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.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 06:47 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:16 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:48 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 02:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 03:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-09 03:10 am (UTC)I'll bet that a) we could find an alternative system that we both thought was preferable to the current system, and b) we could agree on small changes that would produce measurable improvements.