Already feeling a bit cranky this morning after my pancakes got mangled in a frying pan badly in need of a replacement, I came across a post about whether Hillary Clinton's supporters could feel if their voices had been heard if she were not offered the VP slot on the ticket.  Now, I don't really care all that much whom Obama picks to be his running mate, as long as it's not a pander to the supposed "center." I happen to think Clinton would be pretty strong choice.  What bugs me is people who treat electoral politics as if it's some collaborative summer camp talent show, where everyone gets to write a line and sing a solo. 

Elections are imperfect mechanisms for registering the will of a population.  People tend to treat democracy as if it's an easy matter of calculating a simple majority choice.  However, voters are neither blind nor stupid.  They see the dynamics of the race and vote strategically to some degree.  Joe Biden fans see Clinton as a more viable second choice.  Edwards fans move into Obama's column when they see the former has no chance of winning.  So, we have a matchup, not between Obama and Clinton, but between Clinton-Biden and Obama-Edwards.  Does that mean we still have a normatively satisfying majority choice? 

The vote has three possible sources of value for a voter: instrumental, expressive, and solidary.  Solidary benefits are the value that the voter gains by sharing a common experience with her fellow citizens, partisans, neighbors, etc.  It is a claim on group membership.  Expressive benefits are those that the voter gains through acting upon a belief in the democratic process and in the virtues of civic participation.  Last, instrumental benefits are the gains wrought from casting the deciding vote in an election and the subsequent value of the policies the winning candidate is able to enact.  As can easily be seen, the vast majority of the value of one's vote comes from solidary and expressive benefits.  Thus, asking whether one's "voice is heard" must allow for these expressive and solidary mechanisms.  Thus, one's voice is heard by those who note the growing voter turnout rate as a sign of an improving participatory polity.  The voter is entitled in perpetuity to brag about casting his vote.  But he may not insist that the only way for his voice to be heard is by getting his way, simply because (bad Kevin Costner movies notwithstanding), the probability of casting the instrumental vote is miniscule.

These demands that we "hear voices" always remind me of people who "hold their noses" when they cast a ballot.  Why do people say this?  Why do people care that we know they believe their preferred candidate to be a compromise.  Do people hold their nose when they take a less-than-ideal job?  When they overlook some flaw in their friends and family members?  No, it seems that people only hold their noses when voting for imperfect politicians.  This bugs me to no end.  The only point of this kind of excuse is to remind us that they, themselves, are superior to the candidate.  This might in fact be true, but I see that as a perfect fifty-fifty chance given any two individuals in a large population.  Now, this may seem like a cheap shot, but I truly believe it: if you're so disatisfied with politicians that you need noseplugs in order to vote, then run for office.  Or get involved in the political process in some way.  People forget that democracy not only entails the right of all citizens to select our government, but also the right of all citizens to become part of the government.  The demos both chooses and constitutes the kratos.  So stop hold your damn noses, demanding that your voices be hear even when your candidate loses.  If you want people of your caliber in politics, and you want to guarantee that people hear what you have to say, then jump right in.