The Midnight Hour

Today I’ve heard plenty of the usual rhetoric about those like myself who did not vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama, but chose a different candidate. Without exception the comments have been condescending and greatly lacking in logic. Here are the usual arguments and their logical flaws:

1. A vote for anyone other than John McCain is a vote for Barack Obama.

Did I miss something? Is someone going to change my vote after I leave my polling location? A vote for Joe Blow is a vote for Joe Blow–period. I have no moral or legal obligation to help one of the major party candidates enter the Whitehouse. I have no obligation to help John McCain triumph over Barack Obama, or vice versa. This argument presents the third party voter with a false dichotomy. Traditional economic theory advocates that the best result arises when every individual acts in his own self-interests. This reasoning holds in voting as well. The best result arises when everyone votes for the candidate he thinks is best qualified for a position.

2. Your vote was wasted.

How quaint that you get to define the value of other people’s votes. The reason someone claims the vote was “wasted” is because it was not cast for one of the likely winners. The accuser uses the knowledge of likely winners of a contest to determine the conduct of a contest, which is flawed. We do not kick the other swimmers out of the pool simply because Michael Phelps is participating. In fact, the full participation of the other swimmers is necessary to give legitimacy to Phelps’ win if he earns it, and we all expect the other swimmers to perform to the best of their ability and not hold anything back simply because Phelps is the likely winner.

3. Your vote didn’t make a difference.

Exactly how much difference did your vote make? Our votes were counted equally. You cast your vote for a likely winner. I did not. Unless the race is chosen by one individual’s vote then both our votes were technically irrelevant. However, I voted my conscience. Did you? Who has the moral high ground?

All of these arguments and all similar lines of reasoning assume the winner is known (to be one of two contestants) before the race begins, and that this should influence the conduct of the contest. This assumption is deeply flawed. We hold a contest to decide a winner. In a fair and legitimate contest we do not let the likely winner determine the way the contest is conducted or how much effort is expended to upset the likely winner.

In the larger political picture, the two-party voter line of reasoning leads to inferior conservative candidates like John McCain. If you believe the two-party system is a problem, as I do, then advocating that everyone should vote for one of only two presidential candidates is being part of the problem and not the solution. This is not to say that everyone should vote for a third-party candidate. Vote for the candidate you think is best– whether that’s John McCain, Barack Obama, Chuck Baldwin, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, or someone else. However, the condescension, ignorance, and downright aggression I see exhibited towards third-party voters is appalling. Don’t listen to those who try to minimize your participation. Either their logic is flawed or they lack the courage to take a non-traditional position (and likely resent you for doing so). Neither is a label that I want to wear.