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

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Let's say that you voted for the candidate with 49% of the vote. What outcome have you produced? Your vote accomplished nothing, so was it wasted?

8% of the vote might not mean much, but it definitely influences the outcome of a vote. 8% is more than zero. Even not voting influences the outcome of the vote, or else why would voter turnout be such a big deal?

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

> Let's say that you voted for the candidate with 49% of the vote. What outcome have you produced?

That's a really great question, and the answer illustrates what I'm talking about. We don't vote with hindsight, knowing the result. We vote with limited foresight. The utility of our vote is anticipated utility.

The closer the election, the more likely it is that my vote will be the deciding vote, and the higher my vote's potential utility. If I'm coming into an election where it's likely that my candidate will lose by 1%, it's also reasonable to expect that my vote could tip the scales the other way. A vote cast in a 49/51% race is highly likely to effect the outcome.

On the other hand if I'm voting in a 4/47/49% election, or even an 8/45/47% election, it's clear that my vote for the 4% or 8% candidate is far less likely to effect the outcome of the election than casting that vote for the 49% or 51% candidate. Voting third party is a low utility vote for a foregone conclusion. Voting for someone guaranteed to lose lacks just as much utility as voting in a single-candidate race where the single candidate is guaranteed to win.

Here's what I should have asked, given that we can only judge the anticipated utility of a vote based on a count which has not yet happened:

Let's say your candidate is currently polling at 4%. You don't just commit to voting for them. You don't just publicly commit, hoping that others follow suit. You also commit to canvassing for them tirelessly. And you're so deluded that you believe that your vote, and your support, will double your candidate's vote count to between 4% and 8%. What influence do you anticipate that your vote and campaign effort will produce?

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Let's reply to your fencepost-moving question with two questions. At what percentage of the vote does voting for a third party gain utility? And how do you propose that a third party reach that percentage if voting for them is of low utility?

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

Let's reply to your fencepost-moving question with two questions. At what percentage of the vote does voting for a third party gain utility?

It's a continuous nonlinear function, not a boundary. The utility of you voting for a candidate with anticipated zero chance of winning is zero utility. Vote utility increases as your candidate's anticipated showing increases. Utility is at maximum when two candidates are evenly matched. Utility decreases back to zero as a candidate becomes more certain of winning. This might sound confusing, so I will explain further with some examples.

Daffy Duck is physically incapable of winning. It is absolutely impossible that your vote for Daffy Duck will help determine whether Daffy Duck gets to be President, so a vote for Daffy has a utility of zero.

Vermin Supreme's likelihood of winning in a close race is basically epsilon (http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/numeric_limits/epsilon). A vote for (or against) Vermin Supreme is more likely to effect the outcome than a vote for Daffy Duck and therefore has a utility of epsilon, which is greater than zero.

Jill Stein's likelihood of winning in a close race is better than Vermin Supreme's, but it's still vanishingly small. A vote for (or against) Jill Stein is more likely to effect the outcome than a vote for Vermin Supreme and therefore has utility > epsilon.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are not just the two most likely candidates to win, but to win in a close race against each other (which is the point). A vote for Clinton or Trump is more likely to effect the outcome of the election than a vote for any other candidate.

Hillary is currently beating Trump by about 8%. That's a really healthy lead. In a universe where she was beating Trump by 0.1% your vote would be even more likely to effect the outcome of the election than it currently does, and its utility would be even higher than it currently is. Likewise, in a universe where Hillary was beating Trump 87% to 4%, a vote for Hillary (or Trump) would have the same utility as a vote for Stein in this universe. You should still vote for Hillary (or Trump) because that's still the action with the greatest relative utility - there's no closer race that your vote is likely to determine - even though its absolute utility isn't as high as your vote in this universe.

Let's say that Obama was allowed to run for a third term. He's more popular than either Trump or Clinton, and he's polling 60%/19%/18%. Your vote is most likely to be a deciding vote between either Obama and Trump or Obama and Clinton but Clinton and Trump are close enough that we can't say who. Stein is so far behind that your vote won't decide the race between Obama and Stein or Trump and Stein. Therefore its utility is maximized (in that universe) by voting for Trump, Clinton, or Obama.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

That's a very long-winded way of saying, "I don't know."