So the US just had elections. In Brazil, we also had us some of that democratic goodness ourselves: we just voted for mayor. In my city, we had a two-round election in which the center-right candidate was elected.
Here's the conundrum: in the first round, I voted for a more lefty candidate, which didn't make the cut for the second round. However, the centre-left candidate did. So, in this scenario, what would be the best choice: do I (a) vote for the centre-left candidate in the hopes he gets elected instead of the center-right OR (b) vote blank because I don't feel represented by either choice?
In the best mk-style, I'll tell you guys how I voted, but I'd like to hear your opinions first.
Relevant for the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_vote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
This seems a timeless conundrum. More often than not, I consider that the 'lesser of two evils' to be the pragmatic move. Reading history, I've come to the conclusion that no matter how well-intentioned, any minority party will most likely screw up terribly if they are quickly given power. It's very easy to hate on politicians, and I don't think that most people are honest with themselves about all that goes into governing, especially in a representative/democratic society. My view is that voting in the direction that you want to see your State move is usually more likely to enfranchise the viewpoints and policies that your favored (but unelectable) candidate has, rather than going with the protest vote. In the US we can look back and discuss how many times the Democrats or Republicans have taken power, however, what those parties represent has not been consistent over that period of time. Thus, as much as I see my vote going for a particular candidate, I also see it as a vote for a cultural shift.
I guess the biggest problem with protest voting is it doesn't say much other than "I don't like any of these guys". Its demands are little more than "give me other options". So, as a strategy for policy change, it seems ineffective. Perhaps if united with a large-scale civil movement, it may work, but not by itself. Wikipedia has some historical examples of major voter abstention.
I made one protest vote this round. I voted for the Republican candidate for Congress in my district, against a Democrat who has been in office for 50 years (John Conyers). Conyers' wife was convicted of corruption a few years ago, and I figure after this long, he's probably corrupt, too. He usually gets >90% of the vote, so I figured why not throw the other guy a bone, even though I knew nothing about him (not even his name).
In 2010, Conyers had fewer votes than he had ever had. Wikipedia doesn't have the data for 2012. Next election, perhaps?
Yes, exactly. For example, here in Michigan, we have more Democrats than Republicans, but 2010 was a good Republican year. They therefore took over the state legislature before the new districts were drawn in 2011 (districts apportionment is based on the national census, which happens every 10 years; 2010 was the most recent one). So because of this one election cycle that was bad for Democrats, we have 13 Congresspeople, and 9 are Republicans, and it will be this way for 10 years. Here is a map of the districts near where I live.
Nice neat lines, eh? In the current election, Democrats got more votes than Republicans for Congress, but Republicans control the Congress by a large majority. Seems criminal at worst, undemocratic at least.
I just spoke with someone yesterday about this very topic. They were not happy with how Obama has conducted his presidency but they disliked Romney even more. They ended up voting for a 3rd party that had no shot winning. Their justification was that they were voting in a state that Obama was going to win regardless. Their vote was a "protest vote". I think many "protest votes" come in the form of not voting at all, no "blank", just not even leaving the house.
Wikipedia agrees with mk: In a two-round election, I guess you can always vote for your favorite in the first round and do a tactical vote in the second. Protest vote seems to have its advantages, though they seem long-term: (1) It will increase recognition of the party; (2) It will increase the respectability of the party; (3) It will increase the recognized viability of the party. I voted blank this round. I don't think I'll be doing it again.For example, in a simple plurality election, a voter might sometimes gain a "better" outcome by voting for a less preferred but more generally popular candidate.
Tactical voting makes sense in the first round already, as the French experienced during the presidential election in 2002: many people voted for their favourite in the first round, so many in fact that the traditional incumbent didn't make it to the second round ; leaving a choice between the corrupt and lazy president versus an old racist...