On November 8th, the majority of Americans will be tasked with choosing between two candidates that they do not like.
This election is historic for a several of reasons. For one, the United States will have the opportunity to elect the first female president. Secondly, there has never been a character quite like Donald Trump in the history of American politics. Thirdly, there has never been two candidates for president of the United States that are more disliked by the American people than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Among registered voters, USA Today reports that 59% of all registered voters have an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton, and 60% of all registered voters have an unfavorable view towards Donald Trump.
When it comes to whether or not voters believe that the two candidates are worthy of being trusted, the numbers for both candidates are horrifically low. According to the Washington Post, 60% of registered voters find Hillary Clinton to be untrustworthy, and only 11% actually believe that she is honest. Although Clinton is not seen as being trustworthy, Trump does not fare much better. In a poll conducted by NBC News, only 16% of registered voters believe that Trump is honest or trustworthy.
Consequently, when the majority of registered voters cast their vote on November 8th, either for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate for president of the United States, they will be casting a vote for someone that they view as being unfavorable, untrustworthy, and dishonest.
How did we get to this point?
One only need take a look back at the primary process in order to understand how we could be stuck with the two candidates that we currently have. In the 2016 primary race, Senator Bernie Sanders waged an intense primary run against the eventual Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton. According The New York Times, at the end of the 2016 primary, Bernie Sanders secured over 13 million votes, and won 22 states. In states like Kentucky, Iowa, and Missouri Bernie Sanders lost by less than 1% point. Adding it all up, half of all the states in the Democratic primary supported Bernie Sanders for the presidential nominee.
Furthermore, according to the Wall Street Journal, Bernie Sanders won over 64% of all Independents who voted in the Democratic primary as opposed to Hillary Clinton who won just 34%. In addition, Bernie Sanders secured over 71% of voters between the ages of 17-29, as opposed to only 27% who voted for Hillary Clinton.
In the end, half of all the states that participated in the Democratic primary supported a candidate that is currently not on the ballot for president of the United States. Consequently, 71% of young voters, and 64% of the Independents who participated in the Democratic primary will be compelled to vote for a candidate that they have never supported. Where do the voters of the 25 states that supported Bernie Sanders go? Where do the 71% of young voters and the 64% of Independents go? Why should they be compelled to vote for a candidate, Hillary Clinton, that they voted against in the primary?
But while it is certainly clear that a very large portion of Democrats and Independents will be left with candidates who are not their first choice, the situation is even bleaker for voters who identify themselves as Republicans. The Washington Post reports that while Donald Trump won over 13 million votes in the Republican primary, over 15 million Republican voters voted for a different Republican candidate. Furthermore, in a Republican primary with 17 different candidates, Donald Trump won a total of 36 states. But out of those 36 states, Trump won 6 of those states by receiving less than 35% of the vote, and won 13 of those states by receiving less than 40% of the vote, according to The New York Times. As a result, the Republican party nominated a candidate who received more votes cast against him, than cast for him.
To present a larger picture, according to the Census Bureau, there are about 221 million individuals in the United States who are eligible to vote. But, as reported by The New York Times, out of the 221 million eligible voters, only 60 million participated in the primaries, and out of the 60 million that participated in the primaries, about 30 million of them voted for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. To put these numbers in perspective, 9% of the country chose the two candidates that the rest of the country will have the opportunity to vote for on November 8th.
So the question remains: What should the majority of American do on election day?
First off, when you vote, you shouldn’t be concerned about the outcome. I know that this sounds entirely counterintuitive, but if we as voters are ever going to reach a place where we stop voting for candidates who we don’t like or trust, voting based on outcome must stop. In outcome-based voting, voters choose to vote for a candidate based off a calculation regarding who could potentially win, rather than voting for the candidate that actually reflects their interests and convictions.
The action of voting should not be preceded by a mental brainstorm where calculations are made, and all the possible outcomes of the election are considered. Unfortunately, this is exactly what people do; they vote out of fear rather than out of purpose. Regardless of what the voter’s position is on a multitude of issues, the decision to vote for a particular candidate is usually based on a calculation about how their vote will determine an outcome. In essence, outcome has taken precedence over issues, and thus has taken precedent over conscience.
Voting has become more about preventing a certain outcome than it is about making your voice heard. Much of this is solely based on the fact that in America, we have two dominant parties that control the political landscape. In the mind of the voter, there are only two choices: there is the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate. As a result of believing that there are only two choices, the voter is compelled to make a calculation about how their vote will determine whether the Democratic candidate wins or the Republican candidate wins. It is at this point that all intent of voting for a candidate who is a reflection of the voter’s convictions and values is thrown away, and is replaced by a calculation concerning which candidate least promotes the positions that the voter has on a multitude of policy issues.
As a voter, the question is asked, “Which candidate could I not live with the most?” or “Which candidate is the lesser of two evils?” Instead of voting for someone, you are voting against someone. The real question that should be asked is, “Does the Democratic candidate represent and promote my convictions or values?” or “Does the Republican candidate represent and promote my convictions or values?” If the answer to either of those questions is “No,” then voting for either of those candidates would be a violation of conscience.
At this point, wondering which candidate represents your convictions less is an insignificant question because the conclusion has already been made that neither candidate is a satisfying representation of what the voter stands for and believes in.
The act of voting is something that is sacred and cuts right to the core of what our role is, as individuals, in society. Voting is every individual’s opportunity to make their voice heard and to promote their own agenda. Regardless of religious background, skin color, sexual orientation, ethics, morals beliefs, or political views, voting is every individual’s chance to shape a government in such a way as to include the background and identity that is unique to them.
Voting signifies that every voice matters and every opinion matters. This is all lost when the voter casts a vote for a candidate who only partially represents them, in order to prevent a candidate from winning who does not represent them at all.
Voting for a candidate who does not represent your views, and that does not stand up for the values and traditions that you hold dear to your heart, is a violation of a sacred tradition. Voting for a candidate who is the “lesser of two evils” is a violation of your conscience. Voting for a candidate who only partially represents you is a violation of who you are as an individual.
Voting for a candidate that does not promote you is a disregard for your sovereignty.
A party does not own your vote; a candidate does not own your vote. They are not entitled to it, nor can it be demanded. Your vote must be earned, not simply expected. If it is not earned; if the candidate in question does not prove to you that he/she stands for your beliefs and promotes your convictions, then it your responsibility to deny the candidate your vote. Anything less, would be a compromise and a violation of the sacred tradition of voting.
So in the midst of this election season, reconsider the motives that compel you to vote. Do not fall victim to the trap of outcome based voting or protest voting. Make your vote count by voting for a candidate that you can confidently say promotes your values and convictions. Perhaps that translates into voting for a third party candidate like Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, Green party candidate, Jill Stein, or Independent candidate, Evan McMullin. Perhaps none of those candidates meet your standards either. If this is the case, simply write in a candidate that you believe best reflects your interests.
The potential that conscience based voting can have is very powerful. In a recent Gallup poll, over 40% of voters classified themselves as Independent! Imagine if all those voters resisted the urge to vote for the “lesser of two evils” and actually voted based on their conscience. The political landscape would be drastically changed and the two party system would be forced to respond.
No longer would we be trapped into voting for candidates that we don’t like or trust.
No longer would our voting simply serve the purpose of preventing another candidate from winning.
We could actually feel a sense of ownership over our vote, knowing that our voice was being heard and our individual sovereignty upheld!
