Is a vote for a third party candidate throwing away your vote? (Al Gore, Iraq)

[Scratch33]

The two dominant parties certainly appreciate a third-party presence every once in a while.

[TheWiseWino]

Voting for a third party is not throwing your vote away if, and this is a big if, you are consistent in voting for that party. Qualifying to just be placed on the ballot is a huge obstacle for third parties. In most states to appear on the ballot for the first time requires gathering an odious amount of nominating signatures and to get those requires a lot of hours and money. If your party can garner a decent percentage of the vote, ballot status becomes far easier. So no, voting for a third party isn't a wasted vote unless it is cast just because you are dissatisfied this election cycle.

[pinemon]

They need to bring back literacy tests, because no one here is even aware of why getting just 5% of the popular vote for an independent does have some very tangible benefits.

Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. (A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party. This includes most "independent" candidates, because they run on a token party line.) The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party's popular vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election. A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote.

So get just 5%...receive partial public funding...and that's a good start to breaking the double-sided gridlock.

Especially if you are in a landslide state where voting for either major party is a wasted vote...voting independent is a CLEAR WINNING GAME THEORY MOVE!!

This may take at least 2 election cycles, but you gotta start somewhere from nowhere!

Yet the vast majority of voters are STILL under the delusion that there are NO real tangible benefits to voting independent (other than mainly just for principle)! WHY???? Just out of pure ignorance and stupidity even after all these years??

[Cruzincat]

If you live in a state that always gives its electoral votes to X party and you favor Y party, any way your vote is wasted. That said, you may be able to affect future elections with your vote by voting for a third party that draws is votes from X, the opposition party.

Many times, matching funds, debate seats, etc, are determined by the amount of votes a third party got in the last general election.

When you live in such as state, if the race is close in your state, then the Y party is probably doing well in the rest of the country, so even if your vote might make a difference within your state, the candidate doesn't need your help. If it is not close in your state, your vote will not provide any kind of help to your party. But don't stay home, there are other races you can make a difference in.

There are some cases where voting along party lines is warranted. Let's say there were people in positions in certain jobs within the government that were abusing the trust of the people, but the party in power ignored it, because they may have benefitted from their actions. Lois Lerner ring a bell with anyone? Both parties have stinkers within, but when any of those stinkers gets support to stay there, then the party that supports them begins to stink as well. Sometimes it is necessary to give a candidate more credit for the party they represent when all other factors are equal or near equal.

[skbl17]

Probably, but that's an inherent flaw with first-past-the-post. It's called the spoiler effect: the more popular a third party candidate is, the more it hurts both the third party candidate and the two-party candidate closest to him or her ideologically. Perot 1992, Nader 2000, Roosevelt 1912...

All I can say is this: I am praying that Maine votes yes on ranked choice voting next year, as ranked choice voting would eliminate the spoiler effect in elections, hopefully reducing or eliminating the "third party vote is a wasted vote" syndrome that's so pervasive in U.S. politics. Oddly, the spoiler effect could also be observed in the results of Maine's last two gubernatorial elections; Republican Paul LePage won in 2010 and 2014, something most Democrats attribute to the presence of Independent Eliot Cutler. For an example on the other side, there's Virginia's 2013 gubernatorial election: many a Republican maintain that Democrat Terry McAuliffe wouldn't have won if Libertarian Robert Sarvis didn't split the vote.

- skbl17

[Old Gringo]

Only in the same sense that voting for any losing candidate is "throwing away your vote."

[silas777]

Originally Posted by victimofGM

I've heard this for years. Don't vote for this person because there's no chance he/she can win, you'll be throwing away your vote. I disagree. Not voting or voting for a candidate you do not feel is the best person for the position is throwing away your vote. Voting is your chance to say which candidate, regardless of polling or politically party, is the one you feel is the best candidate for the job. I try to ignore political polling because I feel they are being used by the DNC, RNC, and like minded news media to influence voters to vote for particular candidates pushed by the DNC & RNC. I feel that by casting your vote for someone other than the big two, you're voicing your displeasure with the choices pushed by the big two.

No you are not throwing away your vote! In most cases you are voting for the Candidate that is the furthest away from your own ideology. Perot gave you Clinton, Nader gave you Bush. I know people that voted third party because they couldn't vote for Romney as a Mormon...

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by victimofGM

I've heard this for years. Don't vote for this person because there's no chance he/she can win, you'll be throwing away your vote. I disagree. Not voting or voting for a candidate you do not feel is the best person for the position is throwing away your vote. Voting is your chance to say which candidate, regardless of polling or politically party, is the one you feel is the best candidate for the job. I try to ignore political polling because I feel they are being used by the DNC, RNC, and like minded news media to influence voters to vote for particular candidates pushed by the DNC & RNC. I feel that by casting your vote for someone other than the big two, you're voicing your displeasure with the choices pushed by the big two.

No, it is not. The only idiots throwing their vote away are the fools who say stupid things like: "I don't vote, it doesn't matter anyway" or "I don't care who wins, it's all lies", or "I don't know enough about politics", (instead of, you know, educating themselves about politics).

If you don't vote, you are throwing your vote away. If you get up, go to the polls and you vote, it doesn't matter WHO you vote for, you are NOT throwing your vote away.

[lilyflower3191981]

Kind of.

I know a friend whose father is a very important person in Libertarian party. To me the party is absolutely the best for the country. I have been excited about the party for a very long time and have signed up to help.

However, it does not take a very long time for me to realize that Libertarians have basically no role in directing where the country is going, 44 years after they started trying, and they're not making any serious progress in that direction.

So to me, it is.

[RunD1987]

I am voting for Webb or Stein if Clinton and Trump are both in the election next year. If it is Clinton and soneone else will vote for whoever the Republican Candiate is.