Should Progressives Feel Obligated to Vote for the Democratic Party?
Daniel Davies at the Crooked Timber site sayeth thee nay. Some of his reasons, which also amount to a pretty good case (one I've made before) for not voting at all on candidate elections:
Not only is it highly unlikely, for paradox-of-voting reasons, that yours will be the crucial vote, but even if it is, it will have elected a candidate who is then highly unlikely to be the crucial vote on any proposal of interest, and who cannot even be relied upon to vote the right way if he is. So given the generally lower level of stakes, an election like this one is likely to be a happy hunting ground for protest votes. And so this is a serious business – I really do think that more likely than not, most CT readers with a vote to waste should be giving serious consideration to wasting it….
…the problem to overcome in getting you to drag your ass (note American spelling) down to the polling station is the Paradox of Voting. Which isn't really a paradox; it could more accurately be titled "The Actual Extremely Low Expected Value Of Voting". This requires an appeal to your civic sense of duty; remember Martin Luther King, etc. In other words, they need you to see it as your duty to society to vote, or alternatively to see your vote as an important form of political expression.
However, once your ass is duly dragged and you're in the voting booth, the last thing they want you to do is your civic duty (which would be to vote for the candidate you think is the best; that's how voting systems work, strategic or tactical behaviour is a pathology of a badly designed system) or political expression (which also wouldn't have you voting for their guy). Once you're there, they want to argue in purely instrumental terms – you have to vote for the Democrats because if you vote for your minority party, you have no chance at all of being the marginal voter.
It looks inconsistent, because it is. Particularly in a midterm election, when you have a very small chance of being the deciding vote for a Congressman who in turn has a very small chance of being the deciding vote on an issue of importance (and given that this is the Democrats we are talking about, you have to take into account votes of importance where your congressman is the swing vote for the wrong side), the expected value of your vote is very small indeed, and the costs of it are the psychological toll on your own morale, plus the opportunity cost of whatever else you might have done with the time.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Should Progressives Feel Obligated to Vote for the Democratic Party?
No, but Progresssives should feel obligated to kill themselves, stat.
^^THIS^^
Just sell it as a eugenics program and you may get their support.
For the collective!
Anyone that feels an obligation to vote for a candidate because of party affiliation is either too lazy, too stupid, too zealous, or too inept to vote. Or maybe a combination of all four.
Unfortunately, they're also the majority of voters, so we're fucked.
I feel an obligation to vote for LP candidates. I think "zealous" and "inept" cover it in my case.
There are enough LP candidates 'round here that I can actually talk about "voting the party line" this time out, and the research I've done suggests that this is a perfectly good plan, so I'm going with it...
"It looks inconsistent, because it is. Particularly in a midterm election, when you have a very small chance of being the deciding vote for a Congressman who in turn has a very small chance of being the deciding vote on an issue of importance"
Well no shit. There are 300 million people in this country. Just what kind of a system would allow one person's vote to make a significant impact? That is just a pile of stupid.
And find don't vote. Someone will, even if it is only the candidates and their families. And the winners are not going to give a shit if they won is two or two hundred million votes. They are going to take the same legitimacy and do the same things.
The problem with measuring the actual utility of voting is that voting is about ethics, and utility is only a portion of ethics and not the whole.
Once you consider it part of ethics, then all sorts of other factors come into play, like the maxim of your action, and reciprocity, and lesser-evil game theory, and all the other fun stuff we talk about when we talk about voting.
Voting is an act that is almost completely consequence free: your vote will almost never decide an election, and if it does, it does between two candidates who are unlikely to be terribly different.
Given that, how exactly do you define the ethics of an act that does nothing?
Well, you could do so by examining the maxim of your action.
If all people who shared your political views also stayed home, those who do not share your views would inevitably triumph.
So your action cannot survive all members of your in-group treating it as a maxim.
Looked at a slightly different way, our system of governance only continues because someone votes. By failing to vote, you are forcing other people to carry that ball for you. That makes you a system free rider.
Or we could consider the issue from the standpoint of justice. Somewhere, a candidate is working hard to espouse views that are similar to yours. To support that candidate, all you have to do is undertake the relatively low cost activity of voting. If you are unwilling to do that, you are failing to treat that candidate justly. [Not in the significant way we would associate with breaking a contract or committing a crime, but in the less significant but still real way one can be unjust to a friend by not reciprocating his hospitality, or unjust to a performer by booing them even though they entertained you, etc.]
Not everything in ethics boils down to utility. You're repeating the error of the initial analysis.
By voting, I am saying that the status quo is fine. It isn't, so I don't vote. I'm not a complete nut, because I don't shoot people in frustration from the above fact.
Oh hell I missed this:
"Looked at a slightly different way, our system of governance only continues because someone votes."
Oh hell yeah, this is exactly why I do NOT vote.
On the ostensible topic: everybody should feel obligated to vote for a third party this election.
On the topic of the "Paradox of Voting." I think it's overstated. So, imagine a scenario in which there really was a one-vote margin. The way that the Paradox of Voting is typically stated, it makes it sound like one person there was the critical vote that turned the election. But the actual fact is, everybody on the winning side was equally critical. So, in that (admittedly rare-to-nonexistent) case, every single person on the winning side is singly responsible for the winning candidate.
In the more likely case, where the winner wins by 1,000 to 10,000 votes for a relatively tight local race, if we accept that winning by 1 vote means all the voters are singly responsible for electing that candidate, that basically means that single responsibility is diluted by 1,000 to 10,000. That's... not a LOT of power, but it's not nothing.
True story: I voted against a school district income tax that lost by one vote!
Then they had a recount and "found" two votes on the other side.
Democracy!!! Woohoo!
I voted against a budget for building a new, retardedly expensive high school. It was voted down. 2 weeks later, they had another vote for it. It was voted down. 2 weeks later, they had another vote for it. It finally passed. And I stopped voting.
You're going to vote until you get it right!
New Mexico allows ties to be decided by a game of change mutually acceptable to the candidates. It happened in some local race while I lived their. They drew from a deck of poker cards, high card to win.
Vault 21 is in Nevada you heathen.
Reviews?
The one vote I'm proud to have cast was when some obnoxious land owners got a ballot to get a tax in place to build a stadium for a minor league baseball team. I really got out there on that one, and helped bankroll the anti-coalition to sink that motherfucker. When corporatism hits that close to home, I will be damned if I sit on the side lines if there is anything that can be done about it that doesn't involve jail time.
First time ever I voted Libertarian (30-sh years ago) the results were published in the local paper by individual polling station. I checked my polling place, a school and it showed, amongst all the four and five digit numbers of votes for the main parties: Libertarian (1). That was my vote!!
I may still have the newspaper in the attic!
If an election is decided by only a few votes, the courts will decide who wins, not the voters. So your vote doesn't mean anything in close races, either. Feel better?
"So, imagine a scenario in which there really was a one-vote margin. "
I forgot this part:
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
^^THIS^^
"Some of his reasons, which also amount to a pretty good case (one I've made before) for not voting at all on candidate elections:"
Yeah, but you're a doctrinaire asshole.
ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for contributing, Max.
Max, the corroded, puritanical progressive is back.
The premise is absurd. Progressives only feel obligated to make OTHER people do things.
Ouch.
If the election comes down to 1000 votes or less then it gets decided by the courts. So no, your vote really doesn't matter.
This isnt true for local elections. No candidate for my mini-city council will get 1000 votes total, much less win by more than 1000.
When campaiging and throughout my political career I always made the point that the VAST majority of your rights are violated and imperiled at the most local level. If you have ever see a small city council in action it is quite frightening. Their actions are not only mendacious, pernicious, and malicious but also directly affect you, the voter, the most. The ultimate irony is these are the elections people participate in the least. I live in a city of 40,000, mayor won by a margin of 25 votes and a total cast of about 2000.
It's not, perchance, a city called "Bell", is it?
OK, call it one vote. How does that change Bingo's overall point?
I used to get a serious jolt of "fuck The Man!" adrenaline when I'd vote straight LP. Now, not so much. But I still do it.
Ah, youth.
Imagine this:
Progressives still do.
Vote straight LP?
They still do, and they ARE the man!
It would be great to have a ballot where voting straight LP meant something other than leaving virtually every race blank.
I only had two LP candidates to vote for, so I did. Some "lesser of two evils vs. blank ballot" calculations ensued for the remaining races.
Move to Colorado
Should Progressives Feel Obligated to Vote for the Democratic Party?
No. I'm not voting for the Democrats. I feel that they use us progressives like the Republicans use the Religious People.
You will all be happy to know that I will be voiting for the LIBERAL PARTY and by doing so, I'm basically voting REPUBLICAN.
I'm pretty sure that won't make anyone here happy since Republicans are just a slightly different flavor of evil. But it might at least leave some people feeling slightly less awful since gridlock trumps one-party rule.
I'm only automatically anti-Democrat this year if the Democrat is an incumbent. I can only think of one Democratic incumbent (Russ Feingold) that deserves reelection. He's not getting it, unfortunately.
I despise the 2 party system and as such always vote third party.
There are other parties which are more progressive than the republicans or democrats, the greens and the working families parties are definitely more progressive.
Also there are liberal republicans, think Rockefeller, which are often closer to the progressive agenda than conservative democrats.
There is also the occassional libertarian candidate or independent candidate that is possible to vote for.
Voting in Seattle for the first time; now I know what one-party rule feels like. Other than the senate seat; the ballot was generally uncontested Democrats.
Ultra-corrupt, necessarily-progressive, incumbent Democrats trash-talking "Republicans" in "The Wire". A laughable moment.
Not only is there a Paradox of Voting, there is a Paradox of Not Voting.
By not voting, you are giving incrementally more weight to the votes that are cast.
Those votes, as the Paradox of Voting demonstrates, are cast by idiots, because who else would defy the Paradox of Voting to actually cast a ballot? But, what kind of idiot wouldn't vote, thus empowering the idiots who do?
Its basically idiots all the way down, in other words. Democracy doth make fools of us all.
Can anyone provide a modern-day definition of progressive?
Seems to me it just means "liberal who doesn't want to be called that anymore".
Not to worry, we're hard at work destroying the term "progressive" too. Turns out, a lot of words can sound menacing shaking in the jowls of Rush Limbaugh!
"Turns out, a lot of words can sound menacing shaking in the jowls of Rush Limbaugh!"
That is a good line, I shall steal it if I can remember it in the morning.
A lot of what falls under the label "progressive" is precisely that: at some point "liberal" became a term of abuse that was being used to discredit liberal people and causes, so for tactical reasons "progressive" was put in its place.
I think that probably among a lot of people on the younger side, it just means being on the side of progress as organized around certain issues and individuals. This is my current social milieu, and I've asked several self-identified "progressives" to explain what it means. None of them were able to.
Then there are also the "progressives" who use the term to make their "radical"/Marxian/Marxist politics and agendas sound and seem more "mainstream" than they are, for strategic reasons.
In some cases it is a euphemism for "hard left" - including the segments responsible for what Cynthia Ozick has called "its Stalinist taint."
I'll try my best to come up with a real and genuine distinction between liberal [in the modern American sense] and progressive:
Progressives believe that society can be perfected in the future if we just break enough eggs now. They still see a left-wing narrative of history where we are gradually progressing towards a future leftist utopia.
Liberals just think they can use the power of the state to benefit "the common man" today. Their leftism tends to be more contingent and situational than that of progressives. A little more UAW, a little less Robespierre.
And you have to use the words "Social Contract" a lot to be a progressive. That makes your statism intellectually superior.
A lot of what falls under the label "progressive" is precisely that: at some point "liberal" became a term of abuse that was being used to discredit liberal people and causes, so for tactical reasons "progressive" was put in its place.
This is correct, but the most interesting part is that, just like their knowledge of classical liberalism, today's "progressives" also have no fucking clue about that term's historical antecedence, either.
They really should just call themselves the "bossy and/or naive" party, but that isn't too sexy.
The history is telling. 100 years ago "liberal" meant free trade, limited government, etc. "Progressives" (i.e. Socialism Lite) came along with lots of talk about the wonderful power of centralized government to make things more modern and efficient, etc. After Wilson Progressivism was discredited, and they somehow hijacked the term "liberal." (Which still retains its old meaning in Europe.)
In the '60s-'70s, liberalism became discredited for various reasons, and "liberal" became an epithet. To distance themselves from that, the Socialist Lite people (who still can't mention the "S" word and get elected in most of the country) started calling themselves "progressives" again.
That's what it is. Liberal sounds too nice, and actual liberals are too nice, so the real dedicated lefties want to be known as progressives. True progressives tend to be Mao and Stalin apologists, since they believe leaders like Mao and Stalin could get things done. Those two didn't let their citizens' desire to keep on breathing get in the way of reform.
I can't decipher the drivel in the actual post (too many parentheses I think), so I'll just respond to the headline:
Yes. Apologies to Jon Stewart, Republicans are dangerous, theocratic, warmongering corporate stooges. They need to be kept from power if this country is to survive. Anyone with half a brain should vote for Democrats, and progressives can get busy moving them and the national conversation back leftward where it belongs.
You're trying too hard, sockpuppet. Tone it down.
It goes to 11.
The stupid, that is.
I thought it was pretty good puppetry until the conclusion.
So Republicans aren't dangerous, theocratic, warmongering corporate stooges?
Republicans don't apologize for Hitler, Mao or Stalin. Progressives often apologize for Mao and Stalin, and some of the worst of them try to humanize Hitler for the Jew thing. That is the bigotry that tries to hide behind the name.
What the shit are you talking about.
Those are progressive drones, so fuck you. It's war even if you say it's not.
The faith-based progressive's best religious pal. I'm sure he lets Jesus guide him in all his decisions.
What kind of twilight zone of ignorance are you floating around in today?
I agree with Tony that those with half a brain should vote Democratic.
And good news. They almost always do.
Hmm....that still sounds like bad news to me.
Actually, those with half a brain do vote for Democrats.
And yet, a Democratic president and Democratic congress have either continued or expanded upon 90+% of what the previous Republican administration implemented.
"Republicans are dangerous, theocratic,..."
Kennedys, Clintons, Cuomos, Daleys, ...Shall I go on?
"...warmongering..."
WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia: all entered into by Democrats. Also, I don't see Obama in any hurry to get out of Iraq or Afghanistan. Even while condemning Bush for going into Iraq, many Leftists wanted the USA to go into Darfur, Sudan.
"...corporate stooges."
Who just passed a big healthcare bill that was a gift to insurance companies?
Who gave $3B to car companies via cash for clunkers? Who is giving $7500 to GM for every Volt it sells? Who is subsidizing ethanol producers?
I never said there was a perfect choice. Just a bad one and a less bad one.
Obamacare wouldn't have been so bad if Republicans weren't dead-set on opposing reform altogether, because, as I noted, they are corporate stooges, which means they want the status quo to stay in place.
You're right, Tony, all that predictable "get healed without waiting in a five-month list and hoping your economic worth passes review board muster" is a pretty lame status quo. Not sure why anyone would want to preserve that.
Mediocre trolling. The beginning was somewhat artful and showed promise, the following paragraph demonstrated the idiocy common to good trolling, but the conclusion was so trite and unimaginative so as ruin the overall effect. We give the contestant 4.1 out of 6.0.
You are just plain ignorant today. I'm thinking you are not the real Tony.
Actually it is the real Tony, he's just desperate to hear that people don't think he's THAT stupid.
"Republicans are dangerous, theocratic, warmongering corporate stooges. They need to be kept from power if this country is to survive. Anyone with half a brain should refrain from voting for Democrats, as well."
There, Tony, That's much better.
This administration has worked tirelessly to expand it's wiretapping and other anti-terrorism powers, and has asserted the right to assassinate American citizens.
its*
The Obama admin has been awful on War on Terra related civil liberties issues. That's why liberal opinionmakers have been hitting it hard nonstop, while you nuts have been whining about socialism and other assorted bogeymen.
In other words, you concede that Democrats are dangerous warmongers too, you're just a partisan hack who doesn't give a shit as long as he gets to force others to buy his healthcare. And we've been "whining" about civil liberties and economic liberties at the same time; we're just that good that we can concentrate on more than one issue at a time. Meanwhile, most liberals, like you, couldn't care less. Just peruse Glenn Greenwald's comment section.
I will concede as much as you want about how bad Democrats are on whatever subject. It's just that they are not as bad as Republicans. And I wouldn't be making this case as strongly if we were 30 years ago, but what has become of the GOP is truly a hot mess of radicalism and scariness. Just listen to them talk!
But you won't concede that they're as bad as Republicans, even though you can't name one civil liberty issue on which Democrats are better than Republicans, but I can name quite a few on which they are worse.
That's possibly true, though I'm glad they stopped making TORTURE official policy. The thing is, what do you expect Republicans to do if they take power? Suddenly become enamored with civil rights for the first time? I am not saying this is a good choice, I'm just arguing against this toxic false equivalence that serves only to forgive the worse offenders, the ones who for example implemented the policies in the first place and seem intent only on doubling down in the future.
As opposed to those who are doubling down right now, who you are busy defending. I'm not defending either authoritarian party.
So what use are you? Don't want to get your hands dirty, then politics isn't for you. Perhaps you should frequent websites with pictures of kittens instead. Sitting it out is letting someone else make a choice for you. It's always gonna be the lesser of two evils, I'm just trying to make the case that one actually exists.
At any rate, I'm not counting on either party to reverse civil liberties abuses any time soon, in large part because rightwingers will immediately smack them over the head with the usual accusations of being soft on terror. What does concern me, however, is that Republicans' stated economic policy goals will actually destroy my country. There is an inevitable causal chain from their policy goals to us being a banana republic. They got us halfway there already.
So you're all about breaking (someone else's) eggs for your omelet. I get it.
Want to see a magic trick? I will accurately predict how you will compelte your ballot, and even what color of crayon you'll use to do it.
I never tick the straight party box, though that's how it usually turns out. But I'm in a state where the Democrats would be Republicans anywhere else, and the Republicans are batshit insane.
In my state I get to look forward to complete Republican control for the first time ever. We'll still be among the last in the nation on metrics for health, education, and income, by by gawd we will be protected from sharia law.
Interesting. Your party controls your state since time-immemorial. And yet you blame it's woes on the evil other party.
There are more than 2 parties, dipshit.
Place explain what their stated policy goals are and how this causal chain works, because I'm pretty sure you can't answer either of those.
There are more than 2 parties, dipshit.
Nah not really. The duopoly is kinda built into the system. I don't like it, but it is the way it is.
Place explain what their stated policy goals are and how this causal chain works, because I'm pretty sure you can't answer either of those.
They want to loot the country for the wealthy elite, who will then not pay taxes and not employ Americans.
"They want to loot the country for [THEMSELVES]: the wealthy elite, who will then not pay taxes and not employ Americans."
That sounds exactly like Obama, his family, his appointees, and a the members of his political gang. You're really drinking the Kool-Aid today.
"It's always gonna be the lesser of two evils"
God, Tony, you are soooo close here. All you need to do is admit that the "lesser" part is about the size of an average pubic hair, and you're on the road to salvaging your pride.
Why do you pay the guy any attention? The dude is so desperately boring he conditioned himself to take a dick up the ass for attention.
War on Terra. I likee.
Where I live, the ballots have lots of third-party candidates listed. The only problem is, if a candidate isn't a D or an R, they're listed as "independent" with no other indentifier. The Duopoly works overtime to make it harder on anyone who isn't a D or an R.
Ah well, I'll probably just skip the whole farce again, and tell everyone later I voted for the winner(s). Most of those who criticize me for throwing my vote away on Libertarians (or others) seem to really NEED to be on a winning team . . . Says a lot about them.
I feel obligated to vote if the Libertarian Party has been allowed to field candidates and to be listed as Libertarians on the ballot. If the Libs are kept off, Brian's argument makes more sense to me.
Please remember that votes are counted, not weighed. No one is going to know that your vote for Major party candidate X was enthusiastic or half-hearted or cause you thought he was a smidgen less evil than the other guy.
It counts the same, the guy or gal takes office, and he or she rules.
However, if you vote for the minor party that more closely represents your position, then the total vote for minor party guy is very visible and both major party winner and major party loser will think "how can I get them on my side next time." Perhaps then one or the other starts taking a few positions that lure the minor party voters in his direction.
We weigh the votes in Chicago.
I don't know about "progressives" or liberals per se, but this year people like myself who think of themselves as overall liberal but who have some libertarian leanings have no reason to vote for the Democrats. None. I realized that a few weeks ago debating the election on H&R. Some of the usual GOP shills were arguing that where the Dems seem more libertarian than the GOP in rhetoric they have not acted. I felt like arguing back but when I sat back and thought about it it occurred that with this Congress they are correct. I can't find one thing, one issue, one area where the Dems took strong action to turn back a GOP infringement on things libertarians might care about, issues that they have at least rhetorically seemed better on at times. Stopping the marijuana raids in California, closing GITMO, restricting Bushian executive WOT powers and tactics, ending DADT, ending the online gambling prohibition. Not one thing I can think of.
Screw them. Let 'em take their spanking, they deserve it.
I said "this Congress" but of course the administration is included.
Oh, sure, the Democrats have been, amazingly, even worse than expected.
The Republicans are just as bad as they were in 2008.
This is a really, really good year to vote 3rd party.
The Democrats have been worse than I feared. And I'm a pessimist.
Voted for both the LP candidates on the ballot, and then did a lot of blank ballots. Voted for the Republican in a local race because she returned my call and chatted with me about her political views. Mostly icky statist views, but then I called her opponent, who said she was "too busy" and to email her, and so I emailed her, and she kept on giving me these one line responses that indicated she either hadn't bothered to read my questions, or was too illiterate or stupid to understand some really easy questions.
Sometimes the lesser of two evils is significantly less evil, or at least less clueless.
*Puts on monocle and tophat*
Yes, yes, muahahahahahaha!
*Twirls mustache*
One of us, one of us, one of us...
I just realized that, out of the 61 candidates on my ballot, 6 were named Brown (ok, one was a Browne). That's... a lot. Nearly 10%. I think I'm going to vote against them all, in case it's some kind of fascist code.
The point is that you want to chunk your votes with a bloc of like-minded people so that you can influence the election in a way that would not be possible as a rogue voter. Ds and Rs know this well enough, but libertarians haven't caught on yet, it seems; they'd rather sit in the corner smugly rationalizing about the pointlessness of voting like Zeno convinced himself that a fired arrow never actually reaches the target, denying the evidence before his eyes.
Unless I'm mistaken, the overarching 'theme' of this election is the Tea Parties, which generally consist of a group of people that 1)have gone rogue, and 2) are gaining a lot of attention from that fact.
Without some people making the first moves of rogue behavior, the block of like minded people would most likely not have formed.
If progressives were REALLY serious, they'd leave the Democrat Party and vote exclusively for the Greens. Because, let's face it... the Dems aren't sufficiently lefty enough.
Or, if they were really really really serious, progressives would clicky here:
http://cpusa.org/
Bonus knee-slapper: Note the latest CPUSA website update entitled "12 days to go: The election depends on you!"
Hey! That's my homepage!
ARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!
Meh. The CPUSA is too far to the right for my needs.
Do they have any cute guys there?
Honey, I have to take you to the vet for your distemper shots. And I still can't find my Hello Kitty vibrator.
STEVE SMITH WANT HELLO KITTY VIBRATOR! MAKE RAPE EASIER UNTIL GENITAL WARTS SUBSIDE!