Is a third party vote a wasted vote?

[Mac1958]

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 NOT a wasted vote. The partisans in both parties want you to believe that because they want your vote.

I know it probably won't happen, but I'd love to see Johnson get into the debates, just to show people that we're not stuck with the two "major" parties only. If that could happen, we could see some momentum.

Only NOT VOTING is a wasted vote.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A third party vote is NOT a wasted vote. The partisans in both parties want you to believe that because they want your vote.

I know it probably won't happen, but I'd love to see Johnson get into the debates, just to show people that we're not stuck with the two "major" parties only. If that could happen, we could see some momentum.

Yes, and if we Americans bought our own products, we would solve our employment problem. If everybody would just listen to the orders of a police officer, we would stop police shootings.

Getting everybody, most people, or even a majority of people to think the way you do is impossible. I know I could stop a lot of problems we have today if people thought like me, but I have to live in reality.

 

[Montrovant]

A third party vote is NOT a wasted vote. The partisans in both parties want you to believe that because they want your vote.

I know it probably won't happen, but I'd love to see Johnson get into the debates, just to show people that we're not stuck with the two "major" parties only. If that could happen, we could see some momentum.

Yes, and if we Americans bought our own products, we would solve our employment problem. If everybody would just listen to the orders of a police officer, we would stop police shootings.

Getting everybody, most people, or even a majority of people to think the way you do is impossible. I know I could stop a lot of problems we have today if people thought like me, but I have to live in reality.

I've said more than once I don't expect a third party candidate to win, at least not now. However, it is not an impossible goal. Getting some momentum behind a third party candidacy now might help lead to an actual third party win in the future.

Getting third party candidates elected at the state and local levels could help with that, too.

Just saying, "It won't ever happen" is like saying, "I accept things will remain as they are". When accepting the way things are gives us a choice between Clinton and Trump, I think it's a good time to take a look at trying to affect some change.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've said more than once I don't expect a third party candidate to win, at least not now. However, it is not an impossible goal. Getting some momentum behind a third party candidacy now might help lead to an actual third party win in the future.

Getting third party candidates elected at the state and local levels could help with that, too.

Just saying, "It won't ever happen" is like saying, "I accept things will remain as they are". When accepting the way things are gives us a choice between Clinton and Trump, I think it's a good time to take a look at trying to affect some change.

It's vital now because of the Supreme Court aging and members being replaced by whoever the President is. I don't worry so much as to who is leading Congress, Senate, or even the President. Those can change in a matter of one voting day, but the Supreme Court is the most important because their partisanship can last throughout the next several presidential elections, and there would be nothing we could do about it.

If we don't keep Hillary out of that position, we may very well find ourselves without the constitutional right to own a gun, being overrun by foreigners, and our President being blackmailed by enemies who possess those emails she don't want the public to know about.

Voting for a third party now and hoping it will change things down the road won't do any good once the country is changed for the next several generation. Even if your third party candidate could win in ten years from now, there is only so much they can do with a leftist Supreme Court.

 

[Montrovant]

I've said more than once I don't expect a third party candidate to win, at least not now. However, it is not an impossible goal. Getting some momentum behind a third party candidacy now might help lead to an actual third party win in the future.

Getting third party candidates elected at the state and local levels could help with that, too.

Just saying, "It won't ever happen" is like saying, "I accept things will remain as they are". When accepting the way things are gives us a choice between Clinton and Trump, I think it's a good time to take a look at trying to affect some change.

It's vital now because of the Supreme Court aging and members being replaced by whoever the President is. I don't worry so much as to who is leading Congress, Senate, or even the President. Those can change in a matter of one voting day, but the Supreme Court is the most important because their partisanship can last throughout the next several presidential elections, and there would be nothing we could do about it.

If we don't keep Hillary out of that position, we may very well find ourselves without the constitutional right to own a gun, being overrun by foreigners, and our President being blackmailed by enemies who possess those emails she don't want the public to know about.

Voting for a third party now and hoping it will change things down the road won't do any good once the country is changed for the next several generation. Even if your third party candidate could win in ten years from now, there is only so much they can do with a leftist Supreme Court.

I've also said that I understand this particular election is unusual because of the likelihood of multiple SC judges needing to be nominated.

However, I worry less because, although the president nominates the justices, they still need to be approved by the Senate. The Dems do not currently hold a majority in the Senate or on the Judiciary Committee, I don't believe. Even if Clinton is elected, the Senate can still check any bad choices for justices. More, I don't share your fear about having gun rights stripped because of Clinton SC nominees, nor "being overrun by foreigners".

And when it comes to the SC, I would like having a third party president doing the nominating, anyway.

 

[FA_Q2]

I've said more than once I don't expect a third party candidate to win, at least not now. However, it is not an impossible goal. Getting some momentum behind a third party candidacy now might help lead to an actual third party win in the future.

Getting third party candidates elected at the state and local levels could help with that, too.

Just saying, "It won't ever happen" is like saying, "I accept things will remain as they are". When accepting the way things are gives us a choice between Clinton and Trump, I think it's a good time to take a look at trying to affect some change.

It's vital now because of the Supreme Court aging and members being replaced by whoever the President is. I don't worry so much as to who is leading Congress, Senate, or even the President. Those can change in a matter of one voting day, but the Supreme Court is the most important because their partisanship can last throughout the next several presidential elections, and there would be nothing we could do about it.

If we don't keep Hillary out of that position, we may very well find ourselves without the constitutional right to own a gun, being overrun by foreigners, and our President being blackmailed by enemies who possess those emails she don't want the public to know about.

Voting for a third party now and hoping it will change things down the road won't do any good once the country is changed for the next several generation. Even if your third party candidate could win in ten years from now, there is only so much they can do with a leftist Supreme Court.

Every year the parties sing that song that this is so important that you just have to vote for a shit sandwich.

Fear - that is all your argument is predicated on and fear is a lousy way to elect your government. The SCOTUS is fucked anyway IMHO, Trump is as unconstitutional as it gets.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've also said that I understand this particular election is unusual because of the likelihood of multiple SC judges needing to be nominated.

However, I worry less because, although the president nominates the justices, they still need to be approved by the Senate. The Dems do not currently hold a majority in the Senate or on the Judiciary Committee, I don't believe. Even if Clinton is elected, the Senate can still check any bad choices for justices. More, I don't share your fear about having gun rights stripped because of Clinton SC nominees, nor "being overrun by foreigners".

And when it comes to the SC, I would like having a third party president doing the nominating, anyway.

There is only so long the Senate will be able to hold off. They have to approve the nomination of somebody, especially since they refused to even hear about any new nomination by DumBama until the new President takes his or her seat. Plus there is no guarantee that the Republicans will even keep the majority in the Senate this election.

As for the Supreme Court, if it is loaded with a bunch of Commie leftists, it's only one vote away for them to determine that we do not have a constitutional right to bear arms outside those in a militia. While such a ruling may not mean it's illegal to own or possess firearms, it will allow cities and states to do so, even sue gun manufacturers out of business as some have suggested doing in the past. The manufacturers simply won't sell them any longer.

If Hillary decides to do an Obama on steroids, and uses executive order to make all foreigners in this country legal, who could stop her? The Supreme Court certainly wouldn't. She could also tell the border agents to just let them walk on in. Don't stop them.

 

[Montrovant]

I've also said that I understand this particular election is unusual because of the likelihood of multiple SC judges needing to be nominated.

However, I worry less because, although the president nominates the justices, they still need to be approved by the Senate. The Dems do not currently hold a majority in the Senate or on the Judiciary Committee, I don't believe. Even if Clinton is elected, the Senate can still check any bad choices for justices. More, I don't share your fear about having gun rights stripped because of Clinton SC nominees, nor "being overrun by foreigners".

And when it comes to the SC, I would like having a third party president doing the nominating, anyway.

There is only so long the Senate will be able to hold off. They have to approve the nomination of somebody, especially since they refused to even hear about any new nomination by DumBama until the new President takes his or her seat. Plus there is no guarantee that the Republicans will even keep the majority in the Senate this election.

As for the Supreme Court, if it is loaded with a bunch of Commie leftists, it's only one vote away for them to determine that we do not have a constitutional right to bear arms outside those in a militia. While such a ruling may not mean it's illegal to own or possess firearms, it will allow cities and states to do so, even sue gun manufacturers out of business as some have suggested doing in the past. The manufacturers simply won't sell them any longer.

If Hillary decides to do an Obama on steroids, and uses executive order to make all foreigners in this country legal, who could stop her? The Supreme Court certainly wouldn't. She could also tell the border agents to just let them walk on in. Don't stop them.

Like I said, I understand your concern. I just don't share it, or at least not to the same degree.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Every year the parties sing that song that this is so important that you just have to vote for a shit sandwich.

Fear - that is all your argument is predicated on and fear is a lousy way to elect your government. The SCOTUS is fucked anyway IMHO, Trump is as unconstitutional as it gets.

Correct, it is fear. So what's wrong with that?

It's the same projected fear that we heard about before DumBama invaded the White House. Fear of terrorists and terrorism, fear of our healthcare, fear of overpowering government........

Fast forward to today, and what do we have? For one, this is the first time I've ever been without healthcare insurance my entire adult life thanks to that big eared creep. However the gal that makes my french fries at McDonald's does have insurance. Government dependency is through the roof, the food stamp rolls have doubled, our economy stinks, and now the federal government is forcing you to purchase something you may not want, need or can afford, but that's just too bad. And how many terrorist attacks (or workplace violence) have we had since that dummy got into the White House?

So maybe fear isn't such a bad thing, because maybe if we listened to the fear predictions eight years ago, our country would be much better off today.

 

[Anathema]

I am of the opinion that if you're a registered Democrat or Republican (or any other party); that is who you should vote for. If you don't like your candidate, change your party affiliation or get things straightened out in your party.

Only those registered as Independent or Unaffiliated should be getting an option in who to vote for.

 

[washamericom]

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.

super winner ! we need a third party, it's in the middle and i'm calling it the WashingtonAmerica Party.

i would have followed Trump as the candidate, if things ever got too disagreeable during the American Primary. and if people didn't honor their vows, like the one at the first debate.

 

[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!

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.

You still don't get it?

 

[OnePercenter]

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 NOT a wasted vote. The partisans in both parties want you to believe that because they want your vote.

I know it probably won't happen, but I'd love to see Johnson get into the debates, just to show people that we're not stuck with the two "major" parties only. If that could happen, we could see some momentum.

Only NOT VOTING is a wasted vote.

WRONG! Third parties screw up the needs of the most.

If you are middle class, the only two issues truly effecting you are wages and the economy. If you don't vote Democrat, you are voting against fixing the two biggest issues effecting/affecting you. Period!

 

[Montrovant]

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 NOT a wasted vote. The partisans in both parties want you to believe that because they want your vote.

I know it probably won't happen, but I'd love to see Johnson get into the debates, just to show people that we're not stuck with the two "major" parties only. If that could happen, we could see some momentum.

Only NOT VOTING is a wasted vote.

WRONG! Third parties screw up the needs of the most.

If you are middle class, the only two issues truly effecting you are wages and the economy. If you don't vote Democrat, you are voting against fixing the two biggest issues effecting/affecting you. Period!

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide what anyone else feels are important issues.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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!

He's a liberal. Always has been. Just a fraud pretending he just woke up

 

[Mac1958]

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 NOT a wasted vote. The partisans in both parties want you to believe that because they want your vote.

I know it probably won't happen, but I'd love to see Johnson get into the debates, just to show people that we're not stuck with the two "major" parties only. If that could happen, we could see some momentum.

Only NOT VOTING is a wasted vote.

WRONG! Third parties screw up the needs of the most.

If you are middle class, the only two issues truly effecting you are wages and the economy. If you don't vote Democrat, you are voting against fixing the two biggest issues effecting/affecting you. Period!

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide what anyone else feels are important issues.

That's how some folks are, huh?


.

 

[OnePercenter]

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 NOT a wasted vote. The partisans in both parties want you to believe that because they want your vote.

I know it probably won't happen, but I'd love to see Johnson get into the debates, just to show people that we're not stuck with the two "major" parties only. If that could happen, we could see some momentum.

Only NOT VOTING is a wasted vote.

WRONG! Third parties screw up the needs of the most.

If you are middle class, the only two issues truly effecting you are wages and the economy. If you don't vote Democrat, you are voting against fixing the two biggest issues effecting/affecting you. Period!

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide what anyone else feels are important issues.

No, but I do get to laugh at you when you step on your dick.

 

[owebo]

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 NOT a wasted vote. The partisans in both parties want you to believe that because they want your vote.

I know it probably won't happen, but I'd love to see Johnson get into the debates, just to show people that we're not stuck with the two "major" parties only. If that could happen, we could see some momentum.

Only NOT VOTING is a wasted vote.
.

You can put tea in the harbor...

You can take the tea out of the harbor

Or, you can watch....


Choose wisely....

 

[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.

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!

He's a liberal. Always has been. Just a fraud pretending he just woke up

Clinton is the best choice for you. Republicans have already cemented my future economics with favorable tax loopholes.

 

[Montrovant]

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 NOT a wasted vote. The partisans in both parties want you to believe that because they want your vote.

I know it probably won't happen, but I'd love to see Johnson get into the debates, just to show people that we're not stuck with the two "major" parties only. If that could happen, we could see some momentum.

Only NOT VOTING is a wasted vote.

WRONG! Third parties screw up the needs of the most.

If you are middle class, the only two issues truly effecting you are wages and the economy. If you don't vote Democrat, you are voting against fixing the two biggest issues effecting/affecting you. Period!

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide what anyone else feels are important issues.

No, but I do get to laugh at you when you step on your dick.

Whatever you say.....