What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Is Voting 3rd Party A Wasted Vote? (1 Viewer)

Is Voting Third Party A Wasted Vote?

  • Yes

    Votes: 35 40.2%

  • No

    Votes: 52 59.8%
  • Total voters
    87
KiddLattimer

KiddLattimer

Footballguy
Spinning off from another thread... @Joe Bryant asked me to start a new thread on whether a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. I'm sure I'll get roasted on this one but I'm happy to give it a shot.

I don’t believe voting third party is a wasted vote and here’s why I think it's not...

At its core, I believe a vote is a representation of the issues and policies that are important to that voter and should not be influenced by the votes of someone else. Voting for someone who doesn't represent those interests only ensures that my interests will not be met, and increases the likelihood that they will not be met in the future.

For example, in 2016 (and now) my primary issues were:

  • Ending the wars 
  • Medicare for all 
  • Improving the environment 
  • Getting money out of politics
Neither HRC or Trump checked ANY of these boxes (HRC even less so than Trump on many issues, ironically) but the Green Party platform checked literally all of them.

So the question here would be - would I be better off voting for someone who didn't represent me, or use my vote to leverage the issues in a very small way? In this case I voted for the issues and cast my vote for Jill Stein.

While I acknowledge that HRC would have probably been a better president than Trump, almost none of what I hoped to get accomplished would get done. Additionally, had she actually won the 2020 election platform certainly wouldn't be where it this election cycle.

With all that said, let's discuss some of the benefits to the voters and parties for voting third party...

Benefits To The Parties

Tangible benefits:

  • Recognition as an official national party (when they reach 5% nationally)
  • Federal funding for that party in the 2020 election (when they reach 5% nationally)
  • Secures access on state ballots (percentage threshold varies by state)
Intangible benefits

  • Strengthens party name recognition for future elections (which is helpful for down ballot elections)
Benefits To The Voters

  • Opportunity to vote for positions not represented by either major party
  • A higher than normal third party vote exerts influence on the discussion of issues on a national level and forces D/R to consider them
  • Get out of the "nowhere else to go" trap that has pushed the national parties further away from voter's interests


Arguments against 3rd party voting (and my rebuttal)

- They Have No Chance To Win

In 2018 57% of Americans said a third party is needed and 60% felt the two party system is not working for the people (source) but yet nobody votes third party because "they have no chance". It's a bit like the Yogi Berra line "nobody goes there because it's too busy" line, except it's "Nobody can vote for them until enough people vote for them" 🤦‍♂️

Simply put: If everyone who wanted a strong third party voted third party, we'd have a strong third party.

I don't disagree that it would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to win NOW, but it has to start somewhere. This is why the funding and name recognition are so important, as these two factors improve so will the results. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.

- The Spoiler Effect 

Mathematically I can understand why this argument exists. As we all know and Stein's vote totals surpassed the amount of votes HRC lost by in MI, WI and PA (and of course a similar story for Nader in 2000). It's easy to assume that third parties "stole" votes from HRC.

That said, when you dig into the exit polling, the vast majority of third party voters would have either stayed home (61%) or voted for Trump (14%). The remaining amount would not have been enough to win. Additionally, in Michigan nearly twice as many people under voted (left president line blank but voted for everything else) than voted for Stein. Of course none of this means the spoiler effect doesn't exist, but clearly the majority of these voters were not interested in voting for either candidate. 

My argument here would be that it's on the candidate to give them reason to vote for them and that the voters do not owe anyone a vote.

- We're a Two Party System

We're not a two party system, we're a two party dominated system. If we were exclusively a two party system then third parties would not exist and it would be literally impossible to cast a ballot for them.

- The Lesser Of Two Evils

The lesser of two evil still gets you an "evil" and the more often it happens the worse we get. What's to stop the GOP from running someone worse than Trump next time? What's to stop the Democrats from moving further right to fill that void if they do? It's a vicious cycle.

- Time To Be A Grown Up And Vote For A Real Party

Heard this one dozens of times. Don't be this person... you're better than that.

I know some of you feel strongly about this one... what are your thoughts?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've voted third party before and will do so again, but the parties have to start at the local level before they do anything major. It's not a wasted vote, because it allows us to have a voice that isn't drowned out by the rhetoric emanating from Sides 1 and 2 of the same coin.

 
I'd never tell anyone their vote is a waste.  It's their's, not mine.  And if that person casting the 3rd party vote doesn't feel it's a waste, then it's not a waste.  

 
as I understand it, 3rd parties use those votes to get campaign finance and notoriety and recognition for platforms etc - no, not a wasted vote in that respect 

 
I live in South Dakota, which has gone Republican every year since 1964.  If my state is close enough for Libertarian voters to be spoilers, then the Democrats are steamrolling the electoral college anyway and our 3 EVs aren't going to matter.  So really, any vote in my state is a wasted vote.  I might as well vote for the party that actually kind of represents my overall worldview.

Edit: In the specific case of 2016, my choice was between "show up and vote Libertarian" and "stay home."  I was never voting for Trump or Clinton regardless.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In presidential elections, if you're not in a swing state, your vote is wasted no matter whom you vote for. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, wasted, wasted, wasted, wasted.

If you are in a swing state, your vote is still pretty much guaranteed to be wasted.

Your vote is a civic good because democracy works better when more people vote. (At least when more informed people vote.)

So vote. But don't expect to change the outcome of the election. If that's why you vote, yes, a third-party vote is a waste just like any other vote is.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A third party vote is no more wasted than those over the years who voted for the eventual loser of the EC or even the loser in their state

 
Other than in small local races, the chance that your one vote is going to sway an election is so incredibly small it's not worth considering.  Just vote your conscience.  

 
KiddLattimer said:
While I acknowledge that HRC would have probably been a better president than Trump, almost none of what I hoped to get accomplished would get done. Additionally, had she actually won the 2020 election platform certainly wouldn't be where it this election cycle.
Click to expand...
As a fellow 2016 third party voter, I feel the exact same way.

-------------------

We need people to vote in the primaries. We need at least three real parties. We need a run-off if nobody wins the majority. 

 
I voted for George W Bush and was disgusted by him by the end of his 8 years.

So, then I voted for Obama and was disgusted by him by the end of his 8 years.

I skipped the last election because I was out of the country and my ballot did not forward to me. 

Whoever gets elected does exactly what the banksters, military and corporations tell them to do.

Does any vote really matter?

 
pinkham13 said:
I voted for George W Bush and was disgusted by him by the end of his 8 years.

So, then I voted for Obama and was disgusted by him by the end of his 8 years.

I skipped the last election because I was out of the country and my ballot did not forward to me. 

Whoever gets elected does exactly what the banksters, military and corporations tell them to do.

Does any vote really matter?
Click to expand...
Fair point 

 
of course not...it's the single most important thing you can do as a citizen.....though the EC does a pretty good job at muting votes.

 
Of course a vote is never truly "wasted". Democracy hinges on voting and it's something to be valued. So no, it's not wasted.

And yes, I get Maurile's "only in a swing state thing". So maybe none if it really matters for the vast majority of us. 

I call it wasted in the "gameplay" angle. 

If you're against Donald Trump, you have a few options:

1. Vote for the Democratic candidate

2. Vote 3rd party

3. Stay at home.

If the ultimate goal is unseating Donald Trump, I have a hard time seeing options #2 and #3 having any effect towards your goal. And I get you can argue #1 doesn't really have any effect. But it's not in the same area in my opinion. 

I often look at things from the "other" side.

If you WANT Donald Trump to win in 2020, I think you're wanting as many anti Trump people as possible to vote 3rd party or stay at home. 

 
George W Bush is easily the most ruinous President this country has ever had, made Trump, Nixon and Carter look like pikers in that regard. In 2000, i voted Nader in a state (NM) that was actually closer than Fla (366 to 527). The Democrat won NM, but if you told me how close my state was going to be and it could be my vote that ruined America, i wouldn't have changed a thing. Ralph Nader made the best case for how this country should be run at a time when that still actually mattered and, if people made that and not the contest their criteria for how they vote, we would never would have run up against most of the disgusting choices we've had to make this last half-century.

 
pinkham13 said:
I voted for George W Bush and was disgusted by him by the end of his 8 years.

So, then I voted for Obama and was disgusted by him by the end of his 8 years.

I skipped the last election because I was out of the country and my ballot did not forward to me. 

Whoever gets elected does exactly what the banksters, military and corporations tell them to do.

Does any vote really matter?
Click to expand...
of course

 
Yes it’s a wasted vote. 

It didn’t used to be. There was a time in this country that if a third party got a significant number of votes (enough to gain some news interest) some of their ideas might be absorbed by one of the two main parties. But our information stream has advanced beyond that point, and it’s not needed. Both of the two major parties have new and innovative ideas all the time. 

Our two party system is brilliant. We don’t want more than 2 parties because it creates chaos (see England and Israel.) parliamentary systems give extremists more power and moderates less. 

 
timschochet said:
Why? Because of the Iraq War? Or is there some other reason. 

I didn’t agree with the Iraq War but I’m having trouble seeing it as “ruinous”. Please state your case. 
Click to expand...
i'm going to decline as it's not thread-pertinent, only my belief that such is the case in light of my actions & how i stand behind them

 
No vote is wasted.  More people should vote for the candidate they actually want as opposed to voting against someone.  Getting rid of the EC would give voters a greater sense that their vote is meaningful.

 
timschochet said:
Why? Because of the Iraq War? Or is there some other reason. 

I didn’t agree with the Iraq War but I’m having trouble seeing it as “ruinous”. Please state your case. 
Click to expand...
Iraq war was one thing 500,000 Iraqi women and children paid the ultimate price. Patriot act was another. How did building 7 implode on itself like a controlled demolition when it wasn’t even hit by anything? The inside job is on him until proven otherwise.

Maybe he isn’t entirely responsible for the 2008 financial crisis but he was at the helm from one bust to the next. Easily he is one of the worst Presidents in history followed closely by Obama.

 
wikkidpissah said:
i'm going to decline as it's not thread-pertinent, only my belief that such is the case in light of my actions & how i stand behind them
Click to expand...
That would make a great new thread. I'd be interested in how you arrive at "George W Bush is easily the most ruinous President this country has ever had, made Trump, Nixon and Carter look like pikers in that regard". Please make that a new thread. 

 
pinkham13 said:
Iraq war was one thing 500,000 Iraqi women and children paid the ultimate price. Patriot act was another. How did building 7 implode on itself like a controlled demolition when it wasn’t even hit by anything? The inside job is on him until proven otherwise.

Maybe he isn’t entirely responsible for the 2008 financial crisis but he was at the helm from one bust to the next. Easily he is one of the worst Presidents in history followed closely by Obama.
Click to expand...
Wow. 

I disagree with almost everything you wrote here, but regarding the last sentence of the first paragraph: when you claim a conspiracy, it is not up to anyone who doubts you to disprove it. It’s up to you to prove it. 

 
Focusing on the election of the President in this topic is always the true wasted time.  The chances of a 3rd party nominee winning the White House is closer to zero than any other number.  But that is because of the political systems on the state and local level.  But far too many people equate "my vote should matter" with "my vote for President is the only one that matters enough to have this conversation."

Voter turnout in New Jersey a few weeks ago was less than 20%.  In most places it was less than 10%.  It was a state, county and local election so that is par for the course.  Yet there were people who won seats in county level positions with less than 1,000 votes.  There was at least one town council who had someone win with less than 200 votes.  Can a 3rd party make inroads into local elected office?  Absolutely.  If you have enough 3rd parties at the local level, you end up with some at the county level.  The more you have at the county level the more you will have at the state level.

And the more states that have 3rd parties in their power structure, the more attacks you will have on the two parties that dominate everything and then you open up national offices to the potential for 3rd party elections.

But the problem with all of that is it takes time.  And there is no instant gratification.  So people whine and moan about how voting 3rd party is a waste because they don't live in a swing state.  You do live in a swing state.  The swing is at the local level.  Start there.  Then swing the county, then the state.  It isn't hard.  It is hard work.

When you don't like your state politics and the fact that your state's electoral college standing doesn't mean anything - look at your local township setup and your county level officials.  Where do you think the power apparatus that makes it impossible for a libertarian to get a foothold on ballots and on the national stage comes from?  

 
timschochet said:
Wow. 

I disagree with almost everything you wrote here, but regarding the last sentence of the first paragraph: when you claim a conspiracy, it is not up to anyone who doubts you to disprove it. It’s up to you to prove it. 
Click to expand...
Look at the controlled demolition video as building 7 caves in on its own footprint after not being struck by so much as a feather. It’s already been proven on camera.

 
pinkham13 said:
Look at the controlled demolition video as building 7 caves in on its own footprint after not being struck by so much as a feather. It’s already been proven on camera.
Click to expand...
You don’t prove conspiracies that way either. If you want to prove that Bush either planned 911 or knew about it, then you need to provide evidence that Bush planned 911 or knew about it. 

 
pinkham13 said:
Look at the controlled demolition video as building 7 caves in on its own footprint after not being struck by so much as a feather. It’s already been proven on camera.
Click to expand...
There was a recent study conducted by the university of Alaska, funded by NY fire fighters and architects about why bldg 7 came down.

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

Full report should be published shortly. They did not concur with the NIST conclusion. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Of course a vote is never truly "wasted". Democracy hinges on voting and it's something to be valued. So no, it's not wasted.

And yes, I get Maurile's "only in a swing state thing". So maybe none if it really matters for the vast majority of us. 

I call it wasted in the "gameplay" angle. 

If you're against Donald Trump, you have a few options:

1. Vote for the Democratic candidate

2. Vote 3rd party

3. Stay at home.

If the ultimate goal is unseating Donald Trump, I have a hard time seeing options #2 and #3 having any effect towards your goal. And I get you can argue #1 doesn't really have any effect. But it's not in the same area in my opinion. 

I often look at things from the "other" side.

If you WANT Donald Trump to win in 2020, I think you're wanting as many anti Trump people as possible to vote 3rd party or stay at home. 
Click to expand...
#2 is a vote against Trump.  Compared to #3, it reduces Trump's share of the popular vote.  (It also reduces the Democrat's share of the popular vote -- if I deeply dislike the D candidate, that's a feature, not a bug). 

 
Joe Bryant said:
That would make a great new thread. I'd be interested in how you arrive at "George W Bush is easily the most ruinous President this country has ever had, made Trump, Nixon and Carter look like pikers in that regard". Please make that a new thread. 
Click to expand...
To be honest, guys, my posts are not remedial. These are points i've made over & over in my dozen years on these boards. If tim wants to entertain several recency biases per day, i'm not wasting my time keeping him up on discussions we've had time & time again.

To catch you up a li'l outta respect in case you indeed havent been watching, Joe, lying to America and the world in order to engage in military adventurism that cost lives, treasure & any rep we had left as the good guys; increasing the size & sway of K St. by a factor of 14 in eight years; privatizing every aspect of govt they could for the benefit of cronies; ruining our privacy; expanding the power of the executive branch and abetting the financial tactics which caused the '08 crash are just the major bullet points and i have no interest in re-debating any of these unless it is pertinent to a thread in which i'm participating.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power said:
There was a recent study conducted by the university of Alaska, funded by NY fire fighters and architects about why bldg 7 came down.

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

Full report should be published shortly. They did not concur with the NIST conclusion. 
Click to expand...
What's the probability the columns were weakened by a combination of fire and debris impacts from the two towers previous collapse? That's a lot of stuff coming down in that complex, all that inertia had to be transferred somewhere.

 
wikkidpissah said:
To be honest, guys, my posts are not remedial. These are points i've made over & over in my dozen years on these boards. If tim wants to entertain several recency biases per day, i'm not wasting my time keeping him up on discussions we've had time & time again.

To catch you up a li'l outta respect in case you indeed havent been watching, Joe, lying to America and the world in order to engage in military adventurism that cost lives, treasure & any rep we had left as the good guys; increasing the size & sway of K St. by a factor of 14 in eight years; privatizing every aspect of govt they could for the benefit of cronies; ruining our privacy; expanding the power of the executive branch and abetting the financial tactics which caused the '08 crash are just the major bullet points and i have no interest in re-debating any of these unless it is pertinent to a thread in which i'm participating.
Click to expand...
Ditto

 
Kal El said:
What's the probability the columns were weakened by a combination of fire and debris impacts from the two towers previous collapse? That's a lot of stuff coming down in that complex, all that inertia had to be transferred somewhere.
Click to expand...
I'll have to read their final report. The theory is that in order for WTC 7 to come down at the speed it did, it hit free fall speed during the collapse. For it to come down the way that was visually observed, all interior and exterior columns had to fail simultaneously across multiple floors. 

NIST has also had to make revisions to its initial findings based on some of the new research.

 
wikkidpissah said:
To be honest, guys, my posts are not remedial. These are points i've made over & over in my dozen years on these boards. If tim wants to entertain several recency biases per day, i'm not wasting my time keeping him up on discussions we've had time & time again.

To catch you up a li'l outta respect in case you indeed havent been watching, Joe, lying to America and the world in order to engage in military adventurism that cost lives, treasure & any rep we had left as the good guys; increasing the size & sway of K St. by a factor of 14 in eight years; privatizing every aspect of govt they could for the benefit of cronies; ruining our privacy; expanding the power of the executive branch and abetting the financial tactics which caused the '08 crash are just the major bullet points and i have no interest in re-debating any of these unless it is pertinent to a thread in which i'm participating.
Click to expand...
I certainly haven't been watching every thread.

And not sure it's remedial. When someone says,  "George W Bush is easily the most ruinous President this country has ever had, made Trump, Nixon and Carter look like pikers in that regard" I'm going to say I'm interested. :shrug:  Thanks for the post. 

 
If you care more about voting for the candidate you support the most and do not care (where applicable) about the law of unintended consequences, then no.  Not a wasted vote.  

 
Dickies said:
 The people who stayed home instead of voting for Gore cost him the election, not Nader. 
Click to expand...
Both are true.

If Nader had not run, Gore would have won.

If less people in Florida would have stayed home, Gore would have won.

If Florida had a ballot that was less confusing to elderly people, Gore would have won.

 
Marauder said:
Both are true.

If Nader had not run, Gore would have won.

If less people in Florida would have stayed home, Gore would have won.

If Florida had a ballot that was less confusing to elderly people, Gore would have won.
Click to expand...
If fewer people voted for Bush, Gore would have won. Voter turnout in this country is laughably bad, so I have a hard time blaming people who are involving themselves in the political process when a huge percentage of people are unwilling to participate in the most basic function of our society

 
A third party vote is recordation of a dissenting opinion in a poll that is broadly based and has the clear indication that one is more than just a likely voter, but an actual voter.  It is speaking publicly to the government and to fellow citizens.   It is an instruction on where some of the electorate stands, unwilling to acquiesce to the lesser of two evils choice repeatedly presented by the dominant two parties.  It is aspirational, not triangulated.  It is a reminder that ones vote is not owed to the status quo, that there is a thirst for change even against the pressures of those who argue that we must engage in the ongoing senseless debate between the two non-responsive shared rulers.  It is a reminder that folks can think for themselves as opposed to falling in line with the corporate message of the Democrats or the Republicans.  It is a statement that their money cannot buy all votes.  It is refusing to fight on the deck of a burning ship.

Though I could not caution all

I still might warn a few

Don't lend your hand

to raise no flag

Atop no ship of fools.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Answer depends on your goals - without knowing that it’s impossible to answer but I’ll assume people are smart enough to know that if defeating candidate X from one of the 2 large parties is your only goal then voting 3rd party is a waste.  I’ll also assume everyone has their own reasons or goals for voting and I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say their vote is not wasted.

 
I've voted third party in two presidential elections.  It was nice to take a stand but my vote really did not make a bit of difference in the election or the status of those parties.   Until a third party puts forth a high profile candidate that actually can make a difference in the election they will languish in obscurity.  You may feel better about voting your conscience so in that regard it is not a waste but beyond that it is meaningless.

 
Godsbrother said:
I've voted third party in two presidential elections.  It was nice to take a stand but my vote really did not make a bit of difference in the election or the status of those parties.   Until a third party puts forth a high profile candidate that actually can make a difference in the election they will languish in obscurity.  You may feel better about voting your conscience so in that regard it is not a waste but beyond that it is meaningless.
Click to expand...
I think it also shows other like-minded folks it's ok to vote 3rd party.  People don't like to stand on an island but if enough people are voting 3rd party it could build momentum eventually. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ren hoek
I think voters are worse than nonvoters
Replies
22
Views
996
ren hoek
ren hoek
Da Guru
Group of Dems and GOP want to get together to form a new "Forward" third party. Is it time?
Replies
17
Views
466
Rich Conway
R
Sleestak
FORWARD political party - any interest ?
2
Replies
70
Views
1K
skol asylum
skol asylum

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top