This post will be brief in it's initial composition due to time constraints, but wanted to pose a simple question: Where does your loyalty lie?
This topic came to me during the recent gubernatorial race in Georgia, but can and has been relevant more and more in politics lately. I simply cannot stomach the thought of voting for Nathan Deal, although I consider myself a conservative. I think he is a crooked politician and a bigot. I am now working on John Monds campaign, who is a Libertarian candidate, (check out http://www.votemonds.com/) because I feel that his policies and ideals are more in line with mine, as well as the fact that I can vote without holding my nose (which I am tired of doing).
I have recieved a lot of flack for this, because I have been told that he stands no chance of winning and I might as well vote for Roy Barnes and give him the win. While I see the logic in this argument, it also shows loyalty more to a party than to personal convictions. Then again, is it better to vote for a party that is typically more in line with your values, despite not liking the candidate,and not take the chance of letting the opposing party gain power? Obviously, third-party candidates are the minority and it might always be that way, but should we start the shift now to support third party candidates, even if we lose some elections, so that some day their voice is heard along with the two juggernaut parties?
It's quite the pickle, and one that I am sure every voter has tasted in their lifetime. So the question is: Where does your loyalty lie? Is it better to vote to keep the opposing party out of control or is it better to vote for your convictions, even though your voice may not be heard?
-K.S.
First and foremost, my loyalties are with myself, rather than with party, candidate, ideology, state, or country. When John McCain and Sarah Palin chose to use "Country First" as a slogan, they failed to realize that they were not vying to run a nation of utilitarians, but rather a populace who (as unlikely as it may seem sometimes) votes and acts in their own rational self-interest. It is a proven fact that partisan affiliation is the number one determinant of vote choice; there are lots of determinants of partisanship, and sure most of them are often far-fetched, but they are still rational to an extent. Even the voters voting for a candidate based on demographics such as race and religion are doing so because it is in their best interest (supposedly; "This person is one of us/thinks like us, he/she will look out for me.") Perhaps it's shortsighted and ill-thought-out, but a decision is still being made.
ReplyDeleteYes, you are throwing your vote away voting for a third party candidate. To an extent. But the people who tell you this are also failing to mention that voting for either of the two parties poses a paradox; if you are a Republican and you know your candidate has the election in the bag, why should you put forth any effort in voting when they payoff is going to be the same whether you vote or not? If you are a Democrat and you know your candidate is sunk, why waste your time? The problem, of course, is that if everyone thought like that, the elections would be totally different and hardly representative of the population. So in the end, it is six of one, half a dozen of the other.
If you genuinely agree with a third party candidate, it is to your benefit to vote that way, even if it is a throwaway on a practical level. You will not see a third-party revolution, but instead you will see an ideological shift in the two major parties. The Libertarian Party, for example, might win a few more local elections, but their main gain might come in the form of the Republican Party taking note of its small successes and absorbing those policies. Medical marijuana, love it or hate it, agree or disagree, is around in California not because the of Democrats turning out in favor of the policies, but because of Greens and Libertarians having better-than-predicted turnouts. Ideologically, if I were just keeping a tally of issues with which I agree for each party, I would fit neatly into the Libertarian category (thanks to social issues). However, their official stance is in support of the FairTax (hey, look, a growing issue that started with Libertarians and has been adopted by many prominent Republicans...see?) so I can't bring myself to vote for them, since I feel it is a fundamental flaw in the party and something that would inherently go against my own (and everyone else's, for that matter) interests.
For big-time elections such a gubernatorial campaigns, though, the free-rider quandary really kicks in. It might be time for nose-holding; democracy might be the best of your choices for how things are run, but it certainly isn't perfect, especially in a representative sense. It's a bummer, but if a "lesser-of-the-evils" approach isn't for you, then perhaps not voting at all is. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a civic duty to turn out and vote, but at the end of the day, I think being able to sleep at night is far more important than any marginal impact one may (or may not. Probably not, in fact) make.
I'm not voting either for Deal or for Barnes. Both are disasters in the making. If I don't stay home, I'll vote for the Libertarian candidate as the lesser of three evils.
ReplyDelete