As this Primary Campaign Season has progressed, I have encountered a number of people who have expressed the sentiment that they "really like Bernie, but are voting Hillary because they feel she has a better chance of winning in the General Election."
Both Senator Sanders' and fmr Secretary Clinton's campaigns have made this assertion.
My intention is not to debate the validity of these assertions. Rather, my intention is to illustrate that there may be a long-term cost to this voting strategy.
An Analogy in Baseball
Our compliance corrupted the game...Among many others, there are the following two tenets of American culture that we are taught when we are young:
1) It's not if you win or lose, but how you play the game.
2) Illegal drugs are harmful. Its use will lead to greater harm than benefit.
However, Major League Baseball has shown us that both of these tenets are far from true. As was detailed in the Mitchell Report, steroid use in MLB is rampant. Still, when the steroid use went from suspicion to fact, few, if any penalties of any kind were ever issued.
In direct contradiction to the aforementioned tenets, steroid use is cheating, plain and simple. It gives its users a significant and unfair advantage in their game performance. In addition, the long-term financial benefits of its use far exceed its short-term harm. MLB players are able to earn tens of millions of dollars per year. It is unknown how many lifetime records are fraudulent due to steroid use.
To add insult to injury, despite sports franchises (including baseball) making its owners wealthy beyond imagination, sports stadium construction is paid for with public money. Tax payers then still have to pay huge amounts for the privilege of watching their favorite teams play, whether it may be in the stadium they paid for, or on PPV television.
Pardon me for the slight digression...
Nevertheless, why is the steroid use tolerated by the average sports fan? Because the fans want to see their teams win. They don't care how, as long as it's a win. Despite what we tell our children, drugs are bad, unless you are wealthy and especially unless you are a professional athlete. It's important that the system is fair, unless you are at risk of losing.
The result? Americans have, without exception, rewarded MLB for a winning-at-all-cost attitude. The Great American pastime of MLB has been permanently corrupted. Despite a young athlete having a natural ability to play baseball, he or she will have little chance of breaking into the record books without some steroid use in their regimen.
Our Two-Party System Really is a Oligarchy
Our current two-party system supports an oligarchy...but we the voter can change this.The United States' modern two-party system almost always leaves us with a choice of a candidate from both parties in an election cycle. This is because the two-party system is structurally and financially designed to ensure only a candidate of the party establishment's approval is elected to the higher office.
Of course there are a few notable exceptions. Donald Trump is one, as he enjoys a celebrity status and considerable personal wealth, providing him with two essential elements to a successful Presidential campaign. Senator Bernie Sanders is another, as his Presidential campaign is supported nearly entirely by individual contributions. While an Independent Senator from Vermont, he explained in a Columbus Ohio town hall that “In terms of media coverage, you had to run within the Democratic Party,” adding that he couldn’t raise money outside the major two-party process.
As I said, this is by design.
The problem is that this two-party electoral system may not provide the voters with candidates who accurately represent the voters’ priorities. More often than not, we are forced to choose one candidate because the other is completely incompatible with our own priorities and values. I suspect that this is by design as well. The two-party system allows the party's establishment to run candidates and pass legislation that the party's base would not normally support, but will tolerate because at least their candidate will support some of the voter's priorities.
However, the Establishment will never support a candidate that would threaten the socio-economic control the party's elites have on the system. Simply put, we both parties work for the oligarchy, and neither party will do anything to change this, not on their own. As I asserted in an earlier post, both political parties are corrupt, at least in the fact that they want to hold political and economic power by any means necessary. The main difference is that Democrats at least will try and pass legislation to help the people, so long as it does not go against the will of the 1% and their economic interests.
The Seemingly Safer Bet always has an Ante
The oligarchy always ensures their players are at the table, and they always have an Ace up their sleeve...All the party's establishment has to do to win and assert their priorities is run someone who is slightly more palatable to the voter. The Establishment tells the voter that their candidate must win-at-all costs, less the horrific candidate wins. When the relatively more favored candidate wins, the voter will feel relieved and at least tolerate that the unacceptable candidate didn't win.
However there is a long-term cost: the party and the Establishment have little impetus to actually assert their voters' priorities. By design, the Establishment ensures that their priorities are maintained and the corruption persists. A candidate that tries to eliminate the corruption is given little or no consideration or support by the Establishment. Thus, simply voting because you believe that candidate has a better chance of winning maintains the system's corruption.
The Solution
Vote for the candidate that best reflects your priorities, and not just during the presidential season. Vote down-ticket, from Congress down to your school superintendent!There is a solution, albeit not a simple or quick one. During this Presidential election season, vote for the candidate that best reflects your values during the party's primary season. Think of how many people are out there that would make great representatives of the people...they never get the light of day because they are not chosen by the Establishment, and are thus not vetted to ensure they would support the party's interests.
Change is traditionally slow by design. Nations rarely commit to drastic change without a catastrophic event or substantial and consistent public outcry. The Establishment only makes change when they feel their power structure is threatened, doing as little as possible to execute the will of the people when it threatens the status quo.
Despite all this, the voting citizen still has the means to periodically exert their will and make their voice heard. Thus, it is imperative that when that vote is made, it is done in a matter that most acutely reflects the voters' will.
The best opportunity to do so is during the party's primary system.
Unfortunately, the reality is, we have the system we have...thus when we get to the general election, and we as voters must vote again, we must vote for the current best choice of the existing candidates. Not voting because your primary candidate didn't win does nothing to improve the system.
An exception I'll concede is the case where the second-tier party (Green Party, Libertarian party) most closely reflects your priorities and values. In those cases, a vote for those parties in significant numbers may put such candidates in state and local-level office. This will in turn have the effect of forcing the major two parties to take notice and heed the second-tier party priorities. This must be done with care, however. Such an action may lead to the events of the 2000 Presidential Election, when too many votes for Ralph Nader arguably contributed to the loss of Al Gore and 8 years of Bush.
Final Thoughts
Not voting for your state and local elections, at every opportunity, has disastrous consequences…Voting for a candidate simply because you believe he or she has a better chance in the general election has long-term ramifications. It sustains the status quo, and plays right into the Establishment's hands. Our best opportunity to change this is during the primary season. Vote for who best supports your values, but be sure to come out and vote for the best candidate available in the General Election. Change is slow, but it will come if you consistently make your voice heard.