This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |

« (H.R.) 42 is Not the Answer | Main | That Cushy Government Job »
I have never missed an election, and I have never voted for a Democrat or Republican presidential candidate. That means my vote is wasted. I am told this every time. To vote for an Independent, Libertarian, or other "third party" candidate is to throw one's vote away, especially in the "big" elections.
Right?
I would assume that anybody writing in the center column on WatchBlog would feel otherwise. But allow me to lay out the argument that my vote is indeed meaningless - and yours is, too.
Take yourself back to the controversial US presidential election of 2000. I live in Virginia. I walk in to the voting booth and see the following tickets:
I don't remember the order in which they were presented to me, but these were my options. Bush / Cheney are projected to win the state by more than 7% over Gore / Lieberman. So, how do I cast a meaningful vote? Whether I vote for Bush or not, he's taking the 13 electoral votes from the Commonwealth of Virginia. It's just not close enough to dispute. Think about that. No matter which chad I punch, Bush wins Virginia – nothing I could do would change the outcome of the election. This is the definition of my vote being meaningless.
Right?
I have several friends who are libertarian Republicans. They talk the libertarian talk, and then - frustratingly - they vote GOP, every time. In 2000, they tried to persuade me to vote for Bush just to ensure that idiot Gore doesn’t get elected. The LP was polling under 2% and had no chance of winning (they argued) so you have to cast your vote for the candidate who is closest to your ideology among those candidates who are legitimate contenders. Even if the closest isn't very close. Otherwise the vote is wasted. The same argument was made in '04 to keep Kerry out of office. I expect it again in the next cycle.
I also have several friends who are libertarian Democrats. They have very libertarian philosophies, but always vote Democrat, for reasons similar to those I gave above. Their hatred and fear of the Republican Party (usually the Christian Right in particular) brings them to vote for candidates like Gore or Kerry, who don’t actually represent them at all. Because otherwise, the vote is wasted.
Right?
Except that my one vote could not affect the outcome of the election anyway. If I had voted for Bush, he wouldn’t have won harder or something. If I had voted for the Democrat, it wouldn’t have swung Virginia – the gap was nearly a quarter of a million people. In a closely contested state, I can at least understand why Greens, Libertarians, and Reform Party types would feel that they had to engage in tactical voting. But in most states, no individual vote is any more meaningful than my vote for the LP. I can accuse the libertarian Republicans or the libertarian Democrats of casting "wasted votes" as assuredly as they can accuse me.
Also, consider that third-party voters are often given credit / blame for splitting the vote. In particular, Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2000 are sometimes considered effective spoiler candidates, responsible for the election of Clinton and Bush, respectively. So voting Republican isn’t the only way to keep a Democrat out of office, and vice versa. I would argue that the 1992 election demonstrates exactly why voting “third party” is better than the tactical voting method. In that election, Independent candidate H. Ross Perot carried 18.9% of the popular vote, leaving Bill Clinton to win the presidency with the support of only 43.0% of voters. As a result, the Republican Party reevaluated what voters dislike about Democrats, and played to that in 1994. They did this well enough to get Perot’s support for their 1994 Contract with America, which held specific promises of fiscal conservativism. We all know the result – the Republican Party controls Congress.
The way in which this is an argument for voting third-party is that the Perot voters of 1992 were able to explain clearly what it was that they found lacking in the Republican Party, and they have had concessions in future elections. People who did not support Bill Clinton, but voted for him as the lesser evil, explained nothing to the Republican Party, and were not courted as effectively. What concessions have libertarian voters won from either major party by voting for them over the last decade or so? None, because so many vote Democrat or Republican. The Libertarian Party does not represent me perfectly, but it is closer to me than the two major parties, and I want them to know that. I want the Democrats to know exactly why I am not voting for them. I want the Republicans to know exactly why I am not voting for them. If any “third party” can significantly muster more than 5% of the vote, or if alternative parties are able to approach 15% collectively, their positions will be taken more seriously than they are now.
(This article was originally posted at WatchBlog)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/373
Funny, one of the first few days that I knew Rammage, he was carrying a clipboard rallying people to vote for Perot back then.
To think we've come this far. ;-)
Posted by: G-Dawg
at August 17, 2006 1:32 PM
In 6+ years of knowing the two of you, I don't think I ever heard about that.
Posted by: Wulf
at August 17, 2006 1:39 PM
That little factoid I had planned on keeping buried away in the vault. But, yes, Ross Perot was the recipient of my first-ever presidential vote. And I blame myself, personally, for 8 years of Clinton. I learned my lesson and have been straight-ticket Republican ever since. ;-)
Posted by: Rammage at August 17, 2006 5:33 PM
Incidentally, I still have a mint Perot bumper sticker. You think that'll be worth something someday, like all that McGovern memorabilia?
Posted by: Rammage
at August 17, 2006 5:51 PM
Yes, I do. I wonder what it's worth today.
Posted by: Wulf
at August 17, 2006 6:04 PM
Almost nothing, according to eBay.
That said, I don't have a problem with "throwing my vote away." Knowing that I won't be satisfied with the result of the election in any case, at least I can claim the moral highground. I can always say "Don't blame me, I voted for (someone else)."
Posted by: doinkicarus
at August 20, 2006 12:39 PM
"Almost nothing, according to eBay."
Damn! Well, I guess the bumper stick goes back into the vault for another 30 years.
Posted by: Rammage
at August 20, 2006 2:51 PM
I guess the question of "wasting your vote" is one that all libertarians wrestle with (even double small "l" "libertarian leaning" independents like myself).
The 3rd Party party problem is clear. As you discovered yourself, to the degree that a 3rd party is effective, it is to achieve the probable opposite result of a preferred outcome. Perot is effective, Clinton wins. Nader is effective, Bush wins.
The Libertarian Party is unique. Since it pulls more or less equally from both major parties, it is always impotent in national elections, (even in a negative way) and can be safely ignored by both major parties.
Admittedly a longshot, but I think there is a way for libertarians to become a relevant political force, which I outlined in my post Hand Wringing Libertarians
...in '06, with a limited turnout, and a highly polarized electorate, it is just possible that a simple idea, widely communicated, to a relatively very few voters on the margin can make a difference. If only there was some sort of ubiquitous communication medium that had the potential of getting this idea widely disseminated, we might get just enough votes to make a difference. Something like a vast network of tubes. Too bad it does not exist. If it did we could let the politicians know that thereis a libertarian voting block that does not throw it's vote away every election.What is needed, for this to work in this very short time-frame, is an organizing principle. A principle that is so obvious, so logical, and so clear-cut, that no leadership is needed, no parties are needed, no candidates are needed, and no infrastructure is needed. Ideally it is just this easy: You think about the principle, and you know how to vote.
That organizing principle exists. It is Divided Government. It is absolutely clear-cut and easy to understand. Divided Government is documented by Niskanen et.al. to work in a practical real-world manner to restrain the growth of the state. The entire idea can be communicated in a sound byte. As a voting strategy it can be implemented immediately.
Whatever the percentage of the electorate that libertarians and disgruntled limited government advocates represent, whether it is 9% or 20%, if they vote as a block for Divided Government, they become the brokers of an evenly split partisan electorate. They arguably become the single most most potent voting block in the country, specifically because they are willing to vote either Democratic or Republican as a block. Specifically because they are not fused to one party or the other.
It means, libertarians must ignore what the politicians say and look at what they actually do (Niskanen again). It means ignoring spurious invitations to fuse with either "big tent" party that no longer stands for anything meaningful. It means voting straight Democratic in 2006, and (if successful in establishing divided government) voting Republican for President in 2008. It means the difference between libertarians being a completely impotent political force, and libertarians having the biggest swinging political "hammer" in town.
And it can be done this year.
It can be done in the next in the next three months.
Just Vote Divided.
Posted by: mw at August 23, 2006 1:38 PM
I am so ashamed that I wasted my vote on George Bush. What was I thinking? Why did I let my right wing extremist, neo-conservative, neo-evangelical thinking get in the way of exercising sound personal judgment when I entered that voting booth?
Growing up, I was led to believe that the Republican Party was a grass roots party of the people & for the people. In retrospect, it is clear that the last 3 presidents produced by the Republican Party were nothing more then the rich man’s rich man hiding under the disguise of jingoistic patriotism and the lie of conservative values. The economic dark ages of reagonomics fleeced the middle and lower classes of this county simply to benefit the rich and wealthy and waste money on unnecessary unconstitutional military actions. George Sr. carried that same self-serving torch. George Jr. has quietly shifted this country back to those dark ages. Bush inherited a strong economy and squandered that real quick. And even though 9 -11 did happen, none of bush’s reckless decisions are in any way justified by that day in history. It is clear that he never had any real salient foreign & domestic policies when he became president in 2000. Bush and Cheney have pimped the Presidency and turned the senate into an auction house for legislation to the highest bidder.
Now we have 3 more years of neoconservative republican lies and a growing body count overseas. When are people going to wake up to the truth that neoconservative political philosophy does not work for anyone but the rich and wealthy at the top? When are people in the USA going to wake up to the fact that neoconservative republican political philosophy does not even cross paths with reality? The main goal of the neoconservatives who have destroyed the soul of the Republican Party is to consolidate national wealth to the nation’s top 2% wealthiest at the expense of the middle and lower classes while imperialistically occupying other nations. This is promoted under the façade of promoting democracy elsewhere in order to hide ugly truth regarding the real agenda. It is imperialism but we are now trying to do it to other countries instead of the British doing it to us.
Anyone who believes George war bush’s lies about promoting democracy in these Middle Eastern Islamic states is living in serious denial of reality. Those who believe bush’s lies are simply easy pickins and victims of logical fallacies. Historians and political scholars realize that to impose such changes on another country takes decades and that is only if it seriously adopted. Something that you are not going to make happen in an Islamic state. Also, the very definition of democracy is not something that the United States has any claim of ownership to. But then, if one looks at Bush’s view of democracy, it more closely resembles Mexico where you have a small rich elite ruling class and no middle class. In short…..a plutocracy.
If we ever actually do get out of Iraq, nothing will have changed and nothing will have been gained. The American people have never been given a specific objective in Iraq or a clear definition of exactly what “victory in Iraq” is from the president. Invading Iraq never had anything to do with, WMD, freeing the Iraqi people or making Americans safer and secure. Statements about WMD, Freeing Iraq or Making America Safer are nothing more then a neo-conservative marketing spin used to hide the ugly truth and make the lies palatable to the American public and justifiable to the red necks who voted for him. Bush likes to make statements such as “It’s worth the price” but he never says just what exactly “it” is. If he really believes that all of his waste of human lives and our tax dollars are worth it, then he should put his money where his mouth is and send his little party animals to go fight in Iraq.
Better yet…send his vicious vile spewing mouthpiece Ann Coulter to fight in Iraq. It would not take much to shut her big fucking mouth up if she ever actually had to stand up and be counted for what she claims to believe while being held captive by Islamic militants. Isn’t it strange how all these young republican youths who get interviewed claim to be for Bush’s private pseudo war, but very few if any at all are willing to enlist in the military??? Hey Ann…shut your big fucking mouth up and go fight in Iraq if you truly believe all the hateful vicious anti-Christian spew that those like you conveniently throw out during dinner presentations and Fox news interviews. If you were the last woman on earth, I doubt that any self respecting man would choose to fuck you with bush or cheney’s little dick.
The Republican Party is currently composed of a lot of gutless big mouthed chicken hawks. Those who believe that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness. These chicken hawks are cowardly idiots who not only advocate wars, but they also believe that their advocacy is proof of the courage which those who will actually fight the war in combat require. You know the type…quick to judge, quick to anger and very very slow to understand. These republican chicken hawks will, conversely, attempt to depict those who oppose such wars as being weak, spineless and cowardly even though the war opponents are not seeking to avoid any personal risk to themselves, but instead, are arguing against subjecting their fellow citizens to what they perceive are unnecessary dangers.
Under the current President of the USA, we have now seen what the Republican party really stands for now that they have had about 6 or so good years of unobstructed ruling power. Yup…they’ve had their chance to demonstrate what they are made of and we can all now see that they are not what they claim to be. They are basically, a bunch of uncompassionate, un-conservative hypocrites. Fake, Christian, hate mongering Taliban trash like Ann Coulter.
I for one am tired of our political party making all these huge messes that have historically fallen to Democrats to clean up. Clinton took the 2 trillion dollar deficit economy that he inherited from our boys Reagan & Bush Sr. and prospered the country into one with a surplus without overtaxing the rich, middle and lower classes. Wake up America! Bush created the mess in the middle east starting with his personal desire to invade Iraq. “War on Terror???” Wake up America… you cannot wage war on a concept. Reagan sold this lie to us with his so called war on a concept we all know as the “war on drugs”. This has done absolutely nothing for our country. You cannot wage war on a concept but Bush, Cheney and most of the Republican Party hope that most Americans are stupid and impressionable enough to believe their lies.
The republican party claims to be for smaller less wasteful government but the current administration is responsible for the waste of more money, resources and human lives then any past democrat presidency. I have a hard time sleeping at night knowing that the blood of Americans and innocent Iraqi civilians is on my hands and the hands of those who voted for Cheney….I mean Bush. The real legacy of the bush administration is going to be one characterized by lots of wrongful deaths, lots of money and resources wasted, unnecessary tax increases for our children and grandchildren and the unnecessary destruction of various social programs that were never in need of fixing or eliminating to begin with.
Thanks to bush and his power hungry cabinet who all want to control congress, the senate & the Supreme Court, the USA is now a third world country hiding behind a lie of prosperity and so called society of personal ownership. In retrospect, I seem to own less now under this administration of “personal ownership” then I did during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
Thanks to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their puppets, the USA is now a huge debtor country. The only ones with real ownership as a result of the current presidential administration are the rich and elite. Now that the USA owes all these hundreds of millions of dollars to countries like China, Germany, Russia & Japan, I wonder which language I need to learn for the day when these countries come to collect…
Respectfully,
Leroy
PS: Farwell GOP. Thanks for all the corrupt memories…I’m now a Democrat.
Posted by: Ann Coulter's Daddy at September 7, 2006 6:27 PM
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)