If your candidate doesn't get nominated, should you vote for the one who does?

(This may be a premature moment to have this discussion, as I suspect it will rise up again later this year. But I've seen it floating around in a lot of circles, and so I'm going to spend a lot of words summarizing my thoughts on it.)

(Also, this is written by someone who will almost certainly vote Democrat this year, and who expects to vote for Hillary Clinton in November. The arguments work the same, though, if you're a Bernie Sanders supporter. Heck, they apply to Republican voters, too, but I'd rather you come to the opposite conclusion because I'd rather not see a Republican elected.)

I've heard a lot of disturbing things this election cycle thus far. The vast majority have been from the GOP candidates, who continue to fall all over themselves to see who can be extremer-than-thou when it comes to immigrants, taxes, the ACA, guns, climate change, race, religious license for Christians, religious restriction for folk who aren't Christians, terrorism, and whatever else the Fear Topic of the Week is.

But there's one area where I've heard something nearly as alarming from the Democratic side. That that's been the threat to take one's marbles (or at least one's vote) and go home if their primary candidate isn't nominated. This has mostly come from Sanders supporters, but there's been a bit from Clinton supporters as well (and, famously, some Clinton supporters in 2008 threatened the same thing when Obama was nominated).

This is, to be perfectly blunt, asinine.

Elections are never about choosing perfection. Even if one assumes that Bernie Sanders is the Second Coming and that only he can save the world and reestablish the progressive movement and bring happiness and puppy dogs and unicorns to the masses, he can only do that if he is nominated. So fight like the dickens to get him nominated, fergoshsakes.

If he is not nominated, you have a pretty clear choice. You can:

a. Vote for the Democratic nominee (presumably Hillary Clinton) [1]
b. Vote for the Republican nominee (let's say Ted Cruz) [2]
c. Not vote for president at all.

The problem is, "b" and "c" are pretty much the same thing. Well, "b" is worse, but "c" effectively lets your neighbor's vote for Ted Cruz stay intact, or uncanceled. Not voting for someone you could have voted for helps that person's opponent.

In other words, you either support the Democratic nominee, or you support (explicitly or tacitly) the Republican nominee. Unless you consider those two to be the same (which I'll discuss below), those are your choices.

So, if you are a Sanders supporter[1], and are choosing to not vote for Clinton, why are you making that choice to support Ted Cruz?

I don't like Hillary Clinton!

There are any number of reasons not to like Clinton. From a policy perspective, I'm not wowed with her myself. When it comes to Big Finance, she (and her husband before her) have been way too chummy with those moneyed interests. (Much the same can be said of Obama.) True, those moneyed interests seem to have tossed her over of late for the GOP (whom they've always been chummy with as well), but I'm sure they'd be back in her camp right after the election.

And Clinton, at least as Secretary of State, was always a lot more hawkish of a voice than I cared for. That may or may not indicate how she would be as president, but it's worrisome. But, again, with the possible exception of Rand Paul, she's no worse (and arguably better) than the GOP field.

So, can you find a candidate who supports your ideals more than Hillary Clinton? That's altogether possible, and, if so, supporting that candidate in the primaries is a fantastic idea.

But after we get out of primary season, that stops being the question. The question instead becomes, would you rather have Clinton in the White House? Or would you rather have Ted Cruz in the White House? That is the choice. And if you don't vote for Clinton, you are allowing a Republican vote for Cruz to stand unopposed.

(As to personal likability … is that really a reason to vote for, or against, someone? Disdaining a vote for Clinton because she seems arrogant is not much different than voting for Dubya because he seems like a great guy to have over for a BBQ. Neither says much substantial about how they will act in their official capacities in office.)

But there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans!

I will have to courteously disagree here (because my first response is "bullshit"). While I could hope for more differences, making this statement requires focusing (or, rather, squinting vaguely) on a single issue and/or being so far into the weeds on the Left that, if you were on the Right you'd be making the same statement because neither party is calling for the stoning to death of heretics.

This whole thing was inspired by reading Paul Krugman's article today [
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/opinion/elections-have-consequences.html?_r=0], which gives a narrow but quite real example of how the 2008 election (and 2012 re-election) of a Democrat to the White House did make a difference. I'll add to that a suggestion that even a cursory read of the party platforms and campaign materials demonstrates very real differences. I'll mention a few things like reproductive rights, pay equality, voting rights, immigration, tax policy, health care policy, the environment and climate change, church and state issues, and social welfare. I'll ask if we would have been as poorly off under Al Gore or John Kerry as we were under George W. Bush. I'll ask if a Mitt Romney or a John McCain would have the US in a better, worse, or equivalent place today if they had won.

I'll suggest as well looking at the stated policy positions of the current GOP candidates and ask if that paints a picture no worse than what one expects from Clinton.

I don't pretend that I will be enraptured by every decision Clinton makes as president. I can say to a moral certainty that I will be appalled by quite a few more more decisions Cruz makes as president, especially with a GOP House and (probably) Senate to back him.

If you want to see more of a difference between the candidates, that's great. But those are the options, so choose. If you really still see no difference, then there's nothing more to talk about.

My principles will not let me vote for someone for whom I do not feel a righteous passion!

This one is like the above two, only wrapped in a cloak of fiery moral righteousness.

There is a principle known as "Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good." Also known as "Don't be so finicky with your food you starve to death."

Sure, avoiding moral compromise is a worthwhile goal. But, like most absolutes, there's compromise and there's compromise. No candidate will ever believe everything I believe or act precisely as I would act.[3] So right there, I have to accept some compromise.

But further compromise is forced by that binary choice of candidates. Life does not offer me perfect choices. Complaining that the restaurant I am at doesn't offer filet mignon, only spaghetti or Brussels sprout casserole, doesn't actually change what can order. If I want to drive the new car off the lot right now, I have to either take the red one or the black one, not the out-of-stock green one that I really want. If my choice is Clinton vs. Cruz, then that's the choice I have to make. If I cannot vote for Clinton because she is not the perfect candidate, then I am enabling Cruz, an even (to my mind) less perfect candidate.

It's the trolley problem [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem]. I can't ignore the moral (and political) consequences of my inaction.

A reasonable question is what would it take to make me unable to compromise to vote for Clinton? I suppose if I discovered she was part of an organized Satanic human sacrifice ring, or had been brainwashed by the Red Chinese in Manchuria, or really did order Vince Foster killed, it would give me pause. That said, I am less influenced by personal foibles (though they do have an influence) than by policy statements, and less by policy statements than actual policy action. And, even there, I still have to look at the results of not voting for her, in terms of thus supporting the GOP candidate.

I think we should run Sanders as a third party candidate!

So … you really want a Republican to win in 2016.

Most of the people floating this take it as an extension of (and solution for) the previous item: not compromising principles by changing the rules of the game by taking the ideal candidate and making him[1] part of the equation again, either as a third party candidate (assuming he wants to be, which so far he has signaled he does not) or as a write-in.

The problem is, it never works. Third party candidacies, no matter how swell and apparently popular the candidate, no matter how fervent the supporters, never do much more than spoil the election for that "side."

Yes, our binary party system has serious issues; yes, there are alternatives that have been proposed; yes, there's nothing in the Constitution that forces a two-party system; yes, the Founders hated the whole idea of parties.

None of the above affects the choice to be made. This is the system we have, and the system that both parties have hammered, based on their own selfish interests, into law and regulation and culture. Fight that system in some fashion, if you dislike it, but it's not going to change the choice to be made this year.

A third party candidate run will lose. Ask Teddy Roosevelt, the only guy in the 20th Century who ever had a chance of making it happen. Ask George Wallace. Ask John Anderson. Ask Ross Perot. Ask Ralph Nader. All of those guys had support. All of them had fervent followers. All of them were told they had a chance, that the polls favored them, that the guy nominated in their ostensible party was a jerk and a failure and that the American people would rally around an independent run and win!

And all of them failed, and by significant margins. And they managed to tank their "side" in the process. And the same would happen if Sanders were to run as a third general election candidate, or if a significant write-in campaign were mounted. Even if he (against all precedent) got more votes than Clinton, the chances that he would get more, in enough places, to beat the GOP candidate is passingly small.

In part, that's because current presidential election vote margins are so narrow. That's visible in the recent past of presidential elections. Even where the electoral vote appears skewed, the underlying popular vote is much closer, especially in key states. Ohio and Virginia barely swung Obama into the White House over Romney in 2012. And Florida barely swung Bush into the White House over Gore in 2000 — thanks to an assist by both SCOTUS and by third party candidate Ralph Nader.

And part of that is intransigence amongst party voters. Even with the zaniest of candidates, the "swing vote" is passingly small, even among self-titled "Independents". They tend to be, when all is said and done, "Independents who almost always vote Republican" and "Independents who almost always vote Democratic," both of which profess dislike for the parties themselves, but still tend to line up that way when presidential push comes to shove. Which means that you're working from largely the same population; neither Clinton nor Sanders is going to grab any significant number of Republicans, nor much more of the Independent vote than Clinton would. Given the very narrow margins of presidential elections, that means they will be battling for the same voters.

And if magically nobody gets a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes to the House. How do you think that will work out?

If you have a third party candidacy or significant write-in candidacy of Bernie Sanders[1], the GOP wins the White House. It's really that simple, no matter how much one would like a multi-party system to flourish in the US.

Well, not voting / running a third party candidacy will send a message!

I worry about people who want to "send a message," no matter the cost. It's always a sketchy proposition, because that "cost" sends a message, too.

In this case, the argument is that, even if not voting or running Sanders[1] as a third party candidate throws the election to the GOP, it will "send a message" and force the Democratic party to run Sanders (or someone like him) as a candidate next time.

There's only two problems with that: it doesn't work, and in the meantime you've screwed things up for 4-8 years by turning the White House (along with the Senate and House) over to the GOP.

First off, any effect from that message is likely to be small and take many years to be seen. The Democratic candidate in 2020 would not be Bernie Sanders. It might be someone who pays a bit more lip service to causes on the Left, but it's not going to be a major sea change. Just ask Ralph Nader who, after 2000, went back to chat with John Kerry in 2004 and really got nowhere on the issues he thought were important. Or ask Ron Paul if his intensely popular (among his followers) campaigns for president in 2008 and 2012, and his refusal to support the actual GOP nominees those years, have had a significant impact on the candidates leading the race amongst the GOP this year.[4]

There is a much more significant effect from running a vigorous primary campaign than a contentious, spoiling third party or boycotting campaign.

Secondly, what's the collateral damage? What will a Republican in the White House for at least four years, more likely eight, going to do? How does that align with what Sanders wants to do? Or with anything that you've been at all happy about coming from the White House in the last seven years? How did things go during the previous Republican presidency? What will the next one dismantle, and what will it put into place, and how much death and suffering (from wars, from further delays on climate change, from loosening of environmental regulations, from demolished safety nets and a dismantled ACA, among a host of other things) is "sending a message" going to cost? And how many federal judges and Supreme Court justices will that person (again, let's call him Ted Cruz) put into place, to keep that legacy going?

Unless you really think there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, that difference is, at the very least, the cost. Is it worth it to send a message whose reception is by no means certain?

But the DNC hasn't treated Sanders fairly!

Probably. Sander is from outside the party. Clinton is an insider in many more ways than anyone else could have wangled this election cycle. That Democratic Party officials favor Clinton, or even have tilted the playing field in her favor, is understandable if unsavory or even maddening.

But reforming the DNC is a separate issue. Again, if the question is Clinton vs Cruz, complaining about how Sanders was treated doesn't answer the question. And throwing the election to the GOP is punishing everyone for the sins of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, which seems pretty draconian.

But the DNC anointed her as a candidate and forced her down our throats!

See above. Also, can we stop using the term "forcing down our throats," because that's become a favorite of the GOP these days, and it's getting kind of squicky.

Also, while parties can have an influence, they cannot completely dictate candidates. "Insider" candidates have ended up on the sidelines before. Just ask (as it looks more likely every day) Jeb Bush. Or, heck, ask Hillary Clinton in 2008. Ultimately, in primary states (and even in caucus states), the candidate has the opportunity — and the responsibility — to get their message out. If things are stacked against them in doing so, that's a battle to be fought and a reform to take place, but it doesn't warrant taking one's marbles and going home, given the costs.

Well, I don't buy the whole not-voting-helps-the-other-guys argument. What else do you have?

Okay, how's this?

Turn-out is much heavier in presidential election years than in "off" years. That's something the GOP has realized, and which has seriously helped them get hold of the House and the Senate, by focusing serious Get Out the Vote efforts for those "off" elections (and by the Dems basically letting them get away with it).

The reason is pretty simple: presidential elections are sexy and prominent, and focus party differences in a way that governorships and legislative races do not. That's an unwise way to base your voting, but a lot of people apparently do.

The corollary would seem to be that if it's a presidential vote that gets people to the polls on a presidential year, then a decision by people to not vote for the Democratic nominee will reduce Democratic turnout — and therefore not only get a Republican into the White House, but more Republicans into the House, the Senate, state governorships, state representatives, mayors, school boards, etc.

I have heard the argument that "No, I will still vote for all those other offices." And, if so, good on you. A lot of people, though, will not. They vote for those other offices because they vote for president, for better or worse. So a certain number of disgruntled Sanders supporters will not vote at all. And in making their principled declarations to their friends, and so dissuading them from voting for Clinton, they will have a knock-on effect on all other Democratic candidates in other races.

Again, if you believe there is no difference, nationally or locally, between Dems and the GOP, then this is no skin off your nose. But I think you're seriously wrong.

I live in a Deep Red (or Deep Blue) state, so it makes no difference, so I can send a message with my lack of vote

First off, if you are in a "safe" state, the political parties probably aren't paying much attention to you anyway. Or at least a lot less.

Secondly, review that previous section. Unless you are in a Deep Blue (or Red) state, county, city, and variety of districts, your vote matters in an array of races. So you might as well vote.

Thirdly, none of those colors is etched in bedrock. States do swing sometimes (as do counties, cities, districts …). Single votes add up to more-than-single votes. Even if it's unlikely your state will change from Deep Red to Blue, it might be ready to shift to Purple, and so garner a lot more attention (from both parties) next time, which is a great way to advance your cause then. Unless you decline to vote.

Well, you're a Clinton supporter, so you would say all of this.

Well, actually, my politics probably line up closer to Sanders than Clinton. But I consider Clinton a much more electable candidate in the general election, and I've seen little to dissuade me from that position. So I've already had these arguments within my own head.

That said, if Sanders gets the nomination, I'll be definitely voting for him. Because the alternative is significantly worse.

– – – – –

[1] This argument works perfectly well if we say the nominee is Sanders and we're talking about Clinton supporters sitting out the election, too. But that seems less likely, and, frankly, most of the not-voting talk is coming from the Sanders side of the aisle at the present.
[2] It could be Jeb!, or it could be Rubio, or even possibly Trump. My money at this point is on Rubio, but anything could happen over the next few months.
[3] That's even leaving out difference in the information available around a decision.
[4] Honestly, I find Sanders supporters sound a lot like Ron Paul supporters, in tone and their arguments, even if their candidates have very different ideas.

View on Google+