Under what circumstances is it not wasteful to vote third party in a US National election?

[AthenaAwakened]

That's the question. And as followup, must the Democratic and Republican parties exist in unassailable perpetuity?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That's the question. And as followup, must the Democratic and Republican parties exist in unassailable perpetuity?

It is not wasteful to vote third party. Those who say that it is are assuming that you would vote for one of the 2 main parties instead of staying home otherwise. Their cry isn't about the vote you casted, but the vote you didn't.

It boils down to "It is wasteful not to vote for my guy" to which I raise a middle finger salute. If your guy (or lady) wants my vote, they gotta earn it.

Jill Stein makes a very good point about voting for the lesser evil, and how it turns the lesser evil into the greater evil. A vote for the lesser evil while holding your nose is a vote telling them that they have a mandate you agree with; when you don't. That can encourage what you hoped to be voting against.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, it depends what the effects of those votes are. Here in Canada, we had a right wing party in charge for a decade while two left wing parties each got 25-35% of the vote. In the last election, one of them collapsed and all its supporters voted for the other in a large part just to kick out the conservative leader.

It's the same thing in the US. If the Greens take off and capture 25% of the vote, a major part of that will come from the Democrats and a GOP candidate could slither in with 40% support. The same thing holds true if the GOP breaks in two to the benefit of the Libertarians. If it happens to both sides at the same time and 35% of the vote counts as decisive win, then there's no issue. If it only happens to one side then the other side is the one that benefits.

When you have a winner take all contest, strategic voting matters. Do you want a candidate who has about 50% agreement with you or one who has about 5% agreement with you? It's fine to make a statement, but if that statement involves shooting yourself in the foot, then the statement is meaningless.

In terms of a solution, the solution is to get a new voting system. The one you have favours a united team that compromises amongst it's members for the sake of victory over a divided one which takes a principled stand regardless of the consequences.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It might not be wasteful if you use your vote to make a point to your children about how important it is to stick to your convictions, that merely capitulating to the inevitable can stifle one's desires to become a civil revolutionary. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

It won't change the outcome of the election, but it could have value in its symbolism.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It might not be wasteful if you use your vote to make a point to your children about how important it is to stick to your convictions, that merely capitulating to the inevitable can stifle one's desires to become a civil revolutionary. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

It won't change the outcome of the election, but it could have value in its symbolism.

Ya, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, so you don't need to move backwards if you can't make a giant leap. Being a more progressive voice in a larger party and helping to get things implemented and you could tell your kids of a goal you accomplished instead of how you helped make things worse in order to make a point that nobody cared about.

For instance, if this election were close and it mattered whether or not one voted for a third party, would you want to tell your kids that you helped secure the Supreme Court for a generation and won them all the rights and freedoms that the ungrateful little bastards don't even appreciate, or do you want to tell them that it's kind of your fault that Philidelphia burnt down because you were trying to make some kind of abstract statement?

It's nice to stick to your principles, but if those principles lead to immediate negative consequences in exchange for the mere chance at a step towards long term positive consequences, then that's not a good trade off.

 

[lpetrich]

 Duverger's law states that the voting system affects what parties get into office. Maurice Duverger himself explained it in Duverger: The Electoral System. As he notes, first-past-the-post is vulnerable to the spoiler effect -- candidates with similar voter appeal split their vote, thus having a greater chance of losing. It's the  Spoiler effect, a result of  Vote splitting.

 

[Ford]

From my perspective, we're kinda rigged to be a two-party country, and have been so since just about the beginning of our little experiment in democracy.

Historically we've never been a nation that has multiple parties that form coalitions in order to govern. It has always been either/or. Not saying that's right, but that's the reality.

As such, in order to succeed a third party has to not just peel off voters from the other two, but beat both of them at once. That's a tall order.

 

[untermensche]

In the US tradition and the control of the process by wealth probably has more to do with a two party system than any so-called laws about human behavior.

The same people have control over the media, the government, and the parties.

Most people are merely dogs that must find nourishment on the worthless scraps they are given by some sector of great wealth.

They must try to find something positive about either Trump or Hillary.

They are forced to play this trick on themselves and to demean themselves in this manner.

When people prefer democracy to the crap shoved down their throats things might change.

That said, in this election we have been given a clear choice.

To not make it is to let others make it for you.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I'd guess that it isn't always wasted at the local level where it can actually begin to make a difference. In the U.S. the reality is that the major parties have apparatus' in place 24/7 that are working toward the advancement of their party. And I've actually had Republicans and Democrats knock on my door during local elections.

I've never seen another party at my door or in a mailer, and I don't hear about them in any meaningful way but once every four years. I've actually seen the LaRouche people in the parking lot of my local grocery store but never a Green or Libertarian. I'd heard of the LaRouche crowd but never bothered to learn anything about them. But I did read their literature and I did look them up on the internet.

I'd do the same if the Greens gave me something. I think other people would too.

But as it stands now, they're not getting elected to anything in any numbers that gives me a good reason to vote for them. So the Democratic Party is my party and the only one capable of being pulled to the left. And over time, they do tend to get things done (e.g. the support of marriage equality, the imperfect but helpful ACA).

The fact is that the Democrats are just going to absorb any leftist ideas that become popular. So maybe if you live in a state like California or New York, where Hillary is a shoe-in, your third party vote won't hurt anything and if a significant number of people vote Green, then it can send a message to the Democrats to maybe pay some attention to what Greens are voting for and why.

But in a battleground state, in this election, your Presidential vote has to go to Hillary. You want leftist reforms to happen and shit like Citizens United to go away? Look no further than the fact that the next POTUS is going to appoint at least two, and possibly three SCOTUS justices.

The same applies to close elections for Senators and Congress-people. If it isn't close, vote third party. Otherwise, be practical.

 

[Toni]

I don't think it is wasteful to vote for whomever you choose to vote for. What is wasteful is simply not voting, choosing to not be involved or to take any responsibility for your part in the democratic process.

I do think it is important to think through what your choice means. I've voted 3rd party several times, for reasons I felt were extremely good at the time. My vote wasn't 'wasted.' It went to the candidate of my choice. Who did not win. Which is what I expected would happen. What did happen is that the major party candidate that I found most objectionable did win. And the party I more often than not support did not alter its platform in reaction to my third party vote.

If you want to change the system, you have to participate in the system.

If you don't like the candidates put forth, then you have to work to promote candidates you actually support.

I know a number of Bernie supporters who will vote for Jill Stein. You know: to show the Democrats how dissatisfied they are because they didn't get their way the one time they actually cared enough to support a candidate (on facebook). Which is a choice I would respect a great deal more if the Green Party ever actually decided to...mount a presidential campaign. Or even make a small show of trying to do. But it doesn't and it's impossible for me to respect the Green Party on that account alone. Never mind whether I agree or disagree with various stances of various candidates.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's the question. And as followup, must the Democratic and Republican parties exist in unassailable perpetuity?

I think the following question could also be asked:
Under what circumstances is it not wasteful to vote Democrat or Republican in a US National election?

I believe rather like the UK many vote for one party to keep the other one out rather than see what they offer and if they are appealing. Unfortunately this is when we take democracy for granted.

 

[Terrell]

When you're a liberal living in Idaho or some other state that has no chance of being carried by the Democrats. When you're a conservative living in a CA or NY or any state that the Republicans definitely won't carry. When the U.S. changes the structure of it's national elections to a parliamentary system where any party that gets above a certain threshold nationally gets seats in the Congress proportional to their total votes. If you live in a battleground state then you're only making it easier for the major party that you find most objectionable; same if you don't vote.

What's worse, a politician that's neutral or slightly favorable to your political views, or a politician that's hostile to them? As I and many others have said before, if you want more progressive candidates, then it's going to take a generation worth of work to get there. Work to elect local & state level officials first, and build up towards the presidency. For best results, give the President a Congress he can work with. Also FFS vote in the damn midterms, even if you have to crawl naked across Antarctica, over broken glass, at two in the morning to do so.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Sonds like what blacks people have to do to vote in a Republican state. They are so lucky the Voting Rights Act isn't needed anymore.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You're not wasting your vote if you look at the consequences of your vote and vote that way anyway because of how you weigh the values of those different consequences.

 

[Treedbear]

You're not wasting your vote if you look at the consequences of your vote and vote that way anyway because of how you weigh the values of those different consequences.

I agree. If the vote I cast for a third party would be seen as a protest against the party I actually favored then it would still be based on principle. That's true even though it might cause my favored candidate to lose if the message I want to send is worth more than the sacrifice incurred from the loss to the other party. Big stakes in this election. An extreme decision for a Democrat.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It might not be wasteful if you use your vote to make a point to your children about how important it is to stick to your convictions, that merely capitulating to the inevitable can stifle one's desires to become a civil revolutionary. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

It won't change the outcome of the election, but it could have value in its symbolism.

Ya, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, so you don't need to move backwards if you can't make a giant leap. Being a more progressive voice in a larger party and helping to get things implemented and you could tell your kids of a goal you accomplished instead of how you helped make things worse in order to make a point that nobody cared about.

For instance, if this election were close and it mattered whether or not one voted for a third party, would you want to tell your kids that you helped secure the Supreme Court for a generation and won them all the rights and freedoms that the ungrateful little bastards don't even appreciate, or do you want to tell them that it's kind of your fault that Philidelphia burnt down because you were trying to make some kind of abstract statement?

It's nice to stick to your principles, but if those principles lead to immediate negative consequences in exchange for the mere chance at a step towards long term positive consequences, then that's not a good trade off.

I did say "might", didn't I? Hehe... But, yes I agree with you and having read a similar sentiment on another social media site I do think that it is better to vote for the lesser of evils now, but continue to strive for better. Another thing to teach your children is that real change comes from dedication and perseverance. Things like the suffrage movement didn't succeed by simply voting for third party candidates who promised women the vote.

 

[Tristan Scott]

...must the Democratic and Republican parties exist in unassailable perpetuity?

No, you could come up with 10 or more million people from the independent pool and start a viable party.

I never quite understand why people bitch about the two parties. I mean what are we supposed to do? Just go away? I don't see what the problem is?

Start your own party.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Or pull a Tea Party and just hijack one of the existing ones. They're clearly vulnerable to dedicated groups of outsiders who are motivated to vote for change.

 

[Terrell]

The U.S. system is not conducive to more than 2 major parties at a given time. Any 3rd party will either remain at the margins, replace a party that collapsed, or be absorbed by one of the major parties. Our first past the post system where the winner takes all and the loser gets nothing favors 2 major political parties that are coalitions of groups who can at least tolerate each other. If anything the coalitions that make the major parties may change, but there will generally be 2 major parties due to how our electoral system works.

For the most part states get to make their own election laws, so it's not likely there will be one national standard barring a constitutional amendment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's the question. And as followup, must the Democratic and Republican parties exist in unassailable perpetuity?

I don't see any L's or G's in Congress... or State Legislatures. Therefore, it is a bloody waste.