Voting Your Conscience Isn’t Wasting Your Vote

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – April 27, 2020

We live in a strange political time, to say the least. And one of the oddest phenomena I’ve witnessed is pushback against the idea of voting according to one’s conscience. Um, really?

In fact, if you mention during a discussion that you plan to vote for a third-party candidate or write in someone during a presidential election, the response, more often than not, is the following: Why would you waste your vote? That reaction raises interesting questions about what a “wasted vote” looks like.

First, it must be noted, as public choice economists remind us, that since your single vote will not decide an election (the chances are infinitesimal), it’s perfectly rational to not vote. Indeed, we are free to vote or not to vote in this country. 

Acknowledging the reality of one’s vote not deciding an election, then why do I vote? Well, I recognize that my fellow citizens – my neighbors – and I do come together to decide who our governmental representatives will be, and that matters very much in terms of a host of policies and issues affecting each of our lives. And I understand that this right to vote is exceptional in the history of the world, and that many of my fellow Americans have risked everything to protect this freedom to vote. Indeed, voting in a free and fair election is special, and reaches beyond the pure economic or statistical argument about one vote not deciding the outcome of an election.

Given how precious this right to vote is, then how can anyone do any less than vote according to conscience? 

Of course, a vote according to conscience can take various forms. The most obvious, and easiest, is to simply cast your vote for one of the two major party candidates – Republican or Democrat – who creates no significant issues or questions for one’s conscience. That’s been the case for me, fortunately, during five of the nine presidential elections in which I’ve voted.

Then there’s the case when voting against one of the major party candidates seems to be the primary impetus in the voting booth. 

For example, during the 2016 presidential campaign, which did not have an incumbent running, voting against a candidate ran much stronger than in the previous non-incumbent election. In the September before the 2016 presidential election, Pew Research found that among those supporting the Republican, 53 percent were voting against Democrat Hillary Clinton and 44 percent for Republican Donald Trump. That compared to 35 percent voting against Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 59 percent for Republican John McCain. Meanwhile, as for those supporting the Democrat, 46 percent were voting against Trump and 53 percent for Clinton in 2016, versus 25 percent against McCain and 68 percent for Obama in 2008.

Understanding that politicians are, well, politicians, I get the idea of voting against someone. But by doing so, if you pull the lever for the opposing major-party candidate, for example, then you’re effectively voting for that candidate. And if your conscience turns out, even after much wrestling, to be okay with who you’re pulling the lever for, so be it. That was the case for me in two presidential elections.

But what about the case where voting for either candidate would go against conscience? That was the situation confronting me in two presidential elections. There was no candidate on the ballot to vote for – either explicitly for or de facto for by voting against the other candidate – who didn’t trouble my conscience. So, in each case, I followed my conscience, and wrote in my choice.

Those write-in votes, contrary to widespread opinion, were in no way wasted votes. How could any vote be wasted when voting according to your conscience? Indeed, I’m completely baffled by such accusations.

While he spoke on theological matters, I think of the Christian reformer Martin Luther on this topic, with his famous quote: “I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.”

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  You can order his new book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York  from Amazon or signed books at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know. Keating also is a novelist. His latest novels are  The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^th book in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction. The views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

Also, tune in to Ray Keating’s podcasts – the PRESS CLUB C Podcast and the Free Enterprise in Three Minutes Podcast 

Throwback Thursday: Elections Do Not Repeal Laws of Economics

by Ray Keating

As we watch the carnage of the 2016 presidential election process, it pays to keep in mind that policy matters, and that so-called smart people frequently make bad economic policy decisions. The following column, which originally ran in Long Island Business News in November 2008, debunked the idea served up by many at the time that Barack Obama was just too smart to actually carry through on the policies he supported during the campaign. We, unfortunately, have learned that Obama actually meant what he said, as I argued at the time…

Politics and elections do not repeal the laws of economics.

This fact of life tends to irritate many politicians. On the campaign trail, they pander for votes, and put forth the idea that government can do just about anything. It can tax, regulate, and spend with impunity.

Of course, it’s a complete myth that fundamental economics can be repealed by political rhetoric or legislation. And that is the harsh reality that confronts President-elect Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats who will have larger majorities in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate come January.

During his time in the U.S. Senate and on the presidential campaign trail, Obama had very little use for sound economics. For example, he put forth an agenda featuring higher taxes on successful entrepreneurs and investors, as well as on energy companies. Obama also revealed protectionist leanings on the trade front. And he exhibited few qualms about embracing more government spending or an activist regulatory agenda.

Economics 101 tells us that all of this would mean higher costs for businesses and consumers, and bad news for an already-reeling economy.

But in the days leading up to and following the election, assorted experts and talking heads on television have assured everyone not to worry. After all, as we have been told over and over again, Obama is a smart fellow, and he will surround himself with other smart people.

The point, or hope, seems to be that Obama and his aides are just too intelligent to actually try to put his campaign agenda into law. After all, these smart people are not going to do anything that would jeopardize Obama getting re-elected in four years.

There are two major problems with this line of reasoning.

First, history is rich with so-called smart people who made – to put it less than delicately – dumb decisions. That list includes a variety of U.S. presidents. Let’s recall that Herbert Hoover was very smart. In fact, so were Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. Yet, these smarty-pants made some of the worst economic policy decisions in our nation’s history; decisions that rattled the nation and the globe. Hoover and Carter also wanted to be reelected, but were booted out of office by big numbers.

Second, the unsavory implication is that Obama did not really believe all of those things he declared and proposed during the campaign. It was just what had to be said to get the Democratic nomination, and then to win the White House.

I don’t believe that. I take the president-elect at his word. If you look at Obama’s short voting record in the Senate and his campaign proposals, they reveal a consistent liberal philosophy that favors bigger government, more regulation, and higher taxes, along with skepticism of free trade.

In the real political world, smart people make bad decisions all of the time. Political ideology, poll watching and/or simple emotion often overwhelm or blind elected officials to sound economic thinking.

Where then is the hope for the economy? Well, at least on the policy front, there isn’t a heck of a lot. We’re in a bad economy right now, and most of the policy proposals offered by President-elect Obama will, at best, do nothing to help, or at worst, make matters worse.

One hope is that President-elect Obama and his staff will quickly learn through on-the-job training what policies make for sound economics, and which ones do not.

But our best hope comes from the private sector – from the innovative entrepreneurs, the risk-taking investors, the courageous small business owners, and their hard-working employees. These are the people who will have to find ways to survive and thrive in what is likely to be an increasingly hostile policy climate. Through their ingenuity, they must find avenues around governmental obstacles in order to move ahead, in order to grow the economy, in order to create new jobs. Unfortunately, this already difficult task looks like it will only grow harder in the immediate future.

______________

Mr. Keating is an economist and novelist who writes on a wide range of topics. His Pastor Stephen Grant novels have received considerable acclaim, including The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel being a finalist for KFUO radio’s Book of the Year 2014, and Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel winning for Book of the Year 2015.

The Pastor Stephen Grant Novels are available at Amazon…

Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

An Advent for Religious Liberty: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Warrior Monk: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel