As I discussed some of my personal sentiments regarding the upcoming election with some friends of mine, I quickly realized something–only a couple of them really supported Bush or Kerry. However, those candidates would be the recipients of all of their votes tomorrow. Upon speaking with them some more, I realized that at least three of them had views that were strongly along the lines of my own–I am a Libertarian. I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik, tomorrow. However, I did not vote for Browne in 2000; I did not like him as a candidate, and thus I voted for Gore.
I am getting a bit off-topic, so here is my point: Where did the idea of wasting one’s vote originate? To me, it is completely non-sensical and downright hypocritical. Here is why:
-
Put your support where your interests lie. If you feel yourself to be more strongly motivated to the platforms of the Libertarian, Green, Constituation, Socialist, or even the damn Aryan Nation parties, vote accordingly. I hear so often that someone is voting for “the lesser of two evils.” I heard it in 2000, and I hear it even more now. Chances are, there is a candidate out there that is laregely suitable to your interests and your vote should go to that person.
-
Not giving your vote to an individual that you support is hypocrisy. We have been programmed (largely by the big-money parties that “our vote is critical.” That means that if we do not vote for the frontrunners, the election will be completely swayed. That could be perfectly true, but in a positive way. Our democratic process is designed such that our support can go to a myriad of individuals. Hell, we can even write-in those that do not appear on the ballot. However, so many people have such a strong sentiment of importance tied to their votes that they cannot stand the idea of voting for someone that may likely lose. Giving your vote to Kerry or Bush when you cannot connect to their interests is in fact a waste of your vote.
-
If you don’t like the two major parties, do something about it. The Green party was not even on the map before Nader ran in the 2000 election. Now, by taking just under 3% of the popular vote, Nader bolstered huge support for the Green party. In Alaska, where issue stances are almost the prime factor in choosing a candidate, Nader took 10% among the top three candidates.
-
A person doesn’t have to be a Democrat or a Republican to do well. In 1996, Perot took 8% of the national popular vote. If he had not have dropped out, many argue that he may have won. I doubt that would have been the case, but I think it is safe to say that his 8% would have at least doubled. Had Perot have made a party affiliation, that party would have surely receieved a large backing in the years after. Had he run once more in 2000 under with the same party, he would have had more money, more support, and more of a name from the previous election. At this time, he probably would have been a legitimate contender for the office. I think a third party could easily break into the bipartisan stronghold in as few as two election, assuming the candidate is right.
All this being said, I think that it is absurd to assume that 80% of Americans are aligned with the Democrat or Republican parties because they largely agree with their platform. I think most Americans choose Republican or Democrat affiliation because they assume those are the only two options. Well, they are not, and if you are one of those making that choice between the “lesser of two evils,” think twice about wasting that vote. I would guess that about 25% of our population can strongly align themselves with the two major parties. The rest would be Greens, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Socialists, Communists, Authoritarians, or just plain ol’ independents.
If you grow up as a Cubs fan all of your life, do you choose another team when they lose? Hell no. You are choosing a presidential candidate to support, not to predict the winner. Do as a T-Man should and vote with your heart and mind, not as a frontrunner. Thanks.
~Terumo