I highly recommend that you read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/education/08students.html
I will summaraize some of the key points. There is historically and currently some controversy over students voting in the state of their university instead of their home state. Some students have been scared away by government statements saying that registering to vote in the state of their university can disqualify them for scholarships, tax dependency, shared vehicle registration and insurance, etc., all of which are blatant lies.
Students, who vote overwhelmingly as Democrats, have been targeted as a key demographic by the Obama campaign and grassroots voter registration organizations, and for good reason. But state governments of Virginia and South Carolina, key states for Republicans in any election, have (illegally) tried to subdue student voter registration.
Most people in this country don’t vote at all, so exploiting a largely untapped demographic could potentially influence an election. It seems to me anyone in the business of voting and elections should be thrilled that people, especially young people, want to register to vote, and should do anything they can to help out. But revelations about Virginia and South Carolina indicate otherwise.
I’ve definitely thought about this issue myself. I’m registered to vote in California, as opposed to Massachusetts, even though I spend the vast majority of my time in Massachusetts in school. In the past 12 months, I’ve spent less than 2 of them in California. Since my vote for President won’t make much of a difference in either state, I decided to remain a California voter because California is constantly at the leading edge of many controversial issues (even compared to Massachusetts), and in these cases my vote counts for more.
I strongly encourage everyone reading this to register to vote if they are not already, and when doing so think about where your vote might count more. Honestly, a vote for President in Massachusetts probably won’t make a difference whether Democratic or Republican, so consider registering in your home state. Most states make registration and absentee or vote-by-mail voting extremely easy; either they can be done in the course of a few minutes online or you just have to print out a simple form and mail it back to your state. Do it now though, as it takes time to process and get an absentee ballot sent to you. A few minutes of your time today will influence the next four years of your life, so take the few minutes today.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Sandy Klanfer (sklanfer09) // Sep 8, 2008 at 11:09 am
You never know what will happen in politics, though. When I registered to vote in Connecticut in 2005, I never imagined that I’d be casting a vote just one year later in a primary with major national implications (Lieberman vs. Lamont). Don’t discount something crazy happening here in Massachusetts–especially with Kennedy likely to leave office at the end of this term.
2 Dave Ullman (dullman10) // Sep 8, 2008 at 11:59 am
While I agree with Jonathan about the importance of voting, I have to take issue with the premise that voting is an activity one should play strategically. The reality is that one vote never makes a difference by itself, whether it’s a swing state or not. Your one vote in Massachusetts won’t make a difference, but neither will your friend’s one vote in Ohio. Therefore, a vote in Ohio does not “count more” than a vote in Massachusetts. Voting is a civic duty that is equally important in any state and any district. I would recommend registering in the state in which you consider to be your primary residence.
Furthermore, there are a whole host of down-ticket races in every state that play an important role in determining the political landscape. While presidential politics are perhaps the most sexy, many would argue that real power is held in Congress or even the state legislatures. Students should not make voter registration decisions based on which states happen to be competitive this year in the upcoming Presidential election.
3 Emily Moin (emoin09) // Sep 8, 2008 at 3:11 pm
“I have to take issue with the premise that voting is an activity one should play strategically” Agreed wholeheartedly.
4 eandrews09 (eandrews09) // Sep 8, 2008 at 5:26 pm
What’s wrong with strategic voting? Is it that one shouldn’t try to game or play the system? I’d agree on a moral, ideal level with this. But let’s be honest, the political system operates quite beneath a moral, ideal level, and it is already well gamed.
And then there’s the whole Nader deal. Say I’m a staunch environmentalist and I like Nader the best of all candidates. If I’m not strategic then I’d vote for him: he is my first choice for president. If I’m strategic, though, I’d realize there isn’t a chance in hell he’s going to win, the Democrat candidate is more ideologically similar to Nader than the Republican candidate, and I should vote Democrat to hopefully elect someone closer to my leanings. What’s wrong about that type of strategic voting? Isn’t that just being, well, smart with my ballot? And while it’s true that one vote is a drop in the ocean, I don’t think that implies strategic voting couldn’t be or isn’t effective. Florida in 2000 certainly showed that strategy could have had a huge impact: Bush only beat Gore by 500 votes, while Nader received some 97,000.
5 Emily Moin (emoin09) // Sep 9, 2008 at 12:31 am
Your analogy isn’t really valid… electability has been one of the biggest issues thus far this year (for the Dems at least) so I wouldn’t really call it “strategizing” to vote for the candidate most likely to actually win and represent your interests. Strategizing comes into it when you start to “cast your vote” with actions that aren’t actually casting a vote — like choosing to register to vote in a swing state that isn’t really your residence.
As for the argument that we should game the system because everyone else does…
6 Dave Ullman (dullman10) // Sep 9, 2008 at 1:46 am
No, Erik, I think you’re falling for the same typical logical fallacy. Once again, your single vote will not sway the election one way or another (unless that movie with Kevin Costner is more realistic than I thought). So attempting to game the system by registering in a state you do not consider your primary residence is simply an exercise in foolishness.
As for the Nader business, while the situation you described may have been accurate, again you are thinking in the “macro” sense. Say you did vote for Nader in 2000, and afterward you were given the chance to go back and change your vote. Would you do it? I wouldn’t - the result would have remained the same. That is, Al Gore wouldn’t have had a chance in hell to win even if I were to change my vote.
Somewhat off-topic but perhaps pertinent to this discussion is the presence of third-party candidates in polls and its effect on outcome. Not surprisingly, the presence of Bob Barr has shown to help Barack Obama. Much more surprisingly, so does the presence of Ralph Nader. Why? The general consensus seems to be that if you vote for Nader, you probably are set against voting for Obama anyway. Some examples might be PUMAs or racists that would pull the lever for McCain if it weren’t for the option to pick Nader. For a better analysis, check out this page or this one.
You must log in to post a comment.