Is a third party vote a wasted vote?

[Ringel05]

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.

Considering what you think constitutes a brain......... No thanks.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

No, because if you vote for your candidate and they do lose, there was no way of knowing that. If you vote for a candidate you know is going to lose, that's a different story.

 

[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.

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.

Why would you vote for a third party when the Democrat has your best interest?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Nope, that's logical.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Is a third party vote a wasted vote

Yep, it has less value than putting a sign in your front yard, or a sticker on the bumper of a car.

 

[FA_Q2]

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...

I would love to see this implemented here.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

You had best be careful. I am going to legally change my name to "None of the Above" and then run for president one of these days.

Win by a landslide.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, it is not a wasted vote. That vote not only counts but as the third party gains steam the 2 major parties have to adjust their platforms to get those voters back or risk losing the election.

You want change in the shit candidates that we have then the only thing you CANNOT do is cast a vote for them - as long as you are voting for the party they will continue to do what they are doing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Not really because you wish everybody thought like you, but they don't.

It think we all kind of feel that way sometimes. I mean let's face it, we could have a great economy if we Americans only bought our own stuff, but we don't. Individually, yes, but you're not going to convince most or all Americans to do the same. Would it be the answer to many of our problems? Yes it would.

The only possible way for a third party candidate to stand a chance is if the politicians on both sides pissed off their constituents at the same time. We were close this election, but they managed to patch things up a bit.

Like most elections, I'm not voting for Trump, I'm voting against Hillary, so I want to make sure my vote counts for something. And if I do lose my right to firearms, and I become a minority in my own country, at least I can say I did all I could to stop it.

 

[my2¢]

The only way change occurs is if people make it happen. If I cannot support the candidate of either party I'll vote 3rd party and consider my vote less wasted than those others that voted for their losing major party candidate.

 

[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...

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.

Well actually you would have the choice of having Bernie or Clinton as your No1 or No2...

So your choice could be Bernie No1 and Clinton No2 or Visa Versa...

Bloomberg could also be in the race and he could be an option as well...

 

[OnePercenter]

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

Nope, that's logical.

Like is from feelings or attitude. Logic is from fact.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

Jeeze what a convoluted article and also the author is a classic false authority. He has 2 degrees in computer science and he teaches math in school, but he is writing about politics.

Huge long useless waste of time.

 

[yiostheoy]

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

Yah that would qualify as a wasted vote indeed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

A third party vote is a wasted vote if by every reasonable analysis of the situation concludes that the third party is not competitive.

 

[Ringel05]

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

Yah that would qualify as a wasted vote indeed.

Opinions are like assholes.........

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Yah that would qualify as a wasted vote indeed.

Opinions are like assholes.........

Is that your opinion?

 

[Ringel05]

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

Yah that would qualify as a wasted vote indeed.

Opinions are like assholes.........

Is that your opinion?

I don't have a colostomy bag.........

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Yah that would qualify as a wasted vote indeed.

Opinions are like assholes.........

Is that your opinion?

I don't have a colostomy bag.........

Then you must have to occasionally pull your head out of your ass.

 

[Ringel05]

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

Yah that would qualify as a wasted vote indeed.

Opinions are like assholes.........

Is that your opinion?

I don't have a colostomy bag.........

Then you must have to occasionally pull your head out of your ass.

No more than you.