The Daily Record
Is Holding One’s Nose The Best Option?
A couple of weeks ago a reader came by and said we need to publish something about the Libertarian Party presidential candidate.
Because he’s a conservative, my visitor can’t vote for Hillary Clinton, an unapologetic liberal. He also doesn’t want to vote for Donald Trump, who seems to lack any ideology.
So he plans to vote for the Libertarian, who is expected to be former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson (we won’t know for certain until the Libertarian Party delegates vote at their convention this weekend).
But is a vote for the Libertarian a vote wasted? Mr. Johnson was also the Libertarian nominee four years ago, when he didn’t even get 1 percent of the General Election vote.
He’s expected to do better this year, with the Washington Times reporting this week that he’s polling in double digits in a theoretical three-way race against Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump.
“With two of the most polarizing figures in U.S. politics as the likely major party nominees,” Mr. Johnson told Newsmax recently, “the Libertarian Party has more opportunities than ever before.”
Maybe. But they’re still mostly opportunities to lose.
Remember Ross Perot, the most popular third-party candidate in recent years? He failed to win a single Electoral College vote in either 1992 or 1996. Mr. Perot succeeded only in giving Bill Clinton the White House in both elections by diverting votes from Republican nominees George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, respectively.
Likewise, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader took votes from fellow liberal Al Gore in 2000, giving Florida, and thus the White House, to George W. Bush. And like Mr. Perot, Mr. Nader won no electoral votes.
In fact, the last third-party candidate to win any electoral votes was segregationist George Wallace who carried five Southern states in 1968.
So what’s worse, voting for someone who can’t possibly win or voting for that often bemoaned “lesser of two evils?”
Dr. Jeffrey A. Singer, a surgeon from Arizona, wrote a piece on the Libertarian website Reason.com last week arguing that voting for a third-party candidate isn’t really tantamount to throwing away one’s vote.
“If I vote for the lesser of evils and hold my nose,” Dr. Jeffrey wrote, “my vote is blended in with millions of others — there is no way to register my dissatisfaction with the choices the two major parties have given me.”
He further argues that by voting for the Libertarian candidate who will get fewer votes, he will have a “greater affect on raising the total percentage of votes” for that candidate, thereby making “more of a statement.”
But do we vote to make a statement or to influence the outcome of an election?
For conservatives who can’t stomach Donald Trump, it may be satisfying to vote for a third-party candidate. It may feel like an act of principle.
But the most likely result of that act would be to give Hillary Clinton the White House, along with two or three Supreme Court appointments.
If the race is between Clinton and Trump there will be no good choice. And improving Mrs. Clinton’s chances by voting for a third-party candidate is also a bad choice.
It’s hard to believe that holding one’s nose and voting for Donald Trump will be the best of these bad choices, but it could well be.
Contact Bart Adams at (910) 230-2001 or badams@mydailyrecord.com.
BART ADAMS
