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.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-07 09:49 pm (UTC)The other thing is, both parties seem increasingly hell-bent on throwing out the most extreme examples of their party line. When this happens, at least half the country feels alienated, because their interests aren't being recognized by their government.
Rusty and I joke that we wouldn't want to be president because at least half the country is gonna hate you right off the bat, but that wouldn't be the case if just once the parties offered some moderation. I'm not sure I'll be voting for either party until they do.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-07 11:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-07 11:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 12:34 am (UTC)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. If you can answer "yes", then by all means, vote for him.
Remember that you're not voting for a party; you're voting for a pair of individuals (who happen to be backed by a party). The Libertarians haven't put forth any pleasing candidates that I can remember. Like most modern presidential candidates, they get their votes as either "least of the evils" or "party-line voting". 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.
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).
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 12:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 01:27 am (UTC)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?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 01:49 am (UTC)Quinnipiac, Rasmussen & Opinion R, the three polls taken within the last week in PA show Obama leading 47-42. Plus the fact that if every tie and PA went to McCain, the electoral count would still be 280-258 in Obama's favor.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 01:55 am (UTC)Gridlock
Date: 2008-09-08 02:31 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 02:33 am (UTC)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.
Re: Gridlock
Date: 2008-09-08 02:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 02:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 02:59 am (UTC)I did when John Anderson ran in 1980 - and so did enough other people to get him noticed, albeit not elected.
Some number of people did when Ross Perot ran in 1992 (and fewer when he ran again in 1996).
Third party candidates have won major offices within my lifetime. James Longley was governor of Maine (and one of my political heroes, whose basic platform was that he hated everything). James Buckley (Conservative Party) was a senator from New York, where both the Liberal Party and Conservative Party had significant membership in my youth, though they seem to have vanished from the scene now. They did, typically, endorse Democratic and Republican candidates, but often ran their own candidates for state offices.
If third parties are to be viable (and eventually supplant one of the majors), they should focus on the races where they have the biggest stake. That can include major races (senate, governorship, presidency). They shouldn't run candidates for the sake of running candidates. A guy I know was active in the Green Party in L.A. and was asked to run for office by them. He looked at the candidates from the majors and pointed out that one of them pretty much supported everything on the Green platform. Under those circumstances, running would have been a waste of the party's money.
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).
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 04:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 04:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 12:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 12:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 01:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 01:41 pm (UTC)IMHO you should vote for who you agree with the most, regardless of party. Elections should be about the individuals running, not the parties they belong to. If you don't agree with the two people most likely to win...so what. You should never feel preassured or guilted into voting for anyone. The US will not implode regardless of who gets in office. Our system is set up to survive these sorts of things, and if it swings to far in one direction, it will eventually swing back in the other.
My main question is...how do we work toward eliminating the party system altogether? The 6-7 million Baha'i international community has an interesting way of election their leadership that involves no campaigning, no parties and little drama. I'm sure it isn't perfect, but it seems to work pretty well. Look under elections in the following link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_administration
Non-partisanship
Shoghi Effendi sternly deprecated partisan politics and certain other practices current in western democracies, such as campaigning and nomination. As a result:
Nominations and campaigning are prohibited. Bahá'ís, according to Shoghi Effendi, should not seek to advance themselves above their neighbour.
Voters are urged not to consult with each other about the suitability of individuals.
Voters are strongly encouraged to study and discuss, in abstract, the five qualities named by Shoghi Effendi as being necessary in those elected to serve, without reference to individuals.
Individuals should be selected only on the basis of the five mentioned qualities, without reference to material means or other characteristics, except insofar as they provide insight into the five qualities.
Those elected are expected to serve, though in cases of extreme personal difficulty, such a member may request that the body to which they are elected excuse and replace him or her.
In the event of a tying vote for last place, if one of these individuals is a member of a minority, this individual is automatically awarded the position. (In the US, this refers to racial minority.) If this is unclear, or if there is disagreement as to whether the minority rule applies, a run-off election is held in which votes are cast only for one of those tying.
Shoghi Effendi saw these (and other) aspects as essential to preserving the full rights and prerogatives of the electors, guarding them against manipulation.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-08 02:34 pm (UTC)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.