In an earlier post, I went into some detail about my voting experience in the last several elections.  The theme basically was that, for the mot part, an individual vote doesn’t matter, especially in states that are very clearly going one way or another.   In this situation, I’ve often voted not for my favorite candidate, but just to toss my vote in where I think it’s marginally more valuable.   Example: my voting for Nader in ’00 and my recent vote in the Republican primary for McCain.

I feel good about both of those decisions, however I was kind of put to the test today when I talked to a certain Texan Republican who voted early in the Democratic primary.  He voted for Clinton on the idea that McCain would have a better chance beating her than Obama.  My question now is whether there’s any difference between what I’ll call positive v negative strategic voting.  I voted in the Republican primary for McCain because, though I’m less likely to vote Republican in the general election, McCain was still my first choice for a Republican.  The other voter went in for Clinton, though wouldn’t vote for her in a million years.  We each voted for a candidate that wasn’t our first choice, and neither of us affected the outcome of the more important race.  Still, I feel like I made a good, responsible decision and I think the other voter made an irresponsible choice.  But I’m obviously partisan re: not liking Clinton…  So..  That’s my dilemma.  Is the only right thing to do voting for who you think best suits the job?  Can you vote strategically if you actually like the candidate?  Is it any different than voting as a spoiler?  I can’t decide, however I  do plan on holding the other voter very responsible if Clinton somehow pulls off the nomination and the presidency.