Since I turned 18 in 1976, I’ve voted in seven Presidential elections. Not once did the candidate I voted for win. This qualifies me, I think, to write “The Idiot’s Guide to Politics.”
Why Vote?
The First Question of politics is, Why should I vote? Over the years, you’ve been told by countless candidates, newspaper editorial writers and talk radio show hosts, and your own mother and father that it is your “patriotic duty” to vote. I agree, and that is why I still vote. But there are strong arguments for not taking the time to vote.
The odds that your vote will matter–that it will be the deciding vote in an extraordinarily close race–are vanishingly small. The 2000 Presidential election, which seemed to come down to only several hundred votes in Florida, doesn’t disprove this fact. In most states the race wasn’t very close, and the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote but still lost in the electoral college illustrates how your vote may not matter even if your candidate “wins.”
On the other hand, the downward trend in voter turnout, especially for primary elections, increases the possibility that your vote will matter. It is also the case that your decision to vote or not vote influences those around you–to the extent you want it to–and they in turn influence others, so your decision may influence dozens or even hundreds of votes. Many primary elections are won by margins that small.
Political Corruption
“They are all crooks” is the second reason not to vote. This is not technically true: While some politicians are corrupt, most are honest, intelligent individuals doing the best they can. The problem is the system they are charged with overseeing is double-dipped in cronyism and deep-fried in corruption.
The number of public officials indicted on charges of corruption increased 12-fold from 1975 through 1989 and has probably surged again since then. Services produced by government agencies cost twice as much to deliver as those produced by private companies, due partly to inefficiency but also due to bid-rigging, insider deals, and outright theft. Unlike markets, where competition and choice tend to make rules self-enforcing, governments rely on top-down supervision and bureaucracy to detect and stop corruption. It seldom works, at least in the long run.
If the crooks theory is true, it doesn’t follow that the answer is to allow the crooks to remain in office forever, emptying our pockets and perverting our judicial system. It could be that corruption is a stronger argument for voting than for staying at home.
Who Loves You, Baby?
The third reason not to vote is because no candidate is likely to represent your views on more than a few matters of importance to you. Elected officials exercise authority over a wide range of public policy issues, from abortion and agriculture to taxes and welfare. How likely is it that the candidate you vote for holds your views on these four issues?
Now add defense, drugs, education, the environment, Medicare, and Social Security reform. Still on the same page? How about campaign finance reform, gay marriage, genetic engineering, international trade, and the USA Patriot Act?
Sanction of the Victim
The final reason not to vote is what Ayn Rand used to call “the sanction of the victim.” Voting validates the authority government has over our lives, liberties, and property. By voting, we implicitly agree to give the majority the power to tax us, to burden us with rules and regulations, and to occupy or take our property without just compensation. We sign up, in H.L. Menken’s words, for “the advance auction of stolen goods” that is modern democracy.
Voting’s defenders say staying home doesn’t remove the “sanction,” but merely hands the reins of authority to those who show up. Voting for someone who promises to roll back big government and cut taxes, they say, is an act of self-defense. Not voting is like unilateral disarmament: It works if the other side decides to disarm as well, but it’s a catastrophe if the other side sees it as weakness or capitulation and proceeds to implement its agenda at will.
Who to Vote For?
Now that we’re thoroughly confused as to whether or not we should vote, we can stumble up to the Second Question of politics: Who should I vote for?
The short answer is: Vote for the person you believe will do what needs to be done on the issues most important to you. Look at his record, in politics as well as outside it, for clues as to whether he will keep his word and be effective. Look beyond the two major political parties for good candidates.
This year’s Presidential campaign is shaping up to be a classic contest between a Left Liberal (John Kerry), a Right Conservative (George Bush), a Populist Authoritarian (Ralph Nader), and a Libertarian (yet to be nominated). Nader, running as an independent, probably won’t get on the ballot in most states. The Libertarian Party is the only third party that regularly does so.
If you are anti-war and anti-business and favor higher taxes and more government spending, then Nader is your man for President. If you are pro-war and pro-business and favor lower taxes, then Bush might be your man. If you aren’t sure about the war, are pro-free enterprise, and favor lower taxes and less government, then the Libertarian Party candidate is likely to be your best choice. If you just hate Bush and don’t care who else gets elected, consider voting for Kerry.
But Can He Win?
It is often observed that the “best candidate” cannot win. If you are a Left Liberal or Populist Authoritarian, you believe this because you think “big corporations” control the major political parties and the media. If you are a Right Conservative you believe this because you think unions and “liberal elites” control political parties and the media.
If you are a Libertarian, you probably think big corporations, unions, and liberal elites control political parties and your candidate in particular cannot win because election rules discriminate against third-party candidates.
So should you vote for the “best candidate” even though he cannot win? Absolutely. Voting for a bad candidate because you believe he is more likely to beat an even worse candidate–“the lesser of two evils”–rewards both candidates for refusing to stake out clear positions or taking positions as close to each other as possible. Once elected, there will be no mandate from voters to do anything.
Losers increasingly determine winners. In the 2000 Presidential election, Ralph Nader (running on the Green Party ticket) may indeed have cost Al Gore the Presidency … but Harry Browne (running on the Libertarian Party ticket) drew votes away from George Bush in several key states. Nader forced Gore to reveal his Left Liberal agenda, and Browne forced Bush to promise real tax cuts, to keep their respective bases from defecting. Thanks to Nader and Browne, voters learned enough about Gore to choose Bush, and Bush made tax cuts the highest priority of his administration.
Finally, politics is not a matter of one election, but of elections taking place year after year. This year’s unelectable best candidate may be electable next year, running for a different office or under a different party’s banner. Political parties attract support and grow stronger by fielding candidates, even if they do not win. And memories of primary challenges and elections determined by third-party candidates influence the actions of incumbents and major party candidates for years afterwards.
Of course, voting for the “best candidate” means you won’t be voting for many winning candidates. On the other hand, you get to display neat bumper stickers like the one I have: “Don’t blame me, I voted Libertarian.”
