagine that? That would be absolutely amazing, just having the debate on a national level would be so awesome.

2008 December 6

Rob Steenwyk permalink

“The two major candidates essentially debated about two things in the ‘08 Presidential election, the election and the war on terror.”

err, I meant the economy and the war on terror.

2008 December 19

Osbo permalink

I’d like to say that this is a false analogy.

The A or B is only remotely equivalent to democrat or republican. Why? Because of numbers. In the current two party system, it IS an either/or scenario. One must be true. It isn’t a great way to run a country, but more presidential candidates will only advance publicity for agendas, not increase voting power.

But to limit the 3rd or multiple party debate to the presidential election misses the point. Other countries with more than one party gets more done with multiple party coalitions (even some that wouldn’t normally work, like Green and Conservative working together for a wildlife preserve, for example). No party has a significant enough majority, so they must work together to get stuff done. If they didn’t no one would get anything. To me, that’s more of a true democracy.

So, I think one needs to look at it more at the local level then not.

2008 December 19

ty permalink

I didn’t read all the comments here but I disagree with Stacy here is what they said:

“The reason for the two-party problem in American politics is related more to the mathematical realities of our voting system than to rampant logical fallacy. In the plurality system we have now, voting for a third party candidate will almost invariably help one of the two major parties; generally the one furthest from the voter’s sympathies. This “spoiler effect” is why Republicans gave money to Ralph Nader: it’s a smart, economical, and legal (if borderline-unethical) way to guarantee fewer votes for their party’s opponent.

Don’t take my word for it; ask a mathematician. Better still, read William Poundstone’s “Gaming the Vote”. As long as we use the plurality voting system, third parties–and beyond–will never be viable in the U.S. Alternatives do exist, and it is time we all became aware of them. ”

It isn’t the voting system itself, it’s what brought about the two party setup and why are there no alternatives allowed. Plurality voting or other voting systems are all prey to what I lay out below. The answer is the question.

The debates right now are owned by a corporation co-owned by the two major parties and they set the rules, the set the questions, and they didn’t allow equal time to Ron Paul. All major media outlets are owned by 4 individuals with vested interests in getting obama or mcain voted in. This is how free trade was passed in spite of overwhelming evidence of the harm it would do to the country, the system is rigged for the corps. to get their guy in. Also voting fraud is as big a barrier as all of these others combined. We need paper ballots only again for starters.

But the question is why vote at all? If the system is so rigged that Ron Paul never has a chance literally, then why not skip voting altogether, but make very sure Ron Paul or Kucinich or whoever is talking real stuff gets into the debates and figure out how he can get equal time.

Because the fact is the NWO has all sorts of plans but they won’t “pull the trigger” until the population is too dumbed and flourided up with their water supplies and too willing to give up their guns; and too poor too. Then hell will truly be unleashed. The solution is to make sure the top 5% of the population is fully informed, and Alex Jones does a very good job at that. Look him up. 5% fully informed and willing to fight is all this country will ever need to remain the land of the free.

Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community.

Party politics and the false dilemma logical fallacy

Other articles related to this topic:

Leave A Comment

Last published

Featured

Upcoming

Recent Comments

Search

Subscribe

Categories