April 05, 2007
What's So Important About Now?
As a loyal third party voter (I have never voted for one of the two major parties for President… and very few for any other office), I am often asked how I could possibly waste my vote like I do. After all, don’t I know that voting for a third party candidate is akin to giving a vote to the candidate from the two major parties that I like the least?
In other words, wasn't voting for Michael Badnarik for president in 2004 the same thing as giving a vote to Kerry, since I saw Bush as the lesser of two evils? Badnarik, after all, had no chance of winning. I should vote for someone who actually does have a chance, otherwise I will just be wasting my vote... especially in this important time in our history when our nation is so divided. "It is more important now than it ever has been to make sure my vote is not wasted." (I actually hear these words from otherwise intelligent people) My response... at what point in our history has our vote not been important?
Has there ever been a presidential election cycle where the nation wasn't divided, where the issues dividing the two major candidates weren't important enough to not "waste my vote"? The very first race between a Republican candidate and a Democratic one was in 1860. Were the issues facing Lincoln and Douglas any less important than they are today? Or what about when Roosevelt defeated Hoover in 1932... were those issues less important than today's? Or Kennedy v. Nixon in 1960? Johnson v. Goldwater in '64? Or how about after the Watergate scandal, when the nation had lost faith in its electoral system, was the '76 Carter v. Ford race any less important than any more recent one? And let's touch on that particular one for a minute...
After Watergate the nation's faith in our electoral system was in shambles. The power and prestige of the Presidency was at an all time low and the nation, more than anything, needed someone to step into the Oval Office and act as a healer... and we got Carter, one of the more forgettable presidents in our history. Not until Reagan took office four years later did the healing process truly begin. As "important" as the '76 election was, it didn't turn out to be that important.
My point is this... a vote for the person with whom your values most closely aligns is never a wasted one. There has never been, and will never be, an election that is so important so as to not vote your conscience simply to vote for the person you think has the best chance to win. Were that the case I would have voted for Bush in 2004 instead of Badnarik... now, with a couple years of hindsight, tell me that would not have been a wasted vote.
From the “Freakonomics” column in the 11/06/05 Sunday New York Times:
Within the economics departments at certain universities, there is a famous but probably apocryphal story about two world-class economists who run into each other at the voting booth.
”What are you doing here?” one asks.
”My wife made me come,” the other says.
The first economist gives a confirming nod. ”The same.’”
After a mutually sheepish moment, one of them hatches a plan: ”If you promise never to tell anyone you saw me here, I’ll never tell anyone I saw you.” They shake hands, finish their polling business and scurry off.
Why would an economist be embarrassed to be seen at the voting booth? Because voting exacts a cost — in time, effort, lost productivity — with no discernible payoff except perhaps some vague sense of having done your ”civic duty.” As the economist Patricia Funk wrote in a recent paper, ”A rational individual should abstain from voting.”
The odds that your vote will actually affect the outcome of a given election are very, very, very slim. This was documented by the economists Casey Mulligan and Charles Hunter, who analyzed more than 56,000 Congressional and state-legislative elections since 1898. For all the attention paid in the media to close elections, it turns out that they are exceedingly rare. The median margin of victory in the Congressional elections was 22 percent; in the state-legislature elections, it was 25 percent. Even in the closest elections, it is almost never the case that a single vote is pivotal. Of the more than 40,000 elections for state legislator that Mulligan and Hunter analyzed, comprising nearly 1 billion votes, only 7 elections were decided by a single vote, with 2 others tied. Of the more than 16,000 Congressional elections, in which many more people vote, only one election in the past 100 years — a 1910 race in Buffalo — was decided by a single vote.
click here for the full article (Times Select subscribers only)
Considering that voting at all is a waste of time, one may as well vote one’s conscience.
“Why would an economist be embarrassed to be seen at the voting booth? Because voting exacts a cost — in time, effort, lost productivity — with no discernible payoff except perhaps some vague sense of having done your “civic duty.” As the economist Patricia Funk wrote in a recent paper, “A rational individual should abstain from voting.””
This is the most incredible crock of manure I think I have ever read.
Lost productivity?????
Absurd hardly begins to describe this statement.
America has produced some of the greatest minds in the world and we get tripe like, “A rational individual should abstain from voting.”
This is one of the primary reasons that only get to choose from candidates like Bush and Kerry, and people like Bush win elections.
People bitch and moan about how the MSM is running rampant over our governmental process, and supposedly intelligent adults really think this way?
You heard it here first.
The fall of America can’t be far off if anyone with an IQ above dirt seriously thinks they should take the advice of an “Economist” on whether there is even the remotest doubt they should vote.
Doug,
Good article.
Education is our only hope of learning sooner than later.
Unfortunately, too many voters simply pull the party-lever; often not even knowing who they are voting for.
It’s easier to take someone else’s word for it; abdicating their responsibility to THEIR party.
That is how politicians tap into their
Too many voters don’t want to do the work to research their politicians voting records. So, too many lazily believe what they’re told to believe. That is how laziness works AGAINST the voters, but works FOR the politicians and the two-party duopoly, as evidenced by their cu$hy 90%+ re-election rate.
The voters’ laziness works against them, because their lack of motivation to observe and monitor politicians, reject the partisan warfare, and go vote out irresponsible incumbents (always) takes time and effort for the voters, and voters don’t get paid for their time or effort. Also, it requires time and effort for the voters to maintain sufficient levels of Education, Transparency, and Accountability.
Thus, government is always trying to grow corrupt.
The more the voters ignore it, the more corrupt it grows … until it finally becomes too painful. We’re on that path now. If we stay on it, we’re likely to see the consequences of so much moral and fiscal bankruptcy.
Because of a third party candidate, we got Bush instead of Gore. That was a travesty.
This country has a problem. It’s not set up for races with more than two parties. You can’t vote - This guy, and if he doesn’t win - this guy. I think you should be able to. It would make our country more Democratic, but until you have that, a vote for a third party candidate is a waste.
Posted by: Max at April 6, 2007 01:29 AMMax,
Why is it a waste?
It’s not a waste.
You’ve bought that myth hook, line, and sinker.
Anytime someone says “a vote for a third party candidate is a waste”, they are really saying “a vote for a third party candidate is NOT a vote for MY candidate”.
In 2004, let’s say you wanted Bush to win.
Would you say a person leaning toward Gore, but voted for Ralph Nader was a wasted vote?
Was that a wasted vote? No you wouldn’t, since had they not voted for a third party candidate, their vote would have gone against YOUR choice.
Therefore, your logic is flawed.
A vote for who you think is most qualified is never a wasted vote.
Blindly pulling the party lever, in my opinion, is a wasted vote … blindly giving rise to the stranglehold of the two-party duopoly.
But you are not alone.
There are too many main-party loyalists that agree with you, which is why the do-nothing two-party duopoly is so incredibly arrogant. They know that 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money. That’s why they are FOR-SALE … FOR-SALE to the wealthy, that is. 83% of all federal campaign donations come from only 0.15% of the the 200 million eligible voters. The other 99.85% of the voters don’t stand a chance against that in terms of using money to influence government. Yet, most voters keep rewarding those same politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.
People that say other’s votes are wasted are falling right into the hands of the two-party duopoly that lets Congress enjoy a cu$hy 90% re-election rate.
The bottom line is government is too irresponsible, yet voters keep rewarding them for it by repeatedly re-electing them.
Most people polled say “do-nothing” congress is too corrupt and irresponsible.
Yet, they keep re-electing them.
That doesn’t make sense.
It is a result of brainwashing and falling for the main-party myth that your vote is wasted if it is NOT a vote for THEIR party.
After the recent dumbing down of the Office of the President by the Bush Administration it is apparent that each vote does count, it just doesnt count for very much. Why, because the difference between the 2 major parties are not that big, if we are to use Bush and Clinton as an example. The multi natonals own both parties. The real issue in the 08 election is which way the Supreme Court will go, and as we know that is dependant upon who holds the office of President. Vote your conscience.
Posted by: j2t2 at April 6, 2007 09:34 AMj2t2 wrote:… the difference between the 2 major parties are not that bigNo doubt about that. Of course, you know most voters, belonging to one of the parties of that two-party duopoly will disagree vehemently. Never mind that 90% of the 100th Congress is from the 109th Congress.
You’re right: Vote your Conscience.
That’s something this nation lacks (rooted in laziness), which is why it is so troubled.
- Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability
- Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability
It’s too easy for most voters to pull the party-lever than do their own thinking. Repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them will simply make them MORE irresponsible. Polls show most voters believe Congress is too corrupt and too irresponsible, but they keep pulling the party-lever … because it is the easy way.
But, eventually, the painful consequences of that will eventually trump lazy. Most likely, by the time enough voters figure out that most politicians in the two-party duopoly don’t give a damn about the nation and the long list of pressing problems growing in number and severity, it will be too late to avoid the painful consequences. But, that is the built-in correction. Painful consequences. Some people say things can not get better until they get much worse. History shows us that statement appears to be very true.
Posted by: d.a.n at April 6, 2007 09:54 AMCORRECTION: Never mind that 90% of the 100th 110th Congress is from the 109th Congress.
d.a.n.
In 2004, let’s say you wanted Bush to win. Would you say a person leaning toward Gore, but voted for Ralph Nader was a wasted vote?
Yes, I would. It’s a shame, but we don’t have a very Democratic system. We should be able to vote our first, second, and third choices. Since we can’t a vote for someone who cannot win is a waste. From my perspective there was a vast difference between Clinton and Bush. I know a lot of people felt there wasn’t much of a difference between Gore and Bush. I wonder if some of these folfs who voted for Nader regret it?
Posted by: Max at April 6, 2007 11:05 AMWhy would an economist be embarrassed to be seen at the voting booth? Because voting exacts a cost — in time, effort, lost productivity — with no discernible payoff except perhaps some vague sense of having done your ”civic duty.” As the economist Patricia Funk wrote in a recent paper, ”A rational individual should abstain from voting.”
With that kind of reasoning it cold be argued that eating is a waste of time and a rational person should abstain from it. After all, when was the last time ya ate and didn’t get hungry again a few hours later?
Our elected idiots up there in DC hope that ratioanl folks don’t vote. That way their job of fooling the rest becomes easier, and they have a better chance of keeping their jobs.
No cast vote is wasted. Even the uninformed ones. The only wasted votes are the ones not cast.
The fall of America can’t be far off if anyone with an IQ above dirt seriously thinks they should take the advice of an “Economist” on whether there is even the remotest doubt they should vote.
Posted by: Rocky at April 6, 2007 12:20 AM
And the sad part is some will take their advise.
I wonder if some of these folfs who voted for Nader regret it?
Posted by: Max at April 6, 2007 11:05 AM
Can’t say for the folks that voted for Nader, but I don’t regret not voting for either Kerry or Bush. I only regret that either one of them stood a better chance of winning than a third party or independent candidate.
The system only votes in two parties because we keep telling it to do so. A vote is only wasted when one votes their fear instead of their hope.
If you truly hold republican values (whatever those are) you should vote republican. If you truly hold democrat values (whatever those are) you should vote democrat. The problem is that most of the nation would not most closely assiciate themselves with the values of either of these two parties. But we’re told to only vote for one of these two and anything else is “wasted”… well… my votes in 1996, 1998, 2000, 20002, 2004, and 2006 were not wasted… and very few of the people for whom I voted had a (R) or (D) behind their name.
A vote for a third party candidate is never wasted… except for the Green party… those people are just weird! (um… please anyone, don’t take offense to that… it was just a little ribbing for those Greens in the same boat as we Libs when it comes to people being too afraid to vote for us!… but seriously… don’t vote Green… ;-)
Posted by: Doug Langworthy at April 6, 2007 12:09 PMI still don’t believe this myth that third party voters would otherwise vote democratic.
In fact, nearly every time I hear a third party voter mention a party alternative they seem to mention a republican candidate.
I am one of those people myself.
If I have to choose between more restrictions or more invasions, I’m going to choose more invasions.
I would rather be free and watched, then caged up and left alone.
As a capitalist-libertarian who believes that natural resources are the foundation of a good economy, I will generally pick a right leaning cnadidate over a left leaning candidate in the name of economic freedom.
Gay rights don’t apply to me, so they don’t concern me, the economy does apply to me, so it does concern me.
I have yet to see any proof that Gore lost because of third party votes.
If anything he stood a slight chance only because of third party voters.
Just like d.a.n., in 2004, had it not been for a Nader I too would have voted for Bush, so the only evidence present on this blog suggests that if not for Nader, Bush would have just won by a landslide.
So basing an speculation off of the evidence provided the more accurate statement would be:
“Had more people voted Nader, Gore would have won.”
Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at April 6, 2007 01:39 PMDoug:
If you vote for anyone your vote is not wasted. Even if you say “none of the above” your vote is not wasted. You have expressed your preference.
I don’t know much about Michael Badnarik. But I remember the situation in the previous elections when Ralph Nader was running. Many in the Democratic Party were saying that those who would vote for Nader - these were mostly people on the left - would essentially be voting for Bush.
This proved accurate by the results.
By the way, we did not say they were wasting their vote. We said they were helping Bush.
Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 6, 2007 02:07 PMMax,
Yes, I see your point … what you are talking about is an Approval Voting system.
But we don’t have that yet.
Still, I don’t believe a vote on any candidate that is still unlikely to win is a wasted vote.
In the example above, not voting on the third party candidate would have resulted in a vote opposite of your vote, because it still denies a vote to the candidates that person doesn’t like. So, it’s not a wasted vote. It is a myth that your vote is wasted unless you vote for one of the candidates that are perceived to have the best chance of winning. That myth strengthens the two-party duopoly.
But, until that happens, their are certain guidelines that are still better than giving into the two-party duopoly … but it can never work if too many voters keep lazily pulling the party-lever (e.g. voting straight ticket), and failing to do their duty to make government more responsible and accountable too, and choosing instead to lazily wallow in the circular, divisive, distracting partisan warfare, rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians and making them become ever more irresponsible while the nation’s problems continue to grow in number and severity.
The solution is really very simple, but ever so elusive.
What is missing is conscience, due to laziness.
But, eventually, pain will trump lazy.
But, will it be in time?
Personally, I don’t think so.
I think there is a strong likelihood that Americans will have to learn from the painful consequences of their laziness, complacency, and fiscal and moral irresponsibility. Some think it can’t happen, but history shows us different. History repeats itself, and eventually, the painful consequences will catch up to us too.
It may not be far off, considering a number of factors, culminating to create the potential for significant economic instability.
Paul Siegel,
It’s good that you seem to have a changed of opinion since a few months ago …
Paul Siegel wrote above: As far as If you vote for anyone your vote is not wasted. Even if you say “none of the above” your vote is not wasted. You have expressed your preference.
Because a few months ago you wrote …
Paul Siegel wrote: As far as national elections are concerned, you waste your vote if you vote for a third party candidate.Posted by: d.a.n at April 6, 2007 02:34 PM
My point is this… a vote for the person with whom your values most closely aligns is never a wasted one.
I totally agree. But, if you voted for Nader in Florida, then you have to accept that it’s your fault Bush was installed in 2000. Actions have consequences.
Posted by: American Pundit at April 6, 2007 11:43 PMIt seems to me that most “Independents” don’t want to work their way up from the bottom, and thus don’t have any name value to attach to their “good ideas” when it comes to National elections.
Nader had name value, and some good ideas, but has the charisma of a sock.
America needs good leaders, but we don’t need some Ivory Tower professor any more than we need a corporate executive.
How can someone be a good leader if no one knows who the hell they are, and don’t have a proven record of what they stand for?
If we look back through American history, just how many candidates for National office were unknowns?
AP… yep, you’re right. The 600 or so Nader-voters in Florida that probably would have voted for Gore over Bush did indeed swing the election… and I see that as a good thing. Nader said all along that if people were voting for him then it must mean the Democrats had gotten too far away from their roots. For liberals, what the 2000 election hopefully did is make the Democrats see that they need to do more to EARN the liberal vote and not just take it for granted.
Posted by: Doug Langworthy at April 7, 2007 11:18 AMNot true, and obviously partisan.Dough Langworthy wrote: My point is this… a vote for the person with whom your values most closely aligns is never a wasted one.American Pundit wrote: I totally agree. But, if you voted for Nader in Florida, then you have to accept that it’s your fault Bush was installed in 2000. Actions have consequences.
Why? Because, AP, you do NOT know how many would have voted for BUSH had they NOT voted for Badnarik, Nader, or another third-party, or independent candidate instead.
Also, despite what the polls say, the outcome is NOT known in advance. There were probably a lot of Democrats and Republicans that truly thought THEIR party and canidate would win.
What you are really saying, which perpetuates the myth of the wasted vote, is: “If you don’t vote for MY party, then your vote is wasted, and/or you are to blame for MY party losing, and the OTHER party winning”.
Yes, actions have consequences. So, how smart was it to run Kerry for president? Just about anyone could have won besides Kerry.
The fact is, most (if not all) politicians of BOTH parties are half the problem, and the other half are the voters that keep rewarding them for it.
I learned my lesson and admit to voting along party lines at one time. It’s about time more voters stop blindly pulling the party-lever, wallowing in the circular, distracting partisan warfare, and start holding THEIR politicians feet to the fire too, instead of making excuses for them, rationalizing everything they do, and fueling the incessant blame game, while the nation’s most pressing problems take a back seat to that time-wasting and distracting nonsense.
Again, AP, you are right about one thing …
American Pundit wrote:Yes, they do.
“Actions have consequences”.
And, so do inactions.
Government won’t become more responsible until the voters do too.
Aren’t you yet getting a little worried about the inaction of Congress to do much of anything?
Hasn’t Pelosi got better things to do than galivanting around the Middle East pretending to have messages from the Israelis to deliver to the Syrians (messages that Irael denies having entrusted to her) ?
How about all these things Congress is still ignoring?
One thing Congress can do faster than you can say pork-barrel is give themselves another raise (the 9th raise in 10 years). Hell of a deal, eh?
Posted by: d.a.n at April 7, 2007 03:23 PMI would like to bring up another point in this discussion. Here in Texas, there is an onerous system designed to keep third parties out of all elections. A third party must obtain thousands of signatures on a petition to even be considered. They cannot begin collecting signatures until a certain date and they are only given a few weeks to do so. People who voted in one of the two major party primaries cannot sign a petition. The only other way to get on the ballot is to score 5% of the votes in a statewide election. Talk about catch-22. How do you get the votes to qualify if you can’t get on the ballot in the first place? If, by some chance, a third party does get on the ballot, the “wasted” votes they get may mean the difference in getting on the ballot the next election cycle. These votes are very important to the party concerned.These votes will indirectly affect things like equal access to the media and name recognition for the candidates. It is very difficult to make your case in political debate if you are locked out of the process. I suspect that thrid parties would do very well if the means to inform the public were there. Blogs like this help to some degree but there is nothing like a knock down drag out debate on television to make your point.
All political parties must be built from the ground up. The only way to do that is to get on the ballot and stay on it election after election. “Wasted” votes can make that happen.
Posted by: Carl at April 14, 2007 06:30 PMCarl, Good points.
There should be NO such restrictions for third party and independent candidates to get access to ballots. The two-party duopoly’s strangle-hold will continue as long as voters keep robitically rewarding irresponsible politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.
Government won’t become responsible until the voters do too.
Voters won’t become responsible until the consequences of their irresponsible voting habits become too painful.
And that may not be too far away.
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
