With the presidential election approaching, we're all being told to vote. Whether it's by MTV or the voter registration people on the street, we're told our vote matters. However, this is not always the case. In theory, all votes are equal. In reality, some votes are more equal than others.
Some people's votes are made moot due to their inconsistency with the majority of their native non-swing state. The presidential electoral system is winner-take-all. If you don't vote for the guy who wins your state, your vote is void. Sure, you're doing your "civic duty" by voting, but your vote won't influence the election. If I were a Massachusetts Republican or a Wyoming Democrat, I'd wonder if my time would be better spent voting or trying to cure cancer with a children's chemistry set and an Easy Bake Oven.
Certain individuals' votes count more based on their state's weight in the electoral college. For those on the short end of the equation, that's not very inspiring — even in swing states. New Mexico is a swing state, but its five electoral votes pale compared to Florida's 27. That's not to say the election couldn't come down to a few electoral votes, but let's be honest — the votes of some swing states' citizens have more weight than others. It's like if you were forming a golf team and you had to choose between recruiting John Daly or Vijay Singh. Sure, you'll try to get both. But if it's five minutes before the match and you have to focus on enlisting one, you're going to go for Singh. Singh — like Florida voters — can contribute more, and he's thereby more important. Fine for golf, but bad in democracy.
What about third parties? Voting for a third-party presidential candidate is like cheering for the Chicago Cubs — they'll never win the big one. That statement might enrage some, but it's supported by history and current trends. Nader-supporting Cubs fans are the most pitiable people on the planet.
Related to the third-party dilemma is that some voters feel they're forced to choose the "lesser evil," whatever that might be. It's like what I'll face tonight at World Wrestling Entertainment's "Taboo Tuesday," in which fans will vote on the matches. In one instance, fans will elect to see an aerobics challenge, a pillow fight or an evening gown match. Besides being the time when I wonder why I paid $33 to see this, it's also when the "lesser evil" argument comes into play, since I think the match will be a train wreck no matter what.
I've made light of several voting problems in this column, but these are serious issues to consider. It's true, if you don't vote you can't complain. But does that mean we can't complain about the current electoral system? Some people have reason to do just that.
Click here to comment on this viewpoint on the Tribune Forum.