I'm tired of hearing it. A lot of Clinton supporters think if you're not with them, you're against them, and that if you don't support Clinton, you're supporting Trump. I disagree. This is based on faulty logic that reeks of the whole sentiment of "if you're not with me, you're against me", an argument made by the likes of the Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader) and George W. Bush.
The thing is, people who make this argument assume that the "side" you align more closely with is entitled (ugh) to your vote. That they deserve it by default, and that by not casting it, you're denying them something they're owed. But at the end of the day, every candidate starts with 0 votes. Every vote for them is a vote for them. A vote not for them may be against them in a two party system, but doesn't have to be.
Yes, third parties can "split" electorates, and take votes away from other candidates who would otherwise get them. But my perspective is if those third party candidates get votes, they are doing something right and the major parties are doing something wrong. I don't think it's fair to blame the voters if someone loses. Much like the age old philosophy in the private sector, "the customer is always right", then perhaps the voter should always be right too.
Moreover, a lot of the argument that third parties split the vote is based on opportunity costs. That if a person did not vote for a third party, they would support a major candidate. This is not necessarily true. Some might hold their nose and support a candidate, but that's not a healthy attitude toward democracy. Others might stay home and not vote at all, losing an investment in the outcome.
At worst, I would argue that voting third party is far less damaging than voting for the opposing candidate. Say you have candidates A and B with 50 votes each. If you vote for candidate A, he now has 51 votes. If you vote for candidate B, he now has 51 votes. Voting for those candidates has an impact on their voting counts relative of one another, and causes them to win or lose. if I vote for candidate C, who has no votes, what happens? Both A and B are still at 50 votes, and C now has 1. Nothing changes. It's the same as if I declined to vote at all. Yes, candidate A could argue I would otherwise support him, but couldn't B argue the same thing? And ultimately, isn't it my choice to support any of these candidates in the first place?
Again, I feel like these arguments take a very unhealthy attitude toward democracy. That candidates are owed votes and that the voters' choice isn't really theirs to make. It discourages voting with one's conscience and encourages being a team player to teams that they might not even like. It's a totally backwards and toxic approach to take of democracy, and one that robs the voter of their agency and conscience. It works out well for the party trying to impose this logic on people...they get votes after all, but it's bad for the voter and encourages lesser of two evil thinking. Honestly, I see third party voting as an important safety valve in our democracy, and it's why I'm doing it. If I support Clinton, I am supporting a candidate I don't agree with, and a party that screwed me and my candidate. They don't deserve my vote. I need to vote third party because I refuse to support them, and I refuse to support Trump. It's my way of voting without staying home.
A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for a third party is a vote for them. We need to stop seeing a refusal to vote FOR someone as automatically voting AGAINST them. Yes, a vote for Trump can be seen as a vote against Clinton. And a vote for Clinton can be seen as against Trump. But a vote for a third party is a way of saying screw both of those guys. It's a vote for one's values, and is completely independent of supporting either candidate.
No comments:
Post a Comment