 |
| Today's voice belongs to Contributing Editor motomynd |
This is the time of year we are pushed to vote either Democratic or Republican so we don’t “waste” our vote on someone with no chance of actually winning the race to be President of the United States. The logic of the “wasted” vote seems simple enough, but have you ever actually thought about it?
For starters, does a vote count only if the person you vote for wins? If that is the case, then nearly half the votes are wasted, because one candidate always loses. So does it really matter if you vote for someone who loses by three percentage points—or 53?
And if the candidate you vote for wins, does even that ensure your vote isn’t wasted?
Let’s say you're a registered Republican and you voted for George W. Bush because of the traditional belief that Republican presidents are better for business and defense. Looking back at the worst attack on U.S. soil since the War of 1812 and the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression, did your vote count, or was it wasted?
Or maybe you voted for Barack Obama because you thought he would close the Guantanamo Bay “detention camp” and create a single-payer national health insurance option. Guantanamo and its hapless prisoners, some of whom still haven’t been formally charged despite being held ten years, are still there. And the single-payer health plan, favored by 60-70% of Americans in most polls, was never even brought to the floor for a vote in the Senate or the House. Did your vote count or was it wasted?
So do you try to make your vote count by casting it for the candidate you think will win, by voting for the person in whom you most believe, or by choosing what you hope will be the lesser of two evils? Answering that question is usually a challenge. This year it's like trying to find the end of a circle.
If you are a liberal, you usually vote for a Democrat. In addition to the previously mentioned question marks, Obama reportedly has a “hit list” of foreign targets for U.S. predator drones, and those people are routinely killed without being charged in court and convicted under law. At the 2010 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, Obama even made a joke about predator drones in regard to why the Jonas Brothers should keep their distance from his daughters. Joking about obliterating people without warning is not a usual talking point for a candidate trying to entice liberal voters.
If you are a conservative, you usually vote for a Republican. Your choice this year, Mitt Romney, launched from the Iowa caucuses with a win over your party’s “real” conservative, Rick Santorum, thanks to a miscount that was not corrected for months. If you are one of those conservatives who worries about what Obama might try to do to gun rights if he is re-elected, you have to vote for a man who as governor in 2004, signed a permanent assault weapons ban into law in Massachusetts. Being an elitist Mormon who bans guns is not the typical profile for a candidate who appeals to conservatives.
You could vote for Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, which is the third-largest political party in the country. On the conservative side, the Libertarians favor less governmental intervention in business and in life in general, and they are pro gun. On the liberal side, they favor same-sex marriage and legalization and regulation of marijuana, and they are pro-choice on abortion rights. Their best showing in a presidential election was in 1980 when they garnered one percent of the vote. Their vice-presidential candidate that year was David Koch, better known today as the fourth-richest person in America and a reported major backer of the Tea Party. If you are a person who thinks the profile of a billionaire industrialist meshes smoothly with that of a gun toting pot smoker, voting Libertarian could be for you.
Whatever your choice, best wishes on finding the end to the circle that somehow makes your vote count instead of going to waste. If you discuss the options with all your pro-gun, pro-life, pro-pot friends who favor cutting military and welfare budgets, phasing out Social Security, and increasing taxes on corporations and rich people, perhaps it will help you make a wise decision.
_______________
Copyright © 2012 by motomynd
Another way of not "wasting your vote" is what an increasing number of the electorate do- nothing.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase "wasting your vote" makes me cringe. It simply can't be done. If I want to be disparaging, I can accuse someone of making a bigoted, ill-informed, or arbitrary choice, and that description might be apt. But to say that a choice is "wasted" is no more than a disguised way of saying "You don't see the issues as I do, you ass!"
ReplyDeleteEverything is on the menu. No choice is also a choice, as Tom points out.
Then why do so many people cite fear of wasting their vote as the reason they won't cast a ballot for an independent candidate they prefer but who they know won't be elected?
ReplyDeleteBecause they can't (and shouldn't) lie about their vote to friends and relatives, and they can't live with the "wasted vote" derision.
DeleteMr. Mynd, when a citizen is upset about something that happens in the administration of a president he voted for, he practically never concludes that he "wasted" his vote. The phenomenon you describe is "voter's regret," a first cousin to "buyer's remorse."
ReplyDeleteAlso, it would be quite a reach to regret voting for W because of 911. Can one make a credible case that it would have been avoided under a Gore presidency? Similarly, what kind of universal medical insurance and anti-terror campaign would we have had under a McCain presidency? The answers are "none" and "indiscriminate." No regret there, either. Good subject for a post, but off-the-mark examples.
Phil, yes, one can make a very credible case that 9/11 would have been prevented by a Gore presidency. Al Qaeda began bombing targets in 1992, but during Bill Clinton's eight years as president the best they could manage were truck bomb attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and a vehicle bomb at the World Trade Center that killed six people. Clinton was very effective at containing Al Qaeda through tactical operations and missile strikes.
ReplyDeleteSince Al Gore was vice president under Clinton it is very reasonable to believe he would have followed the same tactics, instead of choosing to "deprioritize" Al Qaeda for several months, as did the Bush administration.
And even though you didn't ask, the U.S. surely would not have attacked Iraq during a Gore presidency. Can you imagine how the Republicans would have reacted if Gore had presented the same case as Bush for that off-the-mark war?
Why is "none" the answer for what a John McCain presidency would have done about universal health care? Richard Nixon proposed a universal health plan much more expansive, liberal and inclusive than the watered-down program implemented by Barack Obama, so maybe McCain would have done the same. As for an anti-terror plan under McCain, your word "indiscriminate" may be spot on. He was an ardent supporter of the U.S. war against Iraq, and seems to back the idea of U.S. military involvement in Iran, so who can even begin to guess which countries he may have attacked under the guise of killing terrorists. Italy begins with an "I" so maybe he would have deemed that to be close enough?