I wonder how many of the other 6,202 people who voted for Bill Weld in the Arkansas Republican primary were doing so simply because they’re allergic to Trump and Trumpism? That reason was good enough for me to proudly say “Republican” when asked which ballot I wanted, even though I more often vote for Democrats in recent years. I don’t pass up a chance to vote against Trump, as directly as possible.
If anyone ever tries to tell me that one vote makes no difference, I’ll refer them to this statistic, along with my previous such vote in 2016. I know exactly how much difference my vote makes.
[Image source: here.]
Please vote, on or before Tuesday, if you oppose Trump and Trumpism.
On the other hand, if you’re a fan of Trump, please remember that your vote is statistically meaningless . . . so you might as well stay home.
I just early-voted in the midterm election, and surprised myself by casting ballots for several Libertarians. These were races where voting Libertarian was the only way to vote against the Party of Trump.
If you live in one of the states shown in gold, congratulations — both the Trump and Clinton campaigns want your vote, for you live in a “battleground” or “toss-up” state, or at least one that only slightly “leans Democrat” in polls, or “leans Republican.”
The states shown in purple, on the other hand, are taken for granted by one campaign, while the other campaign regards them as “lost causes.” My own state, Arkansas, for example, is solid Trump territory, even though I can’t stand the man. These states don’t offer a competitive race.
In a presidential campaign where most people are voting against someone, rather than voting for anyone, this map is important for strategic voting. In my case, for example, I see the two major parties as offering me a choice between bad (Clinton) and worse (Trump). If I lived in a golden state, I’d probably hold my nose and vote for Clinton, for, in such a state, the urge to stop Trump would compel me to vote against the person with the best chance of beating Trump.
However, my state is purple. It’s solid Trump-turf. Hillary Clinton herself knows she won’t carry Arkansas. My anti-Trump vote is largely symbolic, and, as such, I want to use it to send a message to both the Republican and Democratic parties. It’s a simple message: “give us better choices.” To send such a message, I need to vote for someone else, and there are two major alternatives: Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate (his website is at https://www.johnsonweld.com/), and Dr. Jill Stein, the Green candidate (her website is at http://www.jill2016.com/). To make a statement that the government needs to pay more attention to carbon emission and climate change (and the major parties need to give us better candidates in elections), I’ve decided to vote Green this year.
This same logic would hold true were I in, say, New York, also purple. New York is purple because both candidates know it is a “safe” Clinton state. If I lived there, Clinton would carry that state with or without my vote, so, again, I would cast my protest vote for Jill Stein.
To the majority who live in purple states, and dislike both Trump and Clinton, I ask you to consider casting your vote for either Johnson or Stein. Voters in the golden states, on the other hand, are involved in competitive races, and (pragmatically) should vote for Hillary Clinton if they want to do anything to stop Trump, or vote for Trump if they are willing to vote for anyone to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.
It is a shame that votes matter more in some states, and don’t matter as much in others. For this reason, I would favor an Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the electoral college, and choose our presidents by direct popular vote, with a two-person, nationwide runoff election a month later, if the candidate with the most votes only wins a plurality of the popular vote in November.
I don’t like TV ads, mailings, etc. that encourage people to vote. If I had money to burn, I’d buy advertising with the opposite message: please don’t bother voting.
Reason 1: When more people vote, the impact of my single vote is diluted.
Reason 2: When fewer people vote, the impact of my vote increases.
Reason 3: If, hypothetically, my “please don’t vote” campaign convinced everyone else not to vote, I still would vote, and then I’d get my way — for everything on the ballot. =D
[Image credit: this picture of a ballot box was found at http://www.nbcwashington.com, and does not appear to be copyrighted. If I am mistaken, I will remove it upon request.]
Why do people say this so much? There’s no voting-requirement clause in the First Amendment.
Those who choose not to vote do, indeed, have a right to complain. So do those who vote for the people who lose.
If ANYONE sacrifices their “right to complain” on election day, it should be those who vote FOR whomever wins — for those are the people who actually put the winners in office!
It bugs me when people say something over and over and over, but never stop to actually THINK about it.
Also, why are we bombarded by messages urging us to vote? I prefer to encourage people to stay home on Election Day. I don’t want everyone voting — especially not stupid people who pay no attention to what’s going on in the world.
I vote. I already have, this year, in fact. If I can ever convince everyone else not to vote, then, well, I’ll get my way on everything, won’t I?