Is a 3rd Party vote a wasted vote?

Jack V Savage said:
FYI, Trump is a Republican. And if you just mean that we want inexperienced people, I'd think that Trump's presidency is the strongest evidence we've yet had that experience is important.
Click to expand...
Trump wasn’t a republican until 2016 basically
But yeah just vote for whatever they give you and like it
 
In a presidential election I think it is kinda a waste. I voted third party once, Ross Perot. I regretted it later that night at his campaign party, when he conceded it got the feeling he was happy and never really wanted to win. Seemed like a waste as he had no chance.
 
cincymma79 said:


horse shit

voting third party takes votes away from the parties. The loser will have to court those voters next time to get elected. Doing what you’re told keeps the game the same. Trump getting elected opens the door for future people to come from outside and win. now we just need someone better.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but Trump wasn't a third party candidate. He was possibly a third party hopeful, who realized that you can't win running as a third party, so infiltration of a major party was the better option.

Third party voting is basically a protest vote that makes people feel good, but ultimately is a bit of a wasted vote. Not saying it's impossible to eventually shake up the system with a viable third party option, but it would take someone with a LOT of clout to get one off the ground and running. Voting for a Jill Stein or Gary Johnson type, is essentially throwing your vote away.
 
jerzey devil said:
If you believe in a 3rd Party or even believe that the the two party system is failing us then isn’t it hypocritical to vote Democrat or Republican? And don’t you think it’s your duty to vote how you actually feel?
Click to expand...

Kind of, yea. If you believe that candidate is a good choice on either party then you should absolutely vote for them. But personally I find it hypocritical to "hate both candidates" but I'll vote for the one I hate slightly less. That logic seems like an admission that the system is a bit jacked, and instead of voting out of it for a different candidate you may like better, you simply merge into the logic of "no one else can win except for these two". That shouldn't be the case, but it is because the battlefield will ever only allow one of two, unless you're voting at the local levels.
 
No it is not a waste. I voted Garry Johnson last election. I am absolutely not a fan of his, but he had a better chance at breaking the magical 15% mark than Jill. Hillary was dead in the water in my state. My vote would not have made a difference in the election.
 
cincymma79 said:
Trump wasn’t a republican until 2016 basically
But yeah just vote for whatever they give you and like it
Click to expand...

He had a regular segment on Fox and Friends starting in 2011 and was pushing Birtherism around that time (pretending to have hired a PI who was finding shocking things related to the fictional investigation that he'd soon reveal publicly). And, yes, the way representative democracy works is that people vote for the best candidates among the ones running.

MMAisGod said:
Kind of, yea. If you believe that candidate is a good choice on either party then you should absolutely vote for them. But personally I find it hypocritical to "hate both candidates" but I'll vote for the one I hate slightly less. That logic seems like an admission that the system is a bit jacked, and instead of voting out of it for a different candidate you may like better, you simply merge into the logic of "no one else can win except for these two". That shouldn't be the case, but it is because the battlefield will ever only allow one of two, unless you're voting at the local levels.
Click to expand...

Only the one person with the most votes will win. Feels representative of an incredibly entitled and selfish attitude that people think that they should have a candidate that agrees with them about everything rather than that the process is about finding the most broadly acceptable candidate in a nation of more than 300 million.
 
No. Third party is a legit good use of your vote

How is voting for a republican or democrat not considered a wasted vote?
 
More than 99% of the time it's a waste. Which is why we should be able to vote for more than one candidate for the same office.
 
sabretruth said:
More than 99% of the time it's a waste. Which is why we should be able to vote for more than one candidate for the same office.
Click to expand...

Ranked-choice voting would make it more reasonable to vote for third parties, but the likely impact would be an increase in extremism. Our system is designed to encourage moderation and it has mostly worked.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Ranked-choice voting would make it more reasonable to vote for third parties, but the likely impact would be an increase in extremism. Our system is designed to encourage moderation and it has mostly worked.
Click to expand...

Well we found common ground here.

As much as I support 3rd parties, their is inherent danger in it. Specifically that when you get 5 or 6 parties, the winner can win with 25%.

I wonder if our electoral system can handle 4 or 5 parties. It might just gridlock worse than it is now.

Find ourselves in Israel's shoes, with no elected government for years on end.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Ranked-choice voting would make it more reasonable to vote for third parties, but the likely impact would be an increase in extremism. Our system is designed to encourage moderation and it has mostly worked.
Click to expand...

We have Democrats who support punishing people for not affirming that someone born with testicles is a woman and women being able to abort into the 9th month of pregnancy. We have Republicans who do not support taking measures to significantly reduce our carbon footprint or impeaching Trump for using military aid as a carrot for his own political ambitions. The politicians are supporting extreme positions right now. I think it's less likely we'd see such extreme positions so represented in the halls of government if voters didn't feel like they have to unite with their proponents to get the government to do things they care about -- things people who vote for the other side may support as well, just less than issues that motivate them to vote for the other side.
 
sabretruth said:
We have Democrats who support punishing people for not affirming that someone born with testicles is a woman and women being able to abort into the 9th month of pregnancy.
Click to expand...

What elected Democrats support that? If you're just saying that there are random people with extreme views, no system of gov't will change that. Our system is working to prevent that from becoming law.

sabretruth said:
We have Republicans who do not support taking measures to significantly reduce our carbon footprint or impeaching Trump for using military aid as a carrot for his own political ambitions.
Click to expand...

Those are mainstream right positions, yes. The issue there is that there are a lot of people in the country who agree with that stuff. Again, it's not something that the gov't can fix.

sabretruth said:
The politicians are supporting extreme positions right now. I think it's less likely we'd see such extreme positions so represented in the halls of government if voters didn't feel like they have to unite with their proponents to get the government to do things they care about -- things people who vote for the other side may support as well, just less than issues that motivate them to vote for the other side.
Click to expand...

With regard to your examples, one set are things that are not supported by elected officials and thus show how the system works (they'd be much more likely to be supported if the system were more favorable to extremists), and the other set are things that bad as they are are not extremist positions. Getting the public to have more reasonable positions is mostly outside the scope of the gov't.
 
thats what the two parties got most of america to believe
 
Jack V Savage said:
Only the one person with the most votes will win. Feels representative of an incredibly entitled and selfish attitude that people think that they should have a candidate that agrees with them about everything rather than that the process is about finding the most broadly acceptable candidate in a nation of more than 300 million.
Click to expand...

But do you think the representation is equal though? Yes the person with the most votes will win, but it's nearly impossible for an independent candidate to ever have a realistic chance to have the most votes. The majority of the population won't even know who they are. When people turn on their tv, read their news, hear their friends talk, all they'll know about is "Trump vs Dem Winner" and "Trump vs Dem Winner debate". Some third party guy/gal can't win unless they have Perot/Bloomberg money to pay for their exposure. If we're talking about electing leaders, I think that's a problem in itself since you only have two realistic options at all times, even if there were more available. We can't discuss their policy positions, because no one even knows who they are to vote for them or have a discussion.
 
Hell I take it a step further and write in a candidate for my vote

Haven't voted for an actual presidential candidate for the past two elections
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,079
Messages
55,466,276
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top