When it comes to voting, I am persuaded that our goal should be to make an actual difference in the world, not merely to make a statement concerning our political ideals. So if there are three candidates — A, B, and C – and if elected, candidate A’s stated policies will result in a 50% increase in evil, candidate B’s policies will result in a 30% increase in evil, and candidate C’s policies will result in a 10% increase in evil – and yet candidate C is a 3rd party candidate who will not be able to secure more than 10% of the popular vote – then we ought to vote for candidate B even if candidate C more closely resembles our political ideals.
Why? Because voting for C will result in more evil. How? Since candidate C cannot possibly secure enough votes to win the election, every vote cast for candidate C makes it more unlikely that candidate B will be able to beat candidate A (assuming that the nation’s political makeup is roughly evenly divided, as in our nation), and thus more likely that candidate A will win the election and cause the greatest amount of evil in the world. In a very real sense, then, a vote for candidate C is an unintentional vote for candidate A, which is a vote for more evil in the world. If our goal is to act in such a way so as to limit evil to the best of our ability, then we should vote for candidate B. The time to vote your conscience and make statements concerning your political ideals is in the primaries, not the general election.
A common objection to this line of reasoning is that if we always vote for the most electable candidate simply because he is not as bad as the other major candidate, rather than voting for the candidate that matches our political ideals, then we guarantee that candidates who exemplify our political ideals will never be elected. And if they are never elected, then ultimately we are ensuring that the amount of evil in the world will always be higher than it might have otherwise been. The only way to get the best candidate in office and reduce the amount of evil in the world is for those who think candidate C is the best candidate to cast their vote for him even if it is clear that he will not win, because doing so will increase his polling numbers, making it more likely that others will be willing to vote for him (or other candidate’s that reflect his party’s ideals) in the future (the bandwagon effect in which people are more willing to hitch their wagon to someone they see as capable of winning).
I am sympathetic to this line of reasoning. It is true that if we never vote for other parties on the basis that they cannot win elections, they will never win elections. It will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only way we can change the political landscape is by voting for candidates from other parties. While this may result in short-term losses, this is necessary to secure long-term wins.[1]
As true as this is, given the current political landscape, I do not think it is wise to vote for third parties. There is an imbalance in the number of viable political parties on each side of the political spectrum (liberal and conservative). If you are liberal, you basically have two parties to choose from: Democrats and the Green Party. If you are conservative, however, you have multiple parties to choose from: Republicans, Tea Party, Constitution Party, etc. Conservatives and liberals are fairly evenly divided in this nation. If the liberal vote is only spread out between two parties, and the conservative vote is spread out between three parties, then the liberals would win every election (50% / 2 = 25% for each liberal party; 50% / 3 = 17% for each conservative party).
Of course, we know that the adherents to political parties are not evenly divided. Third parties on both side of the political spectrum have relatively few adherents compared to either the Democrats or the Republicans. Given how closely divided conservatives and conservatives are in this country, it does not require many people from one of the major parties to move to a third party to make it impossible for the major party to win elections. For example, let’s say that for liberals, 48% vote Democrat and 2% vote Green Party, and for conservatives, 48% vote Republican, 1% vote Tea Party, and 1% vote Constitution Party. What would happen if 5% of Republicans changed affiliations to the Tea Party? That would not help the Tea Party win any elections, but it would guarantee that the Republican Party loses every election and the liberals set the agenda for our country. Voting for third party candidates does make a difference, but the difference is increased evil in the land—the very opposite of what we want. The only way to prevent this is if there was roughly equal numbers of people defecting from both the Republican and Democratic parties to third party parties.
For me to start voting for candidates from other parties, three things would have to happen: (1) More viable liberal parties would need to be created that are capable of splitting the liberal vote; (2) Republicans would have to drop moral conservatism from their platform, such as abortion and male-female marriage, and become morally indistinguishable from Democrats; (3) A political party would have to emerge that aligns itself better with my political ideals than the Republican Party.
If our ultimate concern is to act in such a way so as to secure the most good possible, then we need a healthy mix of idealism and practicality. Given the current political landscape, the way to secure the most good is to vote Republican since they are the only political party that represents core Christian moral values and has a chance of winning elections. You can choose to vote your ideals and ignore all practical considerations, but I propose that this is indicative of misplaced priorities. It says you care more about making a statement concerning your political ideals than you care about making a moral difference in the world. If you are truly concerned about using the power of your vote to bring about as much good as possible, then do not vote for third party candidates in a general election.
[1]It could also cause candidate B and his party to change their platform, because they will quickly recognize that if they are not able to secure the votes directed at candidate C and his party, they will never win another election.
October 24, 2012 at 8:16 am
1) Votes for 3rd parties can be pragmatic, in that they can help move the “Overton Window.” If enough liberals reject Obama due to his centrism and vote Green Party, it can serve as a powerful political signal that liberals expect Obama to do a better job representing their interests.
2) If your state is very “unswingy,” in which the conclusion is foregone, the most pragmatic use of your vote IS to help move the Overton Window.
3) The Tea Party is not a political party. It is a cohort of the Republican Party, and it only matters vs. mainstream Republicans during primaries.
4) Liberals also now have the Justice Party, which is a much better “fit” for American progressivism than the Green Party. Rocky Anderson is the nominee this year.
5) We’ve been through this before, but I do not believe the Republican Party actually represents core Christian values, which are love (that is, charity, particularly for the downtrodden), humble worship (not public parading, which is expressly condemned), and sharing (not forcing or mandating) the Gospel. On abortion, their impossible “shoot for the moon” approach combined with legislation that quashes sex education and contraceptive provisions yields a social recipe that catalyzes more abortions. If you think blending church and state, rampant moral prohibition through the state, rejecting state sponsorship of gay unions, and regressive taxation are “core Christian values,” then you’re way too far gone. 🙂
LikeLike
October 24, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Excellent article! You sum up my feelings on this issue exactly. I’ve gone back-and-forth on third party voting for awhile now, but over the last few years I’ve come to adopt the more pragmatic approach (voting for the candidate who has a chance of winning).
LikeLike
October 24, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Stan, I alluded to #1 in my post. I just don’t think the time to send that message is in a general election when your “message” can result in more evil.
#2 Perhaps.
#3 There actually is a Tea Party. It’s registered in FL, but I don’t know where (if anywhere) else. The Tea Party movement believes in the ideals of the Tea Party, but are not registered to the party itself.
#4 Yes, I’ve heard about this party very recently, but do not know much about it.
#5 I’m not referring to Christian character values, but moral values. They are politicians, so trying to apply the concept of “worship” or “evangelism” to them would be wrong-headed. And Republicans have not had a shoot for the moon, all-or-nothing approach to ending abortion. They have been chipping away at it for a long time, bite by bite. Only a small minority endorse the all-or-nothing view. And this has nothing to do with blending church and state. It has to do with the state acting like the state to secure the most fundamental right that exists (life), and to promote the poublic good through recognizing natural marriage alone, etc.
Jason
LikeLike
October 25, 2012 at 7:16 am
I suppose you are somewhat at an advantage over your side of the pond in having open primaries that would mean that you whittle down the choices of the last two.
What you surmise here Jason is the problem with the election system.
I personally pick a top 5 priority list and vote accordingly. If that means none of the popular choices, then so be it. At least they can’t argue that I endorse them!!
If everyone voted for who best represented them rather than on tribal lines, I believe that it could work, yet people (such as yourself) always think that a vote for 3rd party is a “wasted” vote and keep the status quo going.
LikeLike
October 25, 2012 at 8:35 am
Thank you for this article! I have been pressing and arguing this point to idealist family and friends to little avail. I sent them a link here; maybe your words will prove more persuasive than mine.
LikeLike
October 25, 2012 at 8:37 am
Scott, you’re absolutely correct that the lack of a run-off (or “automatic run-off” using priority lists) is by FAR the most fundamental, game-breaking problem with the American system.
LikeLike
November 4, 2012 at 3:30 am
[…] Should we vote for 3rd party candidates?- A pragmatic argument for voting with the major parties in order to bring about the most possible good. There is an alternative view on why we cannot compromise offered below, the post with a title starting “Abolitionist’s Voting Guide.” […]
LikeLike
November 6, 2012 at 11:57 pm
jasondulle is an idiot. This is a horrible article and is a perfect example of the simple minded thinking of voters who want keep a broken two party system chugging along.
LikeLike
November 7, 2012 at 9:36 am
“Ron,”
I have a different perspective on idiots. Idiots are those who offer drive-by-commenting where all they can offer is ad hominems (if your intelligence is as bad as your tact, you’ll probably have to look that word up). If you want to be taken seriously, interact with other people’s arguments, and offer some of your own. Until you are capable of civil discourse, I will ignore you in the future.
Jason
LikeLike