Why vote?

Ever since I started voting, I’ve voted in either red states or blue states. I’ve never missed an election. But why bother voting, since I’m outnumbered?

Well, for one thing, millions of people have fought and died for the right to vote. I honor their memory by exercising my franchise.

Beyond that, though, there’s the reality that sometimes what seems to be inevitable isn’t.

 

In 2025, Democratic voters voted in deep red states and red districts. What was the result?

“Democrats, buoyed by Trump’s unpopularity and a fired-up base, flipped 21 percent of all the GOP-held seats that were on the ballot throughout 2025.

 

“According to Bolts’ analysis, Democrats gained 25 state Senate and House seats that were held by the GOP, out of the 118 that were resolved this year in regular or special elections.”

Much of the time, I’m voting for the lesser of two evils. I’ve yet to encounter a metaphysically perfect candidate. 

In a first-past-the-post voting system like ours, more than two parties is unstable. If you want a system in which more than two parties can meaningfully contest the control of government, you want a parliamentary system, like most industrialized democracies on the planet. That would require amending the Constitution. That, like voting for “third party” candidates in America, is just magical thinking.

Let’s be clear: they’re not “third party candidates,” they’re vanity candidates. They’re not representing a 3rd *party*. If they were real 3rd party candidates, there would be an actual, you know, 3rd party behind them.

 

Ultimately, if a 3rd party candidate actually caught the car, s/he couldn’t do anything. You have to have a large number of people from your party in the legislature from your party in order to make laws. Nobody seems to think this through, but that’s how our system works (when it works).

 If we had a ranked choice voting system, at least you could vote 3rd party and your vote could still count in the actual contest, which will always come down to the two major party candidates. 

https://boltsmag.org/legislative-elections-results-2025/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more