Well, the election is now just over a week away. It's time to decide who to vote for. I myself will be making an official endorsement in the next few days. I can tell you right now, however, that I'm not very happy with my choices. And I'm sure that many posters here agree.
When both the Democratic and Republican candidates are flawed, it is very tempting to vote for a third party in protest. This year, the key alternatives are the Green Party's Jill Stein, and the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson.
I have in the past hypothesized that having a strong third party might be good for this country. One of the problems with having just two political parties is that it gives radical elements of both the right and the left disproportionate power over the rest of the electorate's choice of nominees. By contrast, dividing the electorate in three could -- at least theoretically -- afford independents and moderates a better opportunity to nominate more centrist, pragmatic candidates.
But that is not where we are now. At the moment, America's third parties are largely even more extreme and more radical than the mainstream parties.
Jill Stein's Green Party is a good example. Ms. Stein has good intentions and even some good ideas, but her platform as a whole has zero chance of ever being enacted and, if it were, would prove disastrous to our economy. Some of the things she has proposed include free college education for all Americans, student loan forgiveness for recent graduates, universal healthcare, a moratorium on all housing foreclosures and evictions, ending coal and nuclear power (as well as fracking), citizenship for all illegals currently residing in the United States, and the creation of 25 million green jobs.
Maybe all of this sounds great to you. Some of it does to me, as well. But in the way that swimming in a sea of chocolate sounds good to me. Our budget could never withstand such a strain at this fragile time in our economy. We'd either have to raise taxes to levels not seen in generations, crushing what's left of the Middle Class, or we'd have to borrow trillions from countries like China. It is an unsustainable course, even under the best projections.
Gary Johnson is no better. If he gets his way, he would abolish the IRS and the income tax and enact a so-called "Fair Tax" on expenditures, stifling consumer demand at a time when people are saving instead of spending to begin with. He also wants to end the Department of Education and repeal Obamacare, with no mention of how he would replace the latter.
If you disagree with me and love either of these candidates' ideas, by all means, vote third party. That is your right as an American. The rest of this post is aimed at those who are considering voting for Stein or Johnson not because they support them and agree with their ideas, but rather because they dislike Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
Voting third party in protest is a very ineffective way to make your displeasure with the mainstream candidates known. The voting system is designed so that citizens vote "for" a candidate, not "against" the others, and that is the only conclusion politicians are likely to draw if Stein or Johnson were to receive large shares -- that a growing percentage of the population agrees with the Green or Libertarian party platform. To the extent that Democrats and Republicans will take your vote into consideration, it will be to move themselves farther toward the polar ends of the political spectrum, not closer to the center.
If you simply want to voice your displeasure with the options, my advice to you is to write-in. In most states, you can write-in anyone you want -- another politician, your mother, yourself, your dog . . . . Personally, I would recommend writing in "none of the above." This is a far more effectively strategy to voice your displeasure than voting third party or staying home. Because the only conclusion that will be drawn from such a vote is your dissatisfaction with the options.
So that is why I would recommend AGAINST voting third party this election, for what it's worth.
When both the Democratic and Republican candidates are flawed, it is very tempting to vote for a third party in protest. This year, the key alternatives are the Green Party's Jill Stein, and the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson.
I have in the past hypothesized that having a strong third party might be good for this country. One of the problems with having just two political parties is that it gives radical elements of both the right and the left disproportionate power over the rest of the electorate's choice of nominees. By contrast, dividing the electorate in three could -- at least theoretically -- afford independents and moderates a better opportunity to nominate more centrist, pragmatic candidates.
But that is not where we are now. At the moment, America's third parties are largely even more extreme and more radical than the mainstream parties.
Jill Stein's Green Party is a good example. Ms. Stein has good intentions and even some good ideas, but her platform as a whole has zero chance of ever being enacted and, if it were, would prove disastrous to our economy. Some of the things she has proposed include free college education for all Americans, student loan forgiveness for recent graduates, universal healthcare, a moratorium on all housing foreclosures and evictions, ending coal and nuclear power (as well as fracking), citizenship for all illegals currently residing in the United States, and the creation of 25 million green jobs.
Maybe all of this sounds great to you. Some of it does to me, as well. But in the way that swimming in a sea of chocolate sounds good to me. Our budget could never withstand such a strain at this fragile time in our economy. We'd either have to raise taxes to levels not seen in generations, crushing what's left of the Middle Class, or we'd have to borrow trillions from countries like China. It is an unsustainable course, even under the best projections.
Gary Johnson is no better. If he gets his way, he would abolish the IRS and the income tax and enact a so-called "Fair Tax" on expenditures, stifling consumer demand at a time when people are saving instead of spending to begin with. He also wants to end the Department of Education and repeal Obamacare, with no mention of how he would replace the latter.
If you disagree with me and love either of these candidates' ideas, by all means, vote third party. That is your right as an American. The rest of this post is aimed at those who are considering voting for Stein or Johnson not because they support them and agree with their ideas, but rather because they dislike Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
Voting third party in protest is a very ineffective way to make your displeasure with the mainstream candidates known. The voting system is designed so that citizens vote "for" a candidate, not "against" the others, and that is the only conclusion politicians are likely to draw if Stein or Johnson were to receive large shares -- that a growing percentage of the population agrees with the Green or Libertarian party platform. To the extent that Democrats and Republicans will take your vote into consideration, it will be to move themselves farther toward the polar ends of the political spectrum, not closer to the center.
If you simply want to voice your displeasure with the options, my advice to you is to write-in. In most states, you can write-in anyone you want -- another politician, your mother, yourself, your dog . . . . Personally, I would recommend writing in "none of the above." This is a far more effectively strategy to voice your displeasure than voting third party or staying home. Because the only conclusion that will be drawn from such a vote is your dissatisfaction with the options.
So that is why I would recommend AGAINST voting third party this election, for what it's worth.
