As a voting member of a “third” party, I am often annoyed by the assumptions of non-third party voters. First, I’d like to take issue with “third”. In general, yes, this is a two-party system. But “Green” is not synonymous with “Third”. Especially since there are some really whacked-out “thirds” that deserve to be called “third” as tho they’re not really a real political party.
That said, I still have faith in this system of ours. I believe that I, and everyone else, should vote for the candidate that they want to see win; that every vote counts; and that every vote is a positive one (I’ll get to that in a moment). So it really grinds my gears when I hear people say ignorant things like this:
I’ve seen quite a bit of email traffic where some are, you know, encouraging us to look at other candidates, third party candidates, or what have you, independent candidates. My concern with the third party issue is simply this: that if you do not vote for McCain, it would appear as though you’re casting a vote for Obama. And if you don’t support Obama’s policies, then it seems like you’re handing the campaign to him, or the election to him.
And I’m sorry, but I have to call “bullshit”. (That was the motto of the day at work today, by the way: “Down with the bullshit!” I love my job.)
A vote for a candidate is simply that: a vote for a candidate. It is a positive vote in that it is not a vote against another candidate. If you want Candidate A to win, you vote for Candidate A! If you want Candidate B to lose, then you’re not looking at the right factors: you need to vote for the candidate that you want to win, even if it’s Candidate T.
The Simpsons has an episode where Kodos and Kang take over the bodies of Bob Dole and Bill Clinton, guaranteeing that they will rule the world regardless of who wins. When Homer exposes them, they cry, “It’s a two party system, you have to vote for one of us!!” Which to a large extent is true. No matter how hideous and alien I may find one of the two major-party candidates, I would probably give each candidate 50/50 odds of winning. But I still believe that my vote (for a different candidate) means something. If nothing else, it’s a warning to each party that they’re losing members on the fringes. I know very few major-party members anymore. Many are in what I consider the “third”, the Libertarian Party; some are Greens like me; others are Peace and Freedom, which as I understand it is for conservatives who think that Republicans are too liberal; still others are American Independent, whose platform I’ve never quite discovered. Votes for these minor parties are warning shots across the bow of the USS Two Party; a warning that they can’t just parrot at each other forever; a warning that we’re watching them; a warning that we’re voting.
So I encourage you all, now and forever, to vote your conscience. Vote for the candidate you want to see win. Don’t vote against the ones you want to lose. If you don’t know enough about the candidates (or issues), educate yourself! There are plenty of websites dying to tell you just what to think about each issue or candidate. And if you find that your views are not exactly in line with the candidate or party you thought they were, consider the fact that there are many political parties, even in this country. You’re bound to find one you like. And if you don’t? Start your own! Run for political office, even if it’s just in your township. Who knows where it might lead!
But don’t tell me that a vote for any candidate is a vote against another. Don’t tell me that anyone who votes has “thrown their vote away”. Don’t tell me that third party voters are simply “spoilers”, as though they spitefully grant their votes to the flavor of the third-party month. This is the land of the free: the land where your vote counts. I believe that.






7 responses so far ↓
1 Munjaros // Jul 28, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I agree with what you’re saying and I hate the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils, but I also hate the idea of allowing the greater of two evils to win if I have any say in it. I guess this somewhat ties in with the whole Idealism v. Pragmatism thing.
2 Jeff // Jul 28, 2008 at 10:28 pm
As a Libertarian who votes for a lot of Democrats (yes, social issues are more important to me than economic ones), I can definitely relate to what you’re saying. Frankly, the two major parties have screwed us all big time, and I believe that the only way to truly hold them accountable is to vote them out of office. If that means that we do it one third-party vote at a time, so be it.
On the flip side, there is a lot of truth to what Munjaros is saying…sigh.
3 C. L. Hanson // Jul 29, 2008 at 10:13 am
I think it would be easier to rally behind a “third party” candidate (without helping the bad guys) if the presidential election system in the U. S. were reformed.
I’ve discussed my ideas on this in Confessions of a former Nader voter 1 and 2.
4 Rich // Jul 30, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I dunno John, as much as I agreed with a lot of his ideas, I still think R. Nader should have quit when he had no chance to do anything except get Bush (re) elected.
5 Rich // Jul 30, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Oops, sorry, I meant xJane.
6 xJane // Jul 30, 2008 at 6:33 pm
re: Nader
I don’t really consider him a Green since 2004. There’s something to be said about quitting while you’re ahead (or before you get behind), but he ran as an independent then, and was far to conservative for my money.
Would it have been better to only allow two candidates: Bad and Worse, for people to vote for to make sure we didn’t get Worse? I still like to think that having Worse around for so long as convinced people they need to vote for Good (or at least Bad). Or maybe just that they need to vote.
7 Zach Alexander // Aug 2, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I hear what you’re saying, but I’m with C.L. – I think the real issue is that we need voting reform so that the “spoiler” issue disappears.
Leave a Comment