On Voting Your Conscience

What a lovely sentiment. I have heard several people voice this argument over the last months, usually in support of the Constitutionalist Party. "The lesser of two evils is still evil" they cry! Leaving aside for the moment the notion that a McPalin vote is a vote for evil (care to save some babies anyone?), I wholeheartedly maintain that none of us has the luxury of voting for our ideal candidate in this election. Welcome to our two-party system. Ever heard of it before? Duverger's Law suggests that a plurality-rule system, such as we have in this country, favors this two-party system. Ironically, significant third parties tend to arise when one of the major two parties is in a state of chaos or realignment, such as the replacement of the Whig party with the Republicans in the wake of the Civil War. However, I digress.

It generally happens that a Republican and a Democratic candidate are chosen by their respective parties to contest for the Presidency in the general election in November. Ever so often, a major third-party candidate will emerge, often only for one election cycle (Ross Perot, for example). Unfortunately, as Duverger demonstrated statistically, such candidates cannot command a plurality in our single member district voting system. Hence, all these candidates do is draw votes away from the major two parties. In some elections, and in some districts, this siphoning off of votes has no effect. Perhaps the incumbent is running for reelection and has a relatively high approval rating. In such cases, I say, "vote your conscience - go nuts!" Design your dream candidate, find the real life person who matches your description, and write her in (I think that Phyllis Schlafly would make an amazing President). There are elections, however, in which every, single vote counts, particularly if you live in a swing state. Some people, like Chuck Todd, could tell you if your vote counts based on the district in which you reside. In elections like these - like the one that we face in just a few weeks - you simply do not have the luxury of voting your conscience. Perhaps it is more correct to say that your conscience ought to be more well informed if it is telling you to vote third-party.

I understand about the desire to preserve the Constitution. I understand Framer's Intent. I understand frustration with current tax policy and immigration policy. What I do not understand is the certain knowledge that a vote for Chuck Baldwin is a vote for Barack Obama! Can not a Constitutionalist extrapolate beyond his simple vote in the voting booth? By voting his conscience, and punching his card (what a quaint, out of date image!) for Baldwin in a desire to eliminate the federal income tax, eliminate illegal immigration, get the U.S. out of the UN, eliminate the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, and BEST OF ALL outlaw abortion and euthanasia, he has just taken a potential McCain vote. His vote obviously would not have gone to Obama, lacking the Baldwin choice. In a true two-party system, he would have had before him Obama or McCain. Which candidate comes closer to his preferences? I'll be the first to stand up and argue that McCain is no conservative, but there's no arguing his stance on life! That vote could have gone toward upholding states' rights on life and toward continuing the march away from the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade (carved out of the "penumbra" of several different amendments - try actually finding the right to privacy in the Constitution. You'll be looking for awhile - better bring a snack). Instead the vote has gone toward someone who will not gain enough votes to carry even one district, much less a state. In political terms - it's a wasted vote. Perhaps not a catstrophe in Texas (please God), but could be very problematic in Florida. But, hey - you voted your conscience. At least you'll be able to sleep tonight. The rest of us will begin ticking away the hours that we have to live in Obamerica.