Many people claim that voting for someone else is a waste of a vote. Here’s why that is myopic and false.
Consider the two-party system. Ask yourself, “Is this the best system for nominating the greatest quantity of competent and viable candidates?” Obviously not. In fact the only system that can produce fewer viable candidates is a dictatorship—and you know how we feel about dictatorships in the West! So any other (democratic) election system would be better than the one we’ve got.
That being said, we need a strategy for implementing a better system. We’ve tried creating other parties, but this has not been yet been successful at creating more viable candidates, so we will need to do more (or do something else). One option is to vote for “someone else.” In case it’s not obvious how that would help, I’ll say a little more.
If every year we look at statistics showing how the Big Two soaked up almost all the votes, then people will continue repeating the age-old “voting for ‘someone else’ is a waste of a vote” fallacy. However, if the percentage of people voting for “someone else” increases, then voters will feel increasingly comfortable voting for “someone else” in the next election, which would allow voters to feel even more comfortable voting for “someone else” in the election after that! And once the votes for “someone else” reaches some sort of critical mass, voters will have created a third viable option in US elections! And for those of you keeping track at home, three allegedly competent and viable candidates from which to choose would be better than two!
An ancillary benefit would be that corporations would be less likely to invest in any one candidate. The reason is that, as the amount of viable candidates increases, the risks of investing in a single candidate increase. With two candidates a corporation has a 50% chance of getting “their” candidate into office. With three, they have only a 33% chance. With four, they have a 25% chance. Etc. This risk factor would encourage corporations to (a) invest in multiple candidates or (b) investing less overall or (c) both. Whatever the case, the amount of funds invested on candidates would be more evenly dispersed, which only (once again) increases the chances of having more viable candidates.
So if you are disillusioned with the two-party system, then you should consider voting for “someone else.” Sure they might not be elected this year, but short-term victories are not always the best long-term solutions. If the point is to improve the quality of future elections, then we need to increase the quantity of viable candidates. And to do that, we need more people to vote for “someone else.”
In other news, there is a website dedicated to voting for “someone else.” I have not looked into their reasons for voting for someone else, but maybe they are on to something! See here: http://voteforsomeoneelse.com