OpEdNews Op Eds

The Case for Irrational Voting

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 3   Well Said 2   Interesting 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 10/19/12

Become a Fan
  (117 fans)
- Advertisement -

(Article changed on October 19, 2012 at 23:56)

When I was a philosophy grad student in the ancient times at the U. of Virginia, some over-smart logician pointed out to me that voting is not rational, since a single vote is never decisive. It's all the other stuff that's rational: appearing to have voted, applying a sticker to your bumper, registering voters, making phone calls -- because all of that stuff has the potential to spread sufficiently to make a difference in the election, or perhaps in a future election or in other forms of civic engagement.

But, of course, unlike the model "persons" in philosophical or economic mental experiments, actual people tend not to be sociopaths. Pretending to vote without voting is far more work than actually voting, which -- while it may be irrational -- does no harm. And so, good citizens tend to vote even understanding its irrationality, and even when there are no candidates worth voting for.

Some smart friends of mine argue for a particular type of quasi-rational voting in such situations. Because of our antiquated electoral college that pretends an entire state voted for Tweedledee even if 49% of it voted for Tweedledum, moral voters should, this argument goes, vote for truly good candidates -- even write-in candidates -- in most states, in order to send a message. But they should only do so because there are too few such informed ethical strategic voters to actually swing the state. In the all-important handful of Swing States, however, where the contest between the two Tweedles is too close to call, we are advised to vote for the less hideous of the two.

This is a difficult argument to face down. It seems to leave the vast majority of us free to vote our consciences, while requiring that those of us with the (mis)fortune to live in the states that count are required to grit our teeth and do our civic duty. No matter how godawful the less-evil candidate may be, the other one is more evil and therefore worth resisting. This is not a time for self-indulgent purity. Lives are at stake. Mr. Less-Evil will kill a great many human beings through war, climate-crisis-aggravation, and misdirection of resources, but Mr. More-Evil will kill more people faster and bring on the risk of complete catastrophe faster. Ergo we have no choice. Suck it up. Vote for the occupier of brown countries who's not the racist.

If elections changed anything, said Emma Goldman, they'd be banned. Policy-driven independent activism is far more important. We can make that case. It's not who's sitting in the White House but who's doing the sitting in, said the late great Howard Zinn. But some of the people making the above argument for letting the electoral college determine who you vote for are also leaders in-between elections in independent risk-taking creative nonviolent activism. I'm thinking of people like my friend Daniel Ellsberg.

But that's just it: the people who manage to think this way tend to be few and far between and usually worthy of Nobel Peace Prizes, if those prizes were still given out for -- you know -- peace.

People, as a general rule, do not function as the theoretical sociopath who could pretend to be a voter and not vote. This is why employers have begun instructing their employees to vote for Republican candidates. We have secret voting. An employee could act as if he or she were going to vote as instructed and then vote for someone else. But many employees will not draw sharp lines in their minds between the employer's threat to fire them and the employer's false claim that electing Democrats will require firing workers, any more than they will draw sharp lines between sticking a Romney sign in their yard and punching Romney's name on a voting machine owned by one of Romney's companies. When employers hold mandatory anti-union meetings, their intimidation and propaganda mix. Some workers turn against a union out of fear but tell themselves it's a strictly strategic choice; for most it's probably a combination of the two. The same will happen with mandatory pro-Republican meetings in the workplace.

- Advertisement -

The number of registered likely voters with a high enough level of information to vote strategically by state is probably too small to swing any Swing State. This is a sliver of the population that understands the truth about the less-evil candidate (i.e. his evilness) but is willing to urge others to vote for him (one vote makes no difference, remember; they must urge others to do likewise for their action to be worth anything). They must then immediately or even simultaneously devote themselves to a movement of resistance to that candidate, and open their minds to information on his or her ongoing crimes and abuses, information that is not helpful in campaigning for them. For, without that resistance movement there is no way to break out of the downward spiral that gives us ever-worse lesser-evil candidates. We can choose the less-evil one each time, but if next time they are both more evil, some other tool is needed for positive social change.

And here we come to a second key factor that our rational strategists fail to adequately reckon with. The problem is not just that people are irrational, or that I am giving them too little credit in terms of their ability to become rational. I do think people overwhelmingly IDENTIFY with candidates and parties and begin to self-censor their intake of information and their expression of disagreement. They become fans instead of participants in self-government. But, beyond the people, there are the organizations. A movement that can fix what ails our politics cannot be driven by organizations, think tanks, labor unions, activist groups, and media outlets that identify with and seek patronage from a party or an elected official.

A couple of years ago, AFSCME, a labor union that had favored nonprofit universal single-payer healthcare for many years, brought a bus tour to Charlottesville, Va., to hold a rally for something called "the Public Option." Whatever that was, it was not a demand that had originated with AFSCME members or any other group of ordinary people outside of our government. The rules for the rally were laid out ahead of time: speakers and posters that favored or mentioned single-payer were forbidden.

This year, President Obama came to Charlottesville, and a number of us handed out flyers and held up posters outside the entrance to his event. We discovered that the crowd going in did not support policies such as his "kill list" assassination program. Rather, they had never heard of them. They had clearly gone to great lengths to avoid major news stories that would have occupied their attention and their passions were the president a Republican.

In considering how we deal with elections, we cannot avoid dealing with the way our activism and its funding and its communications work year-in and year-out. Do we become hopelessly compromised? Clearly, there would have been a greater chance of creating a single-payer system had we not censored the demand. Clearly, there would have been a greater chance of winning the pathetic "public option" had the demand of people in the streets been for single-payer, and had the "public option" become a compromise. And clearly the positive bits in the atrocious corporate giveaway that was passed in the end would not have suffered from a full-throated movement of greater size and clarity demanding healthcare for all. What did us in, in this case and thousands of others, was not lesser-evil voting in an election, but people and organizations acting as if they were doing lesser-evil voting even when there was no election.

- Advertisement -

Half the country does not vote. Most of the country has no idea there are truly great candidates like Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson on the ballot. Some activists are urging people to not vote, in order to "send a message." But half the country doing that has already failed dramatically to send any message for many years.

What might do some good would be to vote for a good candidate, whether or not you're in a Swing State. I understand that you could then be blamed, and not without cause, for the election of President Romney and all of his evils. Truly you would have to be irrational to face that risk. But being blamed for something is hardly the greatest risk our current situation demands of us. Many of us will have to face far worse if we are going to prevail. The case for casting your irrational vote for someone like Jill Stein is not that they are likely to win (and completely unconnected to whether they will "spoil"), and not that your one vote will put them over the top, or that the votes of others you recruit will do the trick. The reason to vote and campaign for a good candidate is that we need to build an independent movement that's honest, that doesn't self-censor, and that supports candidates or elected officials who come to us -- rather than us running to them. We also need a movement that makes reform of our electoral system a central part of our agenda. It is very hard to work for electoral reform properly if we are devoting ourselves to acting within the broken system. The Swing States are where the action is. Backing good platforms in the 38 states from which all candidates and journalists have fled misses huge opportunities. A national movement devoted to protecting lesser-evil officials in Swing States will behave as a fan-club for those officials in-between elections in every single state. And the fact is that electoral work for lesser-evil candidates drains huge amounts of time and energy away from other projects for the Ellsbergs among us, no matter how much good activism they do for three years out of four.

We desperately need automatic voter registration, just as we have automatic war draft registration. Door knocking could then be done on behalf of peace and justice, which -- after all -- are far more popular than any Duopoly candidate. We need to break out of the notion that electoral busy-work created by anti-democratic legislators counts as activism -- and in fact amounts to the complete array of possible activism. We need access to vote, access to placing names on ballots, access to media, and to debates. We need free air time for qualified candidates (for a limited time period!), a ban on private spending, an end to the electoral college, and verifiable counting of paper ballots where they are cast. We won't vote ourselves any of these things. We will only compel them through the true array of activist tools: educating, organizing, communicating, boycotting, blockading, marching, rallying, interrupting, mocking, mobilizing, inspiring, shaming, and struggling our way forward. Women did not vote themselves the right to vote. Nobody elected us workplace rights, environmental protections, or a safety net. We moved the whole country through policy-based movements that often involved moving third- and fourth-party candidates.

Next Page  1  |  2



David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Feith Dares Obama to Enforce the Law

Obama's Open Forum Opens Possibilities

Public Forum Planned on Vermont Proposal to Arrest Bush and Cheney

Did Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?

Holder Asked to Prosecute Blankenship

Eleven Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
13 people are discussing this page, with 36 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

See the chart below from 2008.  Since Obama/B... by Scott Baker on Saturday, Oct 20, 2012 at 4:15:02 AM
this is not the time to vote third party. We just ... by intotheabyss on Saturday, Oct 20, 2012 at 3:57:24 PM
I should have pointed out that I live in NY, which... by Scott Baker on Sunday, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:37:09 PM
... over the past four years -- even making allowa... by PCM on Saturday, Oct 20, 2012 at 5:01:54 PM
That extending unemployment benefits is as bad as ... by BFalcon on Sunday, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:55:34 AM
... but then your mouth would be full of straw. ... by PCM on Sunday, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:04:00 AM
is overwhelming."Straw brain"?... by BFalcon on Sunday, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:22:25 AM
Giving himself permission to kill whomever he want... by Adam Smith on Sunday, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:42:48 AM
"The man is an effective fascist."To echo the Prin... by J. Edward Tremlett on Sunday, Oct 21, 2012 at 1:14:08 PM
He has created the TPP treaty which, as soon as it... by Laura Stein on Sunday, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:33:11 PM
I'm using it more in the traditional Mussolini sen... by Adam Smith on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:10:13 PM
You use the "names" like fascist unnecessarily. Ju... by BFalcon on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:23:57 PM
I'm using it more in the traditional Mussolini sen... by Lynne Kringler on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:25:43 AM
Although it's not unique to him as a president, fi... by Adam Smith on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:05:38 AM
And yet I believe that you are wrong. The "potent... by BFalcon on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:54:03 PM
If you didn't, read the book "Fame is the Spur" by... by BFalcon on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:59:45 PM
As for Harper, we have him because we have 4 feder... by Adam Smith on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:46:27 PM
I always admired the ability of the parliament in ... by BFalcon on Thursday, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:32:20 AM
is what you have for our president.And Edward summ... by BFalcon on Sunday, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:16:40 PM
The only potentially hostile thing I said was that... by Adam Smith on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:15:17 PM
" Giving himself permission to kill whomever he wa... by BFalcon on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:17:06 PM
Well, for the drones, the ACLU covers it well:http... by Adam Smith on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:43:03 AM
The US courts traditionally have jurisdiction on t... by BFalcon on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:33:25 PM
First off, thanks for your well though-out respons... by Adam Smith on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:45:37 PM
He didn't want to try "imposing good policies by c... by BFalcon on Thursday, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:25:56 AM
What I've always encouraged others to do, as I att... by Syntara Sarych on Saturday, Oct 20, 2012 at 11:13:42 PM
reply to Scott Baker (and David Swanson):   ... by Ned Lud on Sunday, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:41:05 AM
"A single vote never wins" so voting is "irrationa... by BFalcon on Sunday, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:42:01 AM
your statement, "In my view, the severity of the m... by Kevin Tully on Sunday, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:04:47 AM
What's irrational about one little person casting ... by Jim Arnold on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:51:16 PM
Its a pleasure to read a piece that really clarifi... by Stephen Unger on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:01:44 PM
Some people have difficulty understanding a simple... by BFalcon on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:15:10 PM
Vote them in as president....then what? You have n... by Lynne Kringler on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:44:52 AM
Some things you evidently have forgotten. 1. T... by Lynne Kringler on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:05:11 AM
This was all done, and much more, by the 'lesser o... by Lynne Kringler on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:09:05 AM
Of my latest posts? Too long? Opposite opinions? W... by Lynne Kringler on Thursday, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:56:26 AM