Is this heresy? What could be the impact of many voters doing this for this election cycle (Congress and Presidential)?

---

---

Creating markets for leaders

---

Posted: October 10, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

It's the political season, and many folks who normally hold high standards for leadership start getting weak in the knees.

I know how this works. It happens to me, too. It happened to me, once again, in 2004 – when I cast an admittedly defensive vote to avoid allowing John Kerry to become arguably the most powerful man in the world.

Here's what I mean.

Many of us talk a great game when it comes to constitutional government, freedom, individual rights, national sovereignty and self-government. It's easy to be principled in the abstract. Then elections roll around and we are usually faced with choices that don't move our nation any closer to these ideals.

Typically, we have a Democrat who believes in a "living Constitution" that means whatever the Supreme Court majority says it means, group rights, internationalism and centralized power in Washington with virtually no limits. Then we have a Republican who believes in much of the same, but might take a slower road to hell.

How do we as voters respond?

One argument says we should hold out for principle, while the other suggests we all have to compromise and choose the lesser of two evils.

While I believe there is a time and place for choosing the lesser of two evils, let me suggest a good argument for holding out, sticking to principle, insisting on higher standards, boycotting elections where there is no clear choice, being very selective about the candidates for whom you support.

Since I am talking, I hope, mostly to those who believe in free market economics, let me explain this in market terminology.

If voters always choose the lesser of two evils, it is accurate to say they are not creating a market for excellence in politicians. They are creating a market for mediocrity in politicians.

Let's break it down to a smaller component. Each election, Republicans put up a candidate and Democrats put up a candidate. If 100 percent of Republicans vote for the Republican no matter his strengths or weaknesses, those party faithful are not encouraging the party leadership to find the best and the brightest, are they?

But if 5 percent hold out because a candidate is weak on, say, immigration issues, then the party leadership, if it's smart, will recognize what's happening and respond to the call of the marketplace.

That's the way marketplace politics could work, if it were tried.

You don't even need third parties to make it work, but it helps.

Some people claim you are "wasting your vote" if you sit out an election on principle. I would make the argument that voting for someone who is unfit to govern is the real waste of a vote.

Is it a waste of a dollar if you go to the store, don't see what you want and decide not to spend it?

I don't think so.

But if you spend that dollar just for the sake of spending it, are you likely to see better products – of the specific one you really wanted?

That's how political markets work.

If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you are not working the political markets. You could say that those who take this course are practicing a kind of socialism. In other words, there's really no competition for your vote. You will seldom have the opportunity to vote for anyone other than Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dee.

Of course, elections don't represent the only opportunities we have to change the direction of our country. As I point out in my book, "Taking America Back," there are countless, much more important decisions we make every day that are critically important for people who live in a truly self-governing society.