{"id":2912,"date":"2026-07-13T09:09:53","date_gmt":"2026-07-13T09:09:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/interstatelogisticshubs.com\/?p=2912"},"modified":"2026-07-13T09:09:53","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T09:09:53","slug":"the-only-proper-way-to-vote-hint-for-the-party-not-the-person","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/interstatelogisticshubs.com\/?p=2912","title":{"rendered":"The Only Proper Way to Vote (Hint: For the Party, Not the Person)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\u201cI vote for the person, not the party,\u201d people will proudly say. This is considered the enlightened position, taken by \u201cfree thinking\u201d Americans unconstrained by partisan politics. Why, they\u2019re fair-minded: They judge every politician as an individual.<\/p>\n

Read more Open Borders Are a Death Sentence to Western Nations<\/a><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s what no one says:<\/p>\n

In general elections, this is often what demagogues want<\/em> you to do.<\/p>\n

In practice, though, voting for \u201cthe person\u201d may just mean being distracted by person<\/em>ality \u2014 like a woman falling for a serial killer\u2019s charms. More on that later.<\/p>\n

As for my charms, I won\u2019t seem to have any if I \u201ctell you how to vote.\u201d So I\u2019ll just explain how I vote and why (and why you should<\/em> vote that way, too!).<\/p>\n

When people ask me how I could support _______ (fill in anyone you consider controversial), my answer is always the same:<\/p>\n

Politics, famed German leader Otto von Bismarck noted, is \u201cthe art of the possible.\u201d It\u2019s not the art of \u201cYou get whatever you want, 100 percent, right now, no questions asked\u201d \u2014 but of the possible. The late President Ronald Reagan, never accused of lacking conviction, understood this well.<\/p>\n

\u201cI have always figured that half a loaf is better than none,\u201d he famously said, \u201cand I know that in the democratic process, you\u2019re not always going to get what you want.\u201d<\/p>\n

This was being pragmatic, but not unprincipled. After all, adhering to the truth that politics is \u201cthe art of the possible\u201d is an exercise of principle itself.<\/p>\n

And I certainly can relate. However \u201coutside the box\u201d you (if you\u2019ve long read me) may consider me, well, multiply that by 10 and you\u2019re probably closer to the truth. I\u2019m best characterized, after all, as Mayberry meets the Middle Ages. This means, of course, that no matter what happens in an election, I never get even a decent percentage of what I want. (Oh, but if I were king …)<\/p>\n

As to this, my ideal president would be me. That, however, is not going to happen. Next on the list would be figures such as Alan Keyes or Pat Buchanan (who has aged out); that\u2019s not going to happen, either. Of course, there might be some relatively attractive third-party candidate registering 1.5 percent in the polls, but he also won\u2019t win. So what\u2019s possible is the Republican or Democrat contender.<\/p>\n

Next January, either the GOP or Democrats will control Congress; in 2029, a Democrat or Republican will be president. Oh, sure, there will occasionally be an independent or third-party candidate who can compete in a race (e.g., Jesse Ventura in Minnesota in 1998), but this is rare. Even so, too, if they\u2019re congressional independents, such people virtually always caucus with one of the two major parties. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), for example, caucuses with the Democrats.<\/p>\n

In other words, in practice (not in law) we have a two-party system<\/em>. A voter must understand this to cast an informed ballot, and this brings me to why a wise citizen always votes for the party, not the person in general<\/em> elections. It\u2019s simple:<\/p>\n

Because the person will almost always vote with<\/em> his party.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t believe me? All right, considering some examples, let\u2019s start with ex-Rep.\u00a0Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), infamous for her anti-Trump rhetoric. I mean, she just hates Trump, right?<\/p>\n

Perhaps, but when in office she voted with him 92.9 percent of the time.<\/p>\n

Then there\u2019s Sen.\u00a0John Fetterman (D-Pa.). He\u2019s a real maverick who\u2019ll tell the Democrat establishment what for, no?<\/p>\n

Maybe, but he votes with the Democrat establishment 91 percent of the time.<\/p>\n

Then there\u2019s Sen.\u00a0Susan Collins (R-Me.), who\u2019s fighting to retain her seat this year. Many rank-and-file Republicans call her a RINO, and she\u2019s certainly no Barry Goldwater. Nonetheless, she has voted with President Donald Trump 90 to 95 percent of the time. Yes, really \u2014 and she\u2019s known as one of the Republicans most likely to break ranks<\/em>.<\/p>\n

As to this, do you really think someone more right-wing than Collins will be elected in Maine? She\u2019s not only \u201cpossible,\u201d but probable.<\/p>\n

These figures aren\u2019t outliers, either. The average Democrat Member of Congress has voted with his party (leadership or majority position) roughly 90 to 95 percent of the time in recent sessions. In 2025, House Democrats\u2019 voted with their party ~93 percent of the time; Senate Democrats\u2019 average party unity was around 92 percent.<\/p>\n

As for the GOP, the average Republican Member of Congress has voted with Trump 90 to 96 percent of the time. In 2025, House Republicans supported Trump ~95 percent of the time on votes where he took a position; Senate Republicans\u2019 party unity came in at ~96 percent.<\/p>\n

Read more Did Lindsey Graham die a natural death?<\/a><\/p>\n

The bottom line: Whether we realize it or not, we\u2019re always voting for the party, not the person, because the person is merely another vote for the party\u2019s agenda. We just do<\/em> need to realize it.<\/p>\n

(Note: You vote for the person in the primaries<\/em>. That\u2019s when it matters.)<\/p>\n

What this means is that you don\u2019t need so much to know a candidate\u2019s positions. You must know his party\u2019s<\/em> positions.<\/p>\n

Put differently, it\u2019s best to conceptualize general election candidates as tools that serve a purpose. Your decision is only whether to give the Republicans or Democrats another tool in their shed to build their world (advance their agenda).<\/p>\n

This framing is valuable because helps forestall an emotionalism that clouds judgment and leads to bad voting decisions. It can help prevent:<\/p>\n