Today is the Republican primary elections in my state of Michigan. There are numerous groups of democrats in Michigan who are going to be voting in the GOP primary for Rick Santorum, in an effort to skew the results. IE, they are attempting to rig the election for a candidate that they know has no chance of beating Obama in November. Hell, even as a conservative, if Santorum wins the GOP nomination for President, I would have to think that Obama would win reelection. Rick Santorum is just not going to beat Obama. The Michigan democrats are obviously trying to ensure that Mitt Romney does not win, or if he does win, to make it as close as possible. In Michigan, the delegate votes are not winner take all, if Santorum and Romney finish close enough together, they would each take a share of the delegate votes into the GOP convention. Essentially, since Obama is running unopposed, they are just trying to cause mischief on the GOP side.
Now, I need to point something out. There is absolutely NOTHING illegal about this. The Michigan state democrats are not violating any voter laws whatsoever by doing this. Also, not every democrat who votes in the Michigan GOP primary is doing so to try to rig it. Some are going to be voting for the candidate who they think represents the best of the worst, that is, if for some reason Obama loses in November, which GOP candidate is the least disagreeable with them? Those aren't who I am talking about. I am only referring to Michigan democrats (and voters in other states where this type of situation might occur) who are voting specifically with the intent to mess things up and cause chaos, not those who are simply voting for who they think is the best alternative candidate.
However, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. So, this is my question:
Is it ethically acceptable to attempt to rig the primary election of the other party in hopes that you can get their weakest candidate elected? Or should your vote be limited by your conscience to a candidate that you genuinely see as the best/least worst choice?
Personally, I think it's disgusting. While it is not illegal (and I am in no way advocating that it be made illegal) it's dishonest. I see it as an abuse of the voting process to treat votes like pawns in some political chess game. And this goes for Republicans too...if the situations were reversed, and the GOP candidate was running unopposed and the Democrats had a fiercely contested primary, I would probably stay out of it entirely, thinking that it's their candidate, I won't be voting for their winner in the Presidential election anyway, so it's not really my concern.
However, I think there is something that has to be considered. While I think Santorum has no chance against Obama in November, many thought Obama stood no chance to beat Hillary Clinton in the democratic primaries either. Let's say that the Democratic plan to rig the election in Santorum's favor works.
So, Santorum wins Michigan from Romney. Other voters in other states see that victory, and decide they too want to vote for Santorum, and his momentum somehow carries over to the point where he actually wins the GOP nomination. At that point, seeing that Santorum received far more support than they anticipated, and that he is Obama's opponent, wouldn't you kind of be worried? What if, through some strange set of circumstances that you didn't anticipate, Santorum actually WINS? Are you still glad that you helped Santorum win Michigan instead of Romney, a candidate who would have been much more moderate and closer to your own political views than Santorum is? And you helped to defeat him, and get stuck with a far right wing Bible thumper as President? Even if it's incredibly unlikely, do you really want any part in potentially helping that happen? I guess what I am saying is that it could, under the right circumstances, end up being a case of being careful what you wish for...so it's probably better to just vote for the candidate you think would make the best alternative to your candidate, to minimize your potential losses if they actually win.
Now, I need to point something out. There is absolutely NOTHING illegal about this. The Michigan state democrats are not violating any voter laws whatsoever by doing this. Also, not every democrat who votes in the Michigan GOP primary is doing so to try to rig it. Some are going to be voting for the candidate who they think represents the best of the worst, that is, if for some reason Obama loses in November, which GOP candidate is the least disagreeable with them? Those aren't who I am talking about. I am only referring to Michigan democrats (and voters in other states where this type of situation might occur) who are voting specifically with the intent to mess things up and cause chaos, not those who are simply voting for who they think is the best alternative candidate.
However, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. So, this is my question:
Is it ethically acceptable to attempt to rig the primary election of the other party in hopes that you can get their weakest candidate elected? Or should your vote be limited by your conscience to a candidate that you genuinely see as the best/least worst choice?
Personally, I think it's disgusting. While it is not illegal (and I am in no way advocating that it be made illegal) it's dishonest. I see it as an abuse of the voting process to treat votes like pawns in some political chess game. And this goes for Republicans too...if the situations were reversed, and the GOP candidate was running unopposed and the Democrats had a fiercely contested primary, I would probably stay out of it entirely, thinking that it's their candidate, I won't be voting for their winner in the Presidential election anyway, so it's not really my concern.
However, I think there is something that has to be considered. While I think Santorum has no chance against Obama in November, many thought Obama stood no chance to beat Hillary Clinton in the democratic primaries either. Let's say that the Democratic plan to rig the election in Santorum's favor works.
So, Santorum wins Michigan from Romney. Other voters in other states see that victory, and decide they too want to vote for Santorum, and his momentum somehow carries over to the point where he actually wins the GOP nomination. At that point, seeing that Santorum received far more support than they anticipated, and that he is Obama's opponent, wouldn't you kind of be worried? What if, through some strange set of circumstances that you didn't anticipate, Santorum actually WINS? Are you still glad that you helped Santorum win Michigan instead of Romney, a candidate who would have been much more moderate and closer to your own political views than Santorum is? And you helped to defeat him, and get stuck with a far right wing Bible thumper as President? Even if it's incredibly unlikely, do you really want any part in potentially helping that happen? I guess what I am saying is that it could, under the right circumstances, end up being a case of being careful what you wish for...so it's probably better to just vote for the candidate you think would make the best alternative to your candidate, to minimize your potential losses if they actually win.