Depending on the voter, of course, I think in certain instances it can be worthwhile for that voter to vote for a third party candidate. I've occasionally voted for third party candidates (e.g., I didn't vote for Reagan, and I didn't vote for Mondale; I didn't vote for Clinton, and I didn't vote for Dole), and I'm very likely to do something SIMILAR (but maybe even better?) this time around. (See more about this later in the comment.)

To explain why I feel this way, though, I think I should first mention what seems to me to be a generally acknowledged paradox regarding voting in general: a single voter never decides a major election but, on the other hand, voters in the aggregate always decide an election (if, of course, it isn't rigged).

So, I think it is "foolish" to say that someone who votes for a third party candidate is necessarily throwing away his or her vote. No matter who that voter votes for, his or her vote isn't going to really matter (in terms of deciding an election) anyway. So, in terms of DECIDING an election, actually, all votes are equally "foolish." (Here's a similar, but slightly different, thought regarding those who do vote for a candidate in one of the two major parties: have the people who voted for the loser in an election "thrown" their vote away just because their vote didn't actually decide the winner?)

So why vote then?

I love to vote. I have a perfect voting record. I've voted in every election that I've been eligible to vote in -- and that includes primaries, school board elections (that I've been aware of) and runoffs. (Actually when I was younger, I use to get funny looks from the voting clerks because they couldn't believe someone my age had voted so many times!) However, I think, voting is "really" only just a way to express an opinion -- to put one's two cents in. It just so happens that in this special opinion poll, though, the most frequently expressed opinion (which has little to do with my actual vote) winds up deciding the election. This is the paradox of voting -- a quirky sidelight, so to speak, of this particular opinion poll. However, the really important thing, so it seems to me, is the expressing an opinion part.

So it seems to me that in those instances where a voter is EQUALLY DISAFFECTED by the two major candidates, a voter is really "throwing away" his or her vote if he or she just blindly chooses one major candidate over the other -- or if the voter chooses not to vote at all. In instances of equal disaffection, it seems to me the most valuable thing one can do is 1) vote (to show that one's vote is there to be had) and 2) vote for the candidate that comes closest to the opinion one wants to express.

Now for the new wrinkle. Two years ago I worked as a very minor voting clerk for the local Manhattan Board of Elections. If I understood our training session correctly, I discovered that even in Manhattan (where we use voting machines) a voter always has the option of writing in a vote. (On the voting machines there is some kind of lever that allows a panel to slide back so that one can write in a name -- although the actual candidates who've been nominated are already installed on the face of voting panel.)

So this time around, if this option exists, I think I will write-in Hillary Clinton for president and Joe Lieberman for Vice-President. (I don't "hate" any of the major party candidates; but Obama (who seems like an OK guy) is much too liberal for my taste; and McCain [whom I respect and like] and Palin [whom I kind of like on a personal level] are, nevertheless, much too conservative for my taste.) By doing this I will be showing that I vote and my vote is there to be had and expressing the opinion that I would have been likely to vote for Hillary had she been a candidate (yes, she's too liberal, but not as off center in my opinion as Obama or McCain / Palin) and for McCain had he chosen Lieberman.

If I misunderstood, or if this option no longer exists, I'll probably vote Libertarian (my regular third party choice).

Posted by: Benjamin Hemric on September 4, 2008 8:42 PM

The Electors of Minnesota have followed my instruction only once in the past eight Presidential contests.

On that occasion (I was much younger) I voted for a lesser evil, and was quite surprised that evil was sworn into office.

So throwing a vote away for a third, or second party, cause me no shame; I will do this again in November.

In the case of Minnesota Executive, it led to my choice being installed into office, rather than those who I had not wished for, on one occasion. So it can work in practice as well as theory on some level.

Posted by: Virgil K. Saari on September 5, 2008 5:57 PM

A few additions to your list:

1924: "Fighting Bob" La Follette's Progressive candidacy, which won WI and finished ahead of the Democrats in 11 other states (all in the W and NW).

1948: Henry Wallace's Progressive candidacy (stage-managed by Communists), which sucked a million votes from Truman. (It's been suggested that Thurmond's Dixiecrat campaign may have saved Truman, by negating the Wallaceite claim that Truman was a reactionary.)

1980: John Anderson's independent candidacy. A fiasco, but it drew 6.6% and sucked a lot of air out of Carter's re-election bid.

1996: Perot's second Reform candidacy; it drew 8.4%, which is more than Wallace and Thurmond combined in 1948.

As to third parties in general: an existing structure has a lot of inertia. It doesn't change without a lot of reason. Our current structure has been stable for 150 years. This is very unusual. Britain, Canada, Australia, India, Israel, Italy, and Mexico have all had major party realignments (excluding revolutions and such). Germany, Japan and I think France have not... (In their current instantiations of democracy.)

For a 3rd party to be successful in a Presidential election, some cause would have to arise that would generate not only enthusiasm but resources - especially money. It would take a very big special effort to overcome that inertia - much more than to sway the election between the parties. There are huge blocks of voters that are reflexive Republicans and Democrats. One party might collapse and shed a lot of voters, but the other probably does not, which makes it very hard for the 3rd party to beat them.

I don't see any point in voting 3rd party for President, except as a deliberate gesture (as I did in 1992).

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on September 5, 2008 9:41 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?