President George W. Bush or Sen. John F. Kerry will win on Nov.
2. Everyone except the high-talking third-party candidates
themselves admits this ““ and even those candidates think it.
So why vote for a loser? There are two reasons that must be
considered.
Some third-party voters argue that there is absolutely no
difference between the two main-party candidates. This is an
important observation of the political theater of our country, but
it is simply irrelevant to the matter at hand.
The Republican and Democratic candidates differ radically in
style, character, personal history, economic beliefs and foreign
policy prospects. Their outlooks on the world are not only
different, they are irreconcilable. Libertarians fall more in line
with Republicans and Greens are closer to the Democrats.
Not being able to discern the lesser of two evils in this
election is more of a personal problem than an ominous political
reality.
Besides, even if Bush and Kerry were identical in character and
conviction, their parties still wouldn’t be. We must remember
that on Nov. 2, we will not elect just a president but also his
party. If Bush wins, that means more Republicans as bureaucrats,
cabinet members, judges and maybe even Supreme Court justices. If
Kerry wins, that means Democrats in these positions.
Surely even the cynic could see the two contrasting
administrations will impact the world differently.
The more dominant argument in favor of voting for a third party
seems to be embodied in a clever little line ““ voting for the
lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
And judged in a vacuum, this statement is true. But it relies on
an incomplete understanding of the concept of a vote. It fails to
see that a vote is not just a stand for something but also a stand
against something. A vote for the lesser of two evils is then a
vote against the greater of two evils.
But a vote for a third party (an admittedly ineffective vote) is
not a vote against the greater of two evils. Instead, a vote for a
third party is essentially a vote for the greater two evils.
If the members of the Libertarian Party, for example, vote for
Bush, they will decide the course of America’s future. But
since they will not, they will facilitate the election of Kerry, a
person who stands against their political, economic and social
convictions.
Thus, in voting for the “moral” candidate, these
Libertarians directly help who is, in their eyes, the more evil
candidate. They will bear the responsibility of making the United
States much worse rather than a little worse.
The underlying point is simple. Americans generally understand
that in the choice between two candidates, they must vote for one
of them.
The argument I have presented above will not move those who
believe that their votes do not count. That these people say,
“My vote doesn’t count,” then go to the voting
booths astounds many people.
But it shouldn’t. It shouldn’t because the purpose
of voting is not to pick single-handedly the next president of the
United States but to participate in a sacred process ““ a
process that has served this country well for more than two
centuries. A vote might not decide the outcome of the race, but it
will contribute in some small way to the candidate who received it
and, more importantly, to the process that makes all of this talk
possible.
It is true that in the history of the world, no single
person’s vote has determined the outcome of a presidential
election. The sad fact is that your vote does not count. However
you vote on election day, the winner will still have won and the
loser will still have lost.
But the knee-jerk critic will interject ““ what about
Florida? One vote counted there, right?
No, it did not. The difference in the final count was in the
hundreds. One vote is not the same as a hundred votes.
The sociologist, taking up another issue, would say, well, if a
thousand people thought that their vote counted, that would affect
the outcome of the election.
But again, your thoughts do not affect the thoughts of a
thousand people. And even if they did and they voted, you would
still only have one vote. Your one vote will not count.
One is a very powerful number. It is the number of identity, the
number of the individual.
Democracy is the beautiful process that takes individual voices
and converts them fairly into election results. The difference
between the candidates might be in the millions. But a million
would be nothing without a million ones.
What this gobbledygook comes down to is this ““ your vote
will not decide the presidential election, but you should vote
anyway. You should vote because the process of democracy is
important to you.
You should vote for a main-party candidate. You should because
you do not want to be a loser and because, if the improbable
happens ““ if the candidate opposing your beliefs wins by one
vote ““ you do not want to be the one in therapy.
Hovannisian is a second-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.