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.

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

A third party cannot become competitive if people refuse to vote for them because they assume they cannot be competitive.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

No, logic is weighing the two candidates and deciding which one would be better or worse for the country.

I hate Hilary. She is a compulsive liar, put our country at risk, and shares no responsibility. That's logic.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

No, logic is weighing the two candidates and deciding which one would be better or worse for the country.

I hate Hilary. She is a compulsive liar, put our country at risk, and shares no responsibility. That's logic.

Clinton is the ONLY candidate that both addresses and has an answer for the middle classes two biggest issues....wages and the economy.

 

[Montrovant]

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

No, logic is weighing the two candidates and deciding which one would be better or worse for the country.

I hate Hilary. She is a compulsive liar, put our country at risk, and shares no responsibility. That's logic.

Clinton is the ONLY candidate that both addresses and has an answer for the middle classes two biggest issues....wages and the economy.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Clinton is the only candidate that has an answer you agree with.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Clinton is the ONLY candidate that both addresses and has an answer for the middle classes two biggest issues....wages and the economy.

Yeah, that's what DumBama said too.

So what's her solution, forcing employers to buy their employees cars on top of health insurance?

 

[whitehall]

A political essay by a computer geek. Now we have seen everything. After you wade (or fast read) through all the mathematical mumbo jumbo and arcane theories and (finally) get to the bottom of the page, Weese admits that a 3rd party presidential candidate can't win. The interesting part is that Weese offers some examples of 3rd party candidates but he never brings up the most notorious 3rd party run in modern history. Maybe Weese is more of a math wiz than a historian. Ross Perot's 3rd party run was designed to siphon republican votes from George H. Bush and it all but locked up the election for the draft dodging pervert hick from Arkansas.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

No, logic is weighing the two candidates and deciding which one would be better or worse for the country.

I hate Hilary. She is a compulsive liar, put our country at risk, and shares no responsibility. That's logic.

Clinton is the ONLY candidate that both addresses and has an answer for the middle classes two biggest issues....wages and the economy.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Clinton is the only candidate that has an answer you agree with.

1) Clinton is the ONLY candidate that has any answers.
2) Raising minimum wage WILL help the economy.

 

[OnePercenter]

Clinton is the ONLY candidate that both addresses and has an answer for the middle classes two biggest issues....wages and the economy.

Yeah, that's what DumBama said too.

So what's her solution, forcing employers to buy their employees cars on top of health insurance?

Raising minimum wage.

 

[OnePercenter]

A political essay by a computer geek. Now we have seen everything. After you wade (or fast read) through all the mathematical mumbo jumbo and arcane theories and (finally) get to the bottom of the page, Weese admits that a 3rd party presidential candidate can't win. The interesting part is that Weese offers some examples of 3rd party candidates but he never brings up the most notorious 3rd party run in modern history. Maybe Weese is more of a math wiz than a historian. Ross Perot's 3rd party run was designed to siphon republican votes from George H. Bush and it all but locked up the election for the draft dodging pervert hick from Arkansas.

Instead of bloviating, why don't you show us how a 3rd party candidate CAN be elected.

 

[Montrovant]

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

No, logic is weighing the two candidates and deciding which one would be better or worse for the country.

I hate Hilary. She is a compulsive liar, put our country at risk, and shares no responsibility. That's logic.

Clinton is the ONLY candidate that both addresses and has an answer for the middle classes two biggest issues....wages and the economy.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Clinton is the only candidate that has an answer you agree with.

1) Clinton is the ONLY candidate that has any answers.
2) Raising minimum wage WILL help the economy.

You're obviously welcome to your opinion.

 

[Montrovant]

A political essay by a computer geek. Now we have seen everything. After you wade (or fast read) through all the mathematical mumbo jumbo and arcane theories and (finally) get to the bottom of the page, Weese admits that a 3rd party presidential candidate can't win. The interesting part is that Weese offers some examples of 3rd party candidates but he never brings up the most notorious 3rd party run in modern history. Maybe Weese is more of a math wiz than a historian. Ross Perot's 3rd party run was designed to siphon republican votes from George H. Bush and it all but locked up the election for the draft dodging pervert hick from Arkansas.

Was it only Perot's first presidential run that was designed to siphon Republican votes? What about in 96, was that designed to siphon votes from Dole?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Raising minimum wage.

Nope. That's not a solution to anything. If it were, states (and cities) that have already done so already would be booming.

One of the reasons jobs left this country is because of unions. When unions forced employers to pay Americans one dollar more an hour, the wage increase in other countries was a nickel. When unions forced American wages to increase another dollar, the wage increase overseas was less than a nickel.

It took us a while, but we finally priced ourselves out of the world market. Now we have to try and find a way to keep industry in this country--not giving them more incentive to move out which is what minimum wage increases would do.

 

[eagle7_31]

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.

I have considered 3rd parties before, particularly when the Bush's were running in 88 and 2000. But I looked at the dems and decided to hold my nose and vote for Bush, 2004 was a bit different despite misgivings about Iraq the thought of Hanoi John Kerry wining was too much. Since we are on our way to look like present Greece and Spain financially and England socially it may not matter much who wins in the long run. I am about ready to write the country off in 8 to 10 years.

 

[Preacher]

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.

No it's it not. I don't vote for the lesser of 2 evils didn't with McCain and Obama nor Romney and Obama and I won't this time I actually like Trump and will vote for him. When I voted 3rd party I did my research on who to vote for and I knew they weren't going to win but I did not compromise my principles to keep another candidate from winning

 

[Sherry]

When my college buddies and me jumped on the Perot wagon, it was worse than a wasted vote. It syphoned off votes from Bush 41 and put Slick Willy in the oval office. It was great feeling like we could make a difference...until it wasn't the difference we wanted.

 

[FA_Q2]

A political essay by a computer geek. Now we have seen everything. After you wade (or fast read) through all the mathematical mumbo jumbo and arcane theories and (finally) get to the bottom of the page, Weese admits that a 3rd party presidential candidate can't win. The interesting part is that Weese offers some examples of 3rd party candidates but he never brings up the most notorious 3rd party run in modern history. Maybe Weese is more of a math wiz than a historian. Ross Perot's 3rd party run was designed to siphon republican votes from George H. Bush and it all but locked up the election for the draft dodging pervert hick from Arkansas.

Instead of bloviating, why don't you show us how a 3rd party candidate CAN be elected.

More people vote for them.

Wow, that was so complicated.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

No, logic is weighing the two candidates and deciding which one would be better or worse for the country.

I hate Hilary. She is a compulsive liar, put our country at risk, and shares no responsibility. That's logic.

Clinton is the ONLY candidate that both addresses and has an answer for the middle classes two biggest issues....wages and the economy.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Clinton is the only candidate that has an answer you agree with.

1) Clinton is the ONLY candidate that has any answers.
2) Raising minimum wage WILL help the economy.

You're obviously welcome to your opinion.

What's Trumps plan to help the middle class in wages and the economy?

 

[OnePercenter]

Raising minimum wage.

Nope. That's not a solution to anything. If it were, states (and cities) that have already done so already would be booming.

One of the reasons jobs left this country is because of unions. When unions forced employers to pay Americans one dollar more an hour, the wage increase in other countries was a nickel. When unions forced American wages to increase another dollar, the wage increase overseas was less than a nickel.

It took us a while, but we finally priced ourselves out of the world market. Now we have to try and find a way to keep industry in this country--not giving them more incentive to move out which is what minimum wage increases would do.

States made the working class poor.

 

[OnePercenter]

A political essay by a computer geek. Now we have seen everything. After you wade (or fast read) through all the mathematical mumbo jumbo and arcane theories and (finally) get to the bottom of the page, Weese admits that a 3rd party presidential candidate can't win. The interesting part is that Weese offers some examples of 3rd party candidates but he never brings up the most notorious 3rd party run in modern history. Maybe Weese is more of a math wiz than a historian. Ross Perot's 3rd party run was designed to siphon republican votes from George H. Bush and it all but locked up the election for the draft dodging pervert hick from Arkansas.

Instead of bloviating, why don't you show us how a 3rd party candidate CAN be elected.

More people vote for them.

Wow, that was so complicated.

The genius missed the point!

 

[FA_Q2]

A political essay by a computer geek. Now we have seen everything. After you wade (or fast read) through all the mathematical mumbo jumbo and arcane theories and (finally) get to the bottom of the page, Weese admits that a 3rd party presidential candidate can't win. The interesting part is that Weese offers some examples of 3rd party candidates but he never brings up the most notorious 3rd party run in modern history. Maybe Weese is more of a math wiz than a historian. Ross Perot's 3rd party run was designed to siphon republican votes from George H. Bush and it all but locked up the election for the draft dodging pervert hick from Arkansas.

Instead of bloviating, why don't you show us how a 3rd party candidate CAN be elected.

More people vote for them.

Wow, that was so complicated.

The genius missed the point!

If it makes you feel better to attack character rather than have a point - go on. Ignorance is not something I am going to placate to.