Could Strategic Not Voting, Give Your Cause a Bigger Voice?

Why do our political choices always seem so bad? Does your vote matter? If you always vote, can politicians count on, and then ignore your wishes?

Many of us are not happy with the Presidential choices this time around. We are left picking the lessor of two evils. We have a choice to vote, or not vote. We may feel like we have a “Choice” in the election; but the “extent” of that “choice” is “debatable.” Could not voting, give voters a greater influence in the election?

Forgive me as this gets long and into some game theory. Truth be told much of the “selection” of political candidates happens behind closed door with statisticians and party leaders advising people who are “considering” running well before news is broken. These people count the cost and estimate success. There are many diverse opinions and interest groups that are counted (guns, abortion, immigration, unions, environment, big business, big government, oil, religion, ect) and candidates that are selected are typically expected to do well enough among “enough”
of these groups.

Furthermore, it is not just how they poll among the groups, it is how they poll among likely registered voters, how much money they raise, how good they are at giving speeches, and how effectively they campaign, past accomplishments, and even how good looking they are.

It is also noted that typically, the party in control switches back and forth every few years and every election is very close 1-3%.

Now lets suppose there is a Group of people who are very passionate about an issue for and against an issue. To avoid debate on any particular issue lets call this “issue G”. (G for group but could be guns, God, gays, government you name it). (Please I am trying hard to avoid any specific issue debate here…) If all the people that are for or against G vote in every election, statisticians can automatically count on their vote. Imagine we take 100 voters and line them on how they feel about the issue for one extreme to the other and give them a number. Then we have a nice scaled to refer to positions. If there are two ends of the issue –outlaw G or a G in every house and one party takes an extreme 5 (on a 1 to 100 scale) position, the other party can take any position just a little to the other side of that (10-100) and run any candidate they want. Lets say Party A says “outlaw G”(5). The other party can then nominate a candidate that says outlaw most G (15). People that are pro “G” are not likely to have their voice heard. Every year, they will have a very anti-G president or a mostly Anti G president. Voting in every election rarely gets their voice “heard.” (One could imagine that after many years there is a position very far from some of them …. A5, B25, A10, B30, A5, B20, A15, B35….)

We like to look at each election as an individual “event,” but they are not. They are tied together. If a party fails one election they are likely to go back to the drawing board and try a different strategy next time.

In this case if the pro G voters do not vote; party leaders will realize they have “lost” an “opportunity” of “getting that vote.” Next time they may put forth a candidate that is strongly pro G. The losing party will realize that they only need 1 or 2% more votes to win. A strongly Pro G Candidate may be willing to get something done. In that case Party B will run a candidate very strongly Pro G (95). They could likely win the following election. In that case the elections might end up being A5, A25, B95, A15, B85, A10, B75, A15.

Could it be that voters on the G issue who vote all the time might have more say by not voting once in a while? One might assume that each party will be in office half the time. (While this is not necessarily true it sure seems like it comes out that way…) And if the highly pro G voters only voted for a highly pro G candidate; party leaders will be forced to encourage “Pro G” positions among all candidates all the time.

In other words if you vote all the time, do candidates take advantage of you to ignore your wishes?

Furthermore, let’s just say G was Good. Could we as a society get good politicians in office? I know people have differing opinions on the issues, but it would be nice to have politicians that are really good people, of high moral character, trustworthy and do a good job. I don’t think it is asking too much for public figures to avoid scandals.

I have to admit I am still figuring all this out myself, but wanted to hear some of others thoughts on these ponderings…

What do you think?