It’s election time again.
This year, as every year, people are debating the merits of the candidates. One of the most popular arguments is “don’t waste your vote by voting for a third party candidate.” Usually this argument is presented with a little more emotion. “The country is going to hell, and its your fault because a vote for neither Bush/Kerry is a vote for Kerry/Bush.”
Not surprisingly, these arguments often come from actual members of either the Republican or Democratic parties. Of course, as party members, many of them cannot possibly conceive of why one would vote for anybody but their candidate-letting party loyalty take the place of reason. Also, while Democrats and Republicans oppose each other for control of the government, they will work together to disable any third party that they find threatening. The bipartisan 1996 presidential debates excluded even Ross Perot, who commanded 19 percent of the vote in 1992. Democrats especially attempt to use lawsuits to keep third parties of the ballots.
Sadly, even some independent voters take the “wasted vote” stance. They claim that to vote for a third party candidate is nothing more than symbolic because the candidate has no chance of winning. This tends toward a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, if they oppose one of the major party candidates, they feel that a vote against him or her is a vote for his or her opponent. This “if you’re not for Foo, you’re for Bar” argument is the strongest argument against third party support and has a small amount of validity-depending on the type of election.
There are three notable types of general elections-elections requiring a majority of votes to win, elections requiring a plurality of votes to win and the presidential election. In the first type of election, a candidate must receive at least 50 percent plus one vote to win the election. In such cases, no matter for whom one votes, his or her vote supports only that candidate. The “if you’re not for Foo, you’re for Bar” argument does not apply at all. Often, such elections are followed by a run-off.
In elections requiring a plurality of the votes to win, it is the relative amount of votes cast for the candidates that determines the victor. The candidate with the most votes wins without needing a majority of the votes. Elections through plurality are poor excuses for democracy but are nonetheless fairly common. For the voter absolutely interested in defeating a particular candidate, the best possible course of action is to vote for the next candidate he or she feels is mostly likely to win. In this case, when the primary goal is not to elect a particular candidate, but to defeat one in a plurality wins election, the “not for Foo, for Bar” argument applies.
Even less democratic than plurality elections is the presidential election. The candidate with the majority of electoral votes wins. In many states, one’s vote has no necessary connection to what candidate receives that state’s electoral votes. In others, like Mississippi, electors must support the candidate the state’s voters choose by plurality. Two states require that electors vote with their associated congressional district with two electors selected at large. Clearly, the presidential election system severely needs reform.
A candidate with consistent support throughout the nation, but without a lead in many states is greatly underrepresented in the electoral votes. For example, Perot received no electoral votes in 1992, but 19 percent of the popular vote. As a result of electoral system, it’s hard to tell what real effects a vote has on a presidential election as, with the exception of Nebraska and Maine, all voters who didn’t support their state’s winner are marginalized. A vote for any losing candidate is a “wasted” vote. Of course, in some states, there’s still no guarantee that the winning candidate will even receive the votes from that state.
Even in plurality elections and presidential elections, a vote for a third party can never be viewed as “merely symbolic” or “wasted.” In some election schemes, including the presidential election, a certain percentage of the vote is necessary to receive matching funds vital to promoting a candidate’s position. For the presidential elections, this percentage is 5 percent. So supporting a third party candidate in the current election increases the viability of that candidate in the next election.
No matter what we think, we don’t know who will win the election. It is both arrogant and ignorant to claim to be able to predict the future, especially when people’s viewpoints are involved. Potentially, any candidate candidate on the ballot, or on enough ballots in the presidential election, can win the election. There is no way to predict how the other hundred million plus voters in the U.S. will cast their vote-even polls can be wildly inaccurate. Just ask Thomas Dewey. The current two major parties seem to be a permanent fixture of American politics, but history shows they are not. Even if they keep the same name, the party itself can be completely reborn. Just look at the Democrats in 1968.
Your vote is your voice in the governing of this nation. Its an answer to the question, “who is the best choice to serve the people and Constitution of the United States?” No matter who wins the election, the answer you give will be heard and will affect how elected officials act. Don’t waste your vote-your voice in our government-by voting for a mediocre candidate. Let the nation hear your voice by voting for the candidate best for you.
Nathan Alday is a senior aerospace engineering major. He can be reached at [email protected].