William Galvin will cast a wasted vote

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, charged with overseeing elections in the Bay State, thinks only votes for Democrats or Republicans matter, urging people to not “waste their vote [on] a third party candidate or a fourth party candidate or a protest vote.” In discussion of this idea it seemed very clear that he was only concerned about making sure his fellow Democrats vote their party instead of their conscience, expressing “I’m concerned that some people, whether they’re dissatisfied with the Democratic ticket or disappointed about Senator Sanders or any other aspect of the proceedings think that voting for the third party candidate or the fourth party candidate … they somehow achieve some protest.”

Elvan Falchuk of Massachusetts’ United Independent Party pointed out that Galvin’s job is to make sure everyone has total confidence that the system is trustworthy, unbiased and accurate,” and went on to say that “If he can’t do that because of his own personal political feelings, well, he should resign and let someone who isn’t in the bag for one side or another do that job.”

Not only is Falchuk’s claim correct that the chief election official of a state shouldn’t be using the office as a bully pulpit to discourage people from voting as they see fit, especially for partisan gain, but it is also true that voting for the Democrat or the Republican presidential candidate in Massachusetts is a meaningless act. No Republican has won the state’s electoral votes since 1984 and no Massachusetts county has seen a GOP majority for president since 1988. The state is a foregone conclusion.

Galvin references the 2000 election as a reason to vote for the two major parties, failing to grasp, perhaps deliberately, that Nader did not cost Gore the election. Not only does the data not support the “it was Nader’s fault” conclusion, but Massachusetts was even remotely in play that year, and Gore actually won the popular vote nationally. Clearly, any individual voter that casts a ballot for Clinton or Trump in Massachusetts is doing nothing more than engaging in the public ritual. There can be no practical result of any consequence.

On the other hand, a Bay Stater who casts a ballot for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein will be sending an unmistakable message of dissatisfaction with the likes of William Galvin and his ilk, who consider the electoral process and the government determined by it to be solely their domain. Both of these candidates were on the state’s ballot four years ago. If Johnson can dramatically improve on his nearly 31,000 votes, and/or if Stein can significantly increase from over 20,000, then Massachusetts can move toward more representative democratic elections where state officials won’t have the gall to tell people they shouldn’t vote for whom they really prefer.