Chances are you are smart enough to not need this diary, if so thanks for stopping by, but the last thing I want to be doing is wasting your time, which could be spent on better diaries or helping to elect Hillary Clinton.
Spoiler Alert: It started off about why “Vote-Pairing,” Vote-Trading,” or “Vote-Swapping” is bad, but quickly evolved into reasons supporting a third party in 2016 would be foolish.
Anyway, on to the actual topic Vote-Trading, or Swapping or what have you. This is something that comes up whenever a close to close-ish election comes around.
One person, who lives in a swing state, but just cannot bring themselves to support the Democratic Nominee, trades their vote with someone in a safe blue state.
Is it legal? If all that is being traded are votes and not anything of value…
The question itself is flawed. The votes themselves have pecuniary value. Nonetheless it is probably legal (More on that below).
But lets assume it is legal. Should you do it if Hillary is all-but-a-guaranteed-winner in your state? The answer is complicated and nuanced. Wait no it isn’t.
DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT TRADING YOUR VOTE.
Or voting third party at all really.
Hypothetical:
We have in Swingsylvania, BOB WHITE (see what I did there).
Bob fancies himself a progressive, who just cannot betray his ideological purity to vote for Hillary. Of course Bob hates Trump, but will nonetheless vote for a candidate who cannot win, despite living in what could be a game-changing state. Bob acknowledges Trump will do a lot of things that would hurt a lot of people, such as a Muslim-ban or an expensive, ineffective, and offensive wall along the border.Trump would also try to lower the federal minimum wage, but Hillary is just as bad because she wants to increase it to $12 dollars, instead of $15.
Why does Bob feel this way? I don’t know: It could be stupidity, misogyny, stupidity, privilege or maybe just stupidity.
Meanwhile in MaryLeft, we have DEMI MORESENSE (Ok, that one is just weak).
She wishes things would move left faster, but she knows Hillary will do all that she can to help people. MaryLeft has voted Democrat in every election in recent memory.She is thinking of swapping her vote.Why does she feel she should do this? I honestly, haven’t a clue.
Now, Bob says he will trade his vote, with Mary. He says that way Hillary gets the swing state vote that is going to be a bigger help than her Blue State vote. Bob just wants to get his candidate enough of the vote to secure federal funds in the future, but would be willing to make the trade.
Should Mary do it? OF COURSE NOT. Nor should she otherwise support a third party for president in 2016. You have the right; but that doesn’t make it right. (Did you even read the title or the diary?)
10 Reasons
The first few deal with vote swapping, the rest are why you should not do anything to support a third Party candidate, particularly in this cycle.
1. Bob is willing to torpedo the whole country out of arrogant pride. If Bob is so sure of his candidate’s moral superiority is it really going to be hard for him to self-justify voting third party anyway.
2. Even if Bob is planning to honor the deal, the mere fact he is acknowledging Trump beating Hillary in his state would bad for the country but he needs more than that to do so means he cannot be trusted, despite his intention to hold up his end.
Bob is clearly not that worried about Trump picking a few Justices, what if something good comes on TV and he just decides that is more important.
3. Why in the world would Demi want to help this vote-sapping party get matching funds?
So that in 2020 they can split even more of the left’s vote off?
4. This practice started in 2000. With Gore and Nader voters purporting to swap.
How did that work out again?
But enough about our hypothetical swappers. Supporting a third party here is a bad idea.
5. Strange things happen.
Ask the governor of Maryland, one of the blues states in the country. Republican Larry Hogan., that is. The last governor, 2016 Footnote Martin O’Malley, perhaps spent a bit too much time setting himself up to lose the Democratic Primary and not enough time making sure his state did not complacently elect Hogan, who said “Thank but no Thanks” badly needed and available Federal Funds, to fix the States horrible mass transit system, because his supporters don’t want the poor folks leaving Baltimore City too easily.
Not Enough, well then:
- Ask former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown.
- Ask Jeb Bush about this year’s primary.
- Ask Hillary supporters about Michigan.
- Brexit anyone?
6. The popular vote is important.
It sets a tone. It establishes a mandate, and in this instance close race will embolden a future angry, bigoted potential candidate who is a little better at hiding it to go for it.
(I’m looking at you Cruz)
7. The whole notion that someone needs to “earn your vote” is arrogant. You are supposed to be doing someone else a favor. Nor are you interviewing a potential employee. Your task is picking the candidate that will be best.
8. There are only three options, and a third party is not one of them.
a) Try to get Hillary Clinton elected |
b) Try to get Donald Trump Elected |
c) Do neither, and let others choose for you. |
Voting for a candidate, who cannot win, is in no way different, and therefore, no more or less noble than choosing not to vote for president at all. Don’t like that? Sorry, but that is the way it is.
Even if this fundamental truth of American politics could be changed… it simply is too late to do this cycle. Moreover, the presidency is probably not a great place to try to start. The “Big Two" spend the most money and focius the most attention on this race. Trying to establish a major third party is going to be very uphill battle. Doing so by starting at the top is more like crashing into a sheer cliff-face.
So there you have it, and no matter how bad, moderate, or hawkish you think Hillary will be, if you really feel Donald “You’re fired” Trump will be the same better, support whoever you’d like. (I rather suspect you will fill out the ballot wrong anyway)
In any case, don’t delude yourself into thinking that voting for a third party candidate is in any way different than simply leaving that box blank. It is a distinction without a difference.
9. You know what “the lesser of two evils is? LESS EVIL.
I hesitate to use the phrase “lesser of two evils” because there is NOTHING EVIL about Hillary Clinton. Not. A. Damn. Thing.
But even if she were the lesser of two evils: when faced with one of two outcomes, even if both are bad, why wouldn’t you choose the one that is less so. I mean, I dislike washing dishes... But I dislike food poisoning more. So I wash them. Where did this notion that getting the worst of two choices is an equally sound option?
Additionally, the often-used argument that you would be “complicit” for supporting the lesser evil is flawed at best. First of all, get over yourself, you are not some vital paragon of virtue the world depends on. Second, you were not responsible for the fact these were the two options before you. You presumably voted your conscience in the primary after all.
As my lovely wife is fond of saying:
“Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.”
There are no perfect options in any case. I have yet to witness a candidate ?I agree with 100% of the time. That is normal.
By way of example, in World War II the United States helped defeat the Axis powers.
I think the argument that we were “the good guys" is fairly strong. (What with the genocide and all).
However, in the course of stopping the bad guys, we appallingly put our own citizen in camps. After killing the natives and slavery, this is probably our most third most despicable act as a nation.
That said, I doubt Sam Beckett, if placed in control of Franklin Roosevelt, would try to stop the United States from entering the war. (Because, well… Nazis)
10. Voting is an important civil right and duty.
People have died for it. People have been beaten and jailed for it. Do not dishonor that by pissing your away or playing inane games with fools.
--------------------------------------
I hope that anyone reading this will see the obvious truth. Swapping your vote is just a bad idea. Oh, and stop clinging to the fact that a plurality of voters are registered "independents." (A misnomer for unaffiliated in most cases).
It is irrelevant. Unaffiliated voters are not monolithic, they do not vote in a block, and mostly vote just as consistently for one of the two parties with the same loyalty as a registered member. As promised we will revisit the question below:
IS IT LEGAL?
Again, probably, there have not been a lot of rulings on this, and some states are going to have laws that are stricter than other, better constructed. or both.
The idea that the issue can be avoided by not exchanging anything of value contradicts the ideaof trading in the first place. By the very nature of this farcical exercise, we are implying (correctly) that a vote in a swing-state has a higher value than one in a safe state.
But value is not going to be the sticking point here. This a free speech issue, possibly with some interstate commerce thrown in. Courts evaluate laws regulating speech by balancing the level of restriction against the scope, magnitude, and legitimacy of the government’s interest in regulating it. The laws should be tailored narrowly to impact said speech as little as possible, while still protecting any legitimate interests. The 9th Circuit already has said that California threatening vote-swapping sites violated the first amendment.
Although California certainly has valid interests in preventing election fraud and corruption, and perhaps in avoiding the subversion of the Electoral College, these interests did not justify the complete disabling of the vote-swapping mechanisms
In other words, the government had a legitimate concern, but they over did it. More Circuits or the SCOTUS ruling either way will bring forth various slippery slope arguments with each side will presenting a parade of horribles should the other prevail.
For example:
If it is illegal:
- Can my getting my left-leaning deadbeat cousin to vote if I promise to buy him lunch afterward get me into trouble?
- Do I need to get gas money to cover shuttling my friends to the polls?
- Is Starbucks in violation for giving a free coffee to people with I voted stickers, if I can present evidence that Starbucks customers tend to vote more for one party?
- Could a gun store offer free ammo with an I voted sticker and the purchase of an unnecessarily deadly assault rifle?
If it is legal:
- Does it have to be one-for-one? Could I trade my vote for president for two down-ticket votes, from a republican?
- Does it have to be the same race: Could I trade a vote for president for a vote for a Senator? Or maybe like 20 Dewcision 2016 votes?
(Too late in that case, congrats Pitch Black, you just wanted it more).
- Do we have to keep it domestic, or can we trade with voters overseas?
Interesting in theory, but I can only hope that it never becomes prevalent enough to bother the courts with again.