Protesting Protest Votes

My first presidential election was 1968's, jolly Humphrey vs. vile Nixon. Campaigning on his secret plan to end the Viet Nam war -- which turned out to be five more years of brutal conflict -- Nixon was transparently dishonest; he'd famously told his legal counsel Leonard Garment that Leonard would never make it in politics because "you don't know how to lie." But to us anti-war activists on college campuses, it was unthinkable to vote for Humphrey and his "politics of joy," a feckless attempt to cheer up a country torn apart by Viet Nam. So I wrote in the name Dick Gregory, the candidate of the Freedom and Peace Party, which, in one of those priceless internecine struggles on the left, had broken off from the Peace and Freedom Party. The brilliant and hilarious Gregory didn't stand a chance but memorably printed up counterfeit dollar bills with his likeness as campaign collateral.

I came to regret my decision. Nixon was the overwhelming favorite, but when Election Night showed a race too close to call, I found myself ardently rooting for Humphrey. Nixon won. And you know the rest.

Fast forward to 2000, when my friend Wendy voted for Ralph Nader. Her rationale: she was voting in California, a safe Gore state, and she wanted to protest the Democratic Party's centrist politics. Looking back through the lens of the Bush catastrophe, she now regrets that decision.

So I thought we'd learned the lesson that third-party candidates spoil elections. And, indeed, third-party voting has seemed a non-issue this time around. Their candidates are polling low, and they've been all but ignored by both the mainstream and the alternative media.

But today I got an email from an old friend who lambasted me for a post in which I argued for Barack Obama with the passion I'd felt for Dick Gregory all those years ago. After a moment of terror that he might be for John McCain, I discovered--in another moment of a different kind of terror--that he's a full-blown Naderite, equally disgusted with Obama and McCain. He calls them establishment "tools of the corporations," allowing that Obama is perhaps a little less bad than McCain, but not nearly worthy of a vote, even as the lesser of two evils.

Though it's unlikely Nader or anyone else will prevent Obama from getting elected next week, it's worth examining the Naderist impulse among at least some progressives, either because (like my friend) they genuinely think he would be a better president or (like Wendy) he is a convenient vehicle of protest.

It's worthy of note that Wendy learned the lesson: risking nothing, she's now an Obama activist. Similarly, Nader's supporters would do well to take a deep breath and look clearly at our cratering economy (a 300-point Dow drop last Friday was considered a good day) and murderous foreign adventurism. Given that the Republicans' deregulation chickens are coming home to roost--probably a roost that once sold in the high sixes but is now in foreclosure--it's our responsibility to help our country get out of this mess by supporting Obama.

I think Obama can be a transformative president. But let's say I'm wrong and stipulate that, like Clinton, he'll govern from the middle. Can anyone doubt that the thousands of Obama appointees with huge potential to affect our lives--from Supreme Court justices to cabinet members and agency chiefs--will be vastly superior in competence and values to those of a President McCain, or, God forbid, a President Palin? (The New York Times reported today that Republican-appointed judges now make up 61 percent of the bench and control 10 of the 13 circuits.)

It's a simple fact that if you vote for anyone but Obama, you may help McCain win the White House. If you're sick about the last eight years, how about spending the next four living with that? So let's rally around Barack. If he's elected, we'll hold his feet to the fire. And even if he disappoints, his presidency will be infinitely better than the alternative-and I don't mean Ralph Nader.

Follow Michael Sigman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/majorsongs

Comments

[JohnDewey]

Before, during and after the Civil Rights movement, the furthest right wing of the country proved it was capable of anything in advancing their cause. After Roe vs. Wade, the fundamentalist Christian Right also proved they were capable of anything in defense of their cause. Those people not only comprise the rock solid base of the Republican Party, they have huge influence and, in many cases, hold positions of control.

Can anyone, outside of Fox News, honestly argue that the same is true on the left? The left have been demonized by the right forever, but since the waning days of the New Deal, our supposed allies in the Democratic Party have also turned on us. This, despite the fact that it was the far left who brought us the labour union movement and all of its gains, universal suffrage, the idea that healthcare & housing are a human right, the Civil Rights movement, and on and on.

Whatever you think of Kucinich, why isn't his platform the platform of the national party? What better way to demonstrate real differences & show respect for what the left has done for the cause of human liberty?

P.S. Here's a suggestion. If registered Democrats are serious about persuading third party voters to vote Dem., they could start by working - from the inside - to institute instant run-off voting and/or proportional representation (and dump the Electoral College while you're at it). At the very least, dissolve the Commission on Presidential Debates.

[mattheweste]

As usual a dishonest argument for Obama -- is there any other kind?

"I came to regret my decision. Nixon was the overwhelming favorite, but when Election Night showed a race too close to call, I found myself ardently rooting for Humphrey. Nixon won. And you know the rest."

Do you know the rest?
The rest is that the present day Democrats are to the right of Nixon and Reagan. How did that happen? It happened because too few people stood up to the rightward lurch of the Democratic party. How do you stand up to that? By voting for parties to their left.

So ironically you ask us to vote for a guy to the right of Nixon by telling us a story of how bad Nixon was. That's why I call out this diary as dishonest. It's totally short term thinking when all around us the results of that permanent short term thinking are bringing us disaster.

"Can anyone doubt that the thousands of Obama appointees with huge potential to affect our lives--from Supreme Court justices to..."

The most liberal members of the Supreme Court were not even appointed by Democrats. That is how far the Democrats have lurched to the right. Short term thinking all the time means you'll end up in another 30 years with a Democratic party that makes George Bush look like Michael Moore and still it will be the same losing refrain, "vote for the slightly lesser evil".

[Michael Sigman - Huffpost Blogger]

Perhaps my blog wasn't clear enough. My argument isn't the "lesser evil" one. I believe Obama will make a terrific president and accomplish many progressive things. But I'm also saying that even if he falls short, he will be, not a lesser evil, but miles ahead of a McCain or -- and this is an important component -- a Palin presidency.

[winnie47]

Of course Nader is a protest vote. The great Ralph Nader of "Nader's Raiders" who did so much good for the American consumer has become irrelevant with this perpetual self-serving exercise every 4 years. He is the voice of the far left ex-hippies who can't pull themselves off the commune and into the 21st century. The rest of America has figured him out and doesn't even consider him as an option on November 4th.

[DoTheMath]

Michael Sigman is right on target. Voting is not an exercise in expressing beliefs, pledging allegiance to principles, or protesting. Voting for president is the practical act of choosing which candidate will assume a position of great power over a great many people. The consequences are real, so it would be irresponsible to treat the process as anything but practical.

People who don't like the two-party system, the electoral college, or other parts of the process should work on changing the process at another time in another way. Voting for a third-party candidate does not change the system. Ralph Nader has run for president as a third-party candidate three times before this election. By his own admission, the conditions that prompted him to run are worse now than they ever have been. There's no denying that his tactic of running for president as a third-party candidate to improve conditions has not worked. Yet he is trying the same tactic again. Why not try something else?

Either Barack Obama or John McCain will become our next president. Whatever Nader, Paul, McKinney, Barr, or Baldwin may say, there is a great deal of difference between Obama and McCain, just as there was a great deal of difference between Gore and Bush. Every citizen is responsible for becoming well-informed enough to recognize the differences between them. All adults are responsible for making the best choice we really have, even when we may wish we had another choice.

[freebeer]

I thought the entire concept of personal freedoms on which our nation was founded, was to allow the INDIVIDUAL to make their own choices.

I guess Dothemath doesn't think individuals can use their one possession that matters in a way that suits their OWN values, morals and beliefs.
My personal belief is that voting is important, everyone should do it and I encourage others to do the same.
But right now if someone looks at me and says....th­ey are all dirty crooks trying to screw us, so I will not vote..... I have a hard time arguing with them, though I still disagree.

A third party vote may anger some rabid Democratic loyalists here, and they will respond with several canned arguments that have been around for years.
Fear.....i­f you vote third party you get McCain.
Guilt.....­that is why we had 8 years of Bush
Slander...­.Nader is a greedy egomaniac
Settle....­.so OK Democrats are no longer a party of the people but at least they are not as bad as evil Republicans.

If we let Democrats away with all of their pro Bush skulduggery like FISA, war funding, refusing to impeach, giving our money to Wall street....­..without using our votes to hammer them into doing the right thing.....­.is that not a wasted vote too?

I strongly agree that every citizen is responsible for becoming well informed, and as such I will vote for Cynthia McKinney.

[countingdays]

There, now you've made the INDIVIDUAL choice that you proclaim your right to. Good for you!

I doubt that anybody here would say you don't have that right. You will probably hear from some folks that they think your individual choice was foolish and ultimately self-defeating. All this article and DoTheMath are doing is asking people who are reading here to keep a few things in mind when you freely make your INDIVIDUAL choice. As far as I can tell, they're not telling you to do anything.

[TheHandyman]

Continued

Obama doesn't even address the 8 major issues affecting the people of this country whereas Nader does. His platform was conceived on what Americans say they want and he would deliver every one of them. Obama is a man who thinks that transfering all the troops to Afghanistan to continue another unwinnable and illegal war is in our best interests. one that issue alone Obama should be rejected by voters. McCain should never have even been considered for the Presidency at all.

Wendy may have learned her lesson but it was the wrong lesson. Here is yours to learn. A year from now when Obama has dropped the ball and is doing the business of his Corporate Masters you will once again feel betrayed. I, however, will not. That is the difference between casting your vote for the right candidate who tells the truth and voting for the wrong candidate because he suckered you. You will get the governemnt you deserve and those of us will not. I will not blame Obama, I will blame you and the others like you who fall for smoke and mirrors rather than actual accomplishments

[Luigi53102]

Actually, we got the kind of government you deserve. Those who are too dense to understand that there is no such thing as a protest vote, or to be able to grapple with simple concepts like cause and effect, should be stuck with the government that they foisted on us in 2000. The rest of us should get to live with the better government - albeit not perfect - that we asked for.

[TheHandyman]

Yes, those of us who actually look at the candidates records instead of drinking their kool-aid understand that Nader's accusations about both candidates are true, not some political ploy. We look at what McCain and Obama have actually done as opposed to what they say they've done or will do and find both of them liars. Your example of your friend Wendy is a red herring. California's electoral votes went to Gore so Wendy's vote had nothing to do with Bush's win. Her only problem seems that she voted for Nader for all the wrong reasons. For that she should have felt guilt. I have voted for Nader in both elections and just sent my ballot in for him again. People like you Mr. Sigman are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils and I am not. I vote for Ralph because he is clearly the best person for the job, the best person for my own self best interests, and for my country's interests. Enlighten yourself which you have not taken the time to do or you wouldn't speak so disparingly about him.

[Zeje]

I agree with you Handyman. Nader represents me and my concerns. Obama is, indeed, the "lesser of two evils." But he has not won my vote.

[tompoe]

Michael: We live in a democracy. We vote on the issues. This is not a game. No one needs to vote for someone they don't want, so another won't be elected. That's not how democracy works. If you truly believe in what you're saying, then you should be willing to vote with third party voters, and send the message once and for all, that we live in a democracy. So, let's hear your team spirit for the third party choice you're going to vote for.

[Pdubya]

Your premise holds some bold assumptions:

a. there are fundamental differences in the two front-runner candidates.

b. all protest votes are done just for that; to protest.

Ron Paul took the lead and brought together McKinney, Baldwin, Barr (didn't show but supported agenda) and Nader last month for a National Press Club conference.

They all agreed on four American principles (re-examine a. above after reading below):

1. non-intervention foreign policy
2. restore civil liberties
3. end the fed, return to sound money
4. process change and access to debates

The goal is to keep giving rise to the third party turnout to break the corporate duopoly on the Hill. It is increasing every year.

All of the third party voters I know aren't voting in protest but on principle. Are you going to try and argue with me that I shouldn't be voting on principles?

[Skua]

OK, Michael, I see what you're saying, but now let's look at the other side.

Suppose that, like me and like Jeremiah Wright, you believe some of those things that Sen. Obama says no American can believe?

Suppose that you favor the self-determination of Palestine, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, and you realize that you just don't have a candidate in this election - who can win?

Suppose that you feel that the US needs the kind of economic transformation that an associate of Paul Volcker is not going to provide?

Suppose that you kind of think that on balance the things that Bill Ayers did were not as "despicable" as the things that the US did to Viet Nam?

Suppose you feel that your own politics have been "denounced and rejected" by Senator Obama at every turn?

Suppose you cringe when you read Hitchens urge a vote for Obama because he's more hawkish on Pakistan than McCain is?

You might still believe an Obama loss would be catastrophic, but then what if, like me, you live in a secure blue state? You might then vote for McKinney.

[MEStaton]

Having just had a conversation on this exact topic, I couldn't agree more. I was living in terror when I heard all the Hilary supporters claiming they would vote for McCain as a protest against Obama. If you're a Democrat/L­iberal/Lef­ty you don't vote for the Conservatives/Right just because you don't like the candidate you're left with.

Although I'm an American I now live (and vote) in the UK. We recently had a mayoral election in London and as a protest against Ken Livingston (Labour) liberals voted in Boris Johnson (Conservative). Personally, I voted for the Liberal Democrat candidate because although I thought it was time for Ken to go home I couldn't in good concious vote for what I see as "the other side". At least a third party is a viable option in this country so that even if you do not win the Big Seat you can still win representation from that party.

What I'm getting at is that people often do not vote with any logic or thought behind their vote. We have paid dearly for the backlash against Clinton for the past eight years and I can only hope that finally people have woken up to some sense. Perhaps though they will only vote in Obama as a protest against Bush/McCain. The problem is that it only opens the gate for backlash/emotional voting next time and we end up in this cycle all over again.

[PATina]

While I understand what you are saying... I still think that in a Democracy.­.. people should vote for who they feel will best represent them... will speak for them... not for who they think has a chance to win. I wish... WISH... we'd move away from this "two party" system... and work to promte 5 distinct parties (i.e. Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Constitutional) that would represent the diversity of American politics. I truly believe that it would make government more accountable and transparen­t... and more would get done. Having multiple parties represented in Congress would end partisanship as there wouldn't be enough of any ONE party to force the other party to "go along to get along".