The Principles of Vote-Wasting

 

            I had an interesting discussion about politics with my mother one day.  It involved my assertion that I would be voting third party this November, and I was alarmed at her outright derision of it with the words, “well, you’re wasting your vote, but okay.”  After realizing that her exact views on voting are shared by so many, I decided to take pen to paper (or in these enlightened times, keyboard to Pentium III^â,) and tackle this strange quandary as to whether or not a vote – any vote – can truly be “wasted.”

            First of all, let me begin by saying that the reason I vote is not because I believe that it makes a difference in the outcome of an election.  It doesn’t, unless there’s a tie.  You know this and I know this, because throughout our lives we’ve been exposed to microcosms of democracy on countless sitcoms, children’s after school specials, and CBS’s Survivor.  Even though there are several million possible permutations of vote counts that could produce a tie between the Democrats and Republicans (accounting for third party influence on the turnout,) I think it’s pretty safe to say that the vote count will not have a difference of one.  This is likely why many people don’t vote.

            I suppose I vote partly because it makes me feel good to be a part of something, even if my influence is infinitesimal (in a national election, about 0.0000007%, to be precise.)  I also vote so that I can say that I did, and to provide an intellectual shield for myself against the diehard “voteheads” who vilify people for throwing away one of their many inalienable rights so egregiously.

            So now then – why is voting for a third party a waste?  My mother’s argument is that, well, politicians are mostly power-hungry assholes.  There’s not a lot of room for argument in that generalization.  But, said she, you’re not voting for the people themselves… you’re voting for the legacy of policies that they will leave for the future.  With three Supreme Court justices possibly slated to leave their offices within the next presidential term, said she, we can’t afford to be “wasting” our votes on third parties when such important atrocities as the potential overturn of the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion case can ensue with a Republican win.

            While I think there is merit in my mother’s argument, it seems too much like democratic duress to me, as though Al Gore were pointing a loaded gun at a single issue, threatening to kill it if we don’t vote for him.  It sounds like resignation and fear, not forward thinking and inspiration.  And besides, Roe v. Wade did manage to survive the administrations of Reagan and Bush.  How’d that happen?

            “Well, I’m young and idealistic,” I told her.

            “Hmm.  Well, I’m old and practical,” she retorted.

            The truth of it all is that ‘Republicrats’ drip with all of the hollow, empty pandering and business-speak against which I continually rail.  They are too mired in the interests of the wealthy and too overrated by the constant barrage of undeserved media attention, and I just don’t feel it is fair to my conscience and my little piece of democratic power to reward either party for it.  They do not earn my mind, heart, or vote by being ordinary and devoid of substance, promising vague, incremental, single-issue changes.

Many third party candidates have earned my attention and consideration, because they have interesting and profound ideas about the past, present, and future, and describe them eloquently.  When I hear Harry Browne (Libertarian,) John Hagelin (Reform,) or Ralph Nader (Green) speak, I know instinctively that I am listening to great minds that have come into politics through a great, sweeping love for the world and an honest desire to effect change.  When I hear the other two guys, I think, “Oh, it’s that kid from the playground that used to beat me up and take my lunch money.”

            If all of this still doesn’t ring truth in you, consider the following Ralph Nader interview excerpt from his campaign website (votenader.org): 

 

Bay Guardian: But if I think it’s a close race, what do you tell these people? For example, people who say voting for Nader is going to elect Bush? 

 

Nader: Why are you legitimizing what you are already admitting? That the two parties are going downhill and every four years they get worse. And because you think one is not as bad as the other, quite as bad as the other, why legitimize the downward slide?

 

            Whoomp, there it is.  While I won’t endorse Nader, I truly believe that there can be a bloodless revolution against the demons of our time who seek to sap our wills and skate by on phoniness and bought exposure.  It may not happen this year, but every vote against the two-headed monster is a shout out – a wake up call that there is a growing resurgence of populist empathy (and not that bogus populism that Gore espouses.)  That is not, not, a million times not a waste of a vote, and I shall truly relish in being part of that.