In he fahe last two weeks, the Argus has published two opinion pieces arguing against voting for third-party candidates. The central theme of these articles is a reasonable, and perhaps even noble one. Indeed it is one that has become common in the liberal press. Conor Aberle and Emilia Gertner, the authors, urge Wesleyan’s voters to see their opportunity to vote through a practical, rather than purely idealistic, lens. They make the case that voters should choose to vote for Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump even if they don’t like her. I agree that voting should be based on a clear-eyed look at practical consequences, and I believe that Hillary Clinton is far better than Donald Trump, but any actual practical analysis points to an uncomfortable fact of life for most of us here at Wesleyan. A fact more disturbing than the idea that we can’t afford the luxury of a protest vote. That fact is that, for the vast majority of Wesleyan’s students, our votes in a presidential election mean very little.

The structure of the electoral college, which rewards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the highest percentage of the popular vote there, makes a few states, like Ohio and Florida, very important while rendering most US citizens afterthoughts in the presidential campaign. In swing states, where the margin of victory is often no larger than tens of thousands of votes, people should by all means vote to keep Donald Trump out of power by voting for Hillary Clinton. For the rest of us, who represent the majority of Wesleyan’s student body, analyzing the potential impact of the ballot we will cast reveals that it probably won’t mean much of anything. It is a fact that Hillary Clinton will win the electoral votes of New York and Massachusetts just as it is a fact that Donald Trump will win the electoral votes of Alabama and Idaho. Voters who live in those states might reasonably decide that slight increases in the vote percentage of a third-party candidate have more of a political impact than slightly reducing the huge margin between the two candidates of the main parties.

Emilia Gertner ended her article by stating that “An election like this raises the question of whether voters should place more value on the act of voting as an expression of one’s conscience, or on the act of voting as a means to achieve something practical and important.” To voters outside of the swing states (who make up a majority of Wesleyan’s student body) a vote for Hillary Clinton is as much a powerless expression of conscience as any vote for a third-party candidate. It may be comforting to believe that our votes, if used correctly, give us the opportunity to put practicality before mindless idealism and fight against Donald Trump. Conor Aberle even argues that they give white allies the chance to stand up against white supremacy. The unfortunate truth is that, for voters outside of the few states that make a real difference in this election, the protest votes argued against by people focused on “practicality” mean as much or as little as votes for their preferred candidate.

  • toto

    Do not assume anything.

    In ordinary plurality voting a vote cast for a splinter candidate generally produces the politically counter-productive effect of helping the major-party candidate whose views are diametrically opposite to those of the voter.
    For example, votes cast for Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr made it easier for Democrat Barack Obama to win North Carolina in 2008.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all system simply discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support, while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The current system punishes third-party candidates whose support is broadly based.

  • toto

    A survey of Connecticut voters showed 74% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

    By 2020, the National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
    No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes.
    No more handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    In 2009, the Connecticut House of Representatives passed the bill.
    The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
    The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.