Nicholas Leippe wrote:
The last thing I want to do is give other people the idea that someone I don't like has more support than is real. Voting for someone I don't like, simply because he's one of two people that will actually win, is lying. Yes, I'm free to do it, but why would I want my fellow countrymen to think this guy has an additional vote when I'd rather an entirely different person in office?
I have personally never been able to tell the truth through a ballot. I never support any particular candidate to the exclusion of all other candidates; I favor several candidates while being opposed to several others. Thus the best I can do with a single-choice ballot is express a gross approximation of my truthful opinion. A partial truth is a lie. The single-choice ballot forces me to lie!
That's not hyperbole. I am often disinclined to vote because I know intuitively that the single-choice ballot prevents me from expressing my true opinion. The write-in option doesn't change that.
Your vote does count, even when not going to one of the only two possible winners in the current election. It goes to the score card that everyone sees--and that goes to either solidify or change opinions down the road--the seeds of change.
Voting for a non-viable candidate is a vote for voting reform. It would be wonderful to have an election where the majority of voters choose a write-in candidate. Even if none of the write-in candidates win, the voters would be sending the message that our current ballots are not expressive enough.
Shane /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
