Past Pluto’s Post
The Plea for Political Plurality
By: Al Spaulding
Part III of III
“There are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall be at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it. The vast number of such places it is that renders the British government so tempestuous. The struggles for them are the true sources of all those factions which are perpetually dividing the nation, distracting its councils, hurrying sometimes into fruitless and mischievous wars, and often compelling a submission to dishonorable terms of peace.
And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government, and be your rulers."
Myth Matters
Before we go any further, first ask yourself: what is a wasted vote?
What is a wasted vote?
When might you consider your own vote to have been wasted?
How would you respond to someone who had told you that you were wasting your vote?
The most immediate objection to the notion of supporting someone outside the two-party system is that of the 'wasted vote'; a vote outside the two-party system can’t change anything. Such a vote takes support from people who actually matter.
You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. You can’t urge people of the importance of voting, wax eloquent about its foundational power in a democratic nation, you can’t encourage people their vote matters, but then tell them they’re wasting their vote if they don’t elect Democrat or Republican. Such critics claim your choices in life make you free, but only if you choose between the options they recognize - otherwise, you are wasting your freedom.
If your opinion isn't already widely supported, then it isn't worthwhile. It isn't significant.
You can have any color you want so long as it’s black.
So what is a wasted vote?
A technical definition of a wasted vote is any vote that doesn’t directly elect a candidate. Any vote for an unsuccessful candidate, even any extra votes past the margin of success are wasted. In 'First Past the Post' systems there are many wasted votes. If Candidate X receives 20 votes and Candidate Y 15, there are thus 19 wasted votes (Y’s 15 plus the 4 extra votes past the 16 necessary for X to win).
By this technical definition, the majority of votes are wasted.
Let’s look at another example. Candidate A gets 49 votes, B gets 45, and a third candidate, C, gets 5. The number of technically wasted votes is 53.
A counterproposal to the idea of a wasted vote is that the people who voted for Candidate C wasted their vote. C never had a chance of winning. Indeed, C voters could have chosen B, possibly changing the results of the election. In this example, A and B voters chastise C voters for wasting their votes. This an act of popular coercion, peer pressure to discourage voting outside of the duopolistic party system. This is a suppression of individual beliefs. This argument bullies-out accurate representation.
What is a vote, really? A vote is simply an exercise of preference in a social context. A vote is an expression of confidence. You waste your vote when you exercise your choice for something you don’t actually prefer, when you vote for something in which you lack confidence.
Actually, electoral fraud can also waste your vote, but is less immediately within your influence.
We only have to vote for “the lesser of two evils” because we have a dissociated, fractured system. If we were allowed to express our preferences in a righteous and democratic system, our actual beliefs would be better represented.
Before we go any further, first ask yourself: what is a wasted vote?
What is a wasted vote?
When might you consider your own vote to have been wasted?
How would you respond to someone who had told you that you were wasting your vote?
The most immediate objection to the notion of supporting someone outside the two-party system is that of the 'wasted vote'; a vote outside the two-party system can’t change anything. Such a vote takes support from people who actually matter.
You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. You can’t urge people of the importance of voting, wax eloquent about its foundational power in a democratic nation, you can’t encourage people their vote matters, but then tell them they’re wasting their vote if they don’t elect Democrat or Republican. Such critics claim your choices in life make you free, but only if you choose between the options they recognize - otherwise, you are wasting your freedom.
If your opinion isn't already widely supported, then it isn't worthwhile. It isn't significant.
You can have any color you want so long as it’s black.
So what is a wasted vote?
A technical definition of a wasted vote is any vote that doesn’t directly elect a candidate. Any vote for an unsuccessful candidate, even any extra votes past the margin of success are wasted. In 'First Past the Post' systems there are many wasted votes. If Candidate X receives 20 votes and Candidate Y 15, there are thus 19 wasted votes (Y’s 15 plus the 4 extra votes past the 16 necessary for X to win).
By this technical definition, the majority of votes are wasted.
Let’s look at another example. Candidate A gets 49 votes, B gets 45, and a third candidate, C, gets 5. The number of technically wasted votes is 53.
A counterproposal to the idea of a wasted vote is that the people who voted for Candidate C wasted their vote. C never had a chance of winning. Indeed, C voters could have chosen B, possibly changing the results of the election. In this example, A and B voters chastise C voters for wasting their votes. This an act of popular coercion, peer pressure to discourage voting outside of the duopolistic party system. This is a suppression of individual beliefs. This argument bullies-out accurate representation.
What is a vote, really? A vote is simply an exercise of preference in a social context. A vote is an expression of confidence. You waste your vote when you exercise your choice for something you don’t actually prefer, when you vote for something in which you lack confidence.
Actually, electoral fraud can also waste your vote, but is less immediately within your influence.
We only have to vote for “the lesser of two evils” because we have a dissociated, fractured system. If we were allowed to express our preferences in a righteous and democratic system, our actual beliefs would be better represented.
Fecund Feasibility
Perhaps now you are convinced that a two-party system is not in your best interest, nor the interest of any citizen. You probably already have a good idea of how to move forward. Let’s state it again for the record.
To have a more fair political system we require:
A. Better representation through the electoral system. No ‘First Past the Post’ voting system.
B. Better representation through electoral districts. No ‘Gerrymandering.’
C. Better representation of political candidates. The media oligopoly is not conducive to (relatively) objective information.
D. Better representation of political ethics. No duopolistic ‘two-party system.’
What does this require?
A. An updated electoral system. There are multiple alternative voting systems preferable to 'First Past the Post'.
b. There are groups, like the non-profit Fair Vote, campaigning for alternative voting systems in the United States.
B. Don’t allow incumbent politicians to create voting districts. Independent agencies are a better option.
C. Your research. It’s fine to watch CNN, MSNBC, and FOX for some news, but make the effort to pursue other sources of information. Interactive media is superior to passive media.
a. In academics it is unfathomable to have a basis of one source of information. It is necessary to have a variety of inputs, preferably as independent from each other as possible.
D. Value diversity, engage politically, and vote for third parties or independents.
This point of diversity and plurality is, I believe, the crux of the issue. It seems the current two-party system and its inherent representative shortcomings have allowed the wealthy and powerful to create a system that serves them better than it serves the average person.
The current wealth gap in the United States is as substantial as it was right before the Great Depression.
Don’t the rich and the politicians have a vested, mutual interest to maintain their success? To achieve financial or political success requires significant intelligence and ability; why is it that the political candidates we’re presented with speak so simply, favoring emotion over logic? Have demagogues and plutocrats become the deciders in the United States, exactly as the Founding Fathers feared?
My point being, this level of inequality and disproportionate representation can not and should not be sustained. With the Founding Fathers as my inspiration, I assert that power, money, and politics are the Devil’s threesome, and parties are the beds in which they lie.
The Founding Fathers would have wanted nonpartisan elections. And countries around the world exist without parties. Still, supporting third parties is a step in the right direction. What is required is political plurality, not political dichotomy. Any vote exercised towards political plurality is a message of confidence, a message declaring the need for better representation.
Don’t Pay the Ferryman
Many political discussions are charged with a sense of immediacy. Hopefully, I have presented a purposeful argument without falling victim to urgency. I don’t believe anything terrible will occur in the next election. You may believe that political plurality is a worthwhile cause, though not practical in the current voting cycle. I understand that it may take time for a greater diversity of representation to be actualized. In the meantime, let’s not fall victim to a sense of deadline. It is important to avoid a reactionary mindset - let’s be proactive. If we agree that electoral reforms are necessary and the two-party system needs improvement, we can take steps towards a long-term goal.
One of the greatest actions you can do to initiate change is to bring attention to the options. Support political plurality as a valid notion and share it in relevant discussions. Regard with suspicion any entity that seeks to repress variety and expression.
Who benefits from maintaining the status quo?
More than anything, eradicating the two-party system requires belief that it is possible. Remember the injection of ancient Greek political philosophy into the nascent United States. Think of the Montgomery bus boycotts and Gandhi’s peaceful demonstrations. These tactics were ludicrous at the time, yet a camaraderie of confidence made it totally possible to fix broken systems peacefully and rationally. Despite the differences, practical applications can be derived from alien situations.
If you are committed to improving the American government, it is necessary to move beyond the two-party system. Indeed, this discussion has implications for limited systems everywhere.
Diversify your portfolio.
Are we willing to resign ourselves the inertia of this incumbent duopolistic system? Are we resigned to a political pendulum between party factions, from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama? For real change to be enacted requires more than common dissatisfaction. It requires actual dissent. For there to be a change in our environment we have to be willing to change our beliefs and behaviors. Voting for the same old system will only perpetuate said system.
Voting for political plurality is your way of making a change for the better.
One of the greatest actions you can do to initiate change is to bring attention to the options. Support political plurality as a valid notion and share it in relevant discussions. Regard with suspicion any entity that seeks to repress variety and expression.
Who benefits from maintaining the status quo?
More than anything, eradicating the two-party system requires belief that it is possible. Remember the injection of ancient Greek political philosophy into the nascent United States. Think of the Montgomery bus boycotts and Gandhi’s peaceful demonstrations. These tactics were ludicrous at the time, yet a camaraderie of confidence made it totally possible to fix broken systems peacefully and rationally. Despite the differences, practical applications can be derived from alien situations.
If you are committed to improving the American government, it is necessary to move beyond the two-party system. Indeed, this discussion has implications for limited systems everywhere.
Diversify your portfolio.
Are we willing to resign ourselves the inertia of this incumbent duopolistic system? Are we resigned to a political pendulum between party factions, from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama? For real change to be enacted requires more than common dissatisfaction. It requires actual dissent. For there to be a change in our environment we have to be willing to change our beliefs and behaviors. Voting for the same old system will only perpetuate said system.
Voting for political plurality is your way of making a change for the better.
All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
Further Resources
CGP Grey's breakdown of political problems and possibilities: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638
Options for electoral reform: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_the_United_States
Many political reform ideas are centered around the vote: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/idea-must-die-election-edition/
Most people think the presidential campaign is too long (and want the system to change): http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ayw7ira9yg/tabs_OPI_primary_20150304.pdf
Alternative voting systems decrease 'wasted votes' and increase voter
participation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
The USA has the greatest wealth and the greatest inequality:
and
The detrimental effects of 'monoculture' (and lack of diversity) on human-ecological systems: http://www.ipes-food.org/images/Reports/UniformityToDiversity_FullReport.pdf
Thank you for reading.
