election-year dilemma

[cellio]

I'm feeling conflicted about November's election. I can just hear the majority of my readers now: "You doofus! You live in a swing state! It's a no-brainer; you have to vote for Kerry!"

Well, except, I don't support Kerry. I don't support Bush either, and he'd be the worse choice of those two. I support Michael Badnarik, who comes closest among those running to my beliefs about government.

There are those who say that voting for a minor-party candidate is throwing my vote away. Actually, though, a vote for a minor-party candidate does more than a vote for a candidate you don't believe in. Every vote for a minor-party candidate helps that minor party get closer to the spotlight, which could (eventually) help break the stranglehold the Republicans and Democrats have on the American public's attention. By voting for the person I believe in, I (1) express what I really believe, which is supposed to be the point, (2) help keep the Libertarians on the ballot and voter-registration cards in PA, and, if enough others do the same thing, (3) get at least a few other people saying "so just what are Libertarians, anyway?". Not voting for a minor-party candidate because he can't win creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The alternative is to abandon those principles because "this year really matters" and vote for the least-bad viable candidate, which is Kerry. I disagree with Kerry (and his party) on many things, which is why I can't give him my first-tier support, but the thought of Bush appointing any more judges to further savage our civil liberties is frightening. Am I obligated to compromise my principles to try to prevent that outcome? But if I do, am I not just responding to scare tactics? So far as I know no one has recently won Pennyslvania by even a four-digit number of votes, let alone the few hundred that led to the Florida fiasco or the single vote that I represent. By voting for Kerry, am I not saying that minor parties are interesting as parlor games but not when it really matters? Where are those principles now? As the old joke goes, we've already established what I'd be; now we're just haggling over price. [1]

I've considered looking for a voting partner in a non-swing state. That doesn't help minor parties in PA, but it at least lets me help my candidate at the national level. I didn't support Nader, so I'm unfamiliar with how the vote-sharing scheme worked last time. How do you establish trust? Mind, I'm not convinced that this would be appropriate, but it's an option I'm open to.

With Nader in the race, I am not assuming that any other minor-party candidate will get any attention. But again, there's that self-fulfilling prophecy thing; if no one votes for them because of that, they certainly won't get any attention.

So I welcome further thoughts on the matter. What factors am I failing to consider? I ask that you take as given that I don't support Kerry; let's not do that debate here. This is about the proper application of principles in a messy world.

[1] A man in a bar asks a beautiful woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She says ok, in that case she would. He then offers her $20 and she says "what do you think I am?!" He responds: "we've already established that; now we're just haggling over price".

Comments

[goljerp]

OK,

Realistically this year, either Kerry or Bush is going to win.

I'm afraid that if Bush wins, things are going to get significantly worse than they are now. Already he's managed to go from a surplus to the largest deficit the U.S. has ever had. He's gotten us into a quagmire of a war in Iraq, while letting North Korea fester and probably develop real weapons of mass destruction. And this is while he's been concerned about not seeming too radical, because of course he's been running for reelection since he lost the last one.

I'm not just worried about the federal judges that he'll appoint (for life) to eviscerate our civil liberties, I'm worried about the Supreme Court justices he'll appoint. I'm worried that with a Republican-controlled congress (a very real possibility) there will be (further) legislative erosions.

I think that what third parties need to do is start fielding real candidates for congress[1]. The elections are smaller, and it's possible for a third party candidate to really connect with people, and run on local issues. After there are 30 or 40 Libertarians in the house, then the Democrats and Republicans will really have to listen to 'em. (Look at the power the small parties have in Israel!) After that happens, then a national candidate will have some influence.

[1] In New York, there are other parties which run candidates... but it's usually just the Democrat (or Republican) on a different line.

[cellio]

I'm not just worried about the federal judges that he'll appoint (for life) to eviscerate our civil liberties, I'm worried about the Supreme Court justices he'll appoint.

I was including them, yes.

I think that what third parties need to do is start fielding real candidates for congress

I agree. One of the things that frustrates me about the Libertarian party is that they focus on the big seat instead of the little stuff that could, eventually, lead to real influence. I understand the appeal; no one pays attention to the little stuff, really, so you're looking at a decades-long process to get onto the radar, at best. On the other hand, if they'd done that 30 years ago... So, for better or for worse, boosting the vote count in the big-ticket races is the only game in town.

[goljerp]

One of the things that frustrates me about the Libertarian party is that they focus on the big seat instead of the little stuff that could, eventually, lead to real influence. I understand the appeal; no one pays attention to the little stuff, really, so you're looking at a decades-long process to get onto the radar, at best. On the other hand, if they'd done that 30 years ago...

Hmm... if there weren't a history of this happening[1], I'd think I was being paranoid to wonder if, in fact, outside forces had infiltrated the Libertarians and steered them towards this ineffectual course of action. I mean, if Ross Perot, who was willing and able to spend oodles of money, won 19% of the vote in '92 (and 8.4% in '96), what makes the Libertarian party think they'll even come close to that in '04? And even if by some quirk of fate a Libertarian became president, what would s/he be able to accomplish with house and senate controlled by other parties with no incentive whatsoever to cooperate with him/her?

[1] For example: COINTELPRO (an FBI program under J. Edgar Hoover) inserted agents into groups like The Communist Party, SNCC, and others to discredit, misdirect, and otherwise neutralize these organizations.

[laurabee.livejournal.com]

I'm in the same polical boat as you, Monica, as is my mom. I decided to vote for Kerry; my mom decided to vote for Badnarik. But, we are doing the same thing: voting our conscience. My conscience wouldn't let me sleep well at night if I don't try to get Bush out of office; my mom will sleep poorly if she votes for someone who doesn't represent what she believes. So, basically, I have no helpful advice. :)

One of the things that frustrates me about the Libertarian party is that they focus on the big seat instead of the little stuff that could, eventually, lead to real influence.
Cynicism: The presidential election is a media circus with soundbytes, but no hard discussion. That's why most people like it and why I detest it.
Practicality: The Free State Project is not explicitly associated with the Libertarian party, but they have the right idea. Last I checked they had picked New Hampshire. Willie and I are considering visiting there this summer to see if it's someplace we'd like to live.