Strategic voting to elect more taxpayer friendly candidates

“Republicans are losing the city vote. Once the party of the big city mayor, Republicans now control only three mayoral seats in the 25 most populated cities and fewer than roughly 20% of the city council seats in the top 25 most highly populated cities. It’s a trend that doesn’t bode well for the party’s future electoral success, given the tremendous population growth and density in urban centers.” warns about this poor trend and direction of our cities.  With conservative voters not only leaving the cities, but a national Republican Party which is drifting rhetorically to favor Bible Belt candidates, cities, college towns and the socially liberal northeast and West Coast are now perpetually lost to DNC’s appointed “representatives.” Avoiding the issues of corruption, vote buying, voter fraud, and this big city political machine gave the primary to Hillary Clinton even in states that favored Bernie Sanders.  Democrat campaigns focus almost exclusively on targeting socially liberal and young, women, LGBT, and minority voters by trying to distract them from economic cronyism, higher crime rates, state-protected monopolies, and state and local taxes that are nearly twice as high as Republican majority states.

Socially inclusive Republicans like Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Eisenhower, and even Ronald Reagan not only won all 14 of these now “safe Democrat states,” but often did so in enormous landslides.  Republican mayors like Rudy Giuliani of New York City and Kevin Faulconer of San Diego and Governors Thomas Dewey and William Weld once ran on campaigns that centered on pragmatic and non-ideological efforts to clean up City Hall and run public services frugally and efficiently.

Former Governors Gary Johnson (R-New Mexico) and Bill Weld (R-Massachusetts) handily won otherwise safe, 2-to-1 Democratic states by large margins, 55% and 71% of the vote respectively.  Indeed, when the pair pursued the White House in 2016 as Libertarian nominees, they reached 16% of the vote in one poll, 31% among independent voters in September of that year.  In fact, every two-way poll between Johnson and Hillary Clinton had the governor blowing Hillary out of the water in almost every state.

But we all know that “third parties can never prevail in a First Past the Post system like the United States,” Canada, Britain, Singapore, India, etc.  The problem with that assumption is that all of those other FPTP countries have at least four major national parties with representation in the national government.

Websites like Strategic Voting and QZ allow voters in their respective countries to vote tactically–that is, that these voters are generally more concerned with keeping one party out that getting their party in–if they even support one.  The first site, Strategic Voting, allows left-leaning voters in Canada to select their location and find out which party has the best chance of beating the Conservatives.  As many of these younger voters have a visceral hatred of the Conservative Party brand name, the website makes sense.  In Britain, for example, early polling for the 2017 snap election showed that 20% of Britons were already planning to vote tactically, almost always against Labour or the Tories.

In New Hampshire, taxpayers take the strategy even further, with websites like  and Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayer’s Yellow Sheet, allowing taxpayers to vote for the most fiscally conservative candidates in both the September primary and the November General Election based on their actual voting record, without concern for what party brand name the candidate is using.  Voters need not worry that they’ll accidentally end up supporting a big government RINO nor miss an opportunity to support the increasingly rare fiscally conservative Democrat.

But this begs the question, if urban and New England voters are actually more fiscally conservative than the average Republican voter, why aren’t there taxpayer parties that compete specifically in college towns, urban areas, socially liberal districts, and other areas where the establishment GOP has given up the ghost, focusing its resources on 16 swing voting states and just 90 out of 435 congressional districts that are still up for grabs.  That means that about 170 congressional districts are automatically handed over to George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Ayers, Tom Steyer, Warren Buffett, and the other billionaire oligarchs who own the DNC’s rigged primary process–top to bottom.

Politicians who “run as Democrats” must vote as party leaders tell them and use tax money to reward the trial lawyers, public sector unions, school administrators, government contractors, government lawyers, the Academic Industrial Complex, medical industry, union contractors, and myriad special interest groups that get rich using the old Democrat brand name.  Once in the majority in a state legislature, parliamentary body, or Congress, these opportunists wreck the economy and job market every time they have the majority (see graph).  With the political pendulum swinging back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, it has become impossible to keep them out in perpetuity.  At the local level, every city, town, county, and state that is in jeopardy of bankruptcy or receivership is run by Democrats.

Indeed, this ugly reality is true of all mainline socialist parties in the world.  In Britain, Greece, Puerto Rico, Spain, France, and other western countries, socialists eventually win majorities and wreck their job markets, sending stock markets into a plunge, debasing their currencies, and leaving shortages everywhere.  Greece even saw unemployment levels that rivalled the Great Depression in the United States.  In Venezuela, shoppers may wait in lines guarded by soldiers for hours to reach nearly empty grocery store shelves.  Reckless borrowing, anti-business regulations, restrictions on energy exploration, populist tax increases, corrupt machine politics and vote buying, protectionism, taxpayer-funded bailouts, insurance mandates, oppressive labor mandates, and all manner of cronyism lead to small and mid-sized businesses collapsing under the weight of rising medical insurance, workman’s comp costs, electricity costs, fuel costs, and endless restrictions, leading to escalating unemployment each time.  Socialist parties continue fighting even the most modest tax cuts and efforts to reduce the regulatory burden.  As of the last year of the Obama administration, 150 separate federal regulatory agencies had grown the Federal Register to over 185,000 pages of business-crushing regulations.

In America, the national GOP has seen polling showing that, if the party becomes even more socially conservative, it picks up even more congressional seats in the Bible Belt.  If the GOP becomes more socially libertarian, as it did in the 1950’s and 1990’s, it wins more seats in the northeast and Pacific Northwest.  Since the South is generally more populous, those of us living in the snowbelt are largely left to our own devices with little or no national support as the national GOP refocuses its efforts capitalizing on the Southern Strategy of the 1970’s and swing voting districts, losing most snow belt legislatures.  It’s rhetoric and its focus are on the South.

“So that here we have, really, the compound, the overall philosophy of Lincoln: in all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human.  In all those things which deal with the people’s money or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative. And don’t be afraid to use the word.”
–President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Worse for this approach, younger voters have shown an increasingly libertarian streak, placing LGBT rights, Internet privacy, concern for lost civil liberties, personal freedom, and ongoing wars overseas ahead of economic issues that may be off their radar for the moment.  Some polls and election results have even shown Libertarian candidates pulling second place ahead of the Republican nominee in these districts and among younger demographics. Growing concern over what’s looking like an Orwellian surveillance state, mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders, overseas military occupations, $1.5 trillion in corporate bailouts, excessive police force videos, racial profiling, and environmental issues have created an opportunity for a jeffersonian libertarian political party to compete effectively in otherwise entrenched one-party districts that only elect big government, good old boy network Democrats and RINO’s.

The solution?  Those of us who understand what the country is up against cannot risk giving George Soros and Michael Bloomberg 28 free Senate seats and 170 U.S. Representatives who merely vote as party leaders instruct them to.  Every other First Past the Post country has at least two professional alternatives that “take on the Labour juggernaut” and compete in otherwise safe socialist party districts.  Fiscally conservative voters living in very liberal areas, among large immigrant populations, or in cosmopolitan neighborhoods, may not have seen a Republican elected from their area in many years, but Libertarian candidates are up and coming focusing on the same “Liberty vs. Socialism” message that Republicans once used to win over these states and even big cities.

Like a British conservative voting tactically for the Liberal Democrats (the result of a merger between pragmatic libertarians and the center-left Social Democrats) or even UKIP in order to keep the socialist Labour Party from picking up a seat in Sutton or Middlesbrough, we may need to use websites in the future where one enters their zip code or town as with Liberty Ballot or QZ to find out how to stop the endless expansion of big government into our daily lives.  Socialists in other western countries have already organized the opposite version of this.

About Max Abramson

A two-term State Representative, member of the New Hampshire Business Caucus, and longtime taxpayers advocate.