voting strategically

[cellio]

I've been thinking about this November's election, and the presumption that PA is a swing state and That Matters, and voting for the lesser plausible evil versus voting one's conscience. I started to write about this in comments in someone else's journal (where it was arguably off-topic), so I figured I should bring it here.

Most 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.)

Comments

[cellio]

Having said that, do you really feel that the Libertarian candidate, if elected, would do a better job of running the country? I don't mean theoretically, based on his political posture; I mean practically, given the existing political infrastructure.

Bob Barr has more (applicable) experience than many past and present candidates (including one of the big two, actually) -- he's been in Congress long enough to have some clue how Washington works. Would he do a better job? This leads me to the question of what are the best-case and worst-case scenarios under the three candidates we've been discussing.

Let's do worst-case first. I take it as given that the Democrats will control both houses of Congress; if you think that's a faulty assumption then say so and we'll discuss. Worst-case outcome for an Obama win is increased spending on entitlements, increased taxes to pay for that, and a move toward government control of more parts of our lives (like health care -- which is screwed up today, but do you want folks who can't reliably maintain roads and bridges to be in control of your health?). Worst-case outcome for a McCain win is further erosion of civil liberties, implemented through executive orders to bypass Congress. Worst-case outcome under Barr would seem to be gridlock.

Now, on the positive side: Barr and the Democrats in control of Congress both want to restore civil liberties, so that's a win. They both want to end the war in Iraq, so that's a win. They both want to balance the budget but disagree on how; I think things will still get better. Barr seems to grok that you need to do things incrementally; many past Libertarian candidates have not seemed to, so I have more confidence in Barr than in his predecessors. Barr would hinder attempts at increased government involvement in health care, education, and the market, which to me is a win (YMMV), and does not appear to be in the pockets of the unions (which can hinder some of those). I think Barr and the Democrats share enough goals to be able to improve things, while disagreeing on enough things to avoid handing over a blank check.

(I guess I should mention that I am deeply distrustful of single-party rule no matter which party it is. Look at Pittsburgh, for instance. I want to force governance toward moderation -- at least until I get to be queen of the universe so I can fix it. :-) )

What are the best-case scenarios under Obama and McCain? I'd rather let their supporters offer them, if they're listening.

Feel free to make me better informed about the current candidate; my disappointment in previous years has prevented me from properly researching this year's candidate.

Which areas are most important to you?

Gridlock

[tc-tick.livejournal.com]

If you like gridlock, you should live in CA -- the state has been w/o a budget for over 2 months and things are starting to get testy with the creditors, threats to pay state workers federal minimum wages (which is less than CA minimum), etc. One side has been absolutely intransigent and the other side is not willing to go that far. Neither side has enough votes to solve the impasse.

I have a feeling we are going to see this continuing on the national level regardless of who is elected president, however the impact of the president will be on the war, justice and other federal agencies, the supreme court, and our civil liberties.

Re: Gridlock

[cellio]

I don't like gridlock (remember, this was on my worst-case list, not best-case). But I prefer inaction to the wrong action. I want the parties to be forced to work together, rather than having one side get enough votes to say "neener neener, we don't care about you" to the other. Obviously this doesn't always work as well as it could.

[530nm330hz.livejournal.com]

Worst-case outcome for a McCain win is further erosion of civil liberties, implemented through executive orders to bypass Congress.

I disagree. Worst-case outcome for a McCain win is that he dies on day two, and Sarah Palin controls the nominations for 3 Supreme Court appointments that are currently "liberal". This is the woman who tried to have a librarian fired for not deaccessioning certain books. The erosion of civil liberties would be implemented through executive orders to bypass Congress, upheld for another generation by a SCOTUS that would make Rehnquist look like a brie-loving liberal.

[cellio]

Ooh. Yeah, you're right -- similar outcome but much more devastating means.

[cellio]

On reflection, if he dies on day 2 I doubt seriously that even today's US voters would re-elect Palin. In that scenario she gets four years (still plenty of chance to do damage), not eight, IMO.

[grouchyoldcoot.livejournal.com]

I'd believe that too, except that they re-elected Bush.

[grouchyoldcoot.livejournal.com]

Hm. We should have an in-person discussion about health care and the insurance industry sometime.

[cellio]

Sure. Again, I'm not saying the current system works; we've both seen ample evidence that it's broken. But I also distrust concentration of power and decision-making about something so important. That way lies (among options) Canada, with which I also have some experience. If we "fix" it but make it worse in the process, then (1) we have worse health care and (2) a lot of the momentum to fix it has been lost (people are rarely up for the rematch). Anything we do on something so important should be incremental and reversible.

[grouchyoldcoot.livejournal.com]

Good thought, except that we appear to be in a local minimum. If all incremental changes are uphill, we can never get to the proper, optimal plan.

One approach would be to pick a single state and switch it over, as a test case. Unfortunately there's no way to pick which state.

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

A local minimum? Good God, you needn't believe everything you read.

Is that why the richest people from around the world choose to have their health care in this country? Is that why doctors choose to come here in droves for their training? Why virtually everyone who has received care in other countries prefers to have it here? There are reasons why we have high infant mortality and low life expenctancy. Quality of health care is not one of them. We pay a premium price for premium health care.

Doomsayers have been predicting the imminent demise of the health care system for the last 40 years, because clearly it cannot possibly get any more expensive without drowning under its own weight.

Picking a single state doesn't work. The goal of universal health care is to drive costs down with monopolistic pricing. Doctors can leave a state; it's harder to leave a country.

[grouchyoldcoot.livejournal.com]

I think you misunderstood- I meant a local minimum in the optimization sense, in that small changes will not show improvement. I'm well aware that this is the best country in the world for rich people to get medical care.

Do you happen to know what fraction of health care costs passes through doctor's salaries, and what fraction goes directly to infrastructure or pharmaceuticals? I'd always assumed salaries were a relatively small part of the cost of an average hospital stay.

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

Oh, oh, oh. You mean the slope is near-zero. You're right; I misunderstood.
Jeez. /Now/ who's emotional? ;>)

But now I have to admit that I don't understand your meaning. A local minimum is a relatively stable situation. That's (in some sense) a good thing. The doomsayers claim that we're one MRI away from bankrupting the country with burdensome health care costs. So.... I'm lost.

You are correct that salaries are a surprisingly small percentage of costs (compared to other industries). Once upon a time, I knew the exact number. But I didn't just mean salaries when I said "monopolistic pricing".

At the moment, it is still feasible to refuse Medicare patients. That wouldn't be an option in single-payer.

[grouchyoldcoot.livejournal.com]

My notion of a local minimum is that there is a better minimum elsewhere, separated from the current state by configurations that are worse. I'm sure we can't agree on what it would be, but there may be an arrangement which is more efficient than the current one yet still provides appropriate care.

[grouchyoldcoot.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I've got a really great argument for you on the lies-vs-hypocrisy discussion.

[cellio]

The single-state test-case model doesn't work. Heck, better-off Canadians come here for health care they can't get there (or can't get in a timely manner), and that's a national boundary. If all you have to do is go to the nearest state line, that won't be much of a test case at all.

Is there no improvement possible short of "nuke and start over"? I find that hard to believe.

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

I knew there was a reason I like discussing stuff with you!

[grouchyoldcoot.livejournal.com]

What sort of small change would you suggest? Can you think of a small change that gets everyone insured? I suspect you're going to say that people should be able to *choose* not to be insured, but those people get sick too, and we as a culture are (thankfully) unwilling to let them die without care. I hold that their care should be on the books officially, rather than being provided on a random rescue basis.

[cellio]

I don't have a specific suggestion yet; must think more on this. An area I would like to explore is separating out "catastrophe" insurance from the "your check-up costs $20" sort. What would it cost if I could buy just the former? What would happen to the cost of more routine care if enough people did that? Where would the threshold for "catastrophe" end up falling (in dollars, I mean)? I don't have enough data to answer any of these.

The flip side of this could be interesting too: would medical practices (or insurers) be willing to sell affordable plans that cover all your routine care (only), if they were not on the hook for catastrophic losses? Could that get things down to the point where the average family could afford regular checkups, preventative care, and routine tests? Again, I lack data; it's just an idea to explore.

I'd also like to explore the effects of reducing drug regulation, letting people buy from anywhere that's selling and reducing barriers to getting things onto the market.

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

On this topic, I have ALL SORTS of information (surprise!), interspersed with strongly-held but difficult-to-prove beliefs. But I would request a different forum.

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

>I take it as given that the Democrats will control both houses of Congress

Agreed.

>Worst-case outcome for an Obama win is...

Agreed. Especially on health care, which I happen to know something about, and am thus totally biased.

>[erosion of civil liberty via] executive orders to bypass Congress

Hasn't worked (fully) for Bush; McCain gives little indication of pursuing it. I suppose you've outlined worst case, but it's extremely unlikely by my estimates. I think single-payer health care is far more likely.

>restore civil liberties, so that's a win

Agreed.

>end the war in Iraq, so that's a win

Depends how. Sudden withdrawal is very bad. Knee-jerk public-poll responses are also bad. Please educate me on Barr's position.

>They both want to balance the budget

Here I must firmly disagree. The Democrats pay lip service to balancing the budget, but even after they increase taxes, they find ways to spend even more money. It's all about the special interests, IMHO. As an admitted fiscal conservative, I give this point to McCain. With a Libertarian (or Republican) president, the best you could hope for on finances is gridlock.

>Which areas are most important to you?

Tough question. Six months ago, I wouldn't have said "tax policy", but it has since come to the top of my lists of concerns (details upon request). I recognize that Libertarians align with me on this topic.

Support for Israel. Liberals insist that Obama will, indeed, be a staunch supporter. Conservatives don't have to say a thing. I score this a minor difference on a major issue.

Health care. I have a strong bias, here, but it's at least an informed bias. Again, I align with you. Major difference on a major issue.

Civil liberties, broadly speaking (abortion, wiretaps, habeus corpus). Tough to score, because McCain is very different from Bush. Also, I'm not as incensed by the current state of affairs as some people are. I'm inclined to call it a medium difference on a medium issue. I don't see Roe v Wade realistically threatened under any president.

I would say that Iraq is of interest, but not singularly high on my list. (details upon request)

[grouchyoldcoot.livejournal.com]

Here I must firmly disagree. The Democrats pay lip service to balancing the budget, but even after they increase taxes, they find ways to spend even more money. It's all about the special interests, IMHO. As an admitted fiscal conservative, I give this point to McCain.

Huh? Have you read McCain's revenue predictions? It doesn't look to me like he's going to get any closer to a balanced budget than Reagan or Bush. Or are you counting on gridlock to balance the budget, once the Bush cuts expire in 2010?

[cellio]

Hasn't worked (fully) for Bush; McCain gives little indication of pursuing it.

On the other hand, look at his VP.

[Iraq]
Depends how. Sudden withdrawal is very bad. Knee-jerk public-poll responses are also bad. Please educate me on Barr's position.

Barr wants to turn control over to the Iraqi government expediciously, but not cut and run. He says he would not announce the deadline because that would give the insurgents an advantage. I don't know what kind of timeframe he's thinking.

Balancing the budget: it's true that neither major party has done squat there once you factor in the raids on social security. I guess that counts as the Dems "not wanting to" balance. (Where the budget is concerned there's a whole lot of lip service from all quarters, alas. I think Barr would actually try hard, though of course Congress gets a say too.)

Support for Israel. Liberals insist that Obama will, indeed, be a staunch supporter. Conservatives don't have to say a thing. I score this a minor difference on a major issue.

I'm not aware of Barr saying anything specific about Israel. His platform includes reduced foreign aid. He also believes that the military exists primarily for defense; how defense of allies factors in I do not know.

Civil liberties: you align pretty well with libertarians here, which should come as no surprise. I don't share your optimism about Roe v. Wade.

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

>>McCain gives little indication of pursuing it.
>On the other hand, look at his VP.

Sadly, I know almost nothing about her that I can trust. Every source seems obscenely biased in one direction or the other. I'm waiting for the smoke to clear. I doubt I'll like her politics, but I doubt I'll care much. Statistically, John McCain is very very likely to survive for 4 years.

>Barr wants to turn control over to the Iraqi government expediciously, but not cut and run.

Eh. Everyone says that. Foreign policy is where Libertarian politicians are usually most divergent from my own views. I strongly oppose isolationism.

>[fiscal] I think Barr would actually try hard

That's his big selling point, right? Minimize government. I'm all for it.

>Civil liberties: you align pretty well with libertarians here, which should come as no surprise.

Hah! I think you'd find me oddly well-versed in Libertarian theories (against my will, I dare say).

[thecommanderdia.livejournal.com]

Given, my knowledge is pretty limited on the history of the US budget, but I seem to remember seeing something that claimed Clinton was the first President to balance the budget in some time, and did so by making cuts in various programs. Wasn't there some kind of bruhaha with Clinton and the Republican held congress where they threatened to shut the government down that was related to the cuts he was making?

Someone edumacate me on this. In general though, I'm not sure either party can really claim to have made any real effort to balance the budget or reign in spending.

Regarding Israel...have we ever really had a President who WASN'T a staunch supporter of Israel? My understanding is that Obama has had to tout his support more vocally because of the rumor that he was a Muslim.