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

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, I have read (though I don't have a citation handy) that Pennsylvania is a key swing state, and Pittsburgh is a swing area within Pennsylvania, so your vote may well have a disproportionate weight. Certainly, residents of the Pittsburgh area are receiving a disproportionate amount of political advertising.

I suggest looking at the question from a point of view of ruthless pragmatism--not because I think that you should make the decision from that point of view, but because I think it might help you find new perspectives.

The pragmatic question is "which of these alternatives will best get me the things that I want?" You've established several things that you want:
- Reduced chance of Bush winning
- Greater prominence for third parties, especially Libertarians,
- The sense of integrity of voting in accordance with what you really believe
- et cetera.

I personally think that there is a significant risk of Bush winning, and that there's a lot of benefit to reducing that risk--but that's for you to decide.

I also believe that it is still a principled position to say, "I prefer to vote Libertarian, but I will compromise to avoid an outcome I find more threatening." Compromise is a very political thing to do--but this is our big chance to be political.

[cellio]

Certainly, residents of the Pittsburgh area are receiving a disproportionate amount of political advertising.

I've noticed that too. I've been getting mailings (from both sides) at the rate of about once every two weeks, and there've been several phone calls (which annoys me -- they shouldn't have been exempted under the telemarketing law). Just yesterday the AFL-CIO called on the mistaken impression that I agree with them; either that was an actual human or the recordings have gotten more convincing. (The answering machine got it, so there was no interaction.)

I also believe that it is still a principled position to say, "I prefer to vote Libertarian, but I will compromise to avoid an outcome I find more threatening."

Thanks for this analysis.