In re: to my comments and questions about voting Independent/Libertarian vs. Republican this fall, reader Nicky Cheese made these comments:
I’ve never bought into that “spoiler” rhetoric. More choices are better than less, no?
Individuals ought to vote for the candidate they believe best represents them. A vote is a reflection of one’s values. Utilize the full range of potential choices in order to affirm what is closest to your values.
Movements are long-term.
More choices are better than less. But is it really a “choice” when we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually getting what we chose? If a vote for Barr or Paul still gets us McCain or Obama, as we all know it does, what good was our principled selection?
And is the spoiler argument really just rhetoric? In the Bush/Gore contest, Gore lost Florida (and the whole enchilada) because of the votes that went to Nader. No doubt the Naderites were “voting their values.” But what about the prudence of picking what’s better when you can’t have what’s Best? I’d sure like to ask those Nader voters what they’d choose if they had a Do-Over.
The argument that gives me greater pause – i.e. that I think is more compelling – is that of long-term vs. short-term thinking. As we consider the coming decades, what will best stop our slide to the Left and the disturbing hyper-expansion of the State?
Do we stand on principle and vote ultra-conservative or libertarian every two years, win or lose, with the hope of steering the GOP to the right and/or bolstering what might someday become a viable Third Party? And if we don’t, what will compel anyone to consider our cause?
Please chime in and pass along this post so we can hear from more folks. I’ll post the best remarks up front to spark further discussion!
