Two problems can influence the coming elections. Okay, I
know there are more than two, but only two that I’ll address in this blog! One
is voting for a third-party candidate; the other is not voting at all.
In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated George H. W. Bush for
President of the United States. Clinton won 370 electoral votes to Bush’s 168.
Interestingly, however, he took only 43% of the popular vote, winning the
popular vote by a plurality, not a majority. Bush took 37.5% of the popular
vote, and third party candidate H. Ross Perot took 18.9%. Perot, however, did
not win a single state and therefore did not carry a single electoral vote.
|
|
|
|
Nominee
|
|||
Party
|
|||
Electoral vote
|
370
|
168
|
0
|
States carried
|
18
|
0
|
|
Popular vote
|
44,909,806
|
39,104,550
|
19,743,821
|
Percentage
|
43.0%
|
37.5%
|
18.9%
|
Perot effectively split the conservative vote. I’m not
saying Bush would have won if Perot had not been on the ballot because I have
no way of knowing how (or if) those 19.7 million voters who voted for Perot
would have voted. Nor am I making any moral evaluation of any of these three
candidates. I’m simply using this election to illustrate that the problem with
third-party candidates is that they rarely have enough support to carry the day
and win the office. So, when we vote third party, we effectively vote for the
candidate we least want to win. Here’s what I mean:
Let’s say the candidates from the two primary parties are
Smith and Jones. One is more liberal; one is more conservative. You as the
voter tend to be either more liberal or more conservative, so given just these
two candidates, you would likely vote for the one that more aligns with your
views. But the election is muddled – Candidate Fankhauser is also on the
ballot. You are convinced Fankhauser better represents your views. Fankhauser
could lean towards either the liberal side or the conservative side – the
argument doesn't change. So, rather than use the labels liberal / conservative
, right / left, democrat / republican, I will use the labels north / south
simply to show that the candidates tend to be opposites in their overall views.
The ballot has Smith (North), Jones (South) and Fankhauser
(also South). You are convinced Smith (North) is by far the worst of the three
candidates. However, you are also convinced that Jones (South) is not the best
candidate. You are convinced that Fankhauser (South) is the best candidate for
any number of reasons. Maybe he is more southern than Jones (or less); maybe he
alone holds to a particular view important to you. However, no poll shows
Fankhauser having even a ghost of a chance of winning. However, he can carry
some votes of those with a southern view. Effectively, he takes votes away from
Jones, helping Smith (north). If ten people vote, 4 for Smith, 3 for Jones and
3 for Fankhauser, Smith (north) wins, even though the southern view captured
more votes. And if I’m Smith, I love
the idea of Fankhauser being on the ballot! (By the way, I realize that some of
those who voted for Fankhauser might have leaned more to the north, and would
vote for Smith and not Jones had Fankhauser not been on the ballot. But usually
a third-party candidate negatively impacts one side far more than the other).
I can hear some teeth gnashing, because you may conclude
(rightly) that I think it is better to vote for Jones, even though I think Fankhauser
is the better candidate. Shouldn't we vote our conscience? Shouldn't we vote
for the one we think is the best candidate?
The answer is yes… and no. Support your preferred candidate
through the process, but if it is obvious he (or she) has no real chance of winning,
it is sometimes the better option to vote against
the worst candidate (in this case, Smith) than for my preferred candidate by voting for the candidate that at least has
a shot of carrying the day. No vote is ever wasted (i.e., we should express our
opinion in the ballot box), but sometimes a vote can be ineffective. If keeping
Smith out of office is a primary goal, then voting for Jones more effectively moves toward that goal.
If I am okay with Smith in office, or if I believe Jones is equally bad, then
voting for third-party Fankhauser poses no problem. That is rarely the case,
however.
My point in all this is to vote effectively. Sadly, sometimes
the vote truly does boil down to a lesser of two evils. Neither candidate is
ideal. But often splitting a vote by voting for a third-party candidate who has
no hope effectively puts the greater
of two evils in office.
And that brings me to the second problem: not voting at all.
If I really believe that both candidates are bad, and I choose to stay home and
not vote, I again am effectively helping the greater of the two evils. In this
case, only Smith and Jones are on the ballot. Let’s look at two scenarios: (1)
I don’t like either candidate, but I am more concerned about Smith getting into
office than Jones. I choose to vote for Jones, effectively cancelling out one
vote for Smith, making it just a bit tougher for him (or her) to win. (2) I
don’t like either candidate, so I don’t vote. Therefore, the vote that I
cancelled in the first scenario stands uncontested, making it easier for Smith
to win. Not voting helps the “more
evil” candidate.
Here’s the bottom line. We should vote, and we should vote
our conscience. However, as part of that “conscience” I need to include
thinking about the effect of my vote. By not voting or by voting for a third
party candidate who has no chance, I effectively help the candidate I consider
“more evil”.
I have carefully avoided specific candidates, parties, or
offices. The logic of my position is independent of those issues. If I am more liberal
and the third party splits the liberal vote or if I am more conservative and
the third party splits the conservative vote, the logical outcome is the same.
The split vote helps the other side. Vote wisely!
Excellent analysis, Roger. People in politics are aware of this and can manipulate the process by helping the weakest opposing candidate gain the nomination. Thus we have the very unpopular Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri running ads that helped the weakest Republican primary candidate, Todd Akin, to gain a plurality in the primary. His disastrously careless comments about "legitimate" rape and how victims of rape would almost never get pregnant have made McCaskill the favorite.
ReplyDeleteQuite likely this means that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate, so Obamacare will remain the law of the land, with dire effects on both religious freedom and health care. Despite pleas from across the country, Akins has refused to step aside for a more electable candidate.
Akins was the most conservative, pro-life candidate, but he was also the only candidate that McCaskill had a realistic chance to beat. It's a shame that pro-life voters in Missouri chose to vote ideologically without considering the larger picture.