Moderates aren’t as easy to
categorize, but it’s probably safe to say that they tend to lean Democratic
under normal circumstances, but are
honest and realistic enough to see that Obama is a failure as president.
Finding neither option acceptable – instead of choosing between the lesser of
two evils – some moderates and libertarians are choosing a third option: Gary
Johnson.
I
have nothing against Gary Johnson, but I can’t help but think a vote for
Johnson is a wasted vote (at best) or a vote for Obama (at worst).
While it probably won’t work, I feel obligated to make the best argument I can
for choosing Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson. So if you are one of these
libertarians/moderates considering a vote for Johnson, I’m talking to you.
Believe me, I understand wanting
to vote on principle. You look at the available options and don’t want to vote
for a candidate who doesn’t agree with your principles, whether it’s personal
freedom, economic freedom, or foreign policy isolationism. Neither candidate meets your principled standards, so you feel you must
vote for someone who comes close. Perfectly understandable.
Principles are important, but as
I’ve written in The Three Tensions of Politics,
they aren’t the only thing. You must
balance your principles – your ideology – with the political ramifications of
your vote and an element of pragmatism. Consider the real-world effects of
your vote for a third-party candidate who simply cannot win.
Everyone agrees that this will be
an extremely close election. You won’t vote Obama and I support you for seeing
what many Democrats are unable to see. But refusing to vote for Romney and
choosing a candidate who can’t win, like Gary Johnson, is short-sighted. The most likely outcome of your vote for Gary
Johnson is to reelect Barack Obama.
In other words, with a vote for
Gary Johnson, you will not get the result you hope for. You know that
reelecting Obama is a bad idea, and Romney is the only pragmatic alternative. We
live in a two party system and your vote will not change that. Whatever principle you think you’re
upholding by casting a protest vote against the two major parties is undermined
by the ultimate consequences of your vote. I implore you to balance your
principles with a little pragmatism and go vote for Mitt Romney in November.
It's not just a matter of principle. There are at least two consequentialist arguments for voting for a third party candidate:
ReplyDelete1.) Those who vote Republican or Democrat when they want to vote for a third party candidate perpetuate the very system that dissatisfies them.
2.) Voting for third party candidates shows those candidates that they have support, encouraging them to continue to run and perhaps giving their party more power. Even if they do not win, they might attract enough votes from a traditional party for that party to want to cater to them in some way in the future.
Of course, one ought to also consider the consequences of "allowing" the worst candidate to win. However, since there may always be such consequences and since campaigns try to make the fate of the world seem to hinge upon voting for a traditional Republican or Democrat, it may never seem like the right time to vote for someone else. That unfortunate truth also has a place in our moral calculus.
There lies the rub...The libertarian/third party voter is usually not voting based on ideology but rather on emotion. That is the vote that hurts the direction of the country.
ReplyDeleteYour vote should be basically be a referendum on the incumbent president. If he is doing a good job, keep him in. If he is doing a bad job, the best candidate that has a realistic shot of winning should be voted in.
Actually if my vote were based on emotion, I would stay home and sulk. No vote.
ReplyDeleteBecause it is based in ideology, I will vote for Johnson.
Even though he is not the perfect candidate - I have major issues with him, too - of the three I would see him doing the least amount of harm to the nation. I do not foresee either Obama or Romney doing any real good.
I must vote based on principle, and that I wish for these principles to be represented. This is how I'm wired. The differences are so great that neither of these candidates has any connection to me. I find them logically abhorrent.
I'm with Ryan. How many more votes would the Third party get if everyone else stopped playing the 'only two real choices' game? How will that ever change if people don't stop voting for someone they don't really want, but feel, or are told they must choose, to vote against the other?
P.S.G.
I have to agree - if I were to base my vote on emotion I just wouldn't vote at all (at least not for president, I'd still vote in other races).
DeleteI have yet to decide which candidate will get my vote. It's pretty much deadlocked right now at "I don't want to vote for either of these crappy candidates, particularly considering their even crappier running-mates."
Naw, Jill Stein is the way to go.
ReplyDeleteGary Johnson nailed the Reddit AMA http://ow.ly/dDO1P
ReplyDeleteIf I lived in a battleground state, I would probably agree. As much as I dislike him, I'd probably hold my nose and vote for Romney as I did for McCain when I voted in Ohio. The thing is, I live in Washington state now, and the electoral votes that represent me are going to Obama no matter what I do. I don't have to worry about strategy, so I'm free to vote my conscience, whoever that may be.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with removal of the current WH occupant is the highest priority, but people can and should always vote as their conscience dictates. I can't not in good conscience vote in anyway that risks four more years of Obama, but there are states where it doesn't matter because they are overwhelmingly supporting him then voting for Johnson may be the right answer to show that there is an alternative to the two party mess. In a strong republican state you might have the same option, but don't count on it. In a battleground state, you vote to remove a failing president and that is the priority. We need to support an alternative to the two parties to drive them back to sanity, so vote your conscience but remember the priority.
ReplyDeleteHR, Obama is easily going to carry CT and so my vote for Johnson isn't likely to harm Mr. Romney. As for my problems with Romney, there are 3 of them. a) The likelihood that he will probably appoint pro-life judges. b) The fact that he hasn't adequately distanced himself from neoconservatism. And c) the fact that the dude will basically say everything......But, yes, anything is possible in the next 2 months and I still remain persuadable.
ReplyDeleteWill, if the polling in CT became so close that you couldn't be sure it would go for Obama AND you honestly believed that your vote could make the difference... would you still vote Johnson?
ReplyDeleteI will admit that the prospect of another 4 years of nearly 4 trillion dollar federal budgets (up from 2.7 trillion as recently as 2007) is a tad less than inspiring.
ReplyDeleteChazter said: "The libertarian/third party voter is usually not voting based on ideology but rather on emotion."
ReplyDeleteI have yet to find one of these. All of the Libertarians I talk to over the years are as cold and logical as Spock as they argue for voting libertarian. It is pure ideology.... if anything, at the expense of pragmatism. But the "emotional" factor is far far away gone.
HR,
ReplyDeleteBoth sides of the aisle have their solid base which leaves the independents/undecided. Obama won the last election with a majority of independents/undecided on his side. IMHO I don't think he will garner that same percentage this time around.
For awhile I was thinking if you decide to vote for an independent/third party candidate, it was going to hurt Romney more and pretty much assure a re-elected Obama. But the more I think about it, maybe it hurts Obama more. If the independents/undecided, who are very disgruntled about both choices, will most likely not vote for either candidates.
For the main reasons, Obama did not meet their expectations and Romney is not a great alternative or they both are bad choices. Since majority of them voted for Obama the first time around, he has a bigger percentage of votes lost in this cycle which favors Romney since all he has to do is sway some of the independents/undecided on his side to give him a shot.
What do you think or am I off base.
Chazter, if the undecided voter decides not to vote, it's possible that it hurts Obama more. Based on the fact that he won over independents in 2008, if independents stay home in 2012 it's reasonable to think Obama is harmed.
ReplyDeleteBut if independents vote (and don't stay home), and vote for the libertarian candidate, they will hurt Romney. Think about it: the libertarian candidate is more appealing to a conservative voter than a progressive voter. Any vote that goes to Johnson is a vote that should have gone for Romney and ends up helping Obama.
The only argument I think justifies a vote for Johnson is for those voters in a locked-up state like California. If there is no doubt about the outcome in a state, vote your conscience. Otherwise, choose between the two parties or risk doing the opposite of what you intend.
A vote for Johnson sends a message to the Republicans to start to be Republicans again.
ReplyDeleteMr Coates, I essentially agree with and understand your point, but I'm going to argue it nonetheless. Your statement presumes there is a single, eternal, and unchanging definition of what it means to be a Republican. That is not the case.
ReplyDeleteYou are making a purely ideological argument. You think that by voting for a third party candidate, and frankly a candidate who isn't all that conservative, that Republicans will learn to be more conservative. The only ideological lesson that has been learned from the 2012 election is that the electorate is more liberal than the Republican Party. The only lesson, therefore, is for Republicans to moderate their ideology even further.
So on the ideological argument, I think you're completely wrong. But my entire point is to be realists when we vote. A vote for a third party candidate when your next best candidate is the Republican, ultimately harms your own interests. If the third party candidate draws your vote from the Republican, the Democrat is more likely to be elected. There's a place for ideology, but my argument was one based on political reality.
But thanks for the comment. Hope you come by again.