Open Letter to BWErs

[Chateau Vin]

July 26, 2016


My Fellow BWErs,


I am writing this letter not to change your mind, persuade you one way or the other or to profess any virtues about voting. Not even to convince to vote. I am just writing to urge you to check and balance all the perspectives and make whatever the decision you might make.

It’s been a very interesting election cycle to say the least. Accordingly, some people are happy about their respective candidates, some are visibly unhappy that their candidate did not get nominated, and more are understandably repulsed by the system and not happy with any candidate in the fray.

But as the US constitution says, for a citizen, voting is just not a right, but also a responsibility. As flawed as ‘Democracy’ is, it the best one we have got. You all know all too well, the other forms of governing and how bad they are and how bad they can be. So for this reason alone, I urge my fellow BWErs to not just participate, but participate fully in the process.

I know at times, the pendulum of democracy swings too much from righteous path to that of corrupt one, serving not equally to all. But only we can bring it back and prevent it from wandering too far. I understand some of us are disillusioned to the point that they do not want to participate in the process. But I think it is the goodness in you that you want goodness for all people, and when you see the current electoral and political process, you are so repulsed by it that you want out of it.

But I want you to look at this way.
1. Out of the two nominees, if one is better than the other, it’s a no brainer. You should and would vote to pick the better one, lest it will spell trouble for the country.
2. If both the candidates are good, still you would want to pick the best, thinking that the country would fare better under one administration than the other.
3. If both the candidates are bad, or if you have serious reservations about either candidate, then why would you want to sit out? How would it help in sitting out?

Let’s explore the third one a bit in depth.

There are two democratic processes the way I see it. The top level is presidential electoral level. The second level is the nominee election level. Some on BWE say that the nominee election is so rigged and undemocratic and we should clean the house. Yes, we should. But how do we do it? By sitting out in protest, resulting in presidential election loss thus prompting the house purge you are hoping for? But at what cost? You cleaned your house, but now the whole street stinks because the worse candidate won. It’s like throwing baby with the bath water. So it seems to me that the better option is to pick a better candidate while striving hard for the change at the same time.

Now the question becomes who is a better candidate? Every voter has the right to determine who is better among the two bad choices. So I will leave it at that. But I will say this. There is personal/moral character of the candidate and administrative capability of the candidate. Both are needed in some instances and one or the other is needed in other instances to judge a candidate. Some suggested that both are equally bad. But we can always look at the pressing issues for the next 4 years or the issues that are relevant for you and see who is bad in what and to what extent.

There was also a suggestion that the country will pick itself up once it reaches so low. But I have reservations about it. It might pick itself up, or worse, it might become the new normal. For one thing, once the wrong (or rather perceived wrong) candidate wins, the candidate might not go so low to warrant the country to pick itself up. But surely would have gone low enough to part with some of the progress we made so far.

Other suggested that ‘not voting for one candidate is not voting for the other’, and does not want to be responsible for either of the bad candidates. I understand the clean conscience of such people, but I have a different perspective about voting responsibility per se. As a citizen, my responsibility is not toward picking either of two bad candidates, but my responsibility is toward making progress, making better opportunities and better future. So if progress is to be made, is it not imperative that one cannot allow the clock of progress to be turned back? Just as the saying ‘penny saved is penny earned’, so is ‘progress saved is progress earned’, however small. In a losing scenario, as a lawyer wouldn’t you try to minimize the damage to the client, as a physician wouldn’t you try to lower the pain to the patient, as a trader wouldn’t you try to cut your losses?

Therefore, for me it’s clear that abstention is not an option.

Lastly, I sometimes wonder about Colin Powell, SOS in the Bush administration. As much as I know him, he seemed to be a nice guy, served the country honorably and upright. If not, I will stand corrected. I don’t know if he was pushed out or left as SOS on his own. If he was disgusted with what he was seeing in the administration and left because of this, then it is a sad story. If he had been there as SOS, he would have served as a moderating influence in a hawks filled policy making room, however small role he might have played. No doubt, it would have been a great consternation for him, but his small help would have tweaked the policy for better if not outright changed it for better.

So, I urge my fellow BWErs to reevaluate the issue from several angles and perspectives, and then make the decision. And, I am also willing to listen to the arguments for the case of abstention.

Sincerely,
CV

[AKR]

Who will build a strong wall, to keep out the 84 Bordeaux or the 02 Rhones?

Who will ensure that a portrait of Michel Rolland is in every home?

Who will defend our dollar so that we can bathe in Le Pin?

Who will build a TransBordeauxPartnership, ensuring that we have fast high speed rail into Le Cite du Vin?

[JScott]

CV, thoughtful post. You left out another scenario in your analysis. Both candidates are equally bad. Both are of poor moral and administrative character. Neither is likely to promote anything positive and both will leave society worse than they found it. Obviously everyone has their own calculation on this.

The arguments for abstention are several. Continuing to vote for fatally flawed candidates does nothing but ensure a steady train of more. How else does one register a dissatisfaction with the direction? I keep hearing that not voting is voting for Trump. How is it voting for Trump more than voting for Hillary? The Trump side is saying the same thing in reverse. It is only what it is - voting for neither. If a part of the country believes in and votes for Hillary, and the rest do as I and abstain, there is no issue for you. I am not responsible for the people who vote for Trump (or Hillary), the people who vote for him are.

[JimHow]

CV's letter is indeed inspiring, especially from a new citizen.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

The case against abstention is very clear. If I'm a Republican or a middle-right leaner in my political philosophy I vote for Trump even if I hate him or think he's a doofus for the reason at least that a Republican executive is likely not to veto legislation from a Republican Congress that cuts taxes and entitlement spending and reduces regulations on business. And then there's the jewel in the crown, control of the Supreme Court. And in that scenario, i.e., where I know and wish to promote my values politically, but decline to vote them in the executive race, then my abstention most definitely helps elect Hillary who is antithetical to my political philosophy! If I'm a Democrat or left-leaning I vote for Hillary even if she's the Succubus on the theory that she will similarly aid a Democratic Congress and their legislative proposals or veto Republican proposals obnoxious to Democrats. And of course she gets to stack the Court with "living Constitution" or "Constitution is irrelevant" jurists. And if, all those extremely important reasons notwithstanding, I can't bring myself to vote for Trump because I really feel he is a racist, or he will launch nuclear weapons or some other compelling reason that completely countervails my political affiliation, that is the person is an existential threat to security or something like that, then I most definitely do cross over and vote for Clinton (or vice versa) (instead of abstaining), because who wants nuclear war? And if both candidates are equally likely to push the button or do something else that I can't abide then I go back to the first premise and vote along the party line. A single vote isn't going to make a difference in Hawaii (or perhaps Maine for that matter) but if I were in a true "battleground" state I could not justify not making a choice at the top of the ballot. And of course if the "disgusting" executive strokes out then you have his/her VP who steps in whom I presume no one has a problem voting for? Right? Kaine has never killed anyone, right? For Christs sake he did mission work in South America. And Pence is a rock-ribbed right winger of good morals and family virtues.

[JScott]

Why do I get the feeling that if I announced my decision to vote Trump there would be a sudden groundswell for the wisdom and good sense of abstain?

I am in a battleground state btw.

[JimHow]

Not only are you in the ultimate battleground state, Scott, you are in the ultimate bellwether county.

Hound, I live in the second congressional district in Maine. The second CD is much more conservative than the ultra liberal first CD (Portland). Like Nebraska, Maine divides its electoral votes. So my vote could make a difference!

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Why do I get the feeling that if I announced my decision to vote Trump there would be a sudden groundswell for the wisdom and good sense of abstain?

I am in a battleground state btw.

Do you really believe that? I don't think so. You are completing missing (I doubt it) or simply avoiding (only natural) the point. Most of the reasons I hear in favor of abstention ultimately sound in emotion and not logic. Jim's hyperbole seems to me to make this point very well, intentionally or not. Disenfranchisement makes no sense. In this two-party system you will cause one of the candidates (Trump or Hillary) to be elected by your vote or your abstention. Your effect will be direct or indirect based on your action or inaction, but the effect will be the same. You can't avoid responsibility as it appears this is what you'd like to do. I just made very clear and cogent argument for choosing one or the other candidates, despite disliking them. But, as I said, it doesn't matter except in the outcome (which is really all that matters, right?), because a refusal to vote as you normally would according to your political preference will have the tendency to have imposed upon you governance which you do not prefer. To me that is too great a cost.

[Chateau Vin]

CV, thoughtful post. You left out another scenario in your analysis. Both candidates are equally bad. Both are of poor moral and administrative character. Neither is likely to promote anything positive and both will leave society worse than they found it. Obviously everyone has their own calculation on this.

The arguments for abstention are several. Continuing to vote for fatally flawed candidates does nothing but ensure a steady train of more. How else does one register a dissatisfaction with the direction?

Scott, I have a different view. Continuing to vote for a better candidate ensures a train of more qualified candidates (although slow). The voice of reason is generally in the middle of voting block. Unfortunately, those are the ones who also empathize more with others while at the same time, get more frustrated with lack of progress. If one can cut this voting block, then it's easy for extreme voices to prevail over others. For this reason also, I do not want to cut myself from the voting process.

I keep hearing that not voting is voting for Trump. How is it voting for Trump more than voting for Hillary? The Trump side is saying the same thing in reverse. It is only what it is - voting for neither. If a part of the country believes in and votes for Hillary, and the rest do as I and abstain, there is no issue for you. I am not responsible for the people who vote for Trump (or Hillary), the people who vote for him are.

I will not say that not voting is voting for Trump. If I understand correctly, you are looking through the lense of 'process' of voting. But I am looking from the perspective of the 'outcome', which is important for me. Because, after all, the intent of voting is to pick an option that provides better opportunities, better future and that serves better. If you abstain, you are not responsible for people who vote for Hillary or Trump, but if you vote (by picking the candidate to best of your abilities) you will be responsible for preventing a farther slide back. I know I will be at peace with such decision considering the situation of this rock and hard place.

I am reminded of 2000 election. In that, Al Gore lost by a whisker. I know quite a few democratic leaning people (at that time I lived in FL) who did not vote because Clinton was fresh off of his sexual scandal (I believe such scandal is first of a kind for a sitting president) and were disgusted by it and the lies that followed. If some of the voters did not disenfranchise themselves and voted, there was a good chance that Gore could have won, and the whole course of Iraq war thing could have been different. We are talking about nearly 4000 brave men and women in uniform who made the ultimate sacrifice. I am not holding the non-voters accountable, but merely reinforcing my belief that better things happen if we take part in the process rather not taking part at all.

[JScott]

Aloha, you're right, I'm not missing your point. My view is completely logical, not emotional. I appreciate your construction, but as I pointed out, you make assumptions that I don't. You assume that I lean politically one way or the other. I don't. You assume that there is a calculus for determining which is just awful and which is truly horrendous. There isn't for me, for the reasons I just outlined. I can't know which will be worse, because I find them equally capable of the worst offenses. No way to know in advance whom would act more irresponsibly than the other (I appreciate that others feel differently here), because I find them equally plausible. The net result, then, is that I may as well close my eyes and mark a box, just to be able say that I didn't shirk my responsibility. I don't find that to be any more "responsible."

Would you feel differently if I voted third party or wrote someone in? If the answer yes, then I would point out that no one else has a realistic chance of winning, so how is it really different than abstaining? If the answer is no, then you're saying I'm only permitted to consider whichever schmucks these two increasingly shitty parties throw at me every four years?

CV, I think your argument is much like Aloha, which is still essentially attempting to calculate the lesser of two evils.

[RDD]

The power is in Congress and not the Presidency.

[RDD]

Why do I get the feeling that if I announced my decision to vote Trump there would be a sudden groundswell for the wisdom and good sense of abstain?

I am in a battleground state btw.

You don't have to disclose anything.
It is no one's business or right to know how you vote.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

I agree with your sister.

Briefly, yes you should vote for the lesser of two evils. A corollary would be to vote for the greater of two goods. Certainly you can understand that? If you really can't decide on that basis, and you don't have any political leaning or can't discern from the threads which is the best way to go on the totality of the policy questions ... perhaps you should let others decide for you (I doubt that's the case).

Yes, voting for a nonviable third or fourth party candidate has the same effect as abstaining from the choice set out above. Yes it does, in the sense of cause and effect--though not in the sense you use the term "permitted"--you should only vote for one of the two viable party candidates. We are not (or at least I am not) saying you have no right to abstain or vote a third party. I am not denying your free will, or your "right" to do nothing, nor could I, agreed? That must be clear. I'll keep an open mind on this point though if I see that a protest vote has any actual effect on how the main parties choose their candidates or the actual candidates they produce. I'm skeptical.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Why do I get the feeling that if I announced my decision to vote Trump there would be a sudden groundswell for the wisdom and good sense of abstain?

I am in a battleground state btw.

Do don't have to disclose anything.
It is no one's business or right to know how you vote.

While I may "care" how someone else votes, I don't "care" to know how he will or does or did, or ultimately if he didn't. Frankly I'm uncomfortable selling anything including political, social or economic stuff. Process I find interesting and I just got into this because I am having trouble reasoning through to disenfranchisement or protest voting. Guess I'll just leave things at that.

[DavidG]

The power is in Congress and not the Presidency.

Au contraire:
Supreme Court
Sending troops into battle
Executive orders

And of utmost consequence: the real nuclear option.

[JimHow]

You're both right, Article I assigned primary power to the Congress, but then they picked George Washington, who established the strong presidency.

[RDD]

The power is in Congress and not the Presidency.

Au contraire:
Supreme Court
Sending troops into battle
Executive orders

And of utmost consequence: the real nuclear option.

But too much focus on Presidency this year.
The battle is for control of Congress.

[DavidG]

As Jim points out, both wield enormous power.

I agree with you Rob that the battle for Congress is extremely important. I'm not sure it's more important than the Presidency, now that one of the candidates is looking more nuts with each passing day. But this is the national convention focused on picking the nominee for President, so it's natural that the attention is there.

I do hope they concentrate efforts on the Senate and House races once we get past the convention. But you know, unless one of the Congressional candidates makes a truly newsworthy gaffe, all the national media (and much of the local media) will want to talk about is Delusional Donald and Crooked Hillary.

[Jay Winton]

The power is in Congress and not the Presidency.

Au contraire:
Supreme Court
Sending troops into battle
Executive orders

And of utmost consequence: the real nuclear option.

But too much focus on Presidency this year.
The battle is for control of Congress.

And the Supreme Court!

[Chateau Vin]

The way the country is divided so deep, Supreme Court's role is elevated and it will only go up in its importance in actually governing the country.

The country is so divided that...

1. President has executive power, and pretty much every meaningful executive action is being challenged in court.

2. Congress has the power to make laws, but every passed law is being challenged going all the way to the supreme court

3. State legislature has the power to make laws at the local level, but they too are being challenged in appeals courts and eventually in supreme court.

It seems to me that the de facto power among the three branches of govt is in supreme court. The way the cases are ending up in Supreme Court, we need a second Supreme Court to ease the workload...

[Racer Chris]

Or at least a 9 member panel instead of 8.