If the media is to be believed, an awful lot of people are pissed off this election, and their rage is particularly focused on the Republican Party. People who might normally vote Republican out of self-interest or as the lesser of two evils are expected to turn against the GOP in protest of their failures in Iraq and assorted scandals. Whether this is a real trend or just the media repeating the wishful thinking of the frustrated and disempowered left is an open question that will be settled tomorrow.
Assuming that there really is this discontented vote out there, there are a lot of moderate Republicans, socially conservative Democrats and irritated independents who aren't sure how best to express their displeasure. The obvious way to strike out is to vote against Republican incumbents and cast from power the party that many voters feel has let them down in a number of ways in the last few years.
The number of these alienated and unaligned voters has been growing, to the point where today they actually outnumber either of the major political parties. There's a pretty good chance that you're one of them.
To many — including pollsters and the media — it seems inevitable that a protest vote means a vote for the Democrat challenger to a Republican incumbent. This is based on the reasoning that voters always choose the lesser of two evils, and that recent events have placed the Republicans at least marginally ahead of the Democrats in the race to be the most evil and destructive political party in America. Wow, that's some title to lay claim to.
However, consider this. What aspect of the Republican's slide into disfavor has in any way made the Democrats more attractive than they were in 2004, 2002, and 2000 when you voted against them because they seemed marginally more repellant than the Republicans were? The truth is that they're still just as bad as they were then; they just seem a bit less slime-covered by comparison.
So, here's the question. Is your protest vote really a good idea when it does nothing to actually improve your situation? Or to put it another way, is there really a right choice when you're choosing the lesser of two evils? Are you making a positive and meaningful decision when you choose between being punched in the nose and kicked in the nuts? Is the bully going to say, "I really respect you and take you seriously because you took it in the nose instead of between the legs" or is he just going to kick you in the side as he wanders off laughing.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - troll
good idea...but there was not a single 3rd party/independent candidate running for any position on my ballot here under the bridge
I had to resort to write in's guaranteeing the pointlessness of my vote
2 - Lumpy
I face the choice today between the reprehensible george allen and the repulsive jim webb for the senate, so pity me.
3 - troll
any 3rd choice - ?
4 - Lumpy
troll, where on earth do you live that there aren't at least libertarians on the ballot?
5 - troll
Northern New Mexico...democrat country
6 - Lumpy
as far as I can tell the virginia libertarians are only running candidates in a couple of state government races, but their website keeps crashing my browser, so who knows. I'll throw a vote their way if I can.
7 - Melita Teale
That's a lovely article, Dave.
8 - Dave Nalle
Thanks Melita. BTW, I voted this morning.
I voted for Kinky, most of the Libertarians and two Republicans who I have some confidence in.
Dave
9 - Jet in Columbus
Dave, I was thinking of writing in Kinky here in Ohio governor's race when I go to vote today and I wondered, with an e-voting machine, how do you "Write in" a candidate?
10 - Nancy
Excellent article, Dave, and spot-on about the feelings of most of us out here.
The major problem with 3rd-party voting, of course, is that most of the time all it does is to ensure that the (currently) most corrupt & stenchful party of the 2 big ones ends up winning, by funneling a pitifully small cadre of votes into the lame 3rd party, thereby achieving nothing. The voter might just as well stay home & not vote at all, in that case. The ONLY way this is going to work is if there is a concerted effort by all the disaffecteds to vote for a STRONG & CENTRALIZED 3rd party - such as the one that Ross Perot almost created some years ago. That was the last time there was enough of an organized 3rd party for the groundswell of the disaffecteds to flock to in significant numbers - and of course it was derailed by unspecified threats against Perot's family which forced him to quit the race. I suspect the 2 national parties - the GOP & the DNC - were behind this, since it was a very real threat to their existance, and still is. In fact, I'm quite sure those who made the threats or were behind them are even now strutting on the national scene, but until & unless Perot ever talks, we'll never know. In any event, that's not the issue here just now.
For those despising either party & all current incumbents to be able to succeed in sending a decent & concerted message to both the GOP & DNC, there needs to be a strong independent candidate to vote for, and that is exactly what is currently lacking, and why at this time voting for 3rd parties is only going to waste precious votes. The libertarians, greens, & whoever else is out there don't even show up most electoral maps - at least, not in these parts, they don't. In fact, for the most part these parties are treated with a sort of amused tolerance. I mean, does anyone REALLY want Ralph Nader or the perennial & perpetual Lyndon LaRouche to be president? They just aren't credible, and they certainly don't have any kind of organized following; until that happens there isn't and there can't be a concerted way for us the voters to strike back at those currently in power who are holding all the cards, in any meaningful way.
I wish it were different, but that's the reality of it, I fear. We need an independent Barak Obama or some other charismatic unaffiliate to run - and to be willing to squeal loudly & publicly if & when the GOP & DNC make the slightest move to intimidate, subvert, smear, or otherwise ensure that said 3rd party won't be viable against them.
11 - Clavos
As always, a good piece, Dave.
I haven't voted yet this morning. As you know, Florida does have a third party candidate, Max Linn (Reform) running for governor.
I'm very much inclined to vote for him, not only for the reasons you mention in your article, but also because I think he actually is the best candidate.
I probably will vote for Linn, but if the race between Crist (R) and Davis (D) were a little tighter, I'd be afraid to "waste" my vote.
We really do need a viable third party; now more than ever.
12 - Dave Nalle
Dave, I was thinking of writing in Kinky here in Ohio governor's race when I go to vote today and I wondered, with an e-voting machine, how do you "Write in" a candidate?
Try using a powerful magnet?
Here in Texas both on the paper and electronic ballots even write in candidates have to register so that you can write them in. There was one spot for a write-in on our electronic ballot. I didn't use it, but I guess it would have offered me some sort of alpha field to enter the name.
Dave
13 - Dave Nalle
The major problem with 3rd-party voting, of course, is that most of the time all it does is to ensure that the (currently) most corrupt & stenchful party of the 2 big ones ends up winning, by funneling a pitifully small cadre of votes into the lame 3rd party, thereby achieving nothing.
Nancy, my argument here would be that as always you're faced with a choice between two evils. In this case it's at best the choice between a known evil and an unknown evil. Though I think it's a choice between two known evils and that the status quo is better than the horrific alternative. Rather than trading bad for worse, I'd argue that you keep the bad we've got and vote third party to send them a message that might cause them to reform themselves, or lead to real alternatives sometime down the road. Just being reactive and voting against the incumbents has the effect of handing what they'll take as a blanket endorsement to the opposition, and there's every indication that with that presumption of a popular mandate they'll do more harm than the Republicans have.
Dave
14 - Nancy
But as I pointed out, it's not effective unless ENOUGH voters are mobilized to throw their votes CONCERTEDLY at a specific 3rd-party candidate, otherwise they're just votes wasted, because the 2 major parties will just ignore anything less. We the disaffecteds need to find A Candidate & get behind him or her in LARGE numbers, not on a vote-for-your-local-nutcase-3rd-party platform. We need someone to rock the boat on the scale that Ross Perot did, enough to actally threaten the Big 2 & create a NATIONAL level base; otherwise it's just pissing into the wind.
15 - Jet in Columbus
Dave wrote... didn't use it, but I guess it would have offered me some sort of alpha field to enter the name.
Seems to me as if that'd be a way to discourage people from writing in a candidate that was designed into the system.
By the way dave I just updated my diebold article with a really comprehensive list of races to watch. it's rather lenghty, so I didn't copy it here, but you might want to check it out.
Jet
16 - troll
as long as Bush is in office and holds veto powers a vote for dems is a vote against unified government in the hope that we can get some fiscal conservatism through gridlock as occured under Clinton
17 - Jet in Columbus
Oh.... well then I'll run right out and vote republican down the boards... Thanks!
Yeah, I remember the debacle under Clinton, didn't they almost eliminate the budget deficit?
talk about irresponsible!
18 - Dave Nalle
Troll, Bush has already demonstrated that he lacks the spine to veto bloated budgets - or anything else for that matter - so how can we count on him to not throw in with the democrats as they drag us down to universal destruction?
And Jet, if you think I have been telling people to vote for Republicans you utterly missed the point of this article.
Dave
19 - Jet in Columbus
No no Dave I was reacting to troll
20 - troll
true Dave - but the best hope to reign in spending in the rest of his term is that he grow some balls when confronted with democrat bills
the republicans in power have shown themselves to be incapable of restraining spending without the cover of a veto wielding pres
...but perhaps all that it will take to get restraint is for the house and senate to split leadership
and Jet - as usual you seem to have misinterpreted my meaning
21 - RedTard
Excellent article Dave.
Voting for third parties helps. It may not get their candidates elected but it does force the big two to cannibalize their ideas. Even a 5% vote for a third party is attractive enough in an area split 50-50 to get candidates attention. The big two will take a few planks from the third parties to siphon the votes back. The third party candidates may never get in but their ideas will.
22 - Melita Teale
Nancy, the way a multiple party system functions in lots of countries isn't just about having three or four parties who are strong enough to check each other. While coalition and minority governments aren't nearly as bad as alot of Americans think, they aren't the point. The point is coherently communicating to the political class what citizens want.
For example, running a high national percentage of Green Party votes illustrates to dominant parties that it's in the dominant party's interest to incorporate a real environmental action plan into their platform. I understand how you could doubt this when I think about 2000 and how that special sliver of Nader didn't really produce much in the way of new environmental platforms for your country. But that sliver of Nader, besides being bitterly ironic, was small. If it was bigger, you may have seen more environmental efforts even from the Republican party. Oh, who am I kidding. Pork barrel. I'll try again: if it was bigger, you might have seen the 2004 Democrats offering a coherent platform.
It's a question of people voting for small parties more aggressively, in numbers political strategists realize they'd be fools to not take advantage of. It's too cynical to not be true . . .
23 - Arch Conservative
Speaking as a Republican who is not happy with the current GOP administration and leadership...
I voted straight party ballot for the GOP today......
I mean c'mon........if my girlfriend pisses me off I'm not gonna go out and start banging guys... it just doesn't work that way.
24 - Melita Teale
Oh, so you just take it? How do you type a whiplash sound?
25 - troll
Arch - your political argument has never been nuanced in the slightest so there's nothing surprising about your vote