[ WARNING: An utterly trivial issue is about to be thrashed to within an inch of its life. If this sort of thing cheeses you off, it's not too late to turn back. ]
I've always wondered: just how does this "protest voting" work? When I get to the polling place should I say, "Just so you'll know, I'll only be casting a protest vote today, not a real one" and they'll respond with "Oh! Ok. Well, here's your protest ballot. You can take it to a booth and, oh, I don't know, fill it out or do origami with it or whatever gives you a thrill, and then when you're done we'll throw it in that pit over there, urinate and defecate on it, and set it on fire. If you have any questions, go to hell and see if anyone there cares. Oh, and please return the crayon when you're done. Thanks for protest voting!"
(Why, yes, this is a pet peeve of mine. How could you tell?)
I don't see the need to affix belittling adjectives to people's choices. I guess I could call the votes of those who stick to the Republicans and Democrats "blinkered votes" or "limited votes" or "corporate-approved votes", but I don't. And I suppose I could call the votes of people who stay faithful to their principles and vote for the candidate they truly prefer "free-thinking votes" or "honest votes" or "courageous votes", but I usually prefer not to say that out loud.
I sometimes wonder: is every vote cast against a guaranteed majority merely a protest vote? If there's a ballot proposition to execute juveniles for littering, and it's predicted to pass with 70% support, should I say, well, I can see the handwriting on the wall, and cast my vote with the majority? After all, what's the point of lodging a doomed, narcissistic little protest vote against them?
It comes down to this: there are six pairs of candidates for president and vice president on my ballot, and—unlikes millions of other people—I refuse to pretend that only two of those options actually exist. I don't cast protest votes; I just cast votes.
The Distant Ocean 
Millions voted for Bob Dole for President in 1996 knowing full well that he was going to lose. Millions voted for Michael Dukakais in 1988 knowing full well he was going to lose (I was one of them). Were they protest voters? Did the newspapers run stories in 1988 about how over forty million Americans cast protest votes for candidates who had no realistic chance of winning?
How about this year? Obama is way ahead in the polls. Do the millions of people who are casting their votes for McCain really believe their guy has a chance to win?
LikeLike
Millions voted for Bob Dole for President in 1996 knowing full well that he was going to lose. Millions voted for Michael Dukakais in 1988 knowing full well he was going to lose (I was one of them). Were they protest voters?
This is an excellent argument – can’t believe I never thought of it myself. What a shame I’ll have to wait three more years before getting to use it. When I do, I’ll be sure to mention my 1984 vote for “Landslide Wally” Mondale.
LikeLike
You see, John, America loves a winner and sneers at a loser. So in order to be a good voter, you have to figure out who’s going to win and vote for that person so you can vote for a winner. Voting for a loser means you’re a loser yourself, and America only loves winners.
Hm. Maybe that doesn’t sound so good. How about this:
You see, John, America is a democracy, so in America, the majority rules. If you’re in a minority, you’re a loser. You want to be in the majority, because the majority rules, dewd! So you have to find out who’s going to win, so you can be part of the majority that rules! Otherwise you’re just wasting your vote, ’cause, like, if you’re so smart, you’ll want to be in the majority and vote for a winner not a loser.
Hm. That doesn’t sound so good either.
But seriously, judging from conversations I’ve had with ordinary Americans over the years, something like one or both of the positions I’ve just sketched does lurk in the minds of many people. Stated explicitly as I just did, they sound pretty stupid, but so do lots of things that people believe — beliefs that depend on not being stated explicitly. (Another example: many if not most people believe that sex/gender is a continuum, that a man is more of something than a woman is. In many men’s minds there is the fear that, if they fail to be manly enough, they will lose manly-points or whatever, and in time they will turn into a woman, which is a fate worse than death. I had noticed this even before Thomas Laqueur published his book “Making Sex”, which argued that until the last few centuries, Western science had used a one-sex model, with males imagined as possessing more vital heat or something than women, and with a real danger that a man who loses his vital heat will turn into a woman.)
Some people come very close to holding such opinions explicitly, though. Today I heard someone, a college student I think, speak of the election as if it were a football or basketball game, and one of the candidates was going to go all the way to the White House. With war, politics, and pro sports mixed together in people’s minds, it’s no wonder we’re confused. Would you bet on a team that you knew was going to lose?
LikeLike
…something like one or both of the positions I’ve just sketched does lurk in the minds of many people.
Yep, agreed. I’ve seen it many times myself.
Another one I’ve observed: people fear (or expect) that whatever they do in the voting booth makes it more likely that hundreds of thousands of other people will do it as well. So it’s unthinkable for them to check that box for a third party candidate, because then those other people might do the same thing—and where’s your safe state then? This is generally subconscious, I think, but I’ve heard a few people voice it explicitly.
(I know I’ve sometimes come home from voting and watched the election results and thought, what?!? How could proposition X possibly have failed? I distinctly remember voting for it!)
This is just a specific instance of the general rule that doing something yourself makes it seem more likely that other people will do it as well, which I think connects to our inability to conceive of large groups of people except in the abstract—so we effectively assign ourselves (again, usually subconsciously) as an avatar for others.
LikeLike
LOL! Yes, that “cheeses” me! Just kidding…
I am stil on for Voter trading…but the Nader site at Truth Dig is hoppin’ with rationalizers and Nader supporters!!
It is filling my email box!
LikeLike
Sob! I love this place.
LikeLike
Yay for you, John. I cast my mainstream-type vote for Ralph Nader. It may have been partly a gesture, but I consider it not as a “protest,” but as an affirmative nod to his pro-peace stand.
LikeLike
PRIME/GRIMLOCK 2012
LikeLike
Just votee for Moore/Alexasnder, and took 5 vets with me to vote–none had voted for moer than 10 yrs. 3 had to cast provisional ballots. But, it is Ohio–and everythings fine.
LikeLike
I voted for Nader today. Is it hard to imagine him as President? I have no trouble seeing it at all. I don’t think it is a protest vote. I honestly want him to win. I hope he does.
LikeLike
That made me smile. I really like your attitude.
LikeLike
So who were the protest voters in Nancy Pelosi’s Congressional race? The 17 percent who voted for Sheehan, or the 9% who voted for the Republican candidate?
Can we call those who vote with the majority the sucker vote?
LikeLike