The ethics of strategic voting

Rod, is Ron Paul on the ballot? If so, is he an option for you?

Vote for Paul or Huckabee.

Maybe I've been reading too much Larison, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Obama is actually a stronger general election candidate than HRC.

I like #1 as a sincere vote and #3 as a strategic vote myself. I just can't imagine voting for such a pile of nothing with good vocal chords.

Before rejecting Quixoticism, I voted for Ron Paul for President in 1988 on the Libertarian ticket in my first vote ever. This exempts me from ever having to vote for the good doctor again, and I hereby absolve everyone else from following suit. I like some of his ideas regarding government non-interference in the free market, but the Fed Reserve windmill ain't goin' down and I'm not playing Sancho anymore. Pauli

I don't buy the conventional wisdom that Clinton is a weaker opponent for McCain than Obama would be. Obama certainly has a higher ceiling of potential support than Clinton does. Her best case scenario is probably 51% of the popular vote. But Clinton also has a higher floor. Her no-matter-what support is likely around 45%. McCain and Clinton would battle over a handful of tight states -- Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Florida, New Mexico, possibly Missouri. Everything else is predictable.

The Obama phenomenon is a huge bubble. It could last through the election and deliver the Democrats a landslide win. But a well-run McCain campaign can pop the bubble, in which case Obama could be routed in November.

Anyway, Rod, if I were you, I'd take a GOP ballot and vote for Ron Paul, the only candidate of either party whose ideas have potential to make a lasting impact.

Vote your principles, ideally casting it for the candidate who most strongly stands by his or her principles. An exact principle match being unattainable, vote for the candidate you believe is best suited to the office.

Consider the other end of the primary spectrum. In machine towns (like Philly), the general election winner is always determined by the party endorsement. I grudgingly accept voting to effect who might win in the general, but only as a last resort.

First, we need to understand that Obama is MORE liberal than Hillary.

That's based largely on voting records. Bear in mind that Hillary has been trimming her sails for sometime with an eye on the general election (falsely assuming she would be crowned the Democratic nominee after a few obligatory primaries and caucuses). Once in office, there probably won't be much policy difference between the two.

He is also fairly bulletproof in that any attack on him could be construed as racism.

That'll work a few times, but it'll grow real thin if an Obama White House were to use it all the time. Even liberals won't be able to stomach the "Don't attack my policies 'cause I'm black" line for long.

Hillary would have no such honeymoon. From the first day of her presidency she would be criticized, scrutinized, and analyzed. Obama is so new that he has few enemies. Hillary has been struggling in her battles with Republicans for 16 years.

And what exactly has it gotten the GOP or the country? The GOP became intellectually lazy, letting the Clinton's faults substitute for positive arguments. Obama will force conservative and the GOP to come up with sound policy counter-proposals or counter-arguments. An Obama presidency will do them a lot of good.

Think about the social effect of reelecting the Clintons, too. Do we really want the bully pulpit occupied by the gruesome twosome again? Do we really want another round of Clinton and his rotating bevy of "security risks", this time in the West Wing? Do we want the nasty, high-handed, Carvillian backroom operation?

I'm probably going to disagree with 95% of what Obama proposes, but, race aside, the fact that he's an intelligent and accomplished individual with a good family means he'll be a vast improvement over the previous recent occupants. Having read both his books, I can telly you that he understand both his arguments and this opposition's arguments, so he's able to provide something of a basis for compromise. His two major accomplishments on the national scene have been with Republicans: Lugar and the very conservative Coburn.

The fact is, we could do a lot worse than Obama, and we HAVE. Given the field, I'm going to go with him on Mar 4. Whether I vote for him in the general is another matter. I'm certainly NOT voting for McCain.

Facing the same dilemma, on Tuesday I voted for Obama rather than Huckabee. I don't like McCain. I probably won't vote for any in the terrible trio come November. Obama is better than Hillary, of only because he voted against CAFTA.

Good Grief. I don't like messing around in peoples primaries and its a precedent that should not be set.

That being said I am a Huckabee supporter and also like McCain. I hope for Huckabee to go out on a high note for his future and his issues so I hope you vote for Huckabee.

However Rod don't you have a problem. I mean I need to go back in your entries but I think I recall that you led the charge for the Dallas paper to endorse Huckabee. Now when we get to Texas you are not voting for him?

And if you haven't visited there yet, everything you need to know about the "Cult of Obama".

That state senator certainly embarrassed himself. But I think you'd get the same result if you pinned a dinghy Clinton supporter with the same question. Without resorting to google, what bills has Sen. Clinton co-written and seen passed? A lot of Republicans can name McCain's bills, but only because they find them so detestable.

One thing anyone considering voting in the primary of the party you oppose should be aware of: the primary ballot in my state has a note at the bottom saying that by voting in this primary you pledge to support the party in the general election. I don't know how many other states have this sort of thing but where it exists it ought to at least trouble the conscience.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" (i.e., "support") is. :)

Just like a fall from greatness or into poverty may be the best thing to happen to a proud or self-destructive and hedonistic person, sometimes the way one "supports" a party is to vote for its candidates' defeat so it will learn to change its platform. One can define "support" in many ways.

you forgot the best choice
take a ballot, vote for HRC and watch the dogfight at the convention.

I wrote "I'm highly suspect of the agenda" which is a bad phrasing, I probably meant to say something like "the agenda is highly suspect IMO" or something. I shouldn't be drinking this early during lent.

But my broader point is that no one should consider so-called "strategic voting" wrong. It's your vote, you can do what you want with it including the opposite of what's strategic, e.g., wasting it by writing in GOD. I would suggest that in an imperfect system, as all systems are, voting is best when done "strategically". But your vote belongs to YOU, not the government, not the party, not the community. It's your one round in the barrel, make it count.

Actually, I and others I know have been thinking of doing what Rod's friend suggested, as a way of trying to banish Hillary and her husband to oblivion or Siberia, whichever is more effective, so in this election and in this instance such strategic voting may indeed work.

Tonight's debate, and March 4, will be interesting.

Seems to me that any vote should be cast in the best interest of the country.

I realize partisanship and philosophy are important, but given that November's choice will be between the Democratic and GOP nominees, wouldn't you want that choice between the two candidates that are BEST for the country -- as opposed to a candidate that will facilitate a particular outcome (e.g. a GOP victory)???

You have a choice here. I think we all have civic interest in seeing the best leadership possible NO MATTER WHICH PARTY WINS. That should be paramount.

If delegates are awarded proportionally, #1 makes more sense. By sending delegates pledged to Huckabee, it will force other delegates to win their support by including their views in the platform (or at least lending them an ear).

I'm going the second route.

Rod:

Serious question -- you are INELIGIBLE to vote in local races? (I take it by edict of the DMN.)

What, the paper has cameras in the voting booth to determine whether you stop voting at the national races and not on the local races?!

If the DMN tells you, a la Len Downie of the WaPo, you can't vote at all and keep your job, that's one thing. I think it's appalling, but at least you know it going in.

But otherwise, who are your bosses to say who and what you can or can't pick and choose to vote for in the privacy of the voting booth?

Last I checked, you have personal as well as professional First Amendment rights of freedom of expression. Particularly once you pull the curtain behind you.

I vote for (1), and I think (3) is unethical- because it sabotages the efforts of sincere Democrats (like me) to select a decent candidate. When state Democratic parties hold open primaries, they are trying to enable participation by independents and moderate Republicans who might consider voting for the right Democratic candidate. Using it for sabotage is just plain slimy, in my book.

I voted for McCain in the California primary in 2000, but only because I intended to vote for him in the general election if nominated. (I liked McCain better in those days- I would not vote for him now.)

My ex’s family (southern ultra-conservatives all) always vote in the primaries for the weakest, most ridiculous Democrat they can find – and then vote for the Republican in the general elections. If a significant number of people do this, it weakens democracy, which is best served by two strong, ethical candidates of opposing views.

(and I agree with Anne E that [3] is slimy, undermines the good intentions of sincere voters, and weakens democracy. Bigger than partisan tactics should be our sincere desire for the best candidates possible in the general election.)

I say (1), not because I have much to say about the ethics of (2) and (3) so much as the premises behind them are almost certainly false.

I realize that Rod is a Very Important Blogger / Newspaper Columnist and so might actually influence a few other people in their decision-making processes, but he's one out of several million voters in Texas (and even millions more in the country as a whole.) The chances that Rod's vote ends up "putting the Clinton campaign out of its misery" (option 2) or "boosts McCain's chances" (option 3) are so infinitesimally small as to be meaningless. In general, I think that strategic voting in an election where there are millions of voters is a bad idea, because your strategy is highly unlikely to have any impact on the election result -- so, just go with whomever you like the most and feel happy about it already!

(Yes, the proportional system that the Democrats use to allocate their delegates means that there's a slightly higher chance that a single person's vote could alter the outcome of the race by one delegate. But then, that's only meaningful if the whole enchilada comes down to one delegate, which is highly unlikely.)

McCain, Obama, Clinton: All good choices! You can't lose, Rod. Vote for any of them.

I don't see any ethical problems with 2) or 3) because those very same elected officials do the exact same thing and weigh the exact same strategies when they have to vote for or against a bill. :)

Still undecided?

Check out this RCP article on the Ivy League Populism of Hillary and Barack.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/ivy_league_populism.html

In the past I have voted in the Republican and Democratic primaries, depending on the races at the time. On March 4th I will vote in the Democratic primary in Dallas because of my interest in some local races and I intend to vote for Obama, being the lesser of two evils. Come November, however, I will vote for McCain for President.

Follow your heart and vote for Huck. Follow your heart.

On a related note - It looks like the McCain cruiser has sprung another leak and he's having problems with the FEC as well... Time to abandon ship! How do you say the "Titanic." Somehow I don't think many conservatives will send out a life-boat to rescue him and they will gladly watch his candidacy sink once again. Maybe McCain should have been a submariner and not an aviator!

Who most corresponds to your heart? Follow your heart.

Due to the Law of Unforeseen Consequences, it is always best to vote your conscience. At least if you wind up making the wrong choice, it will have been for the right reasons.

Try to vote such that you maximize the likelyhood that McCain never becomes president.

There's little difftween Obama, Hillary, or McCain when it comes to the Liberal/Conservative continuum. If conservatives MUST have a liberal in the White House, we should at least work to ensure that the liberal is from the liberal party.

At this point the ideal set up would be a conservative Congress and either O or Hill in the White House. Keeping my fingers crossed.

REMEMBER: Vote Obama or Hillary!!

I think strategic voting is fine. But I'm torn by what to do...

Do I vote for HRC b/c Obama is in favor of killing full-term babies (aka Partial Birth Abortion)?

Do I vote for Huckabee b/c McCain is a supporter of using tissue from murdered babies for research (aka embryonic stem cell research.)?

Do I vote for McCain b/c he is the best of the three candidates that appear to have some possibility of winning?

I know someone who is voting for Hillary b/c they think she is an easier candidate for McCain to defeat...

I'm just not used to having to make these complex choices, being a Texan. :) We don't usually have any impact on the race!

That's "participate," not "particate."

I called a person who is connected with the Obama campaign and asked about this, and she said she was puzzled by that first part, too. While I said that I could easily assent to the latter part (i.e., I can't vote in both), I was going to have to think about whether I could assent to the first part, since I am not a registered anything (and for that reason I have never voted in any primary before now).

Part of me thinks that if I am not registered with the Party, I'm in a sense "crashing the party" by voting in the primary.

Ah, decisions, decisions....