The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of the Wasted Vote
By: Tedi Knaak
Tags: Politics, 2016 Election, Third Party, Voting, Libertarianism

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of the Wasted Vote

The concept of the wasted vote, beaten into us by Republicans and Democrats alike, is the number one reason people are scared to vote for a third party candidate. Even in this tumultuous election, where the major party candidates are polling as the least liked presidential candidates of all time, we are told that these are our only options. We must choose the lesser of two evils. Better to vote against a candidate we hate than to vote for a candidate we actually support. This idea is not an unfortunate truth, but a carefully constructed lie perpetuated by the parties in power.

The purpose of a democracy is to aggregate the preferences of the people and make decisions based upon those preferences. If voters prefer a third party but are taught that a third party vote is a “waste,” they are forced to misrepresent their own preferences, negating the entire purpose of the democratic process. How can we find the will of the majority if the majority isn’t supposed to vote according to their will?

In Gallup’s most recent poll from September 2016, 40% of US voters identify as independent. Yet, most of these independent voters can be redistributed into “lean” categories — i.e. they typically “lean Republican” or “lean Democrat.” These voters choose to identify as independent, indicating that they don’t have a strong preference for one of the two major parties. Yet they can be sorted into these “lean” categories because they typically end up voting for one of the major parties. Why? Because we are constantly told we only have two options. Ever.

Voting for a third party candidate that most of the population hasn’t even heard of might not be the most effective way to spend your vote, it’s true. But in today’s world, where a variety of candidates can permeate the political scene relatively inexpensively via social media platforms, it is much easier for third party candidates to become viable options. Or at least it should be…

Parties in power like to stay in power, and the two leading parties today have taken significant steps to ensure that they remain “the only options.” The presidential debates are hosted and regulated by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The CPD touts its status as a “nonpartisan” commission because it does not favor the Republican party over the Democratic party, or vice versa. It certainly does, however, favor these two parties over all others. In fact, the CPD is run solely by the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. Several sitting members of the CPD have even expressed explicit support for major party candidates, both verbally and financially.

Since the establishment of the CPD in 1987, only one third party candidate has ever been included in the debates — Ross Perot. Before the debates, Perot was polling below 10%, yet he was still given a seat at the table. Perot performed well in the debates, with 33% of voters claiming that he had been the most persuasive candidate. His inclusion in the debates not only allowed Perot to spread his message on the main stage, but also legitimized his candidacy as a valid voting option. Perot’s polling numbers continued to climb, and he ended up receiving 19% of the popular vote in the 1992 election. Recognizing this as a significant threat, the CPD passed the 15% minimum polling requirement for inclusion in the debates in 2000.

Many political analysts consider the 15% requirement to be rather high. It is perhaps even more significant to note, however, that it is an entirely arbitrary benchmark. There is no statistical reasoning to specifically support 15% as a barrier for entry. Even if the 15% rule is an attainable measure for third parties to reach, the CPD is extremely manipulative of their measuring sticks. The CPD only considers five polls of their own choosing when assessing the 15% requirement.

The CPD promised to reveal their selected polls for the coming election by September 26, 2015, one year before the first debate, in order to give candidates a chance to prepare their campaigns accordingly. The CPD then blew past their own self-designated deadline by nearly 11 months, refusing to announce their selected polls until August 15, 2016, less than six weeks before the first presidential debate. And while it is hard to find polls devoid of any bias, the CPD chose polls conducted by media outlets that are widely critiqued for their partisan leanings.

In all five of the CPD’s polls, third parties are mentioned exactly once as potential options to the general “Who would you vote for?” question. The polls then quickly move on to a question such as “How would you vote if only the Republican and Democratic candidates were on the ballot?” The complete irrelevancy of this question is astounding, as no states will have only these two candidates on the ballot. The polls then proceed to dive deeper with questions regarding candidates’ traits, favorability, and strengths. Of course, for all of these critical questions, only the two major party candidates are offered as choices.

This rhetoric enforces the idea that while third party candidates may technically be options, they aren’t truly valid choices side by side with the major party candidates. The Fox News polls really struck gold with the question, “Regardless of how you plan to vote, who do you think WILL win in November? Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump?” This question, also found with slightly different phrasing in CBS-NYT’s polls, illuminates the real root of the message — sure, you can vote for a third party, but they will never win.

You might think that even if this is a message perpetuated by the two major parties, it is still true. But let’s look at some numbers. While 40% of American voters identify as independent, four out of five of the CPD polls questioned groups comprised of 35% or less independents. Fox News clocked in with only 21% of respondents identifying as independent, perhaps because they phrased their affiliation question as “… do you think of yourself as a Democrat or a Republican?” As third party support is obviously highest among independent voters, the underrepresentation of independents in these polls correlates to the underestimation of third party support.

It is the complete pervasion of the no chance in hell mentality that prevents us from breaking free of the chains of the two party system. In the 2008 election, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader won 2.7% of the popular vote. However, 90% of voters who said they preferred Ralph Nader above the other presidential candidates voted for one of the major party candidates instead. They didn’t want to waste their vote. Ironically, if all of those voters who preferred Ralph Nader had actually just voted for him, he could have earned about 27% of the popular vote and had a completely legitimate shot at winning the presidency.

A vote for a third party candidate is only wasted so long as we all continue to believe it’s a waste. Americans continually clamor for change, but we are scared to use the biggest tool we have — our vote. Don’t waste it.