3rd Party Toothpaste
By Bob_Dudley
Much has been made of the 3rd party “spoiler effect” this election cycle. For example, many Democrats are angry that Ralph Nader is running again. They fear his being a possibility will draw votes away from Kerry and hand Bush his second term. “A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush,” is a common phrase used by Kerry supporters. Of course that is based on the assumption that Nader supporters prefer Kerry to Bush, which may or may not be true. Let’s think about it.
It seems to me that the market for toothpaste is essentially a two party system. Crest and Colgate look like they have substantial market shares. Suppose I were Aquafresh man. When I check out with my Aquafresh, no one says to me, “You know that buying Aquafresh is like buying Colgate because you’re taking that profit away from Crest.” Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? In fact, buying Aquafresh is not like buying Colgate at all. They are not perfect substitutes. Neither are Kerry and Nader or Bush and Badnarik (the Libertarian Party candidate). I don’t care that Crest is not getting money from me because I don’t prefer Crest. I prefer Aquafresh. A vote is like a purchasing decision. It is an expression of preferences.
Those of us who vote for 3rd party candidates are not doing so because we don’t understand the consequences of our actions. On the contrary, I think I am acting very rationally. I get more value out of supporting whichever candidate I prefer than I would voting for the Democrat or Republican I dislike least. I understand that allegiances to political parties are stronger than allegiances to toothpaste companies. Nonetheless, the comparison is interesting to ponder.
As it turns out, I’m a Colgate man but I still plan on voting for a 3rd party. And what about the half of the Americans who don’t vote at all? Well, they just don’t care about their teeth.
Comments