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

[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.