via osce.org
As an under-18 UK citizen, I was forced to watch my country condemn myself and itself as a whole last year while the general election for a government party and Prime Minister (or ‘PM’) of the 2016-2020 term went on, while I could do nothing. The Conservative Party, or the ‘Tories’, won once again. However, there were many people who did not vote Tory. Why is it that they still won? And how does this link to the US presidential race that is currently occurring?
One of the two major political parties in the UK are the Conservative Party, fronted by David Cameron. They won the last general election, and the one before it. They are a moderately right-wing party who cut benefits funds from people who are clearly not fit to work, recently wanted to turn every school into a privately regulated academy, and not-so-secretly wish to take down the UK’s free health care system. Immediately, upon reading this brief description, you would doubt that over half of the country (64 million people, so that’s a few million people short of 32 million people, when taking into account the under-18s who cannot vote) would vote for that party. The truth is, less than half of the country voted for the Tories – some voted on a ‘principle vote’ instead of a ‘tactical vote’.
The other of the two main political parties in the UK is the Labour party, currently fronted by Jeremy Corbyn. They were previously nicknamed ‘Tory lite’ while Tony Blair was Prime Minister with a Labour government behind him in the noughties, but Ed Miliband steered the party on a fairly more left wing route when he took over, and then Jeremy Corbyn quickly and drastically turned the party’s reputation back around to having a very left-wing stance, after the post-election resignation of Ed Miliband. However, the Green Party are a party that were much more left-wing, consistent and sure in their values than the Labour party during the time of the general elections last year. They also have a female leader. Sounds great, right?
It is… except it was near impossible for them to win the election.
Many people were unsatisfied with the complete package that Labour had to offer, but still, they went for a ‘tactical vote’ – a vote where you choose one of the (usually two) parties who could win, even though you are not entirely satisfied with their policies or politicians, because you recognise that that would be the lesser of two evils, and it would therefore be much better to have them in power than their direct competition. This meant that although Labour were unstable on their values and did not have a particularly charismatic leader (although he was a lovely guy), they were sure to be contributing to a popular party that worked for the ordinary people of the UK, and would try their very best to make their lives better. So, by voting for them, they would directly be contributing to the potential victory of a decent party, as opposed to a heartless, money-grabbing one. Alternatively, they would be ‘wasting their vote’, by voting Green, who they knew wouldn’t win, so this appeared to be the more effective option.
In contrast, quite a few people voted for the Green party, in an attempt to place a ‘principle vote’ – this is a vote in which you know your choice will not win the election, but you choose it anyway because you wish to stick more closely to your principles than a vote which would have tactical benefits.
As you can tell, the Green party didn’t even get enough votes to be a runner-up to the Tories. People knew that, but people still voted for them… why?
The answer is simple: they can afford to stick to their principles because the negative consequences of their vote will not affect them either way. Many people will want to vote for Green or a similar party that they know will not get in but stick very closely to their principles because they say they can “survive another 4 years of the Tories” in the name of voting for their party and hoping they will win in the next election. Truthfully, these people are likely not in any sort of minority, whether it be financial, racial, disabled, LGBTQ or anything else, that will be negatively affected by a more right-wing, conservative party becoming the government party. They can remain in their sheltered, ‘well off’, unoppressed lives in which the Tories do not affect them, whilst those in minorities take the fall for them.
Now, I know what you’re thinking… How the hell is this similar to the US situation?
Ever heard of #FeelingTheBern?
To clarify, I am, to as far an extent I can be as a UK citizen, a Bernie Sanders supporter. However, the idea that has previously been explained suggests that voting for Bernie would be a principle vote, not a tactical one: we know that Bernie, although he has been, at some points, close behind Hillary, will most likely not be the Democratic nominee. We are all aware of that, deep down. Yet, the youth population of the US votes for him because his policies are much closer to their ideals that Hillary’s will ever be. Unlike many UK ‘principle voters’, the youth of the US could benefit in many ways from Bernie’s policies, if he did become President and manage to actually pass any of his promised policies (a debatable concept in itself), but, is it still a ‘waste of a vote’ to vote for Bernie if we recognise that he probably won’t win the election?
Hillary… I’m not her biggest fan, let’s just say that. She was a republican until, like, last night; she believed until frighteningly recently that marriage was a ‘sacred thing’ that should be ‘between a man and a woman’; she was essentially a downright racist until the noughties… Although she might, as a teacher at my school cleverly pointed out, ‘throw a minority a bone’ and offer them some sort of incentive in order to gain various minority votes, I would rather not have the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, “let’s keep my emails about the government and my country from the government and my country while I’m in an extremely important position to the government and in the country” candidate as president… But perhaps this short article will make you think: would you rather build an even bigger wall between the US and Mexico? Would you rather “let the states decide” about whether trans people have the most basic right of them all, to perform bodily functions in peace? Would you rather have members of the Islamic community have to label themselves wherever they go as if they would otherwise be dangerous to society?
Would you rather have Trump as president?
Now, I don’t like Hillary. In fact, I despise her. Frankly, even though her ‘throwing me a bone’, something that Trump would never do, would benefit me, but it wouldn’t make me like her. But, I despise Trump even more. And by deciding that neither of them should win, you might be missing out on a necessary evil that would keep ‘the Donald’, as Obama called him, out of office… That’s a possibility that’s scary to US citizens, and to a citizen far away across the pond.
So, should you go #BernieOrBust and run the risk of a republican businessman who doesn’t actually know what he’s doing, saying, or what laws he even wants to pass to become president, or vote for Hillary, crossing your fingers and praying to Lenin that she won’t be too right-wing for your liking? It’s a difficult choice, US citizens – make it a good one.
