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

Two Party system

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, the system is rigged to favor the major party candidates, and has been since the early days of the republic. Having 40 candidates may be intellectually appealing, but practically it ensures the winner receives only a minority of the vote. The Australian weighted system tries to overcome this weakness, but has never really caught on in this country.

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.

[alice-curiouser.livejournal.com]

I think you know how I feel about this - both parties are corrupt, IMO.

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.

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

I don't (ever) have the energy to compose a detailed political analysis, but I will say that this time is not the time to be doing this. I've known you long and well enough to have more than a strong suspicion regarding how you stand on the issues that divide Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin, and I have zero doubt about your understanding of the consequences should the evangelicals and jingoists of the Red side be energized and empowered even more than they have been the past eight years. This is not the time, and we need every vote we can get, including yours, to absolutely, literally, save the republic. You know what's at stake here. Don't try to tell me you don't. Do the right thing.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

I won't vote, but I won't try to dissuade you from exercising your franchise. That said, I see no reason why you shouldn't express your displeasure with the de facto two party system by supporting a third party (or party-free write-in) candidate.

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with the philsophy of voting for the candidate you like best, regardless of party backing, and I use exactly the same logic you have outlined.

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.

[multislackerkim.livejournal.com]

I've been voting third party since college for that very reason (albeit I was a Nadar trader with a buddy in Massachusetts and voted for the Democrat at the time...I'm guessing it was Gore, and four years ago, I wrote myself in since I had just turned 35).

[ichur72.livejournal.com]

I really appreciated reading your thoughts, not because I agree in every particular but because it gives me hope that it is possible to have civil discussions about politics even when all parties to the conversation are not marching in lockstep. Thumbs up on a thoughtful post.

[fauxklore]

The real question I see is whether there is a third party candidate you feel passionate about.

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.

[thecommanderdia.livejournal.com]

I'm going to have a post on my own journal today on a related topic, but I thought I would put in my two cents worth here.

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.

[jducoeur]

Some thoughts:

The tactical vs. strategic question is an interesting and subtle one. I don't think voting third party strictly for its own sake has a lot of value: the meme that that's simply a protest vote is too deeply ingrained, and I don't see that getting shaken out. For it to make a difference, people have to be perceived as voting *for* specific alternatives, to give them political viability. Barr makes the Libertarian Party more plausible, although at the cost of making it more like the big parties. (That is, he will probably do a bit better than usual because he's adopting a "big tent" approach.)

That said, the tactical considerations have gone up a notch in my book. While I'm suspicious of McCain's instincts in foreign policy (and I am quite sure his economics would be a disaster), I think he'd muddle along somewhat adequately. Palin, OTOH, is downright scary to me: she's exactly the kind of know-nothing populist I've come to distrust most deeply, and appears to share too many of Bush's flaws -- while the Democratic rhetoric about McCain being another four years of Bush is somewhat overblown, saying the same about Palin might well be true. She looks to be bad enough that keeping her away from the White House becomes Important.

Or to look at it another way, I'm *also* voting strategically, but with a different strategy. As far as I'm concerned, the greatest danger the country faces right now isn't the two-party system, it's the growing tendency towards extremism. So I'd far rather have a pragmatic centrist (which, when you actually look at his history and style, Obama is) in favor of any of the more-extreme alternatives on offer, precisely because I think it's very important to herd the politicians back towards the center. I may not agree with him on every issue, but I think he's likely to bring back a more appropriate and thoughtful style of governance, and is likely to get better results overall as a result.

(Or to put it even more simply: I trust a smart technocrat more than I do *any* party affiliation. Obama's closer to that description than any candidate I've seen in a fair number of years...)