brainwagon

Comment from Dave Miller
Time 11/1/2004 at 11:32 pm

Mark,

I am just listening to your podcast where you talk about the election. You said a couple of times that you just feel as though you have to vote but you just don’t like either of the two candidates that are out there. Then you go into some sort of justification of some kind about why you are going to vote for John Kerry. You say that Kerry is your guy because you have hope that he will end this situation in Iraq, you are misled.

You have other choices out there. I am guessing you are from California (being you are an A’s fan) and if you are you do have other choices. I would recommend that you vote for Michael Badnarik the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate. If you vote for Badnarik at least you will be able to wake up and respect yourself in the morning.

Thank you for taking time.

Dave

[ Editor’s note ]

Sorry, but in the words of electionmethods.org (a great site incidentally):

In every U.S. election, voters who are dissatisfied with both major parties face the classic dilemma of deciding whether to base their vote on principle or pragmatism. Rather than “wasting” their vote on a candidate with no chance of winning, most end up voting defensively for the “Republicrat” they disagree with least just to oppose the one they disagree with even more. Most voters assume that this dilemma is an inherent fact of democracy, but it is not. It is completely attributable to the inadequacy of our current plurality election method, and a simple expansion of voting rights could end it.

The reason we have a two-party system in the United States is widely misunderstood. It is not because the Democrats and Republicans consistently have the best ideas, nor is it because the media or the debate commission shut out the other parties. We have a two-party system because our plurality voting system does not allow voters to fully specify their preferences. This fact is known as “Duverger’s Law.” To vote for minor parties, voters must effectively withdraw from the races between the two major parties, even though they may have a strong opinion on those races too. Voters who vote for minor parties essentially “waste” their votes and fail to oppose political movements they strongly disagree with. Protest votes may send a “signal,” but the unfortunate reality is that they have virtually no direct effect on the actual outcome of elections — and the indirect effect is usually contrary to the voter’s intention.

I choose not to withdraw from participating in this election. It’s simply too important. I oppose virtually every direction that the Bush Administration has taken this country, and will send the strongest possible message by voting not just for someone else, but someone else who can win the election. I’m ready to hand the bus keys over to the seven year old just to keep George W from driving away.

I imagine that lots of people who voted Nader in 2000 thought they could sleep better with that decision. I wonder whether they slept well last night.