Eve is here. This post annoyed me so much that I thought it might be interesting for similarly frustrated readers to break it down. The fact that it begins by claiming that protest voting is “bad for the democratic process” is no surprise, as if what we have in the United States is democracy rather than an oligarchy. Therefore, all third party candidate votes are also considered bad as they can be spoilers.
My two observations: The author does not consider protest voting to be a form of altruistic punishment. It’s not something you do to make a profit, it’s something that imposes a cost on you (it just might). The implicit assumption here is that if you vote in protest against the Democratic Party by not voting, leaving the top of your ballot blank, or voting for Jill Stein, you support Trump. That means you are doing it. It’s not that voters considering either of those actions haven’t heard that argument a billion times or don’t care. Many readers have expressed a preference for supporting Trump rather than continuing to support the Democratic Party. Or they might want to get the Green Party’s approval ratings high enough nationally to someday qualify for a debate position, or to get more media attention and promote different policy ideas. Maybe I’ll incorporate it into the discussion so I don’t have to worry about “but ZOMG” again. You are supporting Hairfurore. ”
Additionally, there are voters who, as a matter of conscience, cannot vote for either of the two major parties, believing that both parties’ support for the genocide in Gaza and the genocide currently planned in Lebanon is unacceptable. As a further reminder of the genocide, I received the following note from a Lebanese friend who is also an American citizen:
So, my brother #6 met a friend on a short drive north into the mountains, stopped to say hello, and a truck that was driving nearby was hit by an Israeli drone. . My brother flew 8-9 feet high. Half of his head was blown off, all of his motorcycles were destroyed instantly, and four or five cars containing families trying to escape the fighting were blown away by missiles. For the fighters, they start blowing up buildings, bridges, infrastructure, and innocent people. Unfortunately, the American government behind it all has allowed its puppets of Israeli military bases to control the region, built railways from India to the Emirates, from Haifa to the EU, controlled all shipping and I want them to be in control of their gasoline. with Israel n They are against the Resistance They want to eliminate the Resistance at all costs n The West’s puppets n The West has created them N The British have them do their evil work control and create hostility among the Arab countries n They did well, the last was Iraq, Syria, Yemen, now Lebanon, Gaza.
If he were to vote, I doubt he would vote for Team D or R. And he has many friends.
Written by Daniel F. Stone, Associate Professor of Economics, Bowdoin College. It was first published in conversation
Many Americans are not excited about either of the two major party presidential candidates. As of October 4, 2024, the poll showed 46.5% had a favorable opinion. kamala harris 52.6% feel uncomfortable donald trump.
Some of these dissatisfied voters are considering voting for third-party candidates or not voting at all. they may be considering those actions as a form of protest Against the two-party system that is dominant in the United States, or against these two specific candidates.
for example, September voting 3.5% of Michigan voters said they planned to vote for a candidate other than Harris or Trump.
At first glance, these choices may seem perfectly reasonable. If you don’t like a candidate, don’t vote for him. However, my job is cognitive bias scholar – Systematic mistakes that people make in their thinking – I am concerned that this option may not best serve the interests of those voters.
Rather, protest voting is likely to actually undermine the democratic process and lead to the election of the candidate most disliked by a majority of voters overall, and by protest voters in particular. There are several reasons why protest voters make this mistake.
How important is one vote?
It is clear that the chances of a single vote making a difference in the presidential election are extremely low. And if every vote doesn’t matter so much, some might say, then voters should just vote whatever they want or not vote at all. Here’s why that’s the wrong idea.
Suppose there are 10,000 voters in a state who are dissatisfied with both candidates. But they almost certainly dislike one candidate more than the other. Perhaps they disagree with some of Harris’ views but are afraid of Trump. Or maybe it’s the other way around. There is also no need to agree on the reasons for dissatisfaction with the candidate. Some people who are dissatisfied with Harris but prefer her to Trump may think that Harris is too left-wing, or that she is not left-wing enough. Maybe.
Now suppose that the rest of the state’s voters, those willing to vote for one of the two major candidates, are very closely divided. Maybe the difference is 5,000 votes. That means 10,000 dissatisfied voters voting for either of the two major party candidates could sway the election.
Again, these unfortunate voters do have preferences and prefer one of the major candidates over the other. So while each unhappy voter would prefer to keep their hands dirty and not vote, there are 9,999 other unhappy voters who will step up and vote in favor of their preferred candidate. Each of us hopes to bring.
Parents teach their children the Golden Rule – Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you – and most people actually do Believe it and take action. In this case, following the Golden Rule means that if you are an unhappy voter and you want other unhappy voters to silently vote for their least favorite major candidate, then you are willing to do the same yourself. It means should.
But not all unhappy voters think this way. Some people let their intuition fool them and choose to vote in protest, even though their values tell them they shouldn’t.
The mistake of boycotting
One reason people still think protest voting is meaningful is because they think boycotting something they don’t like is an effective way to contribute to positive change.
Boycotting individuals or organizations with which you have a problem often makes sense. For example, if there’s a restaurant in town that has a reputation for being discriminatory or simply for slow food coming out, don’t go there. Perhaps it will close, making room for another, better performing business. Or they might make some changes in hopes of expanding their customer base.
But boycotting strong candidates, whether on election day or before voting, is not helpful. Like it or not, one of us is going to win. A boycott in this context is an example of an unfair application. heuristic – A rule of thumb that doesn’t always help, but often does. Boycotting here will not accomplish the goal of eliminating or improving what you don’t like.
Omissions and fees
Another reason why people choose to vote in protest is that people prefer the mistake of inaction – Omission – Making a mistake that involves action – Commissioning. People feel less guilty when they do not take actions that directly support a bad outcome. However, both actions and inactions can be errors, and both can have negative and undesirable consequences.
Omission bias helps explain why some people are reluctant to get vaccinated against serious diseases. If they choose to get vaccinated and the vaccination causes a health problem, it is due to negligence. Not vaccinating can also lead to health risks, but it is a mistake of omission. People tend to prefer the latter.
Similarly, voting for a candidate you’re not satisfied with may feel like a mistake in mission. If you don’t vote or vote for a third party, you risk making the mistake of omission. This mistake is often considered not very important. However, choosing the possibility of a mistake of omission over a mistake of commission does not guarantee that you will not make a mistake. It just turns your mistakes into intuitively more appealing mistakes.
false equivalence
A final reason why people stop voting or choose to support a third-party candidate is to object to the assumption that they dislike one candidate more than another. Rather, these people argue that the two main options are equally bad.
But no matter what your actual values and policy preferences are, that’s almost certainly not true. Both candidates have very different views on a wide range of issues. various records of what they did – and it’s not over – when you’re at the office.
People who claim that two different candidates are essentially the same are exploiting another mental shortcut. Tendency to think in categories. grouping Different items in the same category You can simplify your thinking, but you may ignore substantive differences.
Some people think that a 1 in 10 chance and a 1 in a million chance are both in the category of “probability.” But they are very different. If you toss a coin over and over again, one coin is approximately equal to the probability. Show heads three times in a rowand the other is how likely you are to do so. Roll heads 20 times in a row.
seek the most desired result
During the 2000 presidential campaign, I remember a friend telling me that he wouldn’t vote for Democratic candidate Al Gore because he thought Gore and Republican candidate George W. Bush were equally bad. But after the victory, thanks in part to third-party voters, Vote for independent Ralph Nader – Bush Withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Protocol To limit global carbon emissions, invaded Iraqpassed Tax cuts favorable to the wealthy.
These were all actions Mr. Gore almost certainly would not have taken. No two candidates were exactly alike. Even if my friend hadn’t seen it beforehand, he should have been able to tell.
The United States will have a new president, either Trump or Harris, on January 20, 2025. Third-party winners are not a realistic option.
In some states, voters can now rank candidates by preference and express their choices more clearly without wasting their votes on candidates who can’t win. Those who would like to have more options with a realistic chance of winning can work towards implementing that system. ranked voting – In the community or wishing to adopt Other methods That could ultimately create more viable options in the future. But that won’t be enough for this election.
Whether you like it or not, you are faced with a binary choice: vote for one or the other. And please vote.
