voting strategically
Sep. 7th, 2008 04:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioMost of the time we vote in elections to address that particular election -- a tactical move (and an important one), in the grand scheme of things. I'm coming to the conclusion that no third party can ever advance so long as everyone does that, so I'm strongly leaning toward making a strategic vote this year, recognizing that the payoff will be delayed if present at all.
Obama or McCain is going to win this election; there is no doubt about that. Thus, many would say, voting for anyone else is throwing away my vote. It's not -- my vote, if accompanied by enough others, could help break the lock the Democrats and Republicans have on the election system. Our voting system is broken; it's set up to favor the two major parties, so it's not a level playing field. There are two ways to attack that -- change the rules (which does not benefit those in power, so it's not going to happen, and yes I've written to my representatives in Congress anyway), or get enough votes to appear on the radar. Both are, of course, highly unlikely, but if everyone says "it won't happen so I won't try" then it certainly won't happen. I'm not ready to give in to self-fulfilling prophecies.
One vote for Obama or McCain does not matter for that candidate -- not even in a swing state, I don't think. (Has PA's stake in any election been decided by as few as 10,000 votes?) One vote for someone else also does not matter for that candidate -- he can't win. But it does matter, a tiny little bit, for his party, and maybe for other parties in general. Enough votes can mean ballot access next time. Enough votes can mean someone else showing up in election returns, which can lead to people asking "who the heck are those guys who got 2%?", which can help in other future races. Enough votes could mean media coverage (with the same result). Or it might not, but it certainly won't if the votes aren't there.
Now granted, minor parties should stop trying for the big races and work up from smaller ones. That would be the right long-term approach that might bear fruit in my (hypothetical) grandkids' generation. But if the only tools available to me (given that I'm not willing to run a campaign) are major elections, I'll work with those as opposed to working with none at all.
I care about this, but let's be frank: demonstrably, I do not feel strongly enough about this to dedicate significant resources to it; I am not a community organizer, a lobbyist, or a campaigner. I'm just one person -- who leans toward a minor party -- with one vote, and I want to use it judiciously. I'm the moral equivalent of the folks who donate $10 to a campaign -- definitely in "every little bit helps but this bit doesn't help a lot" territory.
Four years ago I voted for the lesser evil because I perceived a real national risk should the greater evil win. Doing my part there didn't make a difference, and I find Hillel's words running through my brain: if not now, when? When will it ever be "safe enough" to vote for a minor-party candidate for president? It's real easy to fall into the trap of believing that next time will be different and "just this once" I should do the expedient thing, only to have "next time" never come. Is the tactical situation now so important that I should sacrifice a strategic vote for it?
So I'm leaning toward voting for the long term, but I'm open to arguments otherwise. (See also, if you like, the discussion from four years ago.)
Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-07 09:19 pm (UTC)The problem with a "long term" approach is that you ensure the party furthest from your beliefs will win -- hopefully not your intended result. An example of this was Ralph Nader in the 2004 election, and potentially Ron Paul if he decides to run in this election.
Living here in CA where my vote truly doesn't matter, I would hate to see your vote in a swing state "wasted" on a third party. This is not to say a third party never works -- witness the Bull Moose party of Theodor Roosevelt.
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-07 09:35 pm (UTC)I'm not sure my one vote is going to cost the less-bad candidate to lose. Ralph Nader was trying to win (which was delusional). I know we can't win the election; "winning" would be making enough of an impact to influence future elections. So I guess I'm trading the possible win of impact against the possible win of this election. One vote doesn't matter either way, but I think it does proportionally more good when cast for the minor party.
(I sure hope Ron Paul doesn't run; that won't accomplish anything. It would be better for him to throw his weight behind Bob Barr.)
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-08 12:36 am (UTC)That's why I'm trying to ram it down the Barony's throat (over a surprising amount of resistance).
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-08 03:47 am (UTC)That's curiosity, mind you, not (necessarily) prelude to a counter-argument. I can see two schools of resistance: one, if the proposed system is viewed as more hassle than the current one. That's probably harmless in the long run. The second, though, would be if they don't have as much confidence in a different system to get the "right" answer compared to the status quo. In that case, you have to balance the pluses and minuses of "theoretically valid" election results that are perceived as somehow suspect.
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-08 04:09 am (UTC)Every time I think of voting for a third party, I remember Florida in 2000. Yeah, we're all prisoners of the 2 party system, but the 2 major party candidates are *not* equally evil (Nader's infamous comments notwithstanding).
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-08 06:09 pm (UTC)The proposed system is actually less hassle (although that needed to be demonstrated, so it wasn't obvious). Lack of confidence in the new system is probably the issue. And the comparison requires some intricate math, which I've been unable to explain simply and clearly.
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-08 06:33 pm (UTC)Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-09 11:47 am (UTC)I read an interesting (but slightly disingenuous) analysis of the instant runoff system and its failure to support monotonicity; there's a version at http://rangevoting.org/Monotone.html The gist of it is that under certain circumstances, it can be gamed, and if you support candidate A, you can remove candidate B (a strong contender) from the race by adding candidate C (a weaker contender whom you don't support) to your vote, thus assuring that A wins. It's finicky and impractical, but still it gives instant runoffs a bad smell in the engineering sense.
But it's still better than what we've got.
Re: Two Party system
Date: 2008-09-09 11:00 pm (UTC)