Part 2: A Defense of Third Party Voting

While at the present moment, voting based on ideals seems an impractical cause, if we take the time to look at the issue from a rational and ethical perspective, we find that it is a far superior standard for voting. In my last article, I was able to present my frustration with the Republican party and relate the reasoning for my decision to vote 3rd party. However, I did not present much in the way of proper argumentation. Thus, in this article it is time to examine this issue on its own merits. I've decided to do this by presenting the objections against third party voting and respond to those arguments.

Objection 1: "Don't waste your vote!"

In other words, if a voter casts his ballot for a candidate that has no chance of winning, he has wasted his ballot by not participating in the "actual" election. Yet, this argument presumes that the potential for winning is the primary criterion by which we should support candidates. Indeed, many conservatives make this argument despite its worrisome Machiavellian implications. After all, if Adolf Hitler ran against Josef Stalin and no other candidate had a chance of winning, would we all try to vote for the "lesser evil" of Adolf Hitler? Once we start down the logical trail of letting a candidate's potential for winning become the primary criterion for a "good" ballot, we will find ourselves traversing stormy seas.

In contrast, I advocate moral imperatives as the primary criterion for whether or not a ballot is effectively cast. By the standard of logical and moral consistency based off of a philosophy of individual rights, limited government, and free markets, we can effectively cast our ballots even if our candidate has little to no chance of winning. By this standard, it is not the few moral imperativists who waste their votes in any given election, it is the thousands (if not millions) of pragmatic voters who compromise on their ethical principles for the expediency of supporting a candidate who might win, despite his ethical shortcomings.

Objection 2: "Vote for the lesser of two evils. It's better to have a lesser evil than a greater evil."

In and of itself, this statement is absurd. In parallel terms, it says "better to murder less humans than more humans," or "better to steal less money than more money," or "better to commit less adultery than more adultery." All the while, notice how the statement does not refute the evil in question, but rather accepts it, albeit on a lesser scale.

This translates into the voting and political realms. Remember this: a ballot is a means of assent or approval. When a voter casts his ballot, he essentially says "I approve this candidate to be my political leader." It is a personal statement of trust in the leader for which the ballot is cast. Thus, when we openly admit that our candidate is the "lesser of two evils," we openly admit to approving evil. In terms of conservative politics, if we vote for a candidate because he's less pro-choice than his opponent, we've really just voted for a man because he wants to kill less babies than his opponent. If we vote for a candidate who approves a bill with money slated for Social Security, public education, healthcare benefits, welfare benefits, etc., we've voted for a candidate who sponsors legal plunder. No matter the scale of the evil, our vote has approved evil. Thus, this objection to third party voting, despite being one of the more popular objections, is perhaps the most irrational.

Objection 3: "Third party voters cost major parties the election."

This objection assumes that it is desirable that the major parties win the election in the first place. However, as parties, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have anything left to offer to the conservative voter. A few individuals within these parties might stand for conservative principles, but they are few and far between. Over the past couple decades, when the Democrats and Republicans have been given power, they've devoted themselves to growing government in every way possible. Former President George W. Bush made former President Clinton look like a fiscal conservative, increasing federal spending in government education, Social Security, health care, and welfare projects. At the end of his presidency, he force fed the American economy a $700 billion bailout package. If we as conservatives are going to be consistent in our beliefs, we have to admit that the Republicans under Bush were just as power hungry and politically ruthless as the "hated Democrats."

But back to the original objection. My ultimate response is: I hope 3rd parties cost major parties the election. How else will we force major parties to conform to our desires as conservative voters unless we end our pragmatic acceptance of party-based voting and let the major parties know we are willing to support third parties who are more in line with our principles?

Note that this objection contradicts the earlier objection from pragmatic voters which says that a third party vote is a wasted ballot since it "doesn't count." All of a sudden, when third party votes sway an election away from a major party, then they do count after all!

Objection 4: "The United States is a two-party system."

Perhaps this is true, but the fact that it is a two-party system doesn't mean that it should be or that we as voters should allow for the status quo to remain unchanged. This is equivalent to telling Orville and Wilbur Wright on December 16, 1903 that "Man does not fly." In a day, they would have remembered such a comment and laughed. Now, perhaps no third party movement is on the eve of taking flight, however, neither were the Wright brothers when they first conceived of the notion that they could fly.

Regardless, the nature of the two-party system distorts political incentives and should be challenged. When both parties are leap-frogging each other in practically the same direction (more government, less individual rights), the two-party system is not effective for fulfilling the needs of the conservative voter. Playing under the rules of the two-party system at this point will do nothing to return to America to conservatism. At best, we'll jog down the road to socialism instead of sprint.

In short, the point is taken that the U.S. is a two-party system, but if we want to fight abortion, if we want to fight legal plunder, if we want to decrease government and increase individual rights, we have to realize that the current two-party system is broken. We cannot continue to artificially restrain ourselves to two parties when both are enemies of the ideals that we hold dear.

Conclusion

As a third party voter in last year's election, I had to formulate my beliefs on this issue in order to defend my decision. The above arguments are not meant to condemn without cause nor to instill guilt. I hope that people who read my arguments will at least consider their worth, if not be persuaded to realize the danger of placing faith in our current two-party system. The answer for the conservative no longer lies in the Republican party, but rather in consistently applying our logic and principles in our political action, beginning with the casting of our ballot.