Don't Vote Third Party

Look, I get it—neither party represents you, and your vote fundamentally won't change anything. Maybe you live in a dependably Democratic or dependably Republican state, and your vote doesn't even matter. You might as well cast a protest vote for a third party candidate who better represents your beliefs, or not bother voting at all, right? No, you are very likely wrong.

I'm not going to defend the two-party system, or winner-take-all politics. A robust, multi-party democracy with proportional representation would, of course, be preferable. We should work to change our diseased system of electoral politics, but we must also recognize that—short of a revolution—change comes from within the system. And it doesn't come easily. Meaningful change is extremely hard in a system that has evolved to perpetuate an iniquitous status quo. But that doesn't mean your vote is useless.

There are three schools of thought when it comes to voting; 1. you choose the candidate who best represents you and your beliefs (let's call this "consumer voting"), 2. you vote in your own self-interest (let's call this "mercenary voting"), or 3. you vote for the common good, as you perceive it (let's call this "virtuous voting").

In life, most of the choices we make—especially what we buy—only matters to us. Think about buying a car, for instance. What kind of car you drive doesn't really affect others, so you may choose to buy a car that represents your personality. Maybe it's your favorite color. This is the philosophy of "consumer voting." That is, you vote for the candidate who best represents you. In a two-party system, however, it's easy to feel disenfranchised because neither candidate is likely to represent you on all the issues. Your favorite color may not be one of the choices available to you.

On the other hand, you may also buy a car based on your self-interest; maybe you do a lot of city driving, so you're interested in gas mileage. You don't want to pay more for gas than you need to, after all. This is "mercenary voting." Usually, it's voting for the candidate who will keep your taxes low.

Or, you recognize that your choice of car actually does affect others; perhaps you want a car with low emissions so you don't contribute to global warming, or maybe a van so you can carpool to soccer practice. "Virtuous voting" is thinking about how others are affected by your vote, especially vulnerable or marginalized groups like LGBT folks or people of color, or the unborn, if you happen to be pro-life.

So, which of these schools of thought is the best? The reality is that we make a complex calculation in the voting booth that balances all three of these—self-expression, self-interest, and altruism. But too much of any of them is not good; if you vote solely out of self-expression, you're being selfish and neglectful of others, but if you vote solely out of altruism, you are neglecting your self-interest, and so on.

"Too many of us vote solely based on self-expression, not wanting to compromise our principles out of a sense of electoral purity. But I implore you, please, consider the consequences of your vote for others, too."

How you balance these factors depends on your life circumstances. As a reasonably well-off, white, cisgender male, for instance, I have less at stake in this election than, say, a trans woman of color, so I consider her interest as well as my own. I'm probably writing this article mostly for people in various positions of privilege. Too many of us vote solely based on self-expression, not wanting to compromise our principles out of a sense of electoral purity. But I implore you, please, consider the consequences of your vote for others, too.

"As a citizen, I have a duty to others because it’s not just me and my principles, but everybody,” says Michael LaBossiere,[1] philosophy professor at Florida A&M University, “I have to consider how what I do will impact other people... I’m not going to let my principles condemn other people to suffering.”

“The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a worldview," according to Jason Brennan,[1] a philosopher at Georgetown University and author of The Ethics of Voting, "It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce outcomes.”

“If they’re smart," Brennan continues, "they’ll vote for the candidate likely to best produce the outcome they want. That might very well be compromising, but if voting for a far-left or far-right candidate means that you’re just going to lose the election, then you’ve brought the world further away from justice rather than closer to it.”

Last week, Ken Bone, the mustachioed, red-sweatered celebrity of the 2016 election, announced on Twitter that he had voted for the Libertarian candidate, Jo Jorgensen. The backlash was swift. "All morning the Trump supporters have been nice to me, even though I don't like Trump. The Biden camp has been shitting all over me because I don't like Biden," Bone tweeted,[2] "Do these people really not see how much this behavior pushes bystanders towards the right?" Indeed, voter shaming can be counter-productive, and nothing in this article is intended as a guilt trip.

Ken Bone, however, lives in Illinois, where Joe Biden is favored to win by more than 20 percentage points.[3] Does his vote really matter? I must admit, the answer is no. A single voter in Illinois is unlikely to change the outcome of the election. Casting a vote for a third party—or not voting at all—can be an acceptable form of protest under such circumstances. Votes for a third party candidate can demonstrate the electorate's dissatisfaction with the two-party system.

But consider Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. These three traditionally "blue" Democratic states went for Trump in 2016 by less than 1% of the vote. Here in Virginia, in 2018, control of the state legislature was decided by a coin toss.[4] And this year, the traditionally "red" states of Texas, Arizona, and Georgia are toss-ups. Your vote is hugely consequential in these places.

"Virtuous voting" means considering the consequences of your vote for other people. And your vote does have consequences. Just think of the Trump presidency; as a result of the 2016 election, Trump has appointed three Supreme Court Justices, endangering the right to marry and the right to choose for millions of your fellow Americans, and the health insurance of millions more. Don't ever think that, in a two-party system, your vote "makes no difference." It does.

It may be true, on the other hand, that America will continue drone striking civilians in the Middle East no matter who you vote for. But something I learned in therapy is that it's unhealthy to obsess over the things you can't control—it's more empowering to focus on the things you can. As mentioned above, your vote is consequential in a myriad of ways, even if it is inconsequential in other ways.

"By participating and benefiting from American society, and paying taxes, you are complicit in what America does, whether you dissent or not."

But maybe you don't want your participation to legitimize those drone strikes? Perhaps you don't want to feel complicit? The problem with this line of thinking is that, in a democracy, you are complicit in what the government does regardless of whether you vote or not. That is because drone strikes are done in your name, and on your authority. Voting for a third party, or not voting at all, does not absolve you of complicity. By participating and benefiting from American society, and paying taxes, you are complicit in what America does, whether you dissent or not.

And voting is not the only form of dissent, nor is it a substitute for activism. It is, however, a means of "harm reduction"—a recent school of thought that is perhaps best explained by Ryan Conrad in his Truthout essay, "I'm an Anarchist and I Vote."[5] "You will never hear me exclaim the virtues of voting or encourage electoral politics beyond harm reduction voting," writes Conrad, "but it is one of many small strategies to make another world possible, and I remain unconvinced that never voting is a winning strategy to do anything."

"Elected governments will manage many aspects of our lives, despite our rejection of them. Voting is just a tool that can be deployed strategically to reduce the harm they do to our communities," he concludes. Conrad's theory is especially salient in the Trump era.

So, when you enter the voting booth—or vote by mail—it's worth taking a moment to reflect on how you are balancing your self-expression, self-interest, and altruism. You shouldn't think only of yourself, or only of others. Nor should you vote out of a fictitious sense of electoral purity. And you should be reticent to vote for a third party, except under certain circumstances. Recognize that your vote often does matter, especially at the state and local level. And if nothing else, please vote as a means of "harm reduction," even if you are skeptical of voting. Much depends on it.

[1] https://qz.com/717255/ethicists-say-voting-with-your-heart-without-a-care-about-the-consequences-is-actually-immoral/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MUeiAuiRWg
[3] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/illinois/
[4] https://www.npr.org/2018/01/04/575774064/virginia-picks-winner-of-tied-state-house-election
[5] https://truthout.org/articles/i-m-an-anarchist-and-i-vote/