Elections Are Not Binary
Several times when I have mentioned by distaste for Hillary Clinton, one of the common replies from the Hillaryites has been, “I guess you will be voting for Trump in November.” The first thing that bothers me about this comment is that is supposes there are only two choices on the ballot in November. Either this is an admittance of complete and utter ignorance of the US election process or these commenters have bought in wholesale to the political duopoly that has been foisted upon US citizens. I am going to assume the latter.
Luckily in the United States, we have voted using a secret ballot. There a limited cases when we don’t have a secret ballot such as caucuses, but that’s another topic. Most importantly is that my vote for the presidential election is my vote and not the Democratic Party’s vote. I get to vote how I choose, regardless of Party directives.
My assumption is that people who say that I must be voting for Trump have bought into the Democratic/Republican political duopoly. Before you say otherwise, the classic “wasting your vote” line originates from this space. A Washington Times editorial writes, “Change from within is effective, but voting for a third-party candidate never pays off.”
Or things like this that wallow in a complancey that is sickeing as it is dangerous. It’s an intellectual “why even bother” argument.
I’m not saying I endorse the two-party system. I’d love to have real alternatives. But the constrained choice of American politics can’t be blamed on the superrich or the corporate-owned media; it’s inherent to the structure of our democracy. Our elections are first-past-the-post, a rule which inevitably causes the spectrum of opinion to collapse into two dominant parties. It’s doubtful that this will ever change unless we radically overhaul our voting system, although even alternatives like instant-runoff elections aren’t immune to strategic voting.
Living in a state which is so Blue, we have Democratic candidates and officials that are Republicans dressed as Democrats. I looking at you, Carper and Carney, to name a few. We also have Dems that are the epitomy of evil. I’m looking at you, Tom Gordon. Before you get all worried that I am not casting aspersions toward the Republicans, let me just mention three names: Christine O’Donnell, Mike Protrack, and Mike Castle. So what’s a Democrat to do when he or she steps into a voting booth in November and sees Carney for Governor and Gordon for County Executive. Do you vote Republican? Do you not vote? Do you vote 3rd Party?
I will probably be facing that dilemma for my Presidential vote, unless Hillary can sway me. (More on Hillary’s potentiality for persuasion at a later date.) so what i know now is that we will have more choices than Hillary or Trump. And these other possibilities need to be examined.
Judge Napolitano writes,
I reject the idea that a principled vote is wasted. Your vote is yours, and so long as your vote is consistent with your conscience, it is impossible to waste your vote.
J.D. Tuccille writes,
But there’s no actual obligation to play into that horrible choice. The major political parties have outlived their sell-by dates and grown corrupt, unresponsive, and complacent. They’ve turned into hollowed-out vehicles to be hijacked by populist demagogues when not being ridden to office by sticky-fingered functionaries. The Republicans are in worse shape than the Democrats, but only in relative terms.
Which is to say, until they reform or die, the major parties are no longer serious choices. Their train-wreck presidential nomination races offer clear evidence to anybody who hasn’t drunk the major party Kool-Aid that it’s time to look elsewhere for real ideas and credible candidates for political office.
Thank you for writing this. The sides chosen in the Civil War obscured this reality. I’ll just say, there is no way I will ever vote for Gordon. I’ll vote Republican. I feel like Delaware has fallen victim to one-party control, much the way dynastic monarchies fall victim to incest. There’s no competition and no drive to “be better democrats”.
As for the national election, it’s too late for anything other than vote for Clinton, or vote for Muslim internment, and mass deportations for anyone of Hispanic decent who doesnt have their birth certificate on them at all times.
Elections are most definitely at the federal level. In state/county/local government, it’s less important. I haven’t voted for Gordon at all during his second stint in power.
I love Bernie, but agree with DD. On a federal level they are clearly binary. You are allowed to not like reality, but you are not allowed to live in your own.
A non-vote, a vote for a third party, or a vote for Trump are all votes for Trump.
@j “A non-vote, a vote for a third party, or a vote for Trump are all votes for Trump.”
Yep… Just ask the 97,421 people who voted for Ralph Nader in Florida.
Elections are binary — there’s the people who win and the people who lose. While I’m with you that the two parties have deep-seated issues, you can vote for governing or you can vote for your principles. It is a persistently neat trick of 3rd party voters though — who can always be on their own perceived “right” side of any argument about government. You can disavow the current government because you didn’t vote for it or you can disavow the current government because both sides are too corrupt for you. *You* win all the way around! Too bad about everyone else.
@n “…so what i know now is that we will have more choices than Hillary or Trump. And these other possibilities need to be examined.”
OK then. Here’s a test for you. Without looking it up, who were the “principled alternatives” in the 2008 presidential election not affiliated with any party?
…and if you cannot remember, then why do you think that anyone else will, eight years from now with this election???
@LE for 2008, I can only remember Nader. For 2012, Stein and Johnson. Though I don’t know what trivia has to do with this.
My point is that the protest vote will soon be forgotten, whereas the damage done by a bad candidate (e.g. GWB) who sneaks a win will linger on and on.
Yeah, I guess the Liberty Party and the Free Soil Party were unimportant in the mid-1800s.
LE, why are you so ready to give Jeb and Harris a pass on the Florida 2000 scam? Gore ABSOLUTELY got more votes down there. He would have had way more, not because of Nader and some Hippies in Oregon, but because of an intentionally misleading ballot. (Buchanan got WAY too many votes in heavily-Jewish Plam beach county.) …. Then of course there was the slanted SCOTUS.
I’ve seen you use that Nader line (probably to place preemptive blame on Sanders supporters, should Trump win) a few times and it just wasnt the case.
I think you just like punching hippies.
Ben – For fuck sake, just stop it. Stop your nonsense. Fucking stop, already. Those 97,000 votes made a difference. How fucking proven does a point have to be? Fuck. Jesus Christ.
someone get Jason his binky.
Those Nader votes did make a difference.
Republicans/conservatives who chose not to vote for Trump/stay home/vote 3rd party help Hillary. Dems/progressives who chose not to vote for Hilary/stay home/vote 3rd party help Trump/GOP nominee. It really is that straight forward.
And everyone ignores the power of 3rd parties to make significant change. What a bunch of apparatchiks.
They do have the power, but Delaware Dems have the power to vote out Coons and Carper (and Gordon) too. How’s that working out?
Everyone is mentioning Florida with Gore, but no one mentions that Gore could not carry his home state which Clinton did the prior two elections. His home state.
@n “…could not carry his home state…”
I fail to see any relevance to current topic. Is there any?
Did Romney win MA? Did Adlai Stevenson ever win IL?
@LE Yup
Splintering Democratic voters and allowing Trump to win would, indeed, usher in significant change.
In a related note, when I find myself thinking that Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy, I have ask myself, it is because of anything she has done or is it because of the Republican Party’s relentless quarter-century of lies and smears about the Clintons? I’m still not sure of what my answer for me is, but I think that any Democrat who finds him- or herself starting a sentence with “I don’t like/trust Hillary . . . .” really should ask him- or herself.
I am looking forward to more editions of this DKos series — The People Who Taught You To Hate Hillary.
Nemski, sorry, but as the most third-party guy who regularly comments here, as the guy who directed the Gary Johnson campaign in DE in 2012 (we set a record with nearly 6,000 votes), and who ran himself, I have to tell you …
… that jason is right. It is conceivable that there will be break-down and re-evolution of the GOP into something slightly something else, but there’s not going to be a major third party breakthrough. I lose good friends every time I say this: if Ross Perot with 19% of the vote could not crack a single electoral vote, that leaves George C. Wallace as the last third party candidate to score in the electoral college. That there’s good eatin’.
I like Governor Gary Johnson and he’d probably make a decent moderate Republican President (despite the fact that he runs a pot business, he’s not really a libertarian), but John Huntsman has a better chance of winning this year … and he’s not running.
I also like Judge Napolitano and J D Tucille I consider a pretty good internet friend, but they’re both whistling past the electoral graveyard.
Those who vote for purity, who are willing to sacrifice to good for the perfect (and end up with neither) are generally those with the least to lose based upon the outcome. What happens to women’s rights with a Trump win because of purity? What happens to gay marriage? To healthcare for those who now have it and didn’t? To Muslims who still look to America as a safe place? To families with undocumented relatives who fear being ripped apart? The duopoly is the reality of American politics and has been for a very long time. We may not like it, but we must work within the system to push for change, and in the meantime accept that the “lesser of two evils” is significantly less evil (if evil at all).
For the record, Ralph Nader ran on the IPoD ticket in Delaware in 2004 and 2008.
@mkem //the “lesser of two evils” is significantly less evil (if evil at all).// There’s the rub. For a lot of Dems and a lot of others, Clinton really is only the lesser of evils. In any other context except for the specific potential GOP candidates ranged against her (Cruz or Trump) I would be campaigning as hard as I could against her based on issues including her foreign policy views, her militarism, her support of bloated banks, her support of things like TPP, and about a dozen issues wherein I see her as genuinely toxic.
However, I see this difference: Clinton is a weak candidate who looks strong because it is a year of weak candidates, and her “evils” are only the repellent same run-of-the-mill evils that are (for some reason) tolerated in this republic. It is possible that she will run the republic into the ground, but her mere presence in the White House will not necessarily cause the death spiral of our system and way of life to accelerate.
When you stop and think about it, that’s one hellishly poor endorsement: she’s (somewhat) better than somebody who will dismantle the country.
I keep trying to understand this. Hillary’s positions line up almost identically to Obama’s (and they line up with Bernie’s most of the time), so are you saying that Obama, if running, wouldn’t win because he’s Republican-lite and would be a weak candidate? If you think Obama would win (and I do – easily) then are we really discussing policy when it comes to Hillary?
Which Obama, and which Hillary?
Obama2008 over Hillary2008
Hillary2016 over Obama2010
Obama2014 over Obama2010
Obama2014 over Bernie2016 or Hillary2016
Any Obama.
@pandora–first you are confusing my views with electability on my views about who I would vote for. I’m not making an argument about electability.
Second, if you will recall, I did not vote for Obama (I’m not a Democrat, remember), and I have consistently been a critic of his foreign policy, his military interventionism, his close relationship to the big banks, and his stance on items like TPP. I think that all of those aspects–regardless of other things I believe he may have done well–were detrimental to our national interests, and in respect to our open flaunting of international law on drone hits and special ops into other countries, immoral as well.
So Clinton holding to those same policies is not an inducement for me to vote for her. Moreover, given that Clinton is effectively running as Obama’s successor/VP in the same sense that GHW Bush ran as Reagan’s, and that Al Gore ran as Bill Clinton’s, she comes across not as Obama-lite but as cynical and opportunistic. What are Clinton’s core beliefs on foreign policy, trade, and economics? They appear to be whatever she thinks will get her both large campaign contributions and the largest number of votes.
I don’t honestly believe that the real Clinton has many more core beliefs that (a) she should be President; (b) uber realism (used in the academic sense) in foreign policy is the only way to go; (c) what use are the levers of power if you don’t use them; and (d) if America does it, it must not be bad.
And there’s a substantive difference between Obama and Clinton as I perceive them: I think Obama saw the holes in the flawed concept of American exceptionalism and only mouthed the words supporting it when it was absolutely necessary; the rest of the time his actions showed he did not subscribe to hyper-nationalism or hyper-patriotism; Clinton, on the other hand, appears to believe the American exceptionalism philosophy hook, line, and sinker. I’d go so far as to say that’s one of her “core” beliefs.
Four years of Clinton will give us a continuing bloated military budget, poor trade deals, more executions by drone, and the same revolving door between Goldman Sachs and the Treasury Department. Only in 2016 would this be the candidate I have to support because the others are worse.
This is the year where the libertarian in me would have liked “None of the Above” as a ballot option, wherein if nobody wins a majority we just leave the office of President open for a few years and see if anybody notices (Congress couldn’t pass any laws because there would be nobody there to sign them). 🙂
And ask yourself this–how many do-overs is Clinton going to receive in this campaign? Remember, by pretty much consensus she is not held to the Trump standard of “change your answers like you change your underwear,” but is expected to show some consistency. In a normal campaign (just ask for-it-before-I-was-against-it Kerry), comments like putting the coal industry out of business would be costing her entire states.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-apologizes-coal-industry-article-1.2622975
I know where you are coming from, Steve – you’re a Libertarian. What I don’t understand is where everyone else is coming from. Some seem unhappy with some of Obama’s policies, but their reaction to Clinton (who holds – and has held – basically the exact same policies) is far different than their reaction to Obama. There’s a lot of “I feel it in my bones” talk going on.
“Some seem unhappy with some of Obama’s policies, but their reaction to Clinton (who holds – and has held – basically the exact same policies) is far different than their reaction to Obama.”
Context. It’s all about the available alternatives. In 2008 there was no candidate running to the left of Obama/Hillary; now there is. Bernie (and his millions of Democratic supporters) shoved the Overton window wide open to the left.
And there’s also this to deal with–while previously I could accept cassandra’s different opinion that Sanders has not really hurt Clinton, he’s now apparently jumped that shark and is going out to damage her at the end of the primary season. When WaPo runs this:
Unlike crowds for the other two presidential rallies in town — Republicans Ted Cruz and Donald Trump — the standing crowd was vocal the entire speech — boos when Clinton’s name was mentioned, jeers at the mention of super delegates, praise for his free public college plan and hurrahs for calls for income equality. ‘It looks like you’re not afraid of the establishment,’ Sanders said to the youth-filled crowd.”
It makes it much more difficult to imagine rounding back up the people who are actively booing Clinton at Sanders’ rallies to vote for her in the General. Equally important, he’s making a strong populist attack on his ***”own”*** party, that could have some rather ugly echoes in the future although I do not think it will hurt down-ticket Dems this year, if only because Sanders has ignored them so completely.
But the booing of Clinton is, really, pretty significant in a crowd that you know is younger and heavily tinged with the Independent votes any candidate needs to win.
A lot of other water has also passed under the bridge since 2008. More revelations have come out about how deeply Wall Street firms were complicit in causing the banking crash and the Great Recession. And the Sanders campaign has done an excellent job of building public awareness of how our elected an non-elected officials were involved, and the money that changed hands. So any booing is the result not of “bashing” by Sanders, but is is the reaction of a newly educated public.
Personally, I didn’t understand or care about Hillary’s Wall Street money, or Obama’s or Bill’s for that matter, until Bernie laid it out for me. When I saw Bernie’s platform, I realized that there was a tremendous national appetite for reining in Wall Street. What Wall Street has purchased from Hillary is her light touch on regulation and taxation.
The fact that Bernie allows booing (something Obama quickly called out at his rallies – a class act) demonstrates a lack of leadership on Sanders part – but we witnessed this when it came to his surrogates. It pains me to think Sanders will continue on this path. I would hope not.
@pandora, where on Earth are you getting your information? Is this the path that pains you?
@Pandora, you wrote “There’s a lot of ‘I feel it in my bones, talk going on.” which seems to be a bit dismissive toward the anti-Hillary folks. But isn’t that similar to Hillary speaks to you?
The slogan “I’m with her” says it all about the kind of politics that is going on here.
I never said Hillary speaks to me. Here is a sample of what I actually said:
Bernie still struggles with voting blocks Dems will desperately need in November. Now, I don’t think he doesn’t care about these issues – I think he does care – it just feels like he’s late to the game on these issues – like he’s never really considered them. That said, he’s getting better, but his words on these issues seem forced – and he definitely hasn’t picked up the lingo or code words that people deeply involved with these issues use regularly. During the last Town Hall ( before the Nevada caucus) he was asked a very specific question about feminism and responded by saying that Gloria Steinem had dubbed him an honorary woman and then went back to income inequality and how women are paid less than men. Listening to his answer I found it lacking. A good start, but not good enough. He’s just not comfortable on women and minority issues. Can he correct that? We’ll see. I hope he does since there’s a great discussion to be had on feminism and other social issues.
So… I’m going with Hillary Clinton. Not because she’s the perfect candidate and doesn’t have flaws and is supposedly “electable”, but because Bernie Sanders isn’t speaking to me as a whole person, isn’t delivering his promise of voter turn-out, relies on lengthy explanations to draw distinctions between himself and Hillary, avoids the foreign policy questions of today with a history lesson of decades past, still hasn’t been vetted on things that a lot of people will have a problem with, and, for good or bad, can’t throw a punch that connects.
Notice there’s more than one reason there (and yep, all are open to debate). Notice also how those reasons don’t mention Hillary speaks to me.
So Bernie doesn’t speak to you. Glad you’re not feeling it in your bones though.
If it makes you happy to focus on that one thing, that’s fine.
I have voted “other” or “none of the above” in elections before. One time I even wrote in Colin Powell. Don’t remember what year it was. I can respect independents who don’t pull the lever for either party since I are one.
But today; in this time; with these candidate(s), as an unwise man once said “…you’ve gotta ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?””
If you do feel lucky, continue to support Sanders, sit home during the general, or write in someone else. It’s really that simple. Do you feel lucky?
I don’t have to worry about the outcome. I can survive it with no discomfort whatsoever. So, I’m already lucky (and resourceful). For the rest of America? Well maybe they feel lucky as well.
But the booing of Clinton is, really, pretty significant in a crowd that you know is younger and heavily tinged with the Independent votes any candidate needs to win.
Not really. If you google it, you can find reporting on Sanders crowds booing the mention of Hillary Clinton as far back as February. So this has been going on for months now. And yet she still has more votes and more delegates. The General will present a different story — she’ll certainly lose some of the Bernie supporters, but she’ll be facing Trump, not Bernie which will be a different narrative.
I’ll only vote for Hillary if polls indicate that DE is not a safe state for her. If it is a safe state for her, I won’t vote for anyone as President.
I think increasingly that there is a good chance I’ll have to vote for her since recent polls show that the race between her and Trump are tightening. Imagine that. The Dem party establishment choice will likely be in a close race with someone as transparently scummy and undesirable as Donald Trump. Brilliant strategy there establishment Dems. In a year in which REAL progressivism could win, establishment Dems went with the status quo. Makes me think that the Republicans aren’t the only persons who oppose progressivism.
I wholly agree with what Dana just said.
What Dana said
So.. You want Hillary to win, but you want her to have to squeak out a victory so that she’s weekend and has no apparent mandate to govern.
Why does that seem like a really really bad idea to me???
Where did I say I wanted her to get a narrow victory? I just said that if Delaware clearly will vote for her, I’ll not vote for anyone. You’re jumping to conclusions.
When is Clinton going to try and win over Bernie voters with some of the “rigged economy” stuff that so many Democratic voters are responding to?
A positive outcome of the Sanders campaign – public service messaging
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-feel-the-burn-std_us_56fd4872e4b0daf53aeef914
Dave just gave the Sanders win more coverage than CNN did
Hoosiers feeling the BERN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they say Midwesterners are smart folks.
Well, we will see how this will play out; Cruz just suspended his campaign.
If one is unwilling to vote for the lesser of two evils, one ends up with the evil of two lessers.
______________________
“they say Midwesterners are smart folks.”
Who is “they”? Kansas elected Brownback. Twice.
It’s binary now. It’s Trump or Not Trump. I don’t have to be With Her to be Against Him.
I will reiterate once more all over again: If you don’t “like Hillary,” ask yourself to what extent you have allowed a quarter-century of Republican calumny to affect your point of view.
I was quite unhappy with some of her tactics in the 2008 campaign for the nomination (which is well-documented in the archives at my place), tactics that I think came directly from Mark Penn, but, in her reconciliation with President Obama and her service as Secretary of State, I believe she expiated that stain.
Do I fancy having a beer with her?
No, but President George the Worst demonstrated that the beer standard really isn’t a good way to evaluate a candidate. ( Plus, I don’t drink beer. Any Scotch is better than every anything else.)
In other news, it has been fun watching Cal Thomas, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Andrew Sullivan, and their like, professional apologists for Republicanism, pretend that they have had nothing to do with making this happen. Depressing fun, but fun nevertheless.
@F “Do I fancy having a beer with her?”
Sure.
“…George Will…”
Did you read the latest from him?
“If Trump is nominated, the GOP must keep him out of the White House”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-trump-is-nominated-the-gop-must-keep-him-out-of-the-white-house/2016/04/29/293f7f94-0d9d-11e6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html
Amazing!!
…and maybe he does feel a little guilty.
Senator Elizabeth Warren.
“What happens next will test the character for all of us – Republican, Democrat, and Independent. It will determine whether we move forward as one nation or splinter at the hands of one man’s narcissism and divisiveness. I know which side I’m on, and I’m going to fight my heart out to make sure Donald Trump’s toxic stew of hatred and insecurity never reaches the White House.”
Dave, A-f*cking-men to that! Let’s get Clinton in the Oval Office and then get Warren on deck. Wake up people and consider the long game.
This is Warren’s complete FB statement: