Spoilers in 2016

The way spoiling an election is supposed to work looks like this:

Hillary Clinton is the obvious choice for liberals and progressives to vote for. If there are enough Democratic votes to ensure a Clinton win, but a big enough percentage choose to vote for a third party candidate or a write-in, then she won't get that win.

This view depends on seeing Hillary Clinton as the automatic, "of course" choice. It depends on her already having had enough votes and then losing them to a third party. But she never really had those votes to begin with.

You're not asking people to stay true to the Democratic Party. You're asking them to switch allegiances to your party, because you fear she doesn't have enough backing to win. Well, Bernie supporters asked you to switch to their candidate during the primaries and people chose not to. Jill Stein supporters are asking people to consider switching to their party too. The truth is that there are several candidates out there and none of them or their parties own your vote.

Here's a different way to view spoiling in 2016:

Polls show that Clinton is dangerously close to Trump. In some polls she's losing to him. But there's another candidate who all the polls say will crush him. The party chooses the candidate most likely to lose to Donald Trump. Why isn't that considered spoiling? The superdelegates could easily win this for Bernie by voting for him. If they want to ensure a Democratic victory over Trump, this is what they will do. If they don't, then either they're not as worried about spoilers as everyone else is, or they find it more important to vote for their preferred candidate than to defeat Trump.

OMG, they're #HillaryOrBust.

It's the same argument. Bernie and Jill supporters are supposed to look at the numbers, see that their candidate doesn't have enough to support to win, and strategically throw their vote behind the dominate candidate. But why doesn't it work the other way? If it's obvious to the superdelegates that their candidate doesn't have enough support to win, then they should throw their support behind the candidate who can win.

Why must some people take the votes of others into account but others do not? If you says it's a numbers game and that Clinton is the dominant vote-getter and everyone should fall behind the leader, well, you're assuming everyone who isn't a Republican is a Democrat. Take Independents into account. There are more Independents in the country than there are Clinton supporters, so it's not fair to ask all of them to change to your favored candidate. If you're worried about Trump, then you change.

Or if you think Clinton does have enough support to win, then don't worry about others who might be voting for someone else. She'll win anyway.

Hillary supporters can raise the legitimate claim that she won fairly, and that the superdelegates shouldn't take away her candidacy to give to the second-place guy. But that's exactly why the superdelegates exist. They serve no other function. The party wants that safety measure. They've never used it before, but if ever they needed to, this is the election to do it. With their votes they could ensure party unity. If they refuse to, and say that it's instead the responsibility of Bernie and Jill supporters to change their votes, well, that's just saying it's their candidate or bust. That's not strategic use of their votes. Everyone knew going into this that she was the second most hated presidential candidate of all time. Everyone knew that she was the most despised Democratic candidate of all time. Voting for her in the primaries just may have been spoiling the general election

Why is it only the powerless who are asked to change their votes, and not the powerful? Why is it seen as easier for millions of Americans to be persuaded to change their votes, rather than a few hundred politicians?

I've posted a lot about my distaste for Hillary on social media lately. It's only partly because I'm passionate about real change. It's more because people who don't want to fall in line behind the Democratic Party have been getting vilified. I feel the need to defend myself and my position.

If you want Hillary to be president, I don't judge you. Vote for her. That's your vision of the country's future and you have the right to vote for it. If you don't want her to be president, but you're picking her because you're terrified of Trump, I don't judge you. I'm terrified of him too. Vote for her.

The problem with majority vote is that we all have competing visions for our country, and whomever wins will be imposing that vision on others. Third party supporters have a vision that involves, if not winning this time, then building enough percentage to get public financing and get into public debates. Of pushing the Democratic Party to the left again. I'm sorry if that interferes with your vision but that's how majority vote works.

But third parties can win. The Democratic Party was a third party the first time they won. If everyone who is only voting for Hillary to prevent Trump got together, they could win it for Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein.

If your candidate doesn't have the numbers to win, it's not my responsibility to give them to her. My candidate probably doesn't either and I won't berate you if choose not to switch your vote, even though the addition of your numbers could make mine win. I wish you'd change your vote, but I have no grudge against you if you don't. But please extend me that same courtesy. We have a vision too.