Posted on Aug 25, 2016
Is there any value in voting for a third party candidate for President? Or is your vote "wasted"?
15K
163
112
9
9
0
Politics
Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton
Gary Johnson
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 43
15
15
0
The vote is never wasted even if the candidate has little chance of winning. The point of voting is to vote for the person you feel is best for the job. Voting for the third party because you like what they are saying says a great deal about your integrity. You are being true to yourself and not simply voting for the person you think will mess things up less. If everyone who voted for the lessor of the evils actually voted for the 3rd party that they preferred, I think we would see a change in the mindset that the vote is wasted. No where in the constitution does it say we only can vote Democrat or Republican.
(15)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Nobody that I personally know, who is planning on voting for GJ, would ever... evereverevereverever... vote for HRC. Granted, most of my friends are military or former military.
That being said, the argument isn't flawed. Historical voting trends and Libertarian turnout among the majority of the American population back my argument up. The closest a Libertarian came to having national appeal was Ron Paul... who still had to run as a GOP candidate to have any shot at victory. Also, based on the Libertarian Platform of limited gov't, free markets, pro-2nd Amendment, anti-gov't subsidies (of any kind), choice in education, private property, abolished income tax, anti-social security, parental rights, privacy rights, and personal liberty... how many Democrats align? I can only find a VERY few platform stances that align with the DEM (big gov't) party (anti-death penalty, pro-LGBT marriage, and a couple others).
That being said, the argument isn't flawed. Historical voting trends and Libertarian turnout among the majority of the American population back my argument up. The closest a Libertarian came to having national appeal was Ron Paul... who still had to run as a GOP candidate to have any shot at victory. Also, based on the Libertarian Platform of limited gov't, free markets, pro-2nd Amendment, anti-gov't subsidies (of any kind), choice in education, private property, abolished income tax, anti-social security, parental rights, privacy rights, and personal liberty... how many Democrats align? I can only find a VERY few platform stances that align with the DEM (big gov't) party (anti-death penalty, pro-LGBT marriage, and a couple others).
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGM (Join to see) - The platform split is pretty even. You gloss over LGBT issues as a whole, Pro-Choice, Marriage quality, Anti-DP, anti-expansionist, and generally anti-Hawk. The party as a whole aligns with RNC on "fiscal" (stay out of my wallet) while it aligns with the DNC on "social" (stay out of my bedroom).
Just because you view the DNC as having a "big government" platform, doesn't mean that is all its planks, though I agree many of them lead that way... but so does the RNC with its hawkish stance on DoD spending.
You forget that GJ is not just pulling from HRC as a candidate but from Bernie Sanders, who the DNC is trying to reconsolidate back in. There are A LOT of anti-establishment folks out there.
The LP ends up pretty much middle of the road on "single voter issues."
Just because you view the DNC as having a "big government" platform, doesn't mean that is all its planks, though I agree many of them lead that way... but so does the RNC with its hawkish stance on DoD spending.
You forget that GJ is not just pulling from HRC as a candidate but from Bernie Sanders, who the DNC is trying to reconsolidate back in. There are A LOT of anti-establishment folks out there.
The LP ends up pretty much middle of the road on "single voter issues."
(2)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
The difference in the LP and DEM stance on social issues is that the LP insists the gov't stay out of it, while the DEMs insist the gov't mandate the solutions... that is a wide gap to cross for DEMs. You are also talking about the HUGE gap between Bernie's Socialist platform and the LP's limited gov't platform. The only pull GJ has with them is his desire to legalize pot.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGM (Join to see) - The other pull he has is "Not HRC" and "Not Trump." Democrat supporters will not vote for Mr. Trump, but they might vote for Gov Johnson as he meets the anti-establishment mentality.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
"Wasted Votes" by definition mean any vote that does not directly assist the WINNER of the election.
As an example, 100 votes, it requires 51 votes to win. The 52nd-100th vote for the WINNER are "Wasted Votes" and the 0-49 votes to the LOSER(S) are "Wasted Votes."
Therefore, it is actually "beneficial" to vote third party, as it changes the Voting Dynamic. It actually CHANGES the "Wasted Votes" because it has a potential to decide the election at 34-51 Votes, instead of the "normal" 51.
Additionally, by voting outside the bipartisan tickets, you have the "potential" shift shift party alignment left/right. If the Right/Left starts "losing votes" to an outsider, they modify their platforms to make the third part more included. The goal being to "reabsorb" those potential voters for a more decisive win.
As an example, the current "third party frontrunners" are the Libertarian & Green Party. The Libertarian part draws "about" equal numbers from BOTH primary parties (currently slightly ahead on Dem), while the Green leans towards Dem.
The (flawed) logic of "A vote for Third Party is a vote for X" just does not hold true, mainly because we have "safe states" where it is Winner Take All.
In CA, someone choosing to vote for Gary Johnson over Donald Trump is going to have "no effect" on the OUTCOME of the election within that state. Someone choosing to vote Gary Johnson over Hillary Clinton "might" affect the OUTCOME, but because there are so many "wasted votes" (overage to winner) it is unlikely. The opposite holds true in TX and "Red States."
I notice you are located in VA (Purple = Swing State). Your vote here has the "most" power to alter the election, however the mathematics model shows it unlikely.
As an example, 100 votes, it requires 51 votes to win. The 52nd-100th vote for the WINNER are "Wasted Votes" and the 0-49 votes to the LOSER(S) are "Wasted Votes."
Therefore, it is actually "beneficial" to vote third party, as it changes the Voting Dynamic. It actually CHANGES the "Wasted Votes" because it has a potential to decide the election at 34-51 Votes, instead of the "normal" 51.
Additionally, by voting outside the bipartisan tickets, you have the "potential" shift shift party alignment left/right. If the Right/Left starts "losing votes" to an outsider, they modify their platforms to make the third part more included. The goal being to "reabsorb" those potential voters for a more decisive win.
As an example, the current "third party frontrunners" are the Libertarian & Green Party. The Libertarian part draws "about" equal numbers from BOTH primary parties (currently slightly ahead on Dem), while the Green leans towards Dem.
The (flawed) logic of "A vote for Third Party is a vote for X" just does not hold true, mainly because we have "safe states" where it is Winner Take All.
In CA, someone choosing to vote for Gary Johnson over Donald Trump is going to have "no effect" on the OUTCOME of the election within that state. Someone choosing to vote Gary Johnson over Hillary Clinton "might" affect the OUTCOME, but because there are so many "wasted votes" (overage to winner) it is unlikely. The opposite holds true in TX and "Red States."
I notice you are located in VA (Purple = Swing State). Your vote here has the "most" power to alter the election, however the mathematics model shows it unlikely.
(8)
(0)
8
8
0
It isn't wasted. It's a vote take away from the other two parties. It's my right and it's also principals. I can honestly say, when people are dissatisfied with the country (as usual), I voted for someone who actually had interest in the people and the country.
(8)
(0)
7
7
0
It's not wasted because you're voting for who you believe in. If everyone did the same, then that person may even get elected president.
(7)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SP5 Joel O'Brien, I'm afraid you are right; we have strayed badly from our Constitutional principles.
(1)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Capt Seid Waddell - And yet, voting for the "lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil.
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
TSgt (Join to see), no question about it. More people should have been paying closer attention during the Primaries - there were FAR better candidates running.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
In my opinion a vote for a third party is a vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning. Therefore, to me it is a protest vote. And that certainly is your right.
I wish we had a better choice from our two parties, but, we are stuck with Hillary and Donald.
So I will vote for the one that I think is the less evil. Again, in my opinion voting otherwise would actually support the other as it takes away one vote for my choice of the two.
I wish we had a better choice from our two parties, but, we are stuck with Hillary and Donald.
So I will vote for the one that I think is the less evil. Again, in my opinion voting otherwise would actually support the other as it takes away one vote for my choice of the two.
(6)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
SGM (Join to see) - Not really. The primaries eliminated candidates from the two parties.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Plus candidates who were ostensibly "independent" like Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Carlie Fiorina. Granted, they were running for the 2-Party candidacy, but they weren't establishment by any means.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SGM (Join to see) - I don't think so. If that was the case then you are saying the third parties are redundant, their policies already covered by someone in the two major parties. If in the national election everyone votes for one of the two major parties someone is going to get a majority. Remember the mandate that Presidents like Obama, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton had a 7-10 % edge and felt the entire nation was behind them. Imagine independents voting for one or the other and the winner with 60+% of the vote. Compare that to a President with barely 270 electoral votes and a mere 40+/- % of the vote. They would know they need to compromise.
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
I believe you are giving politicians way too much credit for common sense. Until a third party starts early enough and gets enough backing they are basically just a protest.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Wasted. I think any votes draws away from the two main parties. Best case, a third party vote signifies the dissatisfaction with the current mainstream political parties in my view. Just my humble opinion.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
By principal, there is value for voting third party if they support your beliefs. But that vote is just one less vote for one of the big two parties.
(5)
(0)
SP5 Joel O'Brien
IMHO...No candidate will ever satisfy all the wishes of a voter. I'm sure there are folks for Ms Clinton or Mr. Trump, that, while they will vote for them, have disagreements with them on some policies.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
The only wasted vote is the vote not cast. I'm currently in NC and in my state, less than 1/3 of all registered voters actually voted in our primary. Can you imagine what the race would have looked like if the other 2/3 voted??? Maybe Cruz would be the front runner, maybe Carson, maybe Bernie Sanders... or maybe even the 3rd party candidates.
Voter apathy is the only vote that will ever be wasted.
Voter apathy is the only vote that will ever be wasted.
(3)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Well, let's be honest... not Bernie Sanders. The fix was in on that one since the beginning (:
(1)
(0)
Cpl Justin Goolsby
Well yes, you can't really stop corruption in the political system. I just find it amusing how many people slam Trump, but at the beginning of this process there was like 16 people on the Republican ticket. If we had 100% turn out... hell even 75% turnout... who knows what this election would look like right now.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
No vote is wasted. If you truly think that the other candidate would do a better job than the other yahoos than your vote is not wasted. It's what you feel strongly about.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
SGM (Join to see) By definition a wasted vote is any vote for a losing candidate, and any vote above those needed to secure victory for the winning candidate. So in essence in there will be a larger number of wasted votes than effective votes. I personally view a wasted vote as a vote for a candidate that one does not support. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is a wasted vote. Voting for Trump because one hates Hillary is a wasted vote. Voting for Hillary because one hates Trump is a wasted vote. I will vote for a third party candidate because there is a candidate running whom I believe to be the best choice. Not a perfect choice, as that exists only in the same plane of existence as unicorns, but a good choice.
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/voting-third-party-not-wasted-vote
http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/z_words.htm
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/voting-third-party-not-wasted-vote
http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/z_words.htm
5 Reasons Why Voting Third Party Is Not A Wasted Vote
Voting is a right, and don't try to tell me my right is wasted.
(3)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
PO1 John Crafton - If that is the case then primary elections should be funded by the political parties, not tax dollars. There should be no state, or federal money spent to conduct those elections if they are going to be limited to members of the party.
That is really my point. I agree that as an independent I should not have a say in who the RNC or the DNC trots out as a candidate; however, the RNC and the DNC should be paying for the primary elections themselves out of their funds using their people rather than having primary elections that are paid for by the taxpayers.
That is really my point. I agree that as an independent I should not have a say in who the RNC or the DNC trots out as a candidate; however, the RNC and the DNC should be paying for the primary elections themselves out of their funds using their people rather than having primary elections that are paid for by the taxpayers.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
PO3 Steven Sherrill - That is why 3rd parties need to be more successful at the State level before having ANY shot at the national level.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
SGM (Join to see) - That is the theory. Get the small parties involved at state and local levels, then it will trickle upward to the national level. The caveat is that they have to actually produce at the local and state level in order for it to work. It is one thing to win an election, it is another thing entirely to prove that the people who elected you were right to do so. There are many times when a local or state election is run unopposed. Those would be the first place for independents and third parties to get in. Make an incumbent actually work to get elected, as opposed to win by default.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Absolutely. It would give the "throw them all out" crowd a far better option as well.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google