• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Verna Bhargaba/daily bruin

President George W. Bush or Sen. John F. Kerry will win on Nov. 2. Everyone except the high-talking third-party candidates themselves admits this – and even those candidates think it. So why vote for a loser? There are two reasons that must be considered.

Some third-party voters argue that there is absolutely no difference between the two main-party candidates. This is an important observation of the political theater of our country, but it is simply irrelevant to the matter at hand.

The Republican and Democratic candidates differ radically in style, character, personal history, economic beliefs and foreign policy prospects. Their outlooks on the world are not only different, they are irreconcilable. Libertarians fall more in line with Republicans and Greens are closer to the Democrats.

Not being able to discern the lesser of two evils in this election is more of a personal problem than an ominous political reality.

Besides, even if Bush and Kerry were identical in character and conviction, their parties still wouldn’t be. We must remember that on Nov. 2, we will not elect just a president but also his party. If Bush wins, that means more Republicans as bureaucrats, cabinet members, judges and maybe even Supreme Court justices. If Kerry wins, that means Democrats in these positions.

Surely even the cynic could see the two contrasting administrations will impact the world differently.

The more dominant argument in favor of voting for a third party seems to be embodied in a clever little line – voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

And judged in a vacuum, this statement is true. But it relies on an incomplete understanding of the concept of a vote. It fails to see that a vote is not just a stand for something but also a stand against something. A vote for the lesser of two evils is then a vote against the greater of two evils.

But a vote for a third party (an admittedly ineffective vote) is not a vote against the greater of two evils. Instead, a vote for a third party is essentially a vote for the greater two evils.

If the members of the Libertarian Party, for example, vote for Bush, they will decide the course of America’s future. But since they will not, they will facilitate the election of Kerry, a person who stands against their political, economic and social convictions.

Thus, in voting for the “moral” candidate, these Libertarians directly help who is, in their eyes, the more evil candidate. They will bear the responsibility of making the United States much worse rather than a little worse.

The underlying point is simple. Americans generally understand that in the choice between two candidates, they must vote for one of them.

The argument I have presented above will not move those who believe that their votes do not count. That these people say, “My vote doesn’t count,” then go to the voting booths astounds many people.

But it shouldn’t. It shouldn’t because the purpose of voting is not to pick single-handedly the next president of the United States but to participate in a sacred process – a process that has served this country well for more than two centuries. A vote might not decide the outcome of the race, but it will contribute in some small way to the candidate who received it and, more importantly, to the process that makes all of this talk possible.

It is true that in the history of the world, no single person’s vote has determined the outcome of a presidential election. The sad fact is that your vote does not count. However you vote on election day, the winner will still have won and the loser will still have lost.

But the knee-jerk critic will interject – what about Florida? One vote counted there, right?

No, it did not. The difference in the final count was in the hundreds. One vote is not the same as a hundred votes.

The sociologist, taking up another issue, would say, well, if a thousand people thought that their vote counted, that would affect the outcome of the election.

But again, your thoughts do not affect the thoughts of a thousand people. And even if they did and they voted, you would still only have one vote. Your one vote will not count.

One is a very powerful number. It is the number of identity, the number of the individual.

Democracy is the beautiful process that takes individual voices and converts them fairly into election results. The difference between the candidates might be in the millions. But a million would be nothing without a million ones.

What this gobbledygook comes down to is this – your vote will not decide the presidential election, but you should vote anyway. You should vote because the process of democracy is important to you.

You should vote for a main-party candidate. You should because you do not want to be a loser and because, if the improbable happens – if the candidate opposing your beliefs wins by one vote – you do not want to be the one in therapy.

Hovannisian is a second-year history and philosophy student. E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.