Misunderstanding Voting

Home

In this country there is a fundamental misunderstanding of "the vote" and the electoral process. There are far too many "overprincipled" people who view their vote as some kind of holy thing that must remain sacred above all else. People who think that it's somehow wrong to vote for what they consider the "lesser of two evils". Then there are people who believe that the electoral college and the dominance of the two-party system are anti-democratic. These are the people who have a fundamental misunderstanding of American government. America is not a democracy, it's a republic (a democratic republic). Voting is not a holy right, it's a strategic decision. Each state decides how to select electors for the President and presently the states do that by way of a popular vote.

The purpose of the drawn-out primary elections is to provide the voters with choices. If every nutcase who ran for President actually made it to the final ballot, we could elect a winner with only a tiny fraction of the popular and electoral votes, which seems to be decidely less than ideal. Clearly one of the two choices is going to win. There is no conceivable way that there could be any other outcome.

Thus, more often than not, the choice becomes between the lesser of two evils -- between a douche and a turd sandwich. Both refusing to vote and voting for an obvious loser are not participating in the process, are completely ineffective protests and are very poor strategy. Voting is not about voting for someone you like. In fact, more often than not you must vote for someone you don't like or at least someone you don't find inspiring. It's not about conscience and it's not sacred. It's tactics.

This blog is independent, which does not mean that it does not have a preference in the election. All it means is that all arguments are considered, weighed and the stupid ones rejected. The preference of this blog has been clear for some time, but on the eve of the election it throws its infinitesimal weight by officially endorsing John Kerry for President.

It's tactics, and the only argument he ever needed was: "Hey, at least I'm not George Bush."

Election 2004

strategery
Submitted by thinksinpictures on 1 November, 2004 - 2:26pm.

I've been trying to get this idea across to certain ideologues that I know for a while now. You've managed here to express it more eloquently and concisely than I've been able to so far.

Then again, conciseness (concisity?) was never my strong point.

Re: strategery
Submitted by tenacity on 1 November, 2004 - 3:47pm.

Concision is the word you're looking for.

the more you know...
Submitted by thinksinpictures on 1 November, 2004 - 6:58pm.

That's the one!

I still think your assertions
Submitted by Anonymous on 2 November, 2004 - 12:53pm.

I still think your assertions are overly simplistic. Especially for offices other than the president, voting is hardly strategic. It's part willful ignorance of the fact that you're being snowed by everybody, part plain ignorance of the institutional effects on political actors, and part hapless prognostication about the future *regardless* of how well you think you know your pet candidates. Presidential candidates campaign on "if I were king" platforms (quoting Mickey Edwards, Boston Globe) that have little bearing on what they'll actually get done. Just ask Bill Clinton. If he were king, he'd have reformed health care, reformed welfare without fucking poor people in the ass, and abolished Don't Ask Don't Tell and integrated homosexuals into the military.

Instead, he got one If I Were King moment, and let's just say it kind of "blew" up in his face, nudge nudge.

Choosing not to vote can be just as strategic as voting. I live in MA. I don't know anything about the legislators in my state, nor the guy my district sends to the House, nor whoever's going to replace Kerry if he ends up president. But seeing as how MA was the only state to go for McGovern in 1972, I feel I've made a strategic decision in avoiding wasting my life on politics and letting my state do what it's inevitably going to do. Voting as a Sacred Ritual is pretty much the *only* argument that could get me to a poll, if you could get me to buy it. Alas, after four years of actually learning about the way our system works, I think I'm immune to the sales pitch.

-poot