In the 2008 elections, just 61.7% of the voting-eligible population voted for president. Follow that up with a 64% disapproval rating for congress, a whopping 76% of Americans who believe most members of congress are more interested in
their own careers than in helping people, and 57% of Americans who think the government is trying to do to many things that should be left to business or individuals. You don't have to be a mathmatician to see it shouldn't be hard for some opposition candidate to beat the pants off an incumbent. The problem is, most people have bought into the self-fufiling prophecy that you are wasting your vote by voting for a third party. Sure, if most people think that, then nobody will vote for the third party, preferring the "lesser of two evils", and the third party candidate will never get elected.
To answer your question, well yes, I did throw away my vote on a Libertarian candidate for president, but before you get on your high horse, let this sink in for a moment: Did you vote for McCain, so he'd beat that more evil Obama? Sorry, you threw your vote away too, because he still lost, didn't he? Oh, no, you voted for Obama, believing his "change" rhetoric? well surely you didn't waste your vote then right? Um, do you live in a state that went for McCain? Well you threw your vote away too, because all your states' electors went for the other guy, and your vote ended up not counting in the big scheme of things. Okay, so you're the lucky one who voted for Obama, and your state went for Obama too... well, did Obama win your state by just one or two votes (yours)? Nope, I'm guessing not... so you may as well have voted for the other guy or not at all, because you threw your vote away too. Do you see yet how this "throw your vote away" argument is flawed? NO ONE VOTE IS ANY MORE WASTED THAN ANY OTHER. Voting is a way of voicing your opinion on how the country should be run, and the real wasted vote is the one cast for someone you don't really like, but who will hopefully beat the other person, because that vote fails to send the "I'm dissatisfied with both you losers" message you really are feeling.
Follow me if you will on a little math journey (no, you needn't scream in anticipation of reliving high-school algebra, I'll do all the calculations for you, but you are welcome to check them if you are so inclined). If just half of those who didn't vote (who I'm assuming don't care about politics (shame on you for doing yourself and everyone else a disservice by not voicing your opinion on how you want your life run -or not- by the gov't) or were too disgusted with the two "viable" choices to vote) had voted for the Libertarian Bob Barr, and just 15% of those who voted for McCain and Obama had followed suit, Barr could have won the election with 35.4% of those voting to Obama's 34.3% of those voting (adding on to the supporters Barr actually received, supposing Obama lost 15% of his supporters, and increasing the voting percentage to 80.85% from 61.3%). Again, that's with just convincing HALF of the non-voters to vote Libertarian, and changing the minds of only 15% of those who voted for McCain or Obama. Seeing as how 57% of Americans think the government is getting into things it shouldn't, and 76% of Americans think congresspeople are looking out for their own butts and not anyone else's, this shouldn't be hard to do next election. (And most presidential candidates from the two parties come from - you guessed it - congress, that or a govenor of a large state, but I'm assuming here that the vast majority of people put govenors in the same slimeball category as congresspeople)
Okay, okay, so what if changing the minds of nearly 30% of all voting-eligible people in the U.S. is a bit optimistic, even when about double that number are sick of Washington politics and politicians. Well, what if we could change the minds of just 5% of all Americans? That's only 1 out of every 20. What would that do? I can hear all the pessimists shouting "nothing dummy, no one gets elected on 5% - even with poor turnout" True. But check this out: if just 5% of all eligible Americans vote Libertarian next election, that becomes 8.1% of the vote if turnout remains the same. You can see that 8.1% is noticeably larger than Obama's 52.9% - 45.7% margin of victory over McCain. Suddenly, Republicans have a darn good reason to co-opt most of the Libertarian platform to gain these potentially election-swaying voters, which they could easily do without alienating their conservative base. Meanwhile, terrified of Republican domination for the next few decades, Democrats would try to co-opt as much of the Libertarian platform as possible to reduce Republican's seductive appeal to these Libertarian swing-voters (though the Dems would probably take a pass on those pesky repeal social-security-medicare-and-medicaid requirements since their constituency is heavily dependent on them). If that 5% stubbornly votes Libertarian for a decade or so, we could easily scare the Republicans and Democrats (mostly) Libertarian for the next half-century, without ever winning a single election!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For the last few presidential elections I looked at the numbers and concluded that if you count all the voting-eligible population, more people did NOT vote for the elected president than did vote for him.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would like to know is: Has this always been true?
Hypothesis: In every US presidential election, more of the voting eligible population did NOT vote for the elected candidate, than voted for him.
And if true, how can we use this perspective?
Are you up to do the research?
Technically, yes this is true. However, until 1824, less than 2/3 of states actually let people vote for presidential electors - they were chosen by the state's legislatures.
ReplyDeleteIn 1824, this jumped to 3/4 of states allowing people to vote for presidential electors, but turnout was estimated at just under 27% that year, with the eventual winner J. Q. Adams receiving the support of just 8.3% of the voting eligible population. (Jackson actually had the plurality, but the House voted for Adams instead)
By 1832, only South Carolina was a holdout for legislative-selected electors, and would remain as such until they left the Union in 1860.
It should be noted that George Washington was so immensely popular and well respected that he was elected to both of his terms with the unanimous support of all electors - not to mention no one bothered to oppose him. It is entirely possible that the majority of the voting eligible population indeed did support him, even if they didn't/couldn't vote for him. (Only 6 of 10 voting states used popular vote for electors in 1788-9 and only 6 of 15 in 1792)
Other interesting notes include Jefferson's 45% margin of victory in 1804 and Monroe's unopposed run in 1820, though just 11 of 17 states used any form of popular vote for electors in 1804 and only 15 of 24 used it in 1820.