The Paradox of Two-Candidate Elections

If people are dissatisfied with the two major candidates, why are they not choosing the third-party option? The answer lies in the complex interplay of political behaviors, pragmatic decision-making, and disillusionment. This article explores the motivations behind voting or abstaining, and the implications these choices have on governance.

Understanding Voting Choices

When citizens are faced with a two-candidate electoral choice they despise, they have a few options. These choices shape their behavior and influence the political landscape:

1. Choose the Least Disliked Candidate

Individuals can opt for the candidate they dislike the least, reasoning that this will ensure a better outcome than the alternative. This approach is pragmatic, but it still falls short of an ideal scenario, as it may not lead to the best positive outcome. However, it does allow for a degree of participation in the political process.

2. Support a Third-Party Candidate

Another choice is to support a third-party candidate, believing that this candidate offers a viable alternative. Even if this candidate is unlikely to win, supporters can use their vote to send a message that other viewpoints exist. This action can boost the prominence of alternative ideas and voices in the political discourse.

3. Abstain from Voting

Some individuals choose not to vote altogether. This decision may stem from a lack of understanding of the electoral process, a belief that their vote doesn’t matter, or deep disenchantment with the political choices available to them. Abstaining from voting can be seen as a form of passive protest, but it ultimately leaves the decision to those who do participate.

The Consequences of Voting for Third-Party Candidates

Voting for a third-party candidate in a two-party system can sometimes feel like a waste of time. However, it’s important to recognize that every vote has a voice, no matter the outcome. Voting for a third-party candidate can indirectly impact the election by shifting the dynamics of the race. For instance, a vote for a third-party candidate might go to a convict or a candidate with unfavorable public figures, which can complicate the electorate’s choices.

Implications of Not Voting

Not voting can send a powerful message of dissatisfaction. In the United States, for example, the refusal to vote for either major candidate can lead to an outcome that might not truly represent the will of the majority. This is why some advocates, like myself, have suggested that winning candidates or issues should require a majority of all eligible voters, not just a plurality of those who voted. When people do not vote, they essentially send the message, "None of the above."

The Importance of Preferential Voting

To address this issue, we need to consider reforming the electoral system. Preferential voting, a method where voters rank candidates in order of preference, can significantly alter the dynamics of elections. If all states adopted preferential voting, it would mean that your vote would count more effectively, regardless of the preference of the candidate. This system provides a mechanism for voters to influence the outcome in a way that a simple plurality system does not.

Public Figures and Their Impact on Voting Behavior

Public figures, like Nicky "Lifecház" Cruz, a convicted murderer, can influence the electorate. Supporting a candidate who has a controversial background can lead voters to reconsider their choices. Similarly, claims about a non-viable candidate, like the allegedly moderate choice of Kennedy, can be misleading. Kennedy’s candidacy, while symbolic, has no real chance of winning and could merely redirect votes from a plausible winner. Candidates like Kennedy, often connected to prominent families, should be evaluated based on their own merits, not by the actions of their predecessors.

In conclusion, the two-party system can lead to significant voter dissatisfaction, resulting in strategic voting, abstention, or support for third-party candidates. Reforming the electoral process to better represent the electorate's will is a critical step in ensuring a healthier, more participatory democracy.