Why voting 'for the man' is ... foolish

Every election someone says to me, usually in a smug and self-congratulatory tone, sometimes in an accusatory one, that they "don't vote for a party"; they "vote for the man".

That sounds quite reasonable, even to this yellow-dog Democrat. Weigh the merits of the individuals running and vote for the best one. What could be wrong with that?

What's wrong with it is that, for better or worse and like it or not, we live in a two-party state, not a multi-party one (and please, don't bring up Nader or Greens or any of the rest of them: they usually don't get themselves elected (two party - they'll never get an assigned percentage of seats) and occasionally siphon of enough votes to actually influence the election, and not in a good way, and Yes, Ralph Nader, I am talking to you). What am I going on about?

Well, let's take Rhode Island. Here's a typical assessment (this one's from the Washington Post) of the current GOP primary:

Rhode Island is a solidly Democratic state, but it does elect moderate Republicans such as Chafee and his late father, the veteran GOP Sen. John Chafee. During his seven-year tenure, "Linc" has distinguished himself as one of the Senate's least partisan members. Modest and soft-spoken, he has broken with his party on tax cuts, judicial nominations and environmental issues, and he was the only Republican senator to vote against the Iraq war.

Laffey calls Washington "the Cranston crossing guards on steroids." But beyond his calls for tougher, more effective leadership, he is difficult to typecast. He supports the war and opposes abortion and embryonic stem cell research, positions that place him to the right of most Rhode Islanders. He applauds all of President Bush's tax cuts, although he raised taxes to save Cranston from bankruptcy. But he savages the GOP on health care, education and energy policy. Of Bush, Laffey says, "I respect him, but I think he's failed in a number of aspects."

I can see why Laffey could irritate moderate Republicans, not to mention Democrats. And I can see that Chafee is a stand-up guy, a hard worker who has well thought out, carefully nuanced positions. So, "solidly Democratic" voters in Rhode Island send "moderate" Republican Chafee to the Senate, because they like the man and the positions. Fine... except.

Chafee may break with his party on some issues, but he clearly agrees with them on most, or he'd switch parties. But that's not my point. Even if Chafee disagreed with the GOP on every single issue and voted that belief, he's part of the Republican majority, and that means that the GOP gets all the committee chairmanships and deciding votes.

Is the occasional vote from an occasionally disaffected Republican worth leaving that party in power? If you're a "solid Democrat", why don't you want the GOP to be the minority party, regardless of how much you like "the man" personally?

I have voted for a Republican in my life - thirty years ago. It'll be a long time - if ever - that I vote for another, no matter how nice, honest, personable, or occasionally disaffected he is. I don't want to help that party stay in power.