Is a third party vote a wasted vote?

[Montrovant]

I'm going to start by posting an article about some mathematics of voting.

How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis | Stephen Weese

Now I don't entirely agree with everything in the article, but I absolutely agree both that winning an election is not the only thing voting third party can accomplish and that as long as most people believe that only voting for someone from the two major parties is worthwhile, we will remain in our lesser-of-two-evils cycle.

I understand negative votes. If you truly believe that one of the major party candidates is so bad that they must not win an election, I get why you'd vote for the other major party. I almost certainly won't agree that the candidate in question will really have the will or power to cause whatever calamity you might forsee, but I do understand the logic.

However, I don't think most voters really expect the 'other' candidate to cause the apocalyptic end of the country that seems to be so often prophesied around here. A president can only do so much, and even those presidential candidates that seem pretty terrible (i.e. the two major ones in this election) are not only limited in power but I believe unlikely to really desire to cause great harm to the nation. In my mind, therefor, the lesser of two evils argument rarely holds much weight.

I think people should vote for the candidate they consider to best represent their own beliefs and interests, both personally and for the country. And while most votes may end up not mattering from a mathematical perspective, I don't think any vote is wasted. Should your candidate get no other vote than your own, if that vote was entered honestly, it is as valid and worthwhile as any other.

My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats. My vote doesn't belong to the Republicans. It belongs only to me.

 

[Ringel05]

I'm going to start by posting an article about some mathematics of voting.

How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis | Stephen Weese

Now I don't entirely agree with everything in the article, but I absolutely agree both that winning an election is not the only thing voting third party can accomplish and that as long as most people believe that only voting for someone from the two major parties is worthwhile, we will remain in our lesser-of-two-evils cycle.

I understand negative votes. If you truly believe that one of the major party candidates is so bad that they must not win an election, I get why you'd vote for the other major party. I almost certainly won't agree that the candidate in question will really have the will or power to cause whatever calamity you might forsee, but I do understand the logic.

However, I don't think most voters really expect the 'other' candidate to cause the apocalyptic end of the country that seems to be so often prophesied around here. A president can only do so much, and even those presidential candidates that seem pretty terrible (i.e. the two major ones in this election) are not only limited in power but I believe unlikely to really desire to cause great harm to the nation. In my mind, therefor, the lesser of two evils argument rarely holds much weight.

I think people should vote for the candidate they consider to best represent their own beliefs and interests, both personally and for the country. And while most votes may end up not mattering from a mathematical perspective, I don't think any vote is wasted. Should your candidate get no other vote than your own, if that vote was entered honestly, it is as valid and worthwhile as any other.

My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats. My vote doesn't belong to the Republicans. It belongs only to me.

Cool!! Then vote for me, Emperor for Life!!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm going to start by posting an article about some mathematics of voting.

How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis | Stephen Weese

Now I don't entirely agree with everything in the article, but I absolutely agree both that winning an election is not the only thing voting third party can accomplish and that as long as most people believe that only voting for someone from the two major parties is worthwhile, we will remain in our lesser-of-two-evils cycle.

I understand negative votes. If you truly believe that one of the major party candidates is so bad that they must not win an election, I get why you'd vote for the other major party. I almost certainly won't agree that the candidate in question will really have the will or power to cause whatever calamity you might forsee, but I do understand the logic.

However, I don't think most voters really expect the 'other' candidate to cause the apocalyptic end of the country that seems to be so often prophesied around here. A president can only do so much, and even those presidential candidates that seem pretty terrible (i.e. the two major ones in this election) are not only limited in power but I believe unlikely to really desire to cause great harm to the nation. In my mind, therefor, the lesser of two evils argument rarely holds much weight.

I think people should vote for the candidate they consider to best represent their own beliefs and interests, both personally and for the country. And while most votes may end up not mattering from a mathematical perspective, I don't think any vote is wasted. Should your candidate get no other vote than your own, if that vote was entered honestly, it is as valid and worthwhile as any other.

My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats. My vote doesn't belong to the Republicans. It belongs only to me.

True, but it depends on why you are voting. Are you going to vote logically or emotionally?

Third party voters often vote emotionally. Their vote accomplishes nothing, but it makes them feel good.

I vote logically. Only one of two people stand a chance in hell of getting elected. I make sure the person I dislike the most gets voted out.

The most important factor of choosing a president is who they will pick for the Supreme Court. That's because justices can be just as partisan as voters. Take this race for example.

If Hillary gets in, say goodbye to your guns and hello to more immigrants. That will further bring down wages in this country while at the same time, increase crime. Those are pretty important factors.

You can choose not to reelect a President, a Senator, a Congress critter, but SC justices are there for life. They have the ability to change our country forever, and it doesn't matter what the people or next presidents may think.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'm going to start by posting an article about some mathematics of voting.

How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis | Stephen Weese

Now I don't entirely agree with everything in the article, but I absolutely agree both that winning an election is not the only thing voting third party can accomplish and that as long as most people believe that only voting for someone from the two major parties is worthwhile, we will remain in our lesser-of-two-evils cycle.

I understand negative votes. If you truly believe that one of the major party candidates is so bad that they must not win an election, I get why you'd vote for the other major party. I almost certainly won't agree that the candidate in question will really have the will or power to cause whatever calamity you might forsee, but I do understand the logic.

However, I don't think most voters really expect the 'other' candidate to cause the apocalyptic end of the country that seems to be so often prophesied around here. A president can only do so much, and even those presidential candidates that seem pretty terrible (i.e. the two major ones in this election) are not only limited in power but I believe unlikely to really desire to cause great harm to the nation. In my mind, therefor, the lesser of two evils argument rarely holds much weight.

I think people should vote for the candidate they consider to best represent their own beliefs and interests, both personally and for the country. And while most votes may end up not mattering from a mathematical perspective, I don't think any vote is wasted. Should your candidate get no other vote than your own, if that vote was entered honestly, it is as valid and worthwhile as any other.

My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats. My vote doesn't belong to the Republicans. It belongs only to me.

True, but it depends on why you are voting. Are you going to vote logically or emotionally?

Third party voters often vote emotionally. Their vote accomplishes nothing, but it makes them feel good.

I vote logically. Only one of two people stand a chance in hell of getting elected. I make sure the person I dislike the most gets voted out.

The most important factor of choosing a president is who they will pick for the Supreme Court. That's because justices can be just as partisan as voters. Take this race for example.

If Hillary gets in, say goodbye to your guns and hello to more immigrants. That will further bring down wages in this country while at the same time, increase crime. Those are pretty important factors.

You can choose not to reelect a President, a Senator, a Congress critter, but SC justices are there for life. They have the ability to change our country forever, and it doesn't matter what the people or next presidents may think.

it will make me feel great knowing i did vote for either one of the 2 dirtbags running...and who is to say that either one of them will choose a decent judge?...a far right judge can be just as bad as a left one....fuck both of them....

 

[Montrovant]

I'm going to start by posting an article about some mathematics of voting.

How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis | Stephen Weese

Now I don't entirely agree with everything in the article, but I absolutely agree both that winning an election is not the only thing voting third party can accomplish and that as long as most people believe that only voting for someone from the two major parties is worthwhile, we will remain in our lesser-of-two-evils cycle.

I understand negative votes. If you truly believe that one of the major party candidates is so bad that they must not win an election, I get why you'd vote for the other major party. I almost certainly won't agree that the candidate in question will really have the will or power to cause whatever calamity you might forsee, but I do understand the logic.

However, I don't think most voters really expect the 'other' candidate to cause the apocalyptic end of the country that seems to be so often prophesied around here. A president can only do so much, and even those presidential candidates that seem pretty terrible (i.e. the two major ones in this election) are not only limited in power but I believe unlikely to really desire to cause great harm to the nation. In my mind, therefor, the lesser of two evils argument rarely holds much weight.

I think people should vote for the candidate they consider to best represent their own beliefs and interests, both personally and for the country. And while most votes may end up not mattering from a mathematical perspective, I don't think any vote is wasted. Should your candidate get no other vote than your own, if that vote was entered honestly, it is as valid and worthwhile as any other.

My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats. My vote doesn't belong to the Republicans. It belongs only to me.

True, but it depends on why you are voting. Are you going to vote logically or emotionally?

Third party voters often vote emotionally. Their vote accomplishes nothing, but it makes them feel good.

I vote logically. Only one of two people stand a chance in hell of getting elected. I make sure the person I dislike the most gets voted out.

The most important factor of choosing a president is who they will pick for the Supreme Court. That's because justices can be just as partisan as voters. Take this race for example.

If Hillary gets in, say goodbye to your guns and hello to more immigrants. That will further bring down wages in this country while at the same time, increase crime. Those are pretty important factors.

You can choose not to reelect a President, a Senator, a Congress critter, but SC justices are there for life. They have the ability to change our country forever, and it doesn't matter what the people or next presidents may think.

The potential for multiple SC judges does make this presidential election a bit different than most, I get that. I consider it a bit better reason to go 'lesser of two evils' this time around, even. Still, though, the president doesn't simply choose who gets on the court, they nominate and the Senate votes on their nominees.

What makes you say third party voters vote emotionally? The implication seems to be that major party voters do not. Why assume third party voters are more emotion in their voting decisions?

As the article pointed out and I agree with, winning the election is not the only thing voting third party can accomplish. Even in losing third party votes can be a message to the two major parties that a portion of the electorate isn't buying what they are selling. That may cause them to consider changes in their platforms or how they do business. That is a worthy goal. It also can highlight to voters that there are more than just two choices.

That only one of two people stand a chance of getting elected president will remain true so long as most voters believe that only one of two people stand a chance. It isn't some sort of immutable law. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes, it's possible for a third party candidate to have an effect on a presidential election. Perhaps if people see that sort of success from a third party, and if the two major parties continue to put out garbage candidates, a third party candidate could have a real chance to win.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm going to start by posting an article about some mathematics of voting.

How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis | Stephen Weese

Now I don't entirely agree with everything in the article, but I absolutely agree both that winning an election is not the only thing voting third party can accomplish and that as long as most people believe that only voting for someone from the two major parties is worthwhile, we will remain in our lesser-of-two-evils cycle.

I understand negative votes. If you truly believe that one of the major party candidates is so bad that they must not win an election, I get why you'd vote for the other major party. I almost certainly won't agree that the candidate in question will really have the will or power to cause whatever calamity you might forsee, but I do understand the logic.

However, I don't think most voters really expect the 'other' candidate to cause the apocalyptic end of the country that seems to be so often prophesied around here. A president can only do so much, and even those presidential candidates that seem pretty terrible (i.e. the two major ones in this election) are not only limited in power but I believe unlikely to really desire to cause great harm to the nation. In my mind, therefor, the lesser of two evils argument rarely holds much weight.

I think people should vote for the candidate they consider to best represent their own beliefs and interests, both personally and for the country. And while most votes may end up not mattering from a mathematical perspective, I don't think any vote is wasted. Should your candidate get no other vote than your own, if that vote was entered honestly, it is as valid and worthwhile as any other.

My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats. My vote doesn't belong to the Republicans. It belongs only to me.

Cool!! Then vote for me, Emperor for Life!!!!

 

[owebo]

Hitlery needs all the support she can get....

 

[Montrovant]

Hitlery needs all the support she can get....

Too bad I'm not talking about voting for Hillary.

 

[owebo]

Hitlery needs all the support she can get....

Too bad I'm not talking about voting for Hillary.

Never said you were....reading, it really is fundamental....

 

[Montrovant]

Hitlery needs all the support she can get....

Too bad I'm not talking about voting for Hillary.

Never said you were....reading, it really is fundamental....

You brought up Clinton needing support. This thread isn't about supporting her. Are you trying to say that third party votes support Clinton, or are you perhaps just changing the subject for no apparent reason?

 

[blackhawk]

Depends on what your trying to accomplish with your vote if your voting third party in attempt to keep Trump or Hillary from being President then it would be wasted as that's not going to happen in my opinon. If on the other hand you have accepted that Trump or Hillary will become President and you are voting third party so you can look at yourself in the miror and say I didn't vote for either of them it's not wasted.

 

[OnePercenter]

I'm going to start by posting an article about some mathematics of voting.

How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis | Stephen Weese

Now I don't entirely agree with everything in the article, but I absolutely agree both that winning an election is not the only thing voting third party can accomplish and that as long as most people believe that only voting for someone from the two major parties is worthwhile, we will remain in our lesser-of-two-evils cycle.

I understand negative votes. If you truly believe that one of the major party candidates is so bad that they must not win an election, I get why you'd vote for the other major party. I almost certainly won't agree that the candidate in question will really have the will or power to cause whatever calamity you might forsee, but I do understand the logic.

However, I don't think most voters really expect the 'other' candidate to cause the apocalyptic end of the country that seems to be so often prophesied around here. A president can only do so much, and even those presidential candidates that seem pretty terrible (i.e. the two major ones in this election) are not only limited in power but I believe unlikely to really desire to cause great harm to the nation. In my mind, therefor, the lesser of two evils argument rarely holds much weight.

I think people should vote for the candidate they consider to best represent their own beliefs and interests, both personally and for the country. And while most votes may end up not mattering from a mathematical perspective, I don't think any vote is wasted. Should your candidate get no other vote than your own, if that vote was entered honestly, it is as valid and worthwhile as any other.

My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats. My vote doesn't belong to the Republicans. It belongs only to me.

My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats. My vote doesn't belong to the Republicans. It belongs only to me.

It belongs to you if you truly understand your own best interest.

In a national election, voting for a third party is wasting your vote.

 

[OnePercenter]

I'm going to start by posting an article about some mathematics of voting.

How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis | Stephen Weese

Now I don't entirely agree with everything in the article, but I absolutely agree both that winning an election is not the only thing voting third party can accomplish and that as long as most people believe that only voting for someone from the two major parties is worthwhile, we will remain in our lesser-of-two-evils cycle.

I understand negative votes. If you truly believe that one of the major party candidates is so bad that they must not win an election, I get why you'd vote for the other major party. I almost certainly won't agree that the candidate in question will really have the will or power to cause whatever calamity you might forsee, but I do understand the logic.

However, I don't think most voters really expect the 'other' candidate to cause the apocalyptic end of the country that seems to be so often prophesied around here. A president can only do so much, and even those presidential candidates that seem pretty terrible (i.e. the two major ones in this election) are not only limited in power but I believe unlikely to really desire to cause great harm to the nation. In my mind, therefor, the lesser of two evils argument rarely holds much weight.

I think people should vote for the candidate they consider to best represent their own beliefs and interests, both personally and for the country. And while most votes may end up not mattering from a mathematical perspective, I don't think any vote is wasted. Should your candidate get no other vote than your own, if that vote was entered honestly, it is as valid and worthwhile as any other.

My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats. My vote doesn't belong to the Republicans. It belongs only to me.

True, but it depends on why you are voting. Are you going to vote logically or emotionally?

Third party voters often vote emotionally. Their vote accomplishes nothing, but it makes them feel good.

I vote logically. Only one of two people stand a chance in hell of getting elected. I make sure the person I dislike the most gets voted out.

The most important factor of choosing a president is who they will pick for the Supreme Court. That's because justices can be just as partisan as voters. Take this race for example.

If Hillary gets in, say goodbye to your guns and hello to more immigrants. That will further bring down wages in this country while at the same time, increase crime. Those are pretty important factors.

You can choose not to reelect a President, a Senator, a Congress critter, but SC justices are there for life. They have the ability to change our country forever, and it doesn't matter what the people or next presidents may think.

The person that you 'dislike' you don't cast your vote? Isn't that emotional?

 

[CowboyTed]

Again a simple 'Single Transfer Vote' system would solve this...

You vote in order of preference...

As candidates are discounted(because they have the lowest vote), your vote if discounted gets transferred to your next preference...

Thus you can vote No.1 for who you like on the ticket without wasting your vote...

Presume it ends up in the end as Trump v Clinton, then your vote will be counted on the one you have a higher preference for...

One Man One Vote is archaic, it only gives voters two choices in an election and a lot of voters are just voting against the candidate the least like...

 

[oreo]

I'm going to start by posting an article about some mathematics of voting.

How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis | Stephen Weese

Now I don't entirely agree with everything in the article, but I absolutely agree both that winning an election is not the only thing voting third party can accomplish and that as long as most people believe that only voting for someone from the two major parties is worthwhile, we will remain in our lesser-of-two-evils cycle.

I understand negative votes. If you truly believe that one of the major party candidates is so bad that they must not win an election, I get why you'd vote for the other major party. I almost certainly won't agree that the candidate in question will really have the will or power to cause whatever calamity you might forsee, but I do understand the logic.

However, I don't think most voters really expect the 'other' candidate to cause the apocalyptic end of the country that seems to be so often prophesied around here. A president can only do so much, and even those presidential candidates that seem pretty terrible (i.e. the two major ones in this election) are not only limited in power but I believe unlikely to really desire to cause great harm to the nation. In my mind, therefor, the lesser of two evils argument rarely holds much weight.

I think people should vote for the candidate they consider to best represent their own beliefs and interests, both personally and for the country. And while most votes may end up not mattering from a mathematical perspective, I don't think any vote is wasted. Should your candidate get no other vote than your own, if that vote was entered honestly, it is as valid and worthwhile as any other.

My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats. My vote doesn't belong to the Republicans. It belongs only to me.

Well, We just watched what happened with a protest vote--Republicans got the Chimpanzee nominee Donald Trump.

For me, I will vote for the best candidate be it Republican or Democrat. I won't waste my vote on a 3rd party vote.

There is no candidate that you'll ever find that you're going to agree with 100% of the time. They don't exist. So you have to pick the one that represents you best, and in this election I am voting for the candidate that is most fit for the Oval office, and Commander & Chief and it will be Hillary Clinton.

 

[Ringel05]

I'll get a paper ballot, write in with a checkbox; "None of the Above" and check that one.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm going to start by posting an article about some mathematics of voting.

How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis | Stephen Weese

Now I don't entirely agree with everything in the article, but I absolutely agree both that winning an election is not the only thing voting third party can accomplish and that as long as most people believe that only voting for someone from the two major parties is worthwhile, we will remain in our lesser-of-two-evils cycle.

I understand negative votes. If you truly believe that one of the major party candidates is so bad that they must not win an election, I get why you'd vote for the other major party. I almost certainly won't agree that the candidate in question will really have the will or power to cause whatever calamity you might forsee, but I do understand the logic.

However, I don't think most voters really expect the 'other' candidate to cause the apocalyptic end of the country that seems to be so often prophesied around here. A president can only do so much, and even those presidential candidates that seem pretty terrible (i.e. the two major ones in this election) are not only limited in power but I believe unlikely to really desire to cause great harm to the nation. In my mind, therefor, the lesser of two evils argument rarely holds much weight.

I think people should vote for the candidate they consider to best represent their own beliefs and interests, both personally and for the country. And while most votes may end up not mattering from a mathematical perspective, I don't think any vote is wasted. Should your candidate get no other vote than your own, if that vote was entered honestly, it is as valid and worthwhile as any other.

My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats. My vote doesn't belong to the Republicans. It belongs only to me.

My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats. My vote doesn't belong to the Republicans. It belongs only to me.

It belongs to you if you truly understand your own best interest.

In a national election, voting for a third party is wasting your vote.

No, it belongs to me period. Whether I make a good choice with it or not doesn't change the fact the choice remains mine.

Voting for a candidate you support is not a waste IMO. You can just as easily say that voting for any candidate that loses is a wasted vote.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm going to start by posting an article about some mathematics of voting.

How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis | Stephen Weese

Now I don't entirely agree with everything in the article, but I absolutely agree both that winning an election is not the only thing voting third party can accomplish and that as long as most people believe that only voting for someone from the two major parties is worthwhile, we will remain in our lesser-of-two-evils cycle.

I understand negative votes. If you truly believe that one of the major party candidates is so bad that they must not win an election, I get why you'd vote for the other major party. I almost certainly won't agree that the candidate in question will really have the will or power to cause whatever calamity you might forsee, but I do understand the logic.

However, I don't think most voters really expect the 'other' candidate to cause the apocalyptic end of the country that seems to be so often prophesied around here. A president can only do so much, and even those presidential candidates that seem pretty terrible (i.e. the two major ones in this election) are not only limited in power but I believe unlikely to really desire to cause great harm to the nation. In my mind, therefor, the lesser of two evils argument rarely holds much weight.

I think people should vote for the candidate they consider to best represent their own beliefs and interests, both personally and for the country. And while most votes may end up not mattering from a mathematical perspective, I don't think any vote is wasted. Should your candidate get no other vote than your own, if that vote was entered honestly, it is as valid and worthwhile as any other.

My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats. My vote doesn't belong to the Republicans. It belongs only to me.

Well, We just watched what happened with a protest vote--Republicans got the Chimpanzee nominee Donald Trump.

For me, I will vote for the best candidate be it Republican or Democrat. I won't waste my vote on a 3rd party vote.

There is no candidate that you'll ever find that you're going to agree with 100% of the time. They don't exist. So you have to pick the one that represents you best, and in this election I am voting for the candidate that is most fit for the Oval office, and Commander & Chief and it will be Hillary Clinton.

If you think Clinton is the best choice, more power to you!

 

[OnePercenter]

Again a simple 'Single Transfer Vote' system would solve this...

You vote in order of preference...

As candidates are discounted(because they have the lowest vote), your vote if discounted gets transferred to your next preference...

Thus you can vote No.1 for who you like on the ticket without wasting your vote...

Presume it ends up in the end as Trump v Clinton, then your vote will be counted on the one you have a higher preference for...

One Man One Vote is archaic, it only gives voters two choices in an election and a lot of voters are just voting against the candidate the least like...

Or you can take the two issues most effecting the middle class, wages and the economy. The ONLY candidate to address and have an answer for both is Clinton.

 

[OnePercenter]

I'll get a paper ballot, write in with a checkbox; "None of the Above" and check that one.

Or you can grow a brain.