When Left and Right Clash, Is the Middle Always Right?
From the U.S. midterms and California’s voter identification proposal to Aristotle’s idea of the mean, what does a vote for a candidate actually authorize?
← Back to the Who Gets to Choose? series
On election night, imagine a California voter putting his phone down at dinner. A friend has just texted: “You won. Now you can finally do what you want.” He did want his candidate to win. Yet the vote he had spent the most time thinking about concerned what identification people should have to show before casting a ballot. He knew who he had voted for. He was less sure his friend’s “you” made room for that hesitation.
Part one of Who Gets to Choose? opened with a request to work on Saturday. If a person cannot afford to say no on their own, can they join others and change the rules? Voting is one way to do that. Once my side wins, can I still tell it that I disagree about something important?
One vote can carry one overriding priority
The Associated Press called control of both houses of Congress for Democrats in the 2026 U.S. midterms. The election changed the balance of power in the incoming Congress, while Donald Trump remained president. The results cannot tell us every individual voter’s reason for choosing the way they did. AP election coverage
A ballot is a poor substitute for a questionnaire. A voter can choose a candidate because of health-care costs and still want a better account of the costs of that candidate’s immigration policies. Two candidates can each have a proposal you care about and you still have only one vote. Every vote counts equally, even when the reasons behind them differ.
Winners have a responsibility to govern. A candidate who made a clear proposal and defended it in public has grounds to pursue it after winning. I start to worry when several other policies are quietly slipped into that mandate. I may have voted for you because of the one thing I cared about most. That vote does not settle the other ten things for me.
On the same day, voters could choose a person and a rule
California’s Proposition 39 would have amended the state constitution to require government-issued identification for in-person voting and the last four digits of a designated government identification number on mail ballot envelopes. Supporters argued that further checks would strengthen confidence in elections. Opponents argued that the new requirements could keep eligible voters from voting. Both arguments call for evidence. California’s official voter guide
I want to see two accounts. The first would show what current checks miss and how much the new measure would catch. The second would show the cost in money and time, including what a voter without the specified identification would have to do. Any reliable alternative way to establish identity deserves comparison too. That gives me more to judge than a party label does.
The ballot itself leaves room for disagreement. You can support a party’s candidate and reject a particular proposition. Two people who vote for the same candidate can split on the rule. The design allows that choice. To know how often voters actually made it, we would need individual-level evidence. Statewide totals cannot tell us who cast which combination of votes.
Choosing à la carte still leaves lines we should draw
Imagine Aristotle between a red plate and a blue one, with a white plate in front of him. He takes a bite from one side and pulls a dish from the other a little closer. It never occurs to him to weigh out exactly equal portions.
In Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle uses an example about food. An amount that is too little for an experienced athlete could be too much for a beginner. The right portion depends on the person and the circumstance. Aristotle also holds that some acts do not admit of a proper amount. Applied to elections today, there is room to compare identity checks, while there is no acceptable dose of voter intimidation. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book II
Labels such as “far left” and “far right” can refer to particular movements or positions. Applied to everyone who voted for a party, they can spare us the hardest questions. What problem is this policy meant to solve? What evidence would persuade us it works? Who bears the cost? If a critic identifies a real problem, can a supporter change their mind about one rule without losing their place among their own people?
I am comfortable letting people know where I stand. I would also like to leave one unsigned blank cheque on the table the night my side wins.
Where do you disagree with the side you usually support? If you could get them to hear just one sentence, what would you say?
Listen to the conversation
Listen to When Left and Right Clash, Is the Middle Always Right?. In this Mandarin episode, M.K., Dorami and a dramatized Aristotle use a dinner menu to ask what a vote actually authorizes.