Wasted Votes

daffodilsoup

This coming November, I'll be voting for Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson.

I was recently told that my vote would be "wasted" because it was for a third-party candidate. This is also my father's opinion, that those who don't vote Democrat or Republican are simply wasting their votes. I, on the other hand, find it less ethical to vote for someone you don't agree with simply because they represent a more "popular" party.

Which side of the fence are you on? Are votes on third-party candidates essentially wasted?

EvanKeel

I think when an election looks close, some people think any vote that isn't for either of the two major candidates is "wasted." I don't happen to think a vote for Gary Johnson is a waste exactly. He's not going to win, but your voice is your voice. Now I do kind of think that our system sucks for people who live in one-sided states and vote against the majority's choice. Let's take Nebraska, for example. A vote for Obama in Nebraska would probably a little disheartening for the voter, who must know that it won't mean anything.

adrian_indy

If anyone is truly wasting their vote, it is that of the people who are not voting smartly or their conscience, but in order to keep a two party system of "the lesser of two evils" in place. That is a wasted vote. The only reason third party canidates is because of this small mindedness and party loyalty.

Azdak

I think it is somewhat of a fallacy to assume that the two major parties do not provide a real choice.

First of all, the selection of a candidate comes only after a series of primaries in which there are plenty of choices and options. I seem to recall quite a few old white men with red ties on stage in the republican debates last year. And in 2008, there were a bunch of folks on stage for the Democratic events as well. You had your "outlier" guys--like Kucinich and Ron Paul--they were right there for you, just step right up and vote.

Yes, the primary process weeds everyone out and leaves two (hopefully) more broad-based candidates as the only viable options in the national election. But it's not like you only had those two choices to begin with. In response to the "small minded" attitude, I would counter that it reflects a certain amount of hubris to assume that the millions of people who evaluated the many candidates and made their choices are "small minded" while a tiny group of people feel that only THEIR opinions have any merit and therefore they are entitled to several more choices. I mean Ron Paul is not being prevented from being a "choice" because of some vast two-party conspiracy. Ron Paul has minimal national standing because most voters know him and they don't like him. Simple as that.

In reality, any third-party candidate is either going to be a narcisstic goofball who is out of the mainstream (e.g. Ralph Nader, Ron Paul) for good reason, or a narcisstic billionaire who can buy national access (Ross Perot). I don't see either option as being particularly attractive, which is why, under current conditions, I find it hard to take the yearning for a "third party" option very seriously. To lead a large, diverse nation like the US has always required a consensus candidate, so oddball and rigid ideologues are usually rejected before they get to the top level.

The pattern of our democracy has always been that, when new movements arise, if they have any traction, one of the big parties will absorb them and bring some of those ideas to the mainstream. That happened with the Democratic Party in the 1960s and 1970s and it is happening now with the growth of the Latino population. The so-called Tea Party "activists" were always almost exclusively right-wing Republicans and they have entered into the mainstream of that party as well.

To me, the biggest danger is not the lack of more viable political parties, but the fact that the influx of unlimited campaign money has made the national parties less responsive to the average citizen, and have made it possible for them to become more inflexible and rigid. And I don't see where a third-party changes that.

adrian_indy

I think it is somewhat of a fallacy to assume that the two major parties do not provide a real choice.

First of all, the selection of a candidate comes only after a series of primaries in which there are plenty of choices and options. I seem to recall quite a few old white men with red ties on stage in the republican debates last year. And in 2008, there were a bunch of folks on stage for the Democratic events as well. You had your "outlier" guys--like Kucinich and Ron Paul--they were right there for you, just step right up and vote.

Yes, the primary process weeds everyone out and leaves two (hopefully) more broad-based candidates as the only viable options in the national election. But it's not like you only had those two choices to begin with. In response to the "small minded" attitude, I would counter that it reflects a certain amount of hubris to assume that the millions of people who evaluated the many candidates and made their choices are "small minded" while a tiny group of people feel that only THEIR opinions have any merit and therefore they are entitled to several more choices. I mean Ron Paul is not being prevented from being a "choice" because of some vast two-party conspiracy. Ron Paul has minimal national standing because most voters know him and they don't like him. Simple as that.

In reality, any third-party candidate is either going to be a narcisstic goofball who is out of the mainstream (e.g. Ralph Nader, Ron Paul) for good reason, or a narcisstic billionaire who can buy national access (Ross Perot). I don't see either option as being particularly attractive, which is why, under current conditions, I find it hard to take the yearning for a "third party" option very seriously. To lead a large, diverse nation like the US has always required a consensus candidate, so oddball and rigid ideologues are usually rejected before they get to the top level.

The pattern of our democracy has always been that, when new movements arise, if they have any traction, one of the big parties will absorb them and bring some of those ideas to the mainstream. That happened with the Democratic Party in the 1960s and 1970s and it is happening now with the growth of the Latino population. The so-called Tea Party "activists" were always almost exclusively right-wing Republicans and they have entered into the mainstream of that party as well.

To me, the biggest danger is not the lack of more viable political parties, but the fact that the influx of unlimited campaign money has made the national parties less responsive to the average citizen, and have made it possible for them to become more inflexible and rigid. And I don't see where a third-party changes that.

Hubris? Maybe. But are we really saying that guys like Kucinch, Paul, or a myriad of other dems and repubs who start getting traction aren't given a real chance by the media. No matter how well they do, or how much money they raise or how many primaries they do well in, they are never mentioned in the top tier while establishment politicians get the free bump. Rich Perry announces to run....top tier without a single debate or poll taken. And look at the balanced debates we get. The networks feed generic, easily answerable questions to their choice politicians, are hardly ever held to the fire for their own views....but guys like Kucinich will have is very limited time taken by questions like "Did you really see a UFO?" You don't see any media sources asking Romney about his magic underwear, do you?

As far as the millions of people who are evaluating these choices....I think we have more people putting more thought into their American Idol vote than we do any election. And to these narcisscist third party people.....as opposed to the down to earth humble two party politicians?

So I don't understand the whole comment Adzak. Not a single liberal I know likes Obama all that much, and no conservatives like Romeny. They are just going to vote for them because they hate the other guy and don't want to waste their vote. Not to mention the millions of idiots across this nation who absolutely do vote on party lines with almost no knowledge of actual issues. If that is hubris, I am one arrogant mother ****er then.

Azdak

I think it is somewhat of a fallacy to assume that the two major parties do not provide a real choice.

First of all, the selection of a candidate comes only after a series of primaries in which there are plenty of choices and options. I seem to recall quite a few old white men with red ties on stage in the republican debates last year. And in 2008, there were a bunch of folks on stage for the Democratic events as well. You had your "outlier" guys--like Kucinich and Ron Paul--they were right there for you, just step right up and vote.

Yes, the primary process weeds everyone out and leaves two (hopefully) more broad-based candidates as the only viable options in the national election. But it's not like you only had those two choices to begin with. In response to the "small minded" attitude, I would counter that it reflects a certain amount of hubris to assume that the millions of people who evaluated the many candidates and made their choices are "small minded" while a tiny group of people feel that only THEIR opinions have any merit and therefore they are entitled to several more choices. I mean Ron Paul is not being prevented from being a "choice" because of some vast two-party conspiracy. Ron Paul has minimal national standing because most voters know him and they don't like him. Simple as that.

In reality, any third-party candidate is either going to be a narcisstic goofball who is out of the mainstream (e.g. Ralph Nader, Ron Paul) for good reason, or a narcisstic billionaire who can buy national access (Ross Perot). I don't see either option as being particularly attractive, which is why, under current conditions, I find it hard to take the yearning for a "third party" option very seriously. To lead a large, diverse nation like the US has always required a consensus candidate, so oddball and rigid ideologues are usually rejected before they get to the top level.

The pattern of our democracy has always been that, when new movements arise, if they have any traction, one of the big parties will absorb them and bring some of those ideas to the mainstream. That happened with the Democratic Party in the 1960s and 1970s and it is happening now with the growth of the Latino population. The so-called Tea Party "activists" were always almost exclusively right-wing Republicans and they have entered into the mainstream of that party as well.

To me, the biggest danger is not the lack of more viable political parties, but the fact that the influx of unlimited campaign money has made the national parties less responsive to the average citizen, and have made it possible for them to become more inflexible and rigid. And I don't see where a third-party changes that.

Hubris? Maybe. But are we really saying that guys like Kucinch, Paul, or a myriad of other dems and repubs who start getting traction aren't given a real chance by the media. No matter how well they do, or how much money they raise or how many primaries they do well in, they are never mentioned in the top tier while establishment politicians get the free bump. Rich Perry announces to run....top tier without a single debate or poll taken. And look at the balanced debates we get. The networks feed generic, easily answerable questions to their choice politicians, are hardly ever held to the fire for their own views....but guys like Kucinich will have is very limited time taken by questions like "Did you really see a UFO?" You don't see any media sources asking Romney about his magic underwear, do you?

As far as the millions of people who are evaluating these choices....I think we have more people putting more thought into their American Idol vote than we do any election. And to these narcisscist third party people.....as opposed to the down to earth humble two party politicians?

So I don't understand the whole comment Adzak. Not a single liberal I know likes Obama all that much, and no conservatives like Romeny. They are just going to vote for them because they hate the other guy and don't want to waste their vote. Not to mention the millions of idiots across this nation who absolutely do vote on party lines with almost no knowledge of actual issues. If that is hubris, I am one arrogant mother ****er then.

I like Obama. In the 10 presidential elections I have voted in, my vote in 2008 is the one I felt the best about--by far. When early voting opens up in a couple of weeks, that will be the one I feel is second best. And I have enough hubris of my own to think I am pretty damn good at evaluating candidates and issues....

I just disagree with the notion that there is this hidden cache of "quality candidates" out there who are being denied their chance at leadership because of the two-party system. I'm not saying that the candidates we end up with (or even the total list of those who start out) represent the absolute "best and brightest" that America has to offer. But anyone who would run as a third-party candidate is going to come from the same pool of goofs as the two national-party guys. The archetype of the "heroic naif" is strong in our culture and particlularly seductive to the American psyche, but I think it exists mostly in the movies.

And the same holds true when I hear the phrase "vote them all out". Again, the worst thing about democracy is that the quality of the government you get reflects the quality of the citizens. If you threw out all the bums in Congress, you would just be replacing them with new, inexperienced bums. In two years, there would be absolutely no difference.

It's also easy to dimiss the majority of the electorate as mindless dimwits -- God knows I do it all the time. However, in all my years of discussing politics with people, I have never had anyone say, "wow--you know, I AM a mindless dumbass who doesn't care; why am I even voting?". Everyone thinks they are making a smart, informed decision--it's the OTHER guy who is going along with the herd.

I don't think the two-party system is perfect, and I would be fine with other parties gaining national prominence as well. I just don't think it would make any significant difference.

NightOwl1

The two party system isn't going anywhere. Since the very beginning of our government, we've always had a two party system. It hasn't always been Democrats and Republicans, and it may not always be these two, but there have always been two political parties that have dominated American politics. Our election system and governing system isn't set up to handle multiple parties, so before we had it, there would need to be a complete revolution in government, not just casting your vote at the ballot box.

Putting all that aside, I think how you cast your vote in this election depends a lot of where you live. If you live in deep blue or deep rep territory, you're safe to cast a vote for a third party candidate as a protest vote without having to worry about swaying the election. I still don't think it's particularly effective (it's a lot easier to affect real policy change from within the party system than from outside it), but I think that your safe with your vote if that's what you choose. However, if you're like me and live in one of the dozen or so swing states in this election, I think it's your duty to vote for the candidate who you think will best lead the country of those who actually have a chance of being president. Only Obama or Romney is going to elected president come election day, and the both have massively different visions for the country. By not supporting the one you think would do the best job, you're helping to enable the one you think will do the worst. I have friends who voted for Nader in Florida in 2000 who will never vote for another third party candidate in their lives because they know their vote helped enable 8 years of George W. Bush. Your vote is a responsibility, and you need to consider it as such.

Here's my real problem with third parties though: As someone who organizes politics locally for a living, I find their style of political organizing to be lazy and not productive to creative long term change. They key to politics is organizing locally, and building everything from there. It's easy to for the third parties to put a candidate on the presidential ballot, get 1% of the vote in elections they know they're never going to win, pat themselves on the back, and go home. But it doesn't actually do ANYTHING. What has Ralph Nader done since his many failed attempts to run for President? Besides write some articles and do the speech circuit, not much. He was actually much MORE effective getting real change accomplished as a consumer advocate before he was a candidate for presidency.

If the Libertarian and Green Parties were serious about organizing political power, they would stop focusing so much on running spoiler candidates for President and focus on running candidates for school board, city council, soil and water districts, town mayors. Races that if they invest in they can actually win. Then from there they can run those elected officials for County Commission, State Representative, and State House. From there they can run those who win for U.S. House, and eventually for U.S Senate and President. Its a 20-30 year long game, but that's the only way you really get things done in this country. It takes time. Just look at the right wing side of the Republican Party. 40 years ago, they started putting people in those base level roles, and slowly worked them up through the system that now they control the entire party, and are so thoroughly entrenched in all levels of government that regardless of what party controls the White House, their agenda is the one dominating our political discourse. It didn't happen overnight, it happened because they worked for it.

If Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were to find favorable U.S. House districts, and take all the money they've raised for their respective presidential races and focused on winning those seats instead, there would be a decent chance that we'd have a Libertarian and Green in the U.S. House. But by just constantly running for president every 4 years and losing, the third parties aren't building real political power, they're only building their own egos.

MaraDiaz

I wouldn't waste my vote on a Democrat or a Republican, on the issues that matter most to me, I can't tell the difference between them, and I can't stand either of them.

Except Kucinich. I'd vote for him based on his record. But as has already been said, he was never given a chance. America isn't ready for a Kucinich, we wouldn't know what to do with him if we got one. Nor is it ready for a Ron Paul. I believe those two might actually mean what they say and would try to do what they promise.

debloves2ride

I would love to vote for Gary Johnson - but I believe this election is going to be very close and I feel my vote would be wasted by voting for Gary Johnson. I don't want Obama to win, it is as simple as that. The election is going to be very close, in my opinion, so i want my vote to be counted where i think it will do the most good.

fbmandy55

If anyone is truly wasting their vote, it is that of the people who are not voting smartly or their conscience, but in order to keep a two party system of "the lesser of two evils" in place. That is a wasted vote. The only reason third party canidates is because of this small mindedness and party loyalty.

This exactly. I told my dad I was voting for Johnson and he ridiculed me. "Wasting your vote" "He doesn't have a chance" etc...

The things is though, to me, in such a close race, even a couple thousand votes for a third party candidate can cause Obama or Romney the election if they are close enough. It's very probable. That is NOT a waste to me!

ShowonDeRoad

Most 3rd party or write-in voters I talk with do so because they can't stomach the back room wheeling and the negative campaigning. Due to that emotional reaction, they rationalize away the required costs of liberty such as doing the dirty work and mixing it up with the party, work the people, shake germy hands, all that bull ****. Instead, they just see all the negativity in the ads and in elected officials getting co-opted every which way so. . .illogically they answer that negativity by withdrawing and voting for some ONE who has no chance in hell without doing the hard and often hateful work of building a large coalition, raising a lot of money, etc. Politics is social. . .it must gain a movement in order to be effective.

Better to find a Social Movement that is idealogically aligned with one's view of governance and start working with it. Social movements generate the momentum and traction needed to change this huge ship of state. Two recent examples: The Tea Party and Occupy Wallstreet. Both very effective in their own unique ways and certainly more effective than being a lone wolf and casting a ballot to the wind. Here's a list to get started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_movements

fbmandy55

First of all, the selection of a candidate comes only after a series of primaries in which there are plenty of choices and options. I seem to recall quite a few old white men with red ties on stage in the republican debates last year. And in 2008, there were a bunch of folks on stage for the Democratic events as well. You had your "outlier" guys--like Kucinich and Ron Paul--they were right there for you, just step right up and vote.

Except it's NOT that simple. In my county, there was am unbelievable turn out for Ron Paul delegates. A Romney loyalist challenged the Paul delegates and not one was sent to the convention. Corrupt at the local level. Then we all know about the process at the RNC that caused Paul delegates to get ousted. And the fact that a bus driver got 'lost', who happened to be driving a bus containing Paul delegates and he got lost the day they happened to be voting on the rule changes... Corruption at the party level. Finally, at the national level, you have millions of people who vote based on what the radio, tv or newspaper tells them. When you constantly have every news source shoving two people down your throats, that's really what an election is made up of. Other candidates will never get a fair chance is the media completely ignores them and tells the world who their two options are before one is even nominated.

k8blujay2

In my opinion, the only wasted vote is that of a registered vote that does not vote... I too am voting for Johnson/Gray, even if I am told time and time again that a third party vote is a vote for the incumbant... And I'm tired of the "lesser of the two evils" approach, as you are still voting for evil...

lour441

The way I see it.. if you don't vote you can't complain and I like to complain!

On a national level it doesn't matter who I vote for since Romney will win GA. My guess is Obama wins and nothing gets done for the next 4 years since I doubt the House will flip.

I show up to vote on the local elections since you can really make a difference on those.

k8blujay2

The way I see it.. if you don't vote you can't complain and I like to complain!

On a national level it doesn't matter who I vote for since Romney will win GA. My guess is Obama wins and nothing gets done for the next 4 years since I doubt the House will flip.

I show up to vote on the local elections since you can really make a difference on those.

Exactly.... on all accounts... though I am still going to vote for who I want to vote for and not who everyone says I should vote for... but I totally agree with the city elections... In my county (which has 2.5 major cities (one is trying to make it to the big leagues) and a bunch of smaller ones) we have over a million people... yet only around 10% of registered voters go to vote in any given local election in any given city and that really goes for the State elections as well.

Azdak

In my opinion, the only wasted vote is that of a registered vote that does not vote... I too am voting for Johnson/Gray, even if I am told time and time again that a third party vote is a vote for the incumbant... And I'm tired of the "lesser of the two evils" approach, as you are still voting for evil...

Every vote is sacred. And it's YOUR vote, not anyone else's. People would die to have that privilege and people HAVE died for us to have that privilege. The only wrong action is not voting. No matter how cynical I feel about a lot of things, I still get a sappy, Norman Rockwell-esque feel of patriotism every time I have stepped into the voting booth. This election marks 40 years since I was eligible and it never gets old, and I never take it for granted.

k8blujay2

In my opinion, the only wasted vote is that of a registered vote that does not vote... I too am voting for Johnson/Gray, even if I am told time and time again that a third party vote is a vote for the incumbant... And I'm tired of the "lesser of the two evils" approach, as you are still voting for evil...

Every vote is sacred. And it's YOUR vote, not anyone else's. People would die to have that privilege and people HAVE died for us to have that privilege. The only wrong action is not voting. No matter how cynical I feel about a lot of things, I still get a sappy, Norman Rockwell-esque feel of patriotism every time I have stepped into the voting booth. This election marks 40 years since I was eligible and it never gets old, and I never take it for granted.

I think that is something that most of us all can agree on. At the end of the day, when we have been arguing about this policy or that... :happy:

treetop57

If you live in a non-swing state, I support your voting for a third party candidate.

If you lean Republican and live in a swing state, I actively encourage you to vote for a third party candidate.

If you lean Democratic and live in a swing state, please, please, please don't waste your vote!