I’m caught in a bind between two parties, the Democratic Party and the Green Party. I believe in the message and values of the Green Party candidate; however, they never seem to get elected, so many suggest voting for them is moot. This feels like a catch-22. But with the upcoming presidential election, my peers suggest that voting for a third party ensures a Republican victory, akin to supporting the opposition.
Increasingly, my beliefs and values are not reflected on either side of the two-party, one-coin system we have in our country. Is voting for a party that I know will lose more or less unconscionable than voting for a party I don’t fully believe in? — Name Withheld, Philadelphia
From the Ethicist:
The 2020 census counted over a quarter of a billion voting-age Americans — enormously diverse in national origin, religion, ethnicity and all sorts of other dimensions. It would be absolutely astonishing if two parties could reflect the precise political values of most of them. The parties themselves are internally divided on many matters of fact and values. Even if you found candidates who matched your preferences, priorities and beliefs, voting for them wouldn’t guarantee that their views would be turned into policy, and one reason is that, given the legislative realities, they themselves might end up backing policies far from their ideal ones. People who vote for candidates they know will lose — as with Democratic voters in heavily Republican districts, and vice versa — aren’t expecting their views to be represented by their elected officials anyway. They’re just expressing an opinion as to which is the best party.
If you truly have no preference between the candidates you think might win, then casting a purely expressive vote is the obvious thing to do. In countries with parliamentary systems and coalition politics, supporting a small, emerging party can build toward a future in which that party governs — that’s the story of the Labour Party in Britain in the first three decades of the 20th century. For that matter, if the United States had a ranked-choice voting system for presidential elections, you could vote for the Green candidate first and put a mainstream party candidate second, knowing that your second-choice candidate would get your vote if the Green one came in third and neither front-runner had an outright majority of first-place votes.
There are many possible systems for democratic voting, and though some are better than others, all have shortcomings. Yet one choice you won’t be able to make this November is what kind of electoral system you’re voting under. And our current electoral system regularly forces people to choose between expressing their values and contributing to what they consider the lesser of two evils. If you believe that, of the two major-party candidates, one would be decidedly worse for the country than the other, expressing your party preference could contribute to an outcome you’d least want on your conscience.
A Bonus Question
My husband and I both work at a state university located in rural New Mexico. The other day we received a flier in our mailbox advertising a fund-raiser sponsored by the Friends of the N.R.A. One of the organizers was a colleague of ours, who used her university email address as contact info on the flier.
A review of our employee handbook indicates that using a university email address for personal business is ‘‘permissible within reasonable limits.’’ New Mexico state law explains that no state employee ‘‘shall engage in partisan political activity while on duty.’’ There is no evidence that this flier was made while my colleague was in her office or that this use of her email address is outside of what is considered reasonable.
Still, the flier rankled me. The use of her university contact info could make it easy for someone to assume that the fund-raiser was somehow connected to our university. The N.R.A. and its affiliates are organizations I see as directly responsible for the proliferation of gun violence in our county, and I am morally opposed to it. Is it ethical for my colleague to use state-provided resources to advertise for a partisan political group? Should I say something to our supervisor? Or, given that she is operating within the rules, should I let it go? — Name Withheld, New Mexico
From the Ethicist:
On your own account, your colleague’s use of her university email for communicating about this private matter was permissible. Given that the use of the email domain was fairly unrestricted, there weren’t grounds to think that this event was sponsored by the university. The statute you quote doesn’t obviously apply, anyway; the Friends of the N.R.A. is an affiliate of the N.R.A. Foundation, which is legally classified as a charitable organization, not a partisan one. (As for the N.R.A. itself: Recall that Tim Walz was a Democratic congressman when the group gave him its A rating.) There is one potential legal issue that you don’t mention: If the flier was put in your mailbox without having been mailed, U.S. postal regulations were violated.
But organizing a fund-raiser on your own time isn’t against the law, and doing so in order to express support for the right to bear arms is protected by the First Amendment. Expressing disagreement with your colleague about the issue is also protected by the First Amendment. So you’re free to tell her what you think about firearms and the Second Amendment. Provided you’re sending that message on your own time, you can use your university email to do so.
Readers Respond
Last week’s question was from a perturbed diner. She wrote: “Some time ago, my mother and I went to have our weekly lunch at a New York restaurant. The restaurant allowed dogs, and a woman walked in with two dogs on leashes and sat down. One of the dogs sniffed my coat and got a mucous stain on it. Both were whimpering and whining and restless, moving around under our table. They both smelled. She then asked the waiter to serve her dogs water, so this old waiter had to bend down to the ground and place a container there for them; the dogs noisily slurped the water. … I know people love their dogs and can’t imagine why anyone else wouldn’t, but isn’t there an ethical responsibility when you are in public to respect people’s private space?”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “I agree that the dog owner behaved poorly here. But so did the restaurant. Presumably you were dining indoors, where New York City’s health code forbids animals unless they’re trained service animals, not to be confused with emotional-support animals. (In outdoor dining areas, where dogs aren’t forbidden, a sign is supposed to be posted that states, among other things, ‘‘You are responsible for controlling your dog at all times.’’) On what would seem the safe assumption that these weren’t service animals, the restaurant was in violation of the law.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
As a dog owner, I agree with the Ethicist. Not only was the owner in the wrong, so was the restaurant. Although many own dogs in the United States, American society is not very dog-friendly. Dogs have very few opportunities to be socialized to accompany their owners in places like a restaurant as they do in Europe. When they finally have that rare opportunity, it’s stressful and they don’t know how to behave. Additionally, owners refuse to acknowledge that their dog is misbehaving even if their actions are seemingly innocuous. Unfortunately, these rules will never be walked back but this culture has fostered the opportunity for niche dog-friendly businesses. — Dalia
⬥
The Ethicist is correct. Walk out, complain to the manager, go elsewhere. But the ethical responsibility here is with the dog owner: they need to train and socialize their animal properly. I am a person with a disability and my dog is rigorously trained and socialized. When he’s working, he approaches no one and no one is allowed to approach him. This should be the case for any support animal. People who let their dogs, pets or otherwise, behave in this fashion should be accustomed to being asked to leave or crate their dog. — Taposhi
⬥
I live in the South, and pets are welcomed at many outdoor restaurants, and inside some stores. Many stores have signs stating, “It’s too hot to leave your dog in the car, bring it in!” I embrace this messaging, and often take my dogs with me on errands. While I browse, my dogs remain beside me and sit when told. When dining, they stay right next to me under the table. But “give an inch, take a mile” right? Poorly trained pet owners are going to ruin it for everyone! One other thing: characterizing the waiter as an “old” person who “had to bend down” smacks of serious ageism, not concern. — Schuyler
⬥
The Ethicist’s response is spot on … with one exception: The restaurant was put in an impossible situation. Restaurants are low-margin businesses when profitable at all. They try to please everybody as best they can. The burden should not be on the restaurant unless the customer specifically complains. As a neurotically clingy dog owner, I bring my dog to restaurants frequently; my dog is always on a short leash. If neighboring tables look uncomfortable, I apologize and ask to be moved. The burden is always on the dog owner, as it should be. — Robert
⬥
As someone who works in the food industry, I feel for the establishment; there is so little we can do to enforce food safety regulations without resulting in accusations of discrimination, lawsuits, bad reviews, withholding of tips and good old-fashioned shouting on the part of patrons. The laws meant to protect disabled folks’ rights unfortunately leave us very little recourse for those who lie about their pets. For both the rights and privacy of the disabled community, as well as the basic sanitation and comfort of my patrons, I hope legislators will revise the relevant laws. — Che
The post Is It OK to Vote for My Third-Party Fave This Presidential Election? appeared first on New York Times.
