The short answer: No vote is wasted, so long as you cast it for someone you believe in.
However, here's a longer answer. I wrote what follows for a Massachusetts audience, but I hope it resonates with some of you in other states or other countries (although some of the specifics certainly won't matter much to you and they might even be wholly out of touch with your region. I trust your discernment and I expect you'll be able to extrapolate as needed.)
I submitted it to my editor at the
Boston Herald, but she passed on it. I understand that decision. I gave her a couple of pieces at about the same time. She opted to take the one devoid of politics and with a warm nostalgic feel (which will be published this Sunday, by the way, and I'll give a link to that when it goes in print, of course.) Meanwhile, I've been promising you something fresh in this space, so...
Anyway, here it is and I hope you get some enjoyment from it. I expect there may be a rebuttal or two, but please keep in mind the audience for which it was intended. Your situation may be wholly different and I wouldn't want you to get into an argument about Massachusetts politics by mistake. That's a beast nobody who doesn't live here should have to battle without due miserable cause.
Finally, two notes:
1 - The footnotes were for my editor's convenience, but I've left them in just in case you want to explore.
2 - You'll no doubt notice that "wasted" is in quotation marks throughout the piece. That's because I truly believe what I said in the "short answer" at the top of this. However, if you want to argue against that, go for it and have fun. I won't answer you because I learned long ago that it's impossible to win an argument against a fool.
And on that cheery note, here's my usual illiterate sign-off now because why not?
Soon, with more better stuffing of the ballot box.
Wasted
votes plentiful in Massachusetts, but not for Johnson (590 words)
I’ve been told by many well-meaning people that my vote for Gary Johnson is a
“wasted” vote. There are many “wasted” votes here in Massachusetts, but none of
them are for Gary Johnson.
Hillary Clinton is going to win this
state. You know it, I know it, anyone with a modicum of political sense knows
it. The latest polling has her lead at 32 points.
Remember Donald Trump saying he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York
and not lose any votes?
Hillary Clinton could strip naked, climb up the side of the State House while
carrying an AK-47, stand atop the golden dome and rain bullets down on the
Boston Common, and still not lose Massachusetts. This state, in gambling terms,
is a mortal lock.
Considering the probable high voter
turnout, Clinton will likely win this state by a million votes, give or take a
hundred thousand.
As Al Gore will gladly remind you,
the presidential race is not decided by cumulative popular vote. The electoral
votes are what count. And those are awarded, state-by-state, on a
winner-take-all basis (Maine and Nebraska are the only exceptions.)
Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory in Massachusetts is irrelevant. It doesn’t
matter if she wins by one vote or one million.
Let’s say she wins by over a million
votes. All votes above Trump’s total, save the one that puts her over the top, are
“wasted”. And every vote for Donald Trump – all of them, even if he gets a
total of a million or more – will also be “wasted”. None of those votes, two
million or so, will matter in the electoral college tally.
Now, by that logic, you could just
as easily say that all votes for Johnson are “wasted”, too, but there are other
factors in play. If Johnson garners three percent of the vote in Massachusetts,
that will confer party status, in the eyes of the Commonwealth, on the
Libertarians. Also,
if Johnson gains at least five percent of the vote nationwide – raw total, not
electoral – the Libertarian Party will be granted certain rights it currently
does not enjoy, such as eligibility for general election matching funds.
The only ones who get that gift now are the Republicans and Democrats. The
Libertarians would also be subject to less-onerous ballot access requirements in
many states. Since Johnson is the only candidate, other than Clinton or Trump,
to appear on all 50 state ballots, he is the only one with a realistic chance
of attaining that five percent threshold.
So, as you can see, a vote for
Johnson is not cast aside just because he doesn’t win the Massachusetts
electoral votes. It remains important, nationwide, and is the only vote to
carry that important distinction. A vote for Johnson is not “wasted”. It is
even less “wasted” than most Massachusetts votes for either Clinton or Trump.
If you truly believe, in your heart
of hearts, that either Trump or Clinton is the best person for the job, then by
all means vote for one of them. But if you’re thinking of doing so only because
you’re choosing between the lesser of two (outstanding) evils, you might wish
to reconsider. Your vote for Johnson is not “wasted”. As a matter of fact, it
could make a world of difference in future elections, bringing another voice to
the fore and, at the very least, likely spurring the other two parties into
giving us better candidates than we received in this execrable excuse for an
election.
###
