E-mail
Print
Pluralist elections
When pragmatism outweighs idealism
By Jason Kopplin
Voting for a third-party candidate trades the right to choose the next leader of the nation for voicing discontent.
Contrary to what traditional media coverage and the recent onslaught of campaign ads may suggest, there are actually nine people running for president in Wisconsin. There is more variety to this race than the dichotomy offered by Democrats and Republicans. Robert Barr is running on the Libertarian ticket, Cynthia McKinney is representing the Green Party and Brian Moore is the actual Socialist running in this race. Also, don’t forget that perennial candidate Ralph Nader. That’s not even half of the candidates running this year.
It is useful to be aware of all the options available before stepping into the voting booth. But it is also important to know what effect a vote will have. Voting for a third party can send a message, voicing discontent with traditional party options. But that’s all a third-party vote can accomplish in the current political climate.
Voting for a third-party candidate trades the right to choose the next leader of the nation for voicing discontent. Razor thin margins have decided the last two presidential races. There is little room in contests this tight to use a vote for anything less than a practical, realistic choice. Did Ross Perot ever have a realistic chance of achieving the highest office in the land? Or did he aid Bill Clinton in winning the presidency, despite not receiving a majority vote? After Clinton’s eight years in office, what effect did Nader have on the 2000 election? That is a topic too contentious to tackle here.
In an ideal world, America would enjoy a pluralistic system with more than two parties from which to choose. Many Americans’ views do not fall neatly along the traditional left to right political spectrum. Strong third parties could lead to more accountability and progress across party lines. But this is not an ideal world, and pragmatism is crucial.
It may be the jaded view, but politics are a game, and there is no reason to play if not to win. Presidential elections are too important for ideals to get in the way. Citizens need to choose the best candidate to be not just their president, but rather the entire country’s president. Voting for a niche candidate is a borderline selfish act. The major parties cast wide nets that most people get behind to some degree. Isn’t it better to choose one of these two and ensure the better candidate of those with a realistic change of winning actually gets into office?
Vote this Tuesday – it’s a right and a responsibility. But vote responsibly and cast a ballot that can actually have an impact. Some find the major party candidates too unappealing to cast a vote for either one. But one of those two men will win. If throwing support behind either McCain or Obama is too much to bear, vote for the one you dislike the least. At least that’s a vote with a meaningful impact. Casting a vote for a third party may feel good at the time, but it’s a rush that could lead to a four – or maybe even an eight-year hangover depending on who wins the election.
> Comments
Greg on Nov 03, 2008 at 09:30 AM:
Calling Bob Barr a niche candidate goes to show how little research you did before writing this. Please show me a candidate that stands up for the constitution more than he does.
If you bothered to read Nathan Johnson's article last week you might have learned that voting for a third does more than "feel good at the time". If a third can get 5% of the vote, which qualifies for campaign finance for the next election, actual reform could take place in the election.
Voicing discontent is a right we hold true in this country. That's a basic fundamental idea this country was founded on. If we give that up and compromise our ideals, are we not then trashing the work of our predecesors?
Casting a wide blanket of discredit on all thirds is irresponsible.
interested third party on Nov 03, 2008 at 01:23 PM:
"politics are a game, and there is no reason to play"
Political Science says on Nov 03, 2008 at 10:09 PM:
that without proportional representation, two party system will rule (regardless of campaign finance).
Republicans in large city's often receive extensive grants, this does not make them anymore viable.
Political Science says on Nov 03, 2008 at 10:09 PM:
that without proportional representation, two party system will rule (regardless of campaign finance).
Republicans in large city's often receive extensive grants, this does not make them anymore viable.