Formation maryland reform party

[InvaderBryce]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

The key word is "seems." How do you define a wasted vote? If any candidate wins by more than 1 vote, you can call your vote "wasted" if cast for them. If a candidate loses by more than one vote, you can call your vote "wasted" if you voted for them. In both cases, you could have died in a tragic blimp accident on the way to your polling place with no political ramifications, the candidate you were going to support would win or lose anyway.

You "seem" to think a vote is worth something only if you are the side that wins, or perhaps loses a close one. This is common. It is how relatively close races turn into blowouts late. People like to vote for the winner and feel a sense that they are part of the winning team, part of the victory celebration. People also like to ID with the teams that have a chance at winning in the future, even if they lose close today. Much like sports, the teams that succeed or have a strong chance to succeed in the future, have more fans than the teams that always lose. It is human nature to think that way.

I invite you to take a step back and really think about voting. What are you doing when you go to the polls? Are you trying to pick the winner? Are you voting on strict party lines? Are you voting for a candidate that will lose Maryland anyway, but may win the overall election, still allowing you to claim a psychological thrill in their win? Or do you vote your conscience and pick the PERSON you think is best for the job, regardless of the odds against them.

Will Gary Johnson win? No, he won't. But, as I mentioned for the 5th time, if you live in Maryland, your vote is meaningless if you base its worth the likelyhood it will determine where our state's 10 electoral votes will go. This gives us all the freedom to vote on conscience, without having to consider the chance that our votes will decide who wins Maryland.

You need to understand that supporting 3rd party candidates isn't a waste. If a 3rd party candidate hits just 15% in the polls, they get invited to the debates. Many states, MD included, allow parties that meet a minimum % of the vote to have automatic ballot access for the next election cycle, which means the 3rd parties don't have to spend time and resouces every 2 years gathering enough signatures just to have their name listed as a option. These are the baby steps needed to have a real impact on a national political scale. It is a chicken and egg argument. 3rd parties don't succeed because they don't get enough votes. People don't vote 3rd party because their candidates never succeed.

I invite you to look at Joe Lieberman, Lincoln Chafee, and the Senate races in both Vermont and Maine, where Independent candidates are likely win. They aren't true "3rd party candidates," not by a strict definition, but they are candidates outside the 2 party system that DO win. So, it isn't impossible everywhere in the US. It is only impossible in states where voters outright refuse to even examine anyone that doesn't have an R or D behind their name.

I rarely vote on party lines and I vote for the person that's best for the job. That being said, I will never vote for a 3rd party because it's a meaningless thing to do. Nobody votes for them and it's a wasted vote. No, you may think differently, and that's okay; but I still say that I'm right.

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by InvaderBryce

I rarely vote on party lines and I vote for the person that's best for the job. That being said, I will never vote for a 3rd party because it's a meaningless thing to do. Nobody votes for them and it's a wasted vote. No, you may think differently, and that's okay; but I still say that I'm right.

Provided they are a D or an R.

But that's OK, most people think like you do. I wouldn't say it is right, but it certainly is the standard operating procedure.

[InvaderBryce]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

Provided they are a D or an R.

But that's OK, most people think like you do. I wouldn't say it is right, but it certainly is the standard operating procedure.

That's because R, D or I are the best choices available. Anybody else isn't electable and their views are usually radical. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with thinking like this. If you want to elect some radical idiot from a third party, then that's wrong.

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by InvaderBryce

That's because R, D or I are the best choices available. Anybody else isn't electable and their views are usually radical. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with thinking like this. If you want to elect some radical idiot from a third party, then that's wrong.

There is nothing wrong with your mode of thinking. People can vote any way they want. Your way isn't my way. I understand why you do what you do, like I said, it is SOP.

We have kept the discussion on point and above the belt so far. Let's not turn to insults and judgments now.

[InvaderBryce]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

There is nothing wrong with your mode of thinking. People can vote any way they want. Your way isn't my way. I understand why you do what you do, like I said, it is SOP.

We have kept the discussion on point and above the belt so far. Let's not turn to insults and judgments now.

Your right and I'm sorry.

[dkf747]

If there is no possibility of a vote going either way (in the current system) then my vote does appear to be wasted. My vote will not change the results. I knew 10+ years ago that someone with a D after his name would win Maryland. If I wanted to vote R then I'm wasting my time. I vote anyways, but it never makes any difference. If 15% do vote for Gary Johnson, that would be a change, but it isn't going to make a difference in 2016 when another D candidate will win.