The Fugue

I took an American History course from an Economics professor, and I remember clearly the sinking feeling in my gut when he discussed two-party politics. I’ve never much cared for the two-party system, but he had a very convincing argument that the two-party system is pretty much an inevitability. What’s more, the two parties are more alike than not. I don’t have the knowledge or eloquence to convince you like he did me, but I can say that it all comes down to the normal distribution (you know, bell curves). The two parties differ on a few points, polarizing points that people are passionate about (abortion, gun control, Iraq, etc.), but are otherwise very similar.

I think we’re seeing that right now in the presidential race. I think we also see it in technology (I think it’s part of the reason Windows is so entrenched). I think it’s a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing because the top of the curve is more likely to be kind of right than very wrong. That is the fundamental tenet of democracy, after all. It’s a curse because the masses have a whole lot of inertia and better, more perfect policies and candidates often don’t stand a chance.

Whether you believe all that statistical mumbo jumbo I’m throwing at you or not, you probably have had that sinking feeling of wondering whether your vote matters. You look at the state where you live that overwhelmingly votes opposite your preference, and wonder why you should even show up to vote since your vote “doesn’t count”.

Well, you’re right and you’re wrong. Sure, you may be right on the money that you voting for candidate A won’t keep candidate B from winning your state or county or district or nation or whatever. But it’s not all about winning. Winning is of course your first hope. But even in losing your vote can make a difference. Statistics are collected. Not just collected, but analyzed. Analyzed by the people who want to be reelected. Analyzed by the media. Analyzed by who knows who else. Isn’t there a difference between winning by a slim margin and winning by a landslide? Don’t you think the winner in the former case might be more receptive to opposing views, knowing that the scales could easily turn in the next election? If libertarians (for example) make a decent showing in an election, even though it’s only 1/4 of the votes, don’t you think the elected officials will take a closer look?

Your vote does matter, whether or not it is decisive in the outcome of the election. Also, it’s important to vote for who you think is the best candidate. Do you like Ron Paul but don’t believe he has a chance at winning? Vote for him anyway. If you live in a place where your vote may indeed be decisive, then you may want to vote strategically if you feel there is a “lesser of two evils” situation. But if you feel, even slightly, that your vote won’t be decisive, then vote your conscience. Only when people vote and vote their consciences, can the truth about how America feels about candidates and policies come forth.

Be heard. Be involved. Get over yourself. So your vote isn’t decisive. Whoop-de-doo! Your vote does matter.