The Only Proper Way to Vote (Hint: For the Party, Not the Person)

“I vote for the person, not the party,” people will proudly say. This is considered the enlightened position, taken by “free thinking” Americans unconstrained by partisan politics. Why, they’re fair-minded: They judge every politician as an individual. Here’s what no one says:

In November, we have a binary choice that while not as different as Heaven and Hell, is very much like virtue vs. vice. Choose your tool set wisely.; Selwyn Duke , Bio and Archives--July 13, 2026 American Politics, News | Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe

| Email Us “I vote for the person, not the party,” people will proudly say. This is considered the enlightened position, taken by “free thinking” Americans unconstrained by partisan politics. Why, they’re fair-minded: They judge every politician as an individual.

Here’s what no one says: In general elections, this is often what demagogues want you to do. In practice, though, voting for “the person” may just mean being distracted by personality — like a woman falling for a serial killer’s charms. More on that later.

As for my charms, I won’t seem to have any if I “tell you how to vote.” So I’ll just explain how I vote and why (and why you should vote that way, too!). When people ask me how I could support _______ (fill in anyone you consider controversial), my answer is always the same: Politics, famed German leader Otto von Bismarck noted, is “the art of the possible.”

It’s not the art of “You get whatever you want, 100 percent, right now, no questions asked” — but of the possible. The late President Ronald Reagan, never accused of lacking conviction, understood this well. “I have always figured that half a loaf is better than none,” he famously said, “and I know that in the democratic process, you’re not always going to get what you want.”

This was being pragmatic, but not unprincipled. After all, adhering to the truth that politics is “the art of the possible” is an exercise of principle itself. And I certainly can relate.

However “outside the box” you (if you’ve long read me) may consider me, well, multiply that by 10 and you’re probably closer to the truth. I’m 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....) 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’s 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’t win. So what’s possible is the Republican or Democrat contender.

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’re 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. In other words, in practice (not in law) we have a two-party system. 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 elections.

It’s simple: Because the person will almost always vote with his party. Don’t believe me? Alright, considering some examples, let’s start with ex-congressman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), infamous for her anti-Trump rhetoric.

I mean, she just hates Trump, right? Perhaps, but when in office she voted with him 92.9 percent of the time. Then there’s Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.).

He’s a real maverick who’ll tell the Democrat establishment what for, no? Maybe, but he votes with the Democrat establishment 91 percent of the time. Then there’s Senator Susan Collins (R-Me.), who’s fighting to retain her seat this year.

Many rank-and-file Republicans call her a RINO, and she’s certainly no Barry Goldwater. Nonetheless, she has voted with President Donald Trump 90 to 95 percent of the time. Yes, really — and she’s known as one of the Republicans most likely to break ranks.

As to this, do you really think someone more right-wing than Collins will be elected in Maine? She’s not only “possible,” but probable. These figures aren’t 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’ voted with their party ~93 percent of the time; Senate Democrats’ average party unity was around 92 percent. 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’ party unity came in at ~96 percent. The bottom line: Whether we realize it or not, we’re always voting for the party, not the person because the person is merely another vote for the party’s agenda. We just do need to realize it.

(Note: You vote for the person in the primaries. That’s when it matters.) What this means is that you don’t need so much to know a candidate’s positions.

You must know his party’s positions. Put differently, it’s 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).

This framing is valuable because helps forestall an emotionalism that clouds judgment and leads to bad voting decisions. It can help prevent: So if the primaries offer a better tool, certainly, discard the old one. Until then, as the saying goes, “Ya’ gotta’ dance with the girl ya’ brung.”

In fact, we can take a lesson here from the DSA. Say what you will about it, the group is smart enough, and disciplined enough, to know that victory is achieved by working through and gradually seizing the prevailing institutions. Change under our constitutional republic is generally evolutionary, not revolutionary.

If you made our Congress seven percent better last cycle, that’s fine. Then you make it another eight percent better this time, three percent next time, 11 percent after that, etc. This kind of discipline and perseverance is the only way to succeed via electoral means.

When people get emotional and cast angry or vengeful votes, or refuse to participate, they so often just end up following one step forwards with two steps back. So the decision this November is actually fairly simple. Ask yourself if you support the following: If you support most or all of the above, then the Democrats are for you.

That is what they’ll seek to deliver. If you oppose the above, then the Republicans are your choice. It isn’t complicated.

Of course, as with a magician, demagogues would distract you with misdirection. “Look at the candidate’s personality!” (Don’t look down there at the issues.)

“Listen to his syrupy rhetoric and, oh, what charm!” (Don’t note that he’ll be an obedient party tool.) Behold James Talarico with his boy-next-door bearing.

Absorb Justin J. Pearson with his Afro and preacher-like persona. Go gaga over a Graham Platner type with his country-boy kayfabe. It’s all nonsense.

Pretty or plain, charming or churlish, sophisticated or simple, they generally vote in lock-step in office. Of course, we’d all like better choices and government. But for that, we must transform Americans’ hearts and minds.

For under representative government, politics can’t deliver what the culture won’t allow. In November, we have a binary choice that while not as different as Heaven and Hell, is very much like virtue vs. vice. Choose your tool set wisely.

View Comments Selwyn Duke, follow him on: • Gab (preferably) or • Twitter, or log on to • SelwynDuke.