Pragmatic Approaches to Voting

Leftists and liberals love arguing about how to vote, whether they admit it or not. Pragmatic issues are central to these debates. They enter through the front or rear door, but they’re there.

Even the most hardcore anti-electoralists talk about electoral issues. Anarchists like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin, and the Catalonian anarchists drew lines. Sometimes they crossed those lines.

I’ve given the issue some thought over the years. I’ll lay out these thoughts in this post.

Here’s how I vote. How do you vote?

Note: In the next few sections, I’ll evaluate some arguments in favor of voting Democratic. If you want to get directly to the point about how to vote, move on down to the section called “Pragmatic Voting.”

Liberal Democrats and Purity

I want to start by quickly putting to rest a common liberal Democratic argument. It’s the one against so-called ‘purity‘ voting. Liberal Democrats love using this one to justify voting for whichever Democrat is on the ballot.

The purity argument has been around awhile. But liberals used it ad nauseum against Sandersistas in 2016. As we approach the 2018 election, they’re pulling it out again. It goes roughly like this:

1. Only Democrats and Republicans can win elections.

2. The only reasons to vote are to (a) elect a winning candidate; or (b) display one’s ideological purity.

3. Leftist third party voters know (1).

4. Therefore, leftist third party voters are displaying their ideological purity.

5. Displaying one’s ideological purity is a bad reason to vote.

6. [Whichever Democrat is on the ballot] is only slightly to the political right of leftists. So, leftists are making only a slight pragmatic shift when voting for a Democrat.

7. Therefore, leftists should vote Democratic.

There are a lot of problems with this argument, and I won’t hit all of them. In short, (2), (4), and (6) are all false, so (7) doesn’t follow.

But what I do want to address is the deep misunderstanding exemplified by (6). Liberal Democrats are confused both about leftist thought and the Democratic Party’s ideology. If leftists were only slightly to the left of Democrats, the argument would fare much better. Why not move slightly to your right and elect a Democrat over a Republican who’s much further to your right?

The problem is that leftists aren’t slightly more liberal versions of liberal Democrats.

There’s far more distance between anarchists/communists/socialists and liberal Democrats than there is between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had more in common than either had with Gloria La Riva.

When liberal Democrats run the purity argument, they’re not asking leftists to move slightly to the right to elect a candidate. They’re asking us to take a giant leap to the right. Some leftists are willing to do it. Others find it a bridge too far. I don’t make it my business to dictate to fellow leftists whether it’s an acceptable leap.

Liberals shouldn’t make it their business, either.

But, hey. What really pisses me off about the ‘purity’ thing is this: Liberals really think we can’t do any better than Bernie Sanders? Bernie is less offensive than other Democrats. He uses the s-word, and he says things leftists like from time to time. But there’s plenty of room to his political left. Liberals are projecting their lack of imagination onto us, and we don’t find it especially amusing.

Utilitarian Arguments for Voting Democratic

There’s a more serious argument that fellow leftists use. It comes in various forms. But in general, it’s an appeal to consequences in order to argue in favor of voting for the lesser evil. The lesser evil is usually the Democrat, though that’s not always the case.

The version I’ll consider is the one by John Halle and Noam Chomsky in an article shortly before the 2016 election. They call their view Lesser Evil Voting (LEV), a pragmatic voting tool.

The LEV thesis is this: in non-competitive states, your vote for president has no consequences. So vote for whoever you want. In competitive states, in contrast, your vote does have consequences. Leftists in those states should vote for the least evil candidate with a chance of winning. This is almost always the Democrat.

The motivation behind the LEV thesis is clear enough. Elections are pragmatic tools to prevent bad things from happening. Halle and Chomsky give a nod to the anarchist and anti-electoralist idea that elections are not useful organizing tools. And so, you vote for the candidate who will cause the least amount of harm. The recommendation is also clear enough: vote Democratic, but otherwise ignore partisan politics. Don’t run for office, etc.

I’ll summarize the argument as follows (you can click the link to read Halle and Chomsky’s more thorough version):

1. Voting is merely a matter of weighing the likely consequences of your vote.

2. Any voting decision marginally increases or decreases a major party candidate’s chances of winning.

3. The consequences of Trump (or “generic Republican”) winning are worse than the consequences of Clinton (or “generic Democrat”) winning.

4. When Democrats lose due to lack of leftist support, Democrats blame leftists. This will harm leftist goals.

5. Because of (3) and (4), Republican victories are more harmful than Democratic victories. Leftists should vote in such a way as to encourage Democratic victories over Republican ones.

Halle and Chomsky take time to specify the actual consequences of Republican victories, particularly for members of marginalized and oppressed groups. But my summary above captures the basic argument.

I’ll say a few things in reaction and response.

Response #1: The Halle and Chomsky Argument Isn’t the Same as the Purity Argument

Yeah, yeah. I get that some people will look at Halle and Chomsky’s reasoning and say it’s the same as the purity argument.

It isn’t.

First of all, Halle and Chomsky acknowledge that there’s a wider world of potential motivations for voting. They include ideological motivations, self-expression, moral disapproval of the two-party system, moral disapproval of corporate elites, et al. They don’t make the liberal mistake of assuming that leftists are grandstanding and/or virtue-signaling.

Two, they don’t conflate liberal and leftist ideologies. Liberal Democrats really do seem to believe leftists are just really liberal liberal Democrats. I have no idea who John Halle is. But it doesn’t matter for present purposes. Noam Chomsky is that Noam Chomsky. You know, the one who wrote these books. Look at all those links! Chomsky isn’t confused about the difference between leftism and liberalism.

Seriously, though, if you haven’t read at least some of the books in those links in the last paragraph, get to it. And then come back and read the rest of this article after you’ve read one or two. I’ll be waiting.

Done? Let’s continue.

Finally, Halle and Chosmky recognize that the consequences stretch beyond merely who wins and loses elections. Their argument gets at how people’s lives are affected by electoral results.

Response #2: Your Vote Matters Much Less Than Halle and Chomsky Need for Their Argument to Work

And now we get to the core problems with the Halle and Chomsky argument. There’s a lot riding on their claim that voting “marginally increases or decreases” a candidate’s chances of winning.

The problem?

It doesn’t. At least, not in a meaningful way.

That is to say, your vote doesn’t really have consequences. The chances that your vote will be decisive in a presidential election is small. And, let’s be clear. Not just small. Really, really, really small.

Plenty of people have studied this issue. And there’s something of a consensus that New Hampshire and Colorado are the states where your vote is likeliest to make an impact. Your chances of making an impact in those states? Between 1 in 1 million and 1 in 10 million.

How small are those chances? Here’s a comparison to your chances of some other things happening:

Dying from unintentional poisoning: 1 in 70.
Being struck by lighting at some point in your life: 1 in 3,000.
Dying in an Earthquake: 1 in 125,000.
Impacting the presidential election with your vote in New Hampshire: 1 in 1,000,000.
Impacting the presidential election with your vote in Oklahoma: 1 in 30,000,000,000.

Halle and Chomsky hedge their claim by using the word “marginally.” They only need your vote to marginally increase the chances one candidate or the other wins.

But, come on. There’s marginal and there’s marginal. Voting is marginal. It’s really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really marginal.

If we’re talking about consequences, staying at home, drawing a nice bath, relaxing, reading a book, and drinking a satisfying beverage almost certainly has more positive consequences than voting.

Response #3: Moving to the Group Level Doesn’t Change Much

Yeah, yeah. OK. I get that Halle and Chomsky have a response here. They can respond to the voters’ paradox by saying that voting isn’t an individual decision. It’s a collective decision made by the entire left. Sure, one leftist only has a 1 in 1 million chance of impacting the election. But how about a bunch of leftists?

The problem is that there just aren’t that many leftists. And we don’t vote collectively. We’re a tiny and marginal group. Many of us already vote Democratic anyway. Moving the rest of the left to the Democratic column wouldn’t swing most two-party elections. Even most close elections.

If we’re talking American history since 1932, there have been only two elections where you could make a reasonable case that leftists could’ve collectively turned the results. Those two elections are 1968 and 2000. And the case for 1968 is weak. There’s a better case for 2000, though Halle and Chomsky ignore Nader’s pressure on Al Gore to move left. There’s less of a case for 2016 than either 1968 or 2000.

Response #4: Democrats Always Blame Leftists When They Lose

I’ve already given sufficient reason to reject Halle and Chomsky’s argument for LEV. But I want to say at least a bit about point (4). If you’ll recall, that’s where Halle and Chomsky claim that when leftists vote third party, and Democrats lose because of lack of leftist support, Democrats will blame leftists and harm our goals.

On this point, Halle and Chomsky are too clever by half. The fact of the matter is that Democrats always punch left when they lose. Democrats will blame us whether it’s our fault or not.

Every time a Democrat loses, a massive hoard of centrist and liberal Democrats use it as an opportunity to blame the left and push the Democratic Party to the right. The Democratic Party never misses an opportunity to move to the right, or at least to stop from moving left. And the people who write these articles engage in brazen concern trolling.

So, yeah. Democrats are going to blame us whether it’s our fault or not. We should deal with this the way we deal with any concern troll: by ignoring or ridiculing them.

Pragmatic Voting

So here we are.

I vote according to a simple two-step process:

1. Which candidates meet a basic and minimal test of human decency?

2. Among those candidates, which has the best chance to accomplish certain practical goals?

I think this is pretty pragmatic, or at least as pragmatic as anyone else. And probably more pragmatic than most.

Let’s start with the basic and minimal test of human decency. What does that mean? For me, it means things like this. The candidate has at least most of these features: wants to roll back militaristic US foreign policy, opposes wars, takes a less aggressive stance toward regional rivals like China and Russia, wants to reduce US support for Israel, supports universal healthcare, pushes hard for minimum wage increases, opposes our mass deportation regime, opposes exploitative ‘free trade’ agreements, opposes mass incarceration, and fights for racial justice.

I think sometimes I lay out a checklist like this one and people think it’s too strict. They don’t see it as very pragmatic. But, again, come on. This isn’t a high bar, folks. You can meet all of these criteria and still sit to the political right of the anarchist/communist/socialist space. There’s nothing in this list that meets any of the more ambitious goals of leftists.

And yet Democrats fail. Repeatedly. The Democratic Party is a Party of Fail.

2004 was the first election where I was old enough to cast a ballot for president. Democrats have had four chances to nominate a candidate who meets my low bar for basic and minimal decency. They’re 0 for 4. John Kerry, Barack Obama 2012, and Hillary Clinton didn’t even come close. Barack Obama 2008 was better. But not by much. He failed.

So I’ve never voted for a Democrat for president. In 2016, I voted for Gloria La Riva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Among the candidates who passed the minimal decency test, she had the best ideas and the least implausible chance of building more support for socialist ideas. So, she won my vote.

I’m not sorry for not voting Democratic, even though I live in a competitive state. My message to the Democratic Party is this: It’s not my fault the party sucks. Try sucking less.

Among defeated primary candidates, Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders met most of the criteria above. Kucinich ran what was a protest candidacy, at best. Sanders had much more widespread support. And so sometimes I call my test the “Bernie Sanders Test.” I caucused for Sanders in 2016, and probably would’ve voted for him had he won the nomination. In voting for Bernie Sanders, I showed more pragmatism than most liberal Democrats have ever shown.

The 2020 Election

So far, things aren’t looking that great for 2020. I’m not optimistic I’ll be able to cast a ballot for a Democrat.

Leading potential candidates include Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton (again!?), Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Deval Patrick, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. People also speculate about various celebrity candidates (Sheryl Sandberg, Oprah Winfrey, Mark Zuckerberg, Bueller?).

I’ll probably vote for Sanders if he’s the nominee. Elizabeth Warren has a chance of winning my vote, but not a great one. I don’t see myself voting for any of the others unless they drastically change their views. I certainly don’t see myself voting for any of the celebrity candidates.

So Why Vote At All?

“So, if you think voting doesn’t have any real consequences and that your vote doesn’t affect the outcome, why do you vote at all?”

Good question!

May I finish by getting a little sentimental?

First, this is correct. I’ve voted in every major election since 2002. And even every city election in Iowa City since about 2013. My vote has never mattered. At all. No vote I’ve ever cast has impacted the final results of an election.

And that’s OK. I don’t vote because I think my vote will have an impact. I vote more because of the ideal and feeling of civic participation and inclusion. That’s it.