Who should I vote for?
I have a bit of a dilemma. I’m a John Edwards fan, and even voted for him in the VA primary. Obama and Clinton both drive me crazy for their own respective reasons, and it’ll be a cold day in hell when I vote for insane John McCain. I like Nader, but think he may be hurting his causes more than helping them by running, and I throw away my vote far too often in elections for my liking. To the chagrin of many of my friends, he is probably who I would end up voting for if the election were today. I think Obama and Clinton would both do decent jobs–I just can’t bring myself to vote for candidates that I feel are hypocrites–and I feel at times that Obama is a greater hypocrite than Clinton (because she seems to not care about the things she does that are corrupt, while he seems to make more of an attempt to mask them). So I’m trying to think of what I would do in the general election–the democratic candidate, or someone else? Perhaps for once in my adult life, I will not vote at all, due to what I feel is a lack of a real choice.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I find it hard to believe that you will not vote in your very first Presidential election "in your adult life"
May 10th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I would feel guilty voting for Nader, and like a hypocritical sell out if it’s Obama. And if it’s Clinton, I will be worried about the state of our nation when she is elected since she puts some of the most pork through congress of anyone.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Vote for the Democrat, whoever it is, or kick yourself repeatedly when McCain wins, because it’ll be your fault when we get a third Bush term.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
If it makes you feel better, Aimee, no matter how you vote, your one vote ain’t gonna make a difference. It seems as if there is no one that there would be a benefit for you of voting for (ie, signaling benefits). Voting will be more costly, in terms of time, emotion, signaling* and impact than not voting. Stay home. It would be economically inefficient for you to vote. Of course, I’m a Masononomist, and we think differently than the rest of the world.
Cue Adam Sharp and his tired "one handed economist" reference in three…two….
* Unless you find a joy in going around and telling people that you held your nose and voted for Candidate X, but you were really for Candidate Y. Some people find status signaling benefits from that. Or from being one of those "I’ve never not voted" types. If you’re one of those types, by all means, vote early and often, Chicago style.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Just think about who the next President will nominate for the Supreme Court (possibly THREE positions!). If McCain get’s in it may be time to leave the country, for it may be too late. Depressing thought? Yea.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Genevieve, the "one vote ain’t gonna make a difference" philosophy is flawed. Every drop of rain matters because if there were no drops of rain we’d live in a desert. The ONLY reason not to vote would be if the choices available, and I mean ALL the choices, were exactly equivalent. If everyone who thinks Obama and McCain are the same (a view that’s hard to imagine) stayed home, then Nader or some other fringe candidate wins. And so the only rational choice is to vote, and vote for the one superior candidate on the ballot. In my view that’s going to be the Democrat, whether Obama or Clinton. It does matter.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:26 am
So pessemistic. The truth is that who ever wins, will be better than Bush. Even McCain is 100 times better than Bush. Aimee, you want perfection and you will never find it in politics. Just remember, perfection is the enemy of the good. And Nader? He is the reason we have suffered through the Bush disaster for almost 8 years.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:29 am
I have seen and heard of far too many elections decided by one vote or a handful of votes to believe that, Genevieve
May 12th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Aimee: Well, the calculus is more complex than just tallying the probability of one vote making a difference (and a Supreme Court vote in 2000 does not count as one vote making a difference), particularly in national elections. We have to take into account for whom people are voting, why they’re voting/pertinent biases and for what the elected official will be voting. And that’s just the beginning! But Adam always gets irritated when I bust out the graphs and calc and surveys and statistics and Caplanisms. And an irritated Adam is not an Adam I’d like around. For you, I would say, you’ve mentioned working on the Hill, you’re obviously into politics and working on elections, I would vote just to be able to say "I’ve never missed voting." It won’t make a difference outside the feel-good, warm and fuzzy feeling voting gives a person, or any signaling benefits derived from the act itself*. But go ahead. You have fun. Write in Edwards if you like protest voting. Vote for Kenton.
*Obvs, for a more thorough explanation, see Caplan, "The Myth of the Rational Voter," or for a fleeting explanation, Harford, "The Logic of Life."