| Home Subject index List of Articles Random Thoughts and Other Writings Mel's Irregular Blog Picture of the day Homonym Homilies Related Articles Interesting Links Reader Weekly Center for Responsive Politics Federal Election Commission |
Voting
Is Not a Horse Race
Melvyn D. Magree Originally published in the Northland Reader now the Reader Weekly October 26, 2000 "I don't want to vote for a third party candidate because I'll be throwing my vote away."� How often have you heard that remark from people choosing the lesser of two evils? Who threw their votes away in 1998? Those who voted for third-party candidate Jesse Ventura (767 thousand or 37%) or those who voted for major-party third-place-finisher Hubert Humphrey III (580 thousand or 28%)? Neither group of people threw their vote away. They expressed their opinions as to which they would rather see become governor of Minnesota. They may have voted for a candidate they really wanted to become governor, or they may have voted for a candidate because they didn't want to see the other two high-profile candidates become governor. The only people who threw their votes away were those who did not cast them. Well, you could say that they voted against all of the candidates. Unfortunately, the election judges can't count those no-show votes. If you don't like any of the candidates, you should show up and cast a blank ballot. I wish I had cast a blank ballot for president in 1964. Like many people I voted for Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater because I perceived Goldwater as too bellicose. If we had voted for other than the lesser of two evils, would we have gotten the Vietnam War? Only about 900 voters in Minnesota voted for none of the above, they left their ballots blank. What if all those who voted for the lesser of two evils had left their presidential ballots blank? If a significant number of voters had left their ballots blank, would Johnson have had a landslide? Ronald Reagan won in a landslide in 1984 but he won with a low turnout. In fact, only 27% of the eligible voters cast their votes for Reagan. What if the 47% who didn't vote had showed up and cast blank ballots, would there have been a Reagan Revolution? Number one rule of elections, show up! Many people don't vote because they don't like politics as usual: namely, they think big spending by large corporations determines the outcome. Does it really? Lets look at the 1998 Minnesota Governor campaign again. Norman Coleman spent $2.5 million, Hubert Humphrey spent $1.8 million, and Jesse Ventura spent $0.25 million. If big spending wins elections, then Coleman should have gotten far more the votes that Ventura did. In fact, if we equate dollars with votes, Coleman spent $3.51 per vote, Humphrey spent $3.10 per vote, and Ventura spent 33 cents per vote! Even the presidential races don't always go to the biggest spender. Using mid-October 1996 spending figures, Clinton spent $36,679,887 for 47,402,357 votes, Dole spent $48,537,793 for 39,198,755 votes, Perot spent $15,867,309 for 8,085,402 votes, and Nader spent $5,000 for 685,128 votes. Or, their costs per vote were: Clinton - $0.77, Dole - $1.24, Perot - $1.96, and Nader $0.007!! If you think that 1996 spending was excessive, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the spending as of October 18, 2000 is Bush - $176,424,329, Gore - $126,920,940, Buchanan - $15,736,546, Nader - $3,555,875, and Browne - $1,506,598(*). If we assume the same costs per vote hold for each party, then we could speculate that the results will be: |
||
|
Bush
Gore Buchanan Nader |
142,277,685 164,832,390 8,028,850 507,982,143 |
||
That obviously won't happen because the total is greater than the population of the United States! But what if the ratio of votes holds; it would give Ralph Nader a landslide, 61.7 percent of the vote! But we aren't swayed by how much a candidate spends, are we? We study the issues, weigh the candidates' statements, and choose those candidates who come closest to our views. No, you say, the media don't give us enough information to make informed choices; they are biased towards the major party candidates. Well, I say, which media? TV and daily newspapers? Even they mention the other candidates, maybe not as much as you would like, but they do mention them. Besides, are TV and daily newspapers your only source of news? You are reading the Northland Reader, aren't you? What about all the other newspapers and magazines and the Internet? If you don't have direct access to them, visit the Duluth Public Library or the UMD Library. They have a large variety of publications with a wide spectrum of views. The main Duluth Public Library may have a waiting list for Internet access, but the branch libraries and the UMD library generally have terminals available. If your mind isn't made up so much that you won't be confused by the facts, do a bit of your own research about the candidates. You may be surprised to find out that they really didn't say what everybody says they said. Number two rule of elections, bone up! OK, you've done your research and you decided you'd like to vote for Nader, Buchanan, Browne, or some other third party candidate. But you look at the polls and see that Gore and Bush are quite close and your candidate is way down in the polls. You don't want to see Bush win over Gore (or vice versa), and you think that you should vote for Gore so Bush doesn't win (or vice versa). If you do otherwise, you think you'll be throwing your vote away. But will you? Should you believe the polls? Remember, they are taken by calls to less than 2,000 likely voters. First, do you know how many people refused to respond and what their views are? Second, do you know how many unlikely voters will show up on Election Day? The polls in 1948 predicted that Dewey would beat Truman by a wide margin. The polls were conducted by telephone; not everybody had a telephone then, especially people likely to vote Democratic. Truman won 24,105,612 to 21,970,065! The polls were wrong fifty years later in Minnesota. They showed a tight gubernatorial race between Coleman and Humphrey: Coleman - 33-34 percent, Humphrey - 34-35 percent, and Ventura - 21-23 percent. The polls were right about Coleman but not only did they have just the opposite for Humphrey and Ventura, Ventura also picked up many undecideds. Also, it is widely recognized that Ventura attracted a lot of unlikely voters to the polls. So, whether you support Nader, Buchanan, Bush, Gore, or none of the above, make up your own mind about your choice. Number three rule of elections, stand up! Finally, whomever you favor, don't throw your vote away, use it! Number four rule of elections, show up! (*) Data from 1996 and 2000 are no longer current at Center for Responsive Politics ©2006, 2007 Melvyn D. Magree |
|||