Nov. 8 Election
So there are three ways of looking at the presidential election in deciding whom to vote for:
(1) Vote for whomever you like. Vote for whomever you think is the best candidate for the job. If you think Hillary Clinton is the best candidate, vote for her; if you think Donald Trump is the best candidate, for for him. Jill Stein, Gary Johnson? Vote for them if you think either of them is best. Marco Rubio, JEB, Bernie Sanders? Is one of them the best candidate? If so, write him in.
In this way, you are true to yourself. You can be proud that you voted for the absolute best candidate and did not compromise your values.
(2) Be realistic. Despite thinking, perhaps, that someone else would be better for the job, the reality is that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be president. You really should only vote for one of them, so choose the lesser of two evils. If you truly do believe that one of them is worse than the other, or would have worse effects on the nation than the other, then it is your American duty to vote against that candidate by voting for the other major party candidate.
(3) Be smart. Look at what state you are voting in. I live in reliably-Democratic Massachusetts. Hillary Clinton will win this state regardless of my vote. Today, October 18, Clinton has a 25 percentage-point lead over Trump in this state: She is expected to win 58% of the popular vote in Massachusetts, to Trump winning 33% of the popular vote. That is approximately 700,000 more votes in Massachusetts on November 8 [based upon a projected total vote count for Massachusetts of 2.8 million in 2016, down 12.5% from 3.2 million in 2012].
There are enough registered Democrats in Massachusetts that like her and will vote for her that she does not need my vote (an Independent who usually votes Democrat) in order to achieve victory in Massachusetts. In fact, for me to vote for her would be to waste my vote because she does not need it to win, nor can my vote help her in other swing states, like North Carolina, because it is not transferrable. My vote is for the 11 electors in Massachusetts, only.
So in case (3), I should feel liberated to vote for anyone except Clinton. In fact, it would make the most sense to vote for a third party candidate. If I were to vote for a third party candidate, I could help him or her achieve the minimum 5% national vote and so help to ensure federal funding in 2020. Gary Johnson is already at 6% of the national vote. Jill Stein is at 1.5%; Johnson or Stein need my vote much more than does Clinton.
Voting for a third party also helps to punish the major parties. Despite (probably) winning nationally, Hillary Clinton will have less of a mandate to govern widely because of my vote and the votes of many other Independents who would not have voted for her but who may have voted Democratic had another generic Democrat been on the ballot. The fewer millennials who vote for Clinton, the more the message for Democrats in 2020 will be: do not let Clinton run for re-election, but instead replace her on the ticket with another [younger, less hawkish, more acceptable, etc.] politician.
There could be a case for voting for Jill Stein, in that the more votes a left-leaning candidate wins, the more it telegraphs to the Democratic Party that they need to move leftward in their policies.
There could also be the case for voting for Gary Johnson in that it strengthens the Libertarian Party, which might play a role in the disintegration of the Republican Party. As the GOP splinters, a stronger Libertarian Party might become an acceptable alternative for disaffected former Republicans. And insofar as a divided Right helps the Left, and a stronger Libertarian Party helps strengthen divisions on the Right.
Both (2) and (3) are "strategic voting." But whereas we mostly hear only of (2), especially from the Clinton campaign, (3) actually pays closer attention to reality and what effect we can have with our vote.
So go and vote!
(1) Vote for whomever you like. Vote for whomever you think is the best candidate for the job. If you think Hillary Clinton is the best candidate, vote for her; if you think Donald Trump is the best candidate, for for him. Jill Stein, Gary Johnson? Vote for them if you think either of them is best. Marco Rubio, JEB, Bernie Sanders? Is one of them the best candidate? If so, write him in.
In this way, you are true to yourself. You can be proud that you voted for the absolute best candidate and did not compromise your values.
(2) Be realistic. Despite thinking, perhaps, that someone else would be better for the job, the reality is that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be president. You really should only vote for one of them, so choose the lesser of two evils. If you truly do believe that one of them is worse than the other, or would have worse effects on the nation than the other, then it is your American duty to vote against that candidate by voting for the other major party candidate.
(3) Be smart. Look at what state you are voting in. I live in reliably-Democratic Massachusetts. Hillary Clinton will win this state regardless of my vote. Today, October 18, Clinton has a 25 percentage-point lead over Trump in this state: She is expected to win 58% of the popular vote in Massachusetts, to Trump winning 33% of the popular vote. That is approximately 700,000 more votes in Massachusetts on November 8 [based upon a projected total vote count for Massachusetts of 2.8 million in 2016, down 12.5% from 3.2 million in 2012].
There are enough registered Democrats in Massachusetts that like her and will vote for her that she does not need my vote (an Independent who usually votes Democrat) in order to achieve victory in Massachusetts. In fact, for me to vote for her would be to waste my vote because she does not need it to win, nor can my vote help her in other swing states, like North Carolina, because it is not transferrable. My vote is for the 11 electors in Massachusetts, only.
So in case (3), I should feel liberated to vote for anyone except Clinton. In fact, it would make the most sense to vote for a third party candidate. If I were to vote for a third party candidate, I could help him or her achieve the minimum 5% national vote and so help to ensure federal funding in 2020. Gary Johnson is already at 6% of the national vote. Jill Stein is at 1.5%; Johnson or Stein need my vote much more than does Clinton.
Voting for a third party also helps to punish the major parties. Despite (probably) winning nationally, Hillary Clinton will have less of a mandate to govern widely because of my vote and the votes of many other Independents who would not have voted for her but who may have voted Democratic had another generic Democrat been on the ballot. The fewer millennials who vote for Clinton, the more the message for Democrats in 2020 will be: do not let Clinton run for re-election, but instead replace her on the ticket with another [younger, less hawkish, more acceptable, etc.] politician.
There could be a case for voting for Jill Stein, in that the more votes a left-leaning candidate wins, the more it telegraphs to the Democratic Party that they need to move leftward in their policies.
There could also be the case for voting for Gary Johnson in that it strengthens the Libertarian Party, which might play a role in the disintegration of the Republican Party. As the GOP splinters, a stronger Libertarian Party might become an acceptable alternative for disaffected former Republicans. And insofar as a divided Right helps the Left, and a stronger Libertarian Party helps strengthen divisions on the Right.
Both (2) and (3) are "strategic voting." But whereas we mostly hear only of (2), especially from the Clinton campaign, (3) actually pays closer attention to reality and what effect we can have with our vote.
So go and vote!