on the nature of wasted votes

[rone]

I can't say when the American notion of considering third-party votes wasted began, but I'm fairly certain that the first time I saw it expressed was in the 1996 Treehouse of Horror episode of The Simpsons. Since then, this sentiment has been augmented by the myth of Nader sucking away enough voters from Gore to tip the scales in Bush's favor. Today, this has culminated in the common plea from many to ensure the election of Hillary Clinton because of the desperate and unique existential threat that Donald Trump poses to this nation and, indeed, the world.

I will start off with a very simple declaration: no vote is wasted. Democracy, even in the misshapen state you'll find in our presidential election process, depends on every vote that is cast. Thus, every vote is crucial. To claim that one's vote is wasted because it was cast for an extremely likely loser, but isn't wasted if it's cast for the loser with the most votes, is sheerly disingenuous. To claim that voting for a third party is not only a waste, but not even a political act, as Clay Shirky tendentiously argues, condescendingly strikes at the very freedom of voting one's preference, while neatly delivering a Catch-22 of American politics: voting for one of the two big parties strengthens the two-party system in this country; voting third-party doesn't strengthen third parties, which strengthens the two-party system in this country; not voting doesn't accomplish anything, which strengthens the two-party system in this country. It is an inescapably defeatist narrative, which is usually supplemented by a smug suggestion that the only way to change the process is from within. We can see how well efforts to make the Democratic Party more progressive rather than neoliberal, or to make the Republican Party more conservative rather than regressive and nativist, have fared over the last few decades.

As for the myth of third-party candidates as spoilers, the basic premise is that third party voters somehow owe their vote to the big party that is in some way closer to their views. This is rank arrogation. You may feel that third party voters are misinformed, and perhaps misguided. You might even be right. But that doesn't make them any different than most voters for either big party; Shirky goes out of his way to impugn the motivations of third-party voters without ever questioning those of Democratic and Republican voters. Whoever we vote for will probably not accomplish what we want them to accomplish. Does that mean that our vote was wasted?

The fact is that this point can be made persuasively, as John Halle and Noam Chomsky have done already. In general, we would be better served by cogent points and dialogue, rather than sententious declarations, if not outright accusations that someone is voting wrong (or, worse, a direct appeal to fear, which is the backbone of the Trump campaign, and also informs many of my friends' appeals to vote for Clinton, as they are terrified —with good reason— of Trump).

Our vote is our voice in democracy, and it means what we want it to mean. It might not get us what we wanted it to get us, and it rarely does. But don't let anyone tell you that your vote is a waste.

Comments

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

While I agree in theory, in practicality I tend to disagree, because I take an outcome - oriented view of the voting process. At this point, one of two options are going to happen in this campaign.

But that's me, and I strongly disagree with Clay Shirky. As for Nader, the only criticism I can think of is to ask whether their vote got them closer to what they wanted. I regard that as a weird special case anyway, with a lot of failure points.

And of hell, there's the issue of down - ballot races as well; independents can and do win important regional and local offices.

And in any case, voting at all is much more proactive than not voting.

[boutell.livejournal.com]

I'm with the "get serious about building up your party at the local level first" school of thought on this. It's reasonable to ask for proof of seriousness and viability before investing your one and only vote for President.

I am thrilled, however, to see you in arguing trim!

[dawn-guy.livejournal.com]

Mini rant:

I generally agree that votes for candidates who are unlikely to be elected are not necessarily wasted. Using your vote to endorse the policies of someone who is unlikely to win a seat can send the elected person a message that you (in aggregate with your fellow third-party and independent voters) value a collection of policies and positions that weren't represented by the eventual winner. This is one way in which policies and views are changed.

Up here in Socialist Canuckistan we're working on changing the electoral system to make the results of voting more reflective of what people are voting for (or against, if they poll that way). It's one tool to help things along by providing more direct, proportional representation.

Using all your votes at all levels and communicating with both candidates and elected officials are steps people can take to make their democracies more representative of what people want and need. The "need" part matters to me because I see my vote as endorsing someone (or a collection of people) to work with constituents, understand issues, do what is best within party constraints if applicable, and communicate with people (colleagues and constituents) about the reasons for their support (or lack thereof) for specific legislation&c.

It depends what you mean by "wasted".

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

If I have a bottle of 1989 Haut Brion and I use it to clean my bathtub, people will say I've wasted it. Even if we all agree that it's mine to do with as I like. It's not that I owe that bottle to anyone. It's not that other people failed to earn the bottle from me. Something is wasted if it's used in a substantially less productive way than it could have been. Saying "it's my bottle and I can do what I want with it" doesn't get me off the hook.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

The purpose of voting is more than just expressing your political opinion. If you want to express your political opinion you can give a speech, write an LJ post, or display a provocative sign. But voting is unique, in that it directly influences the outcome of a specific election.

If I don't cast my vote, will my vote be wasted? I think so. I have the opportunity to influence the outcome of the election, and I'm choosing not to.

If I spoil my ballot, will my vote be wasted? I think so. Destroying my ballot so that it can't be counted is less productive than casting a vote that could be counted.

If I write in "Daffy Duck", will my vote be wasted? I think so. Voting for a ridiculous imaginary candidate is essentially the same as not voting at all.

If I write in "Franklin D. Roosevelt", will my vote be wasted? I think so. Franklin D. Roosevelt would certainly be a much stronger candidate than anyone running this year, but he's not going to win because he is dead.

If I write in "repeal the second amendment", will my vote be wasted? I think so. Voting is more than simply a platform to express my political preference. Voting is a means to effect the outcome of the election.

A vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson has substantially more utility than a vote for Franklin D. Roosevelt or Daffy Duck. It's at least hypothetically possible not just that they could win, but that your vote could influence their selection. But it has substantially less utility than a vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, because it's vastly more likely that your vote will influence their selection.

This isn't an intellectual exercise. It's a near-certainty that either Clinton or Trump will win. You can either use that vote to its full potential by placing it on one side of the scale, or you can limit its potential influence by stepping back and living with the result of a choice that other people's votes have made for you.

[also-huey.livejournal.com]

...wow, LiveJournal is so much more civil than Facebook.