Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a strong myth that voting for a third party is a wasted / protest vote.
While in some cases this is definitely true (I can't blame anyone for not wanting to vote Repub or Dem), doesn't it make sense to vote for someone whose proposed policies we agree with?
If no one votes for third-party candidates they actually like, then how will third parties ever grow? Isn't this precisely what the power brokers in Washington (of whom everyone pretty much agrees are not to be trusted) want?
Why do people buy into this myth so readily?
I will vote third-party this election not because only because I dislike Obama and Romney, but also because I have found a candidate whose views I agree with most. To me, that is actually practicing democracy.
(Note: I understand that there are many voters who agree with the two major parties' platforms. Obviously, if that's the case, then such voters should vote that way. My post is referring to people who have the idea that voting third party is a waste.)
There is a strong myth that voting for a third party is a wasted / protest vote.
While in some cases this is definitely true (I can't blame anyone for not wanting to vote Repub or Dem), doesn't it make sense to vote for someone whose proposed policies we agree with?
If no one votes for third-party candidates they actually like, then how will third parties ever grow? Isn't this precisely what the power brokers in Washington (of whom everyone pretty much agrees are not to be trusted) want?
Why do people buy into this myth so readily?
I will vote third-party this election not because only because I dislike Obama and Romney, but also because I have found a candidate whose views I agree with most. To me, that is actually practicing democracy.
(Note: I understand that there are many voters who agree with the two major parties' platforms. Obviously, if that's the case, then such voters should vote that way. My post is referring to people who have the idea that voting third party is a waste.)
I'm voting third party (Gary Johnson) myself. I don't ever think it is a wasted vote to vote for someone that you believe in. To me the only wasted vote is one where you vote for someone you DONT believe in simply because you think its some sort of strategic chip in making sure someone else doesn't get elected.
I remember the admonitions to hold my nose and vote for Carter in 1980. I didn't heed them and voted for John Anderson. I wouldn't say that my vote was wasted just because Anderson did not get elected, and I don't think that if I and the other Anderson supporters had voted for Carter that it would have changed the election. It doesn't make sense to me to try to game the system and base my vote on how other people are likely to vote. Vote for who you want. Or vote against who you don't want. Or both. But vote based on who you think the numbers are likely to turn out and help avoid getting the candidate elected that you REALLY don't want? Doesn't make sense to me.
I disagree--I do think that it is a waste. If you have a 3-way light switch (say, on, off, or dim) then flipping it to the 3rd position is a reasonable option, assuming you prefer dim. But if you are confronted with a 2 way switch (off or on), it does not make sense to position the switch other than off or on. That's what we have now for prez--a 2-way switch.
I am libertarian-oriented and have sometimes voted for the L party candidate, but only when I knew my vote didn't matter (on the west coast, if I wait until late afternoon to vote, sometimes the election will have been called by the time I vote).
Libertarians would do better to a) follow the model of the evangelicals and create a voting block within the GOP; b) put the energy into interest groups rather than party (the NRA model). The NRA (and Cato for that matter) does more to advance the cause of liberty in a year than the LP has done in 40 years of existence.
A 3rd Party vote is not a waste. If you have the power to derail your traditional party's short term prospects in rare cases when they cross the line, you gain respect. The Tea Party is a great example of this. They have more political power than their numbers suggest. That's the only valid reason for voting 3rd party. To keep your traditional party in line.
But if you are voting 3rd Party to create a lasting permanent 3rd Party you are just deluded. Our system of elections makes that impossible in the medium to long term.
I disagree--I do think that it is a waste. If you have a 3-way light switch (say, on, off, or dim) then flipping it to the 3rd position is a reasonable option, assuming you prefer dim. But if you are confronted with a 2 way switch (off or on), it does not make sense to position the switch other than off or on. That's what we have now for prez--a 2-way switch.
I am libertarian-oriented and have sometimes voted for the L party candidate, but only when I knew my vote didn't matter (on the west coast, if I wait until late afternoon to vote, sometimes the election will have been called by the time I vote).
Libertarians would do better to a) follow the model of the evangelicals and create a voting block within the GOP; b) put the energy into interest groups rather than party (the NRA model). The NRA (and Cato for that matter) does more to advance the cause of liberty in a year than the LP has done in 40 years of existence.
Sure, I understand your point. However, if everyone thinks of the election in those terms, there will never be a 'dim' option. Only off and on. Even if a third party can identify a certain voting bloc, someone's got to actually vote for it!
In the state of Florida, the final certified vote count showed Bush with just 537 more votes than Gore. Because Bush defeated Gore in Florida, he won the state, received more votes in the electoral college, and became president of the United States.
Gore supporters pointed out that, had candidate Ralph Nadar, a liberal, not run in the election, the majority of the 97,421 votes he received in Florida would have been cast for Gore. Gore supporters contend that Nader's candidacy spoiled the election for Gore by taking away enough votes from Gore in Florida to swing the election to Bush. Their argument is bolstered by a poll of Nader voters, asking them for whom they would have voted had Nader not run, which said 45 percent of Nader voters would have voted for Gore, 27 percent would have voted for Bush, and the rest would not have voted
Poor Gore, he really did get screwed. It didn't matter for Carter - Reagan ended up trouncing him. It mattered a lot for Bush, Sr. Perot got over 15% of the vote, the closet we have gotten to a true 3 party race in my life time. At one point he was leading the other two, he might have actually won if he hadn't wigged out.
So yeah, if it's a close race voting for a 3rd party candidate, such as Johnson or Paul, this election will be like voting for Obama. If you are okay with 4 more years of him, go for it. I'd rather you do that than not vote at all.
I disagree--I do think that it is a waste. If you have a 3-way light switch (say, on, off, or dim) then flipping it to the 3rd position is a reasonable option, assuming you prefer dim. But if you are confronted with a 2 way switch (off or on), it does not make sense to position the switch other than off or on. That's what we have now for prez--a 2-way switch.
I am libertarian-oriented and have sometimes voted for the L party candidate, but only when I knew my vote didn't matter (on the west coast, if I wait until late afternoon to vote, sometimes the election will have been called by the time I vote).
Libertarians would do better to a) follow the model of the evangelicals and create a voting block within the GOP; b) put the energy into interest groups rather than party (the NRA model). The NRA (and Cato for that matter) does more to advance the cause of liberty in a year than the LP has done in 40 years of existence.
But wouldn't a large enough corps of Republicans voting for Johnson this year (or Democrats voting for Stein, as another example) force the party to address the desertion of so many members, and maybe adapt the party platform to reflect the values of those deserters?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
