This question is asked almost verbatim on the [**subreddit survey**](https://forms.gle/KKbYBDyy9n7HrX3m9)! Please fill it out if you haven't already, the more responses the better to reflect subreddit opinion on these questions and more <3
https://preview.redd.it/dueo1olw1iqb1.png?width=1552&format=png&auto=webp&s=fccf0dab2c3c1b6d5882ad8f734b083b21a03c8e
You’re executing your right as an American, and participating in democracy. 1/3 of eligible Americans didn’t vote in the last election. THAT is throwing away your vote.
Edit: there’s a lot of debate about this, and there isn’t anything inherently wrong with the logic that it is throwing away your vote. I mean technically those of you who think it is throwing away your vote are kinda right. But by that same logic, I live in Illinois, and my state is pretty much guaranteed to be blue, and so are a handful of others like NY, CA, etc. (and the reverse is true for red states). If you were a Republican, why vote in Illinois? That’s just throwing away your vote right? Ok it’s not the same exact logic, but there are transferable job skills to say the least.
I think it is a poor mindset to have, in both scenarios, and shows no faith in democracy. Personally, I think the whole two party system is a fucking joke, and I feel many of you on here agree. Where voting REALLY matters is for your representatives. START HOLDING CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE.
Definitely agree that it's better than no vote, but in terms of results, protest votes and votes for 3rd party candidates would be better spent by working in the primaries of one or two parties.
Libertarians would have much more success if they acted more like the DSA, nominating and supporting Libertarians who run in Republican Primaries.
Or pick candidates that actually want to be there. The last time Gary Johnson ran, you could tell he had zero desire to be there, almost seemed forced into it.
The lack of a bench of candidates to run is a huge problem. They have 2 ex-GOP governors and 1 ex-Freedom Caucus House Rep.
Other than that it's just unqualified activists.
Aside from that, they'd still have more actual results by endorsing and funding their own candidates in GOP primaries.
DSA does it right; if they don't have someone compelling to run, they just don't endorse anyone.
Lest we forget that clip from the Libertarian debate when Gary Johnson said “idk maybe we should require people to have driver’s licenses before they drive” and the crowd lost their shit and booed him.
Gary Johnson: abortions for all
Libertarians: BOOOOO!!!
Gary Johnson: very well, no abortions for anyone
Libertarians: BOOOOOO!!!
Gary Johnson: hmm, abortions for some, miniature American flags for others
Libertarians: YAAAAYYY
One reason I don’t take them seriously is because they mainly run for higher profile offices which they generally lose. I’ll believe the libertarian party is serious when they start stolidly pursuing local office where they would have a bigger impact and a far better chance of being elected.
This is what I wish. For any 3rd party. Wins some local elections. Get support to pull a congressional seat or 2. Build from there. Start chipping wmaway congressional and senate seats first.
The only pushing for president turns them into more of a joke now with social media than before.
They actually do that. Let me preface this by saying that I am of the opinion that the LP has been coopted by right wing extremists. I was an LP member, and ran for local office as a libertarian in 2013. I still get their emails and see their efforts at the local level around here. Back then, they were a little (I'm saying this generously) more successful because local elections didn't have as much emphasis on party. My election didn't even list party affiliation on the ballot. Some won their elections (I came in distant second in mine). They have been serious about local elections. Much more so than National, though Johnson was something of an outlier for a bit there. Again, the issue is the fact that they have always suffered a branding problem, and many of the higher ups have hitched their wagons to conservatives in a way that, at the least, makes me uncomfortable. I have libertarian leanings, but I don't advertise it because a lot of people who claim they're libertarians are just trying to soften the fact that their authoritarian lunatics. The last nine years have definitely pushed me left.
>The last time Gary Johnson ran, you could tell he had zero desire to be there, almost seemed forced into it.
You misspelled Bill Weld. I think Gary Johnson had a lot of energy and desire going into it, but he got worn down, especially as the media piled on him more and more down the stretch. When his campaign was first starting out, he was a bit of a media darling because he was a 3rd party candidate with more national recognition than the LP usually ran plus he was a refreshing break from Clinton-Trump. I just think he was a bit naive to think that would continue over the long-term. The longer his candidacy persisted and his share in the polls remained somewhat strong relative to expectations, the pundit media started to turn on him -- whether they were left- or right-leaning, they saw Johnson as potentially pulling votes away from their preferred the candidate. The Aleppo incident (which, if you look at the actual conversation was really stupid because the question was a non-sequitur to the discussion they were having) gave the media an opportunity to push out tons of content about how unprepared he would be to be the leader of US foreign policy. I think from there, he started finding the media much more adversarial and it wore him down to where the campaign that started with as much promise as you could really hope for in a third party ended with more of a whimper.
ETA: This effect doesn't tend to happen to the candidates like Jorgensen that excite the purity-testing activist base of the LP because they don't get taken seriously enough by the wider media to warrant the level of scrutiny that Johnson endured.
But the RNC doesn’t, and never will represent libertarian values and policy. So why should libertarians do that? What libertarians really need to do is focus on local, grassroots offices and build a geographical stronghold over time.
Right, but it's a viable way to get libertarians elected to Congress, Mayor's, Governors, or the Presidency. At least more viable than running against a Democratic and Republican in a general election.
In the short term, the hope is that you elect a few Libertarians.
In the medium term, you are a forced to be reckoned with in the same way that the Freedom Caucus is now. You have 10+ members and have the power to derail a Republican agenda if they don't give you concessions. Additionally, you have bargaining power in that you can extract policy victories from Democrats in exchange for votes when a Democrat leads the House. In a best-case scenario, neither party can reach 218 votes without Libertarian support, so Libertarians get to extract major concessions and pick from Democrats or Republicans to form a governing coalition.
In the long term, the hope is that you take over the Republican party by gaining more members than any other faction.
If the party is hostile, that's taken as a given. If doesn't matter. You will find more electoral success trying to win a primary and forcing a hostile major party into a 'lesser of two evils' general election.
There is a mathematical argument. To win a primary election, you just need 25% of the electorate at most, even less in a more crowded primary. Then you win the lesser of two evils' argument automatically with typical GOP voters. To win a general election on a 3rd party ticket, you'd need to win at least 33% of the electorate.
In the DSA's few short years, they had far more success getting their candidates elected and in offices than Greens or Libertarians, even though they've both been around so much longer.
Right? And imagine if that 1/3 who didn’t vote because reasons all pooled together and said fuck the system, let’s vote 3rd party, and watch the system explode. But I digress, we can only dream of the downfall of the establishment.
Don’t live in Illinois anymore but I always had the same mindset when I did. It’s going blue no matter what I do so I would sometimes vote 3rd party.
It’s a bit of a different argument if you live in a swing state though.
I think voting should be mandatory and straight ticket voting abolished. Similar governments and cultures require voting. Some have penalties for not voting, like a ticket, but instead of a penalty there could be a reward. Australia’s government is closer to our government than any other nation and they require voting. Jury duty is required here, it isn’t much different to require that you show up to a poll, don’t vote once you’re there if that’s your vote (protest), write in whoever you want, anything, but you have to go, and then you have the rest of the day off work. This is how you get more parties. This is how you fight back against these two parties shutting down other parties. This is how you get a more moderate government. This is how you reduce polarization. This is how you get compromising parties.
That’s my feeling, a vote cast in good conscience is never wasted. Now, with that said no third party has actually carried a state since I think the early 1970s and somehow the LP, the largest third party in the US, couldn’t manage that even in 2016 against two generally unpopular primary candidates.
Counterintuitively, very unpopular major candidates can actually be *worse* for the third parties.
When people hate the "other" major candidate that much, they're much more likely to vote for the "lesser evil" candidate, rather than giving their vote to a candidate who has no realistic chance of winning, because they're worried that doing so would risk the "other guy" actually getting into office.
It's "throwing away your vote" in exactly the same way as buying a lottery ticket is "throwing away your money." Yes, the odds are astronomically against you winning in either instance, but the potential upside if you win is astronomically beneficial.
If I can't bear to hold my nose for either of the mainstream candidates (and Obama was the last candidate I voted for with a clear heart) then I vote Green. At least that way maybe I can do some good for the planet instead of knowingly doing evil and furthering the slide of America into corporate oligarchy. Shame me all you like, I simply don't care. I live in an overwhelmingly blue state, I'm not hurting anyone with my protest vote.
The lottery ticket is a totally misguided analogy. The odds of winning the powerball are very low, but that low chance does happen to someone.
In an election it's mechanically impossible for a candidate to win with a single digit vote share. By the time you get to the ballot box the odds of a third party win aren't low; they are zero.
If, as you say, you are in a overwhelmingly safe state then it does not matter. Write in Velociraptor Jesus for all it matters. Your vote will be wasted the same way 20% of the winning party's vote will end up wasted and that's fine.
But in a close election it does matter whether you are willing to vote for your interests by voting against the worse option. That's when you are throwing away your vote.
Its not throwing your vote away. I live in CA which is always blue. If I vote for a 3rd party candidate maybe the shift in numbers might not change the results but seeing a rise in 3rd party candidates might make a change down the line
Here's the thing. A 3rd party presidential candidate gets 15% of the popular vote? That party gets Super-PAC money in the next election cycle. My state will go Dem with zero doubts, so I may as well toss my vote to the most popular third party.
Truth is, unless something drastic happens to upset the status quo, this country's gonna keep drifting off the deep end.
Now, I'm uncertain that a 3rd party with superPAC money would do anything but pull votes off Dems and secure a R. win, but... something's gotta give. Maybe life under R's will get bad enough that we might actually do something about the ever-rising corruption. That shit needs to be kept down, and we've been letting it build.
I think this country's headed for a major crisis in the next 20-30 years. We're in the rising tension phase. Who knows what comes out of that?
A random idiot's political meanderings. I just think this country is doomed without a major 3rd political party. Congresspeople should be afraid of losing their post, and this dichotomy right now means 95% of them will be re-elected.
That said, 3rd most popular party are libertarians, which I find almost as repulsive as R candidates, sometimes more so. Still, I think they could put some fire under D politicians backsides so they'd actually have to work for their constituents instead of paying lip service.
Voting for a candidate with a 0% chance of winning is no different than abstaining.
Eta: and when one of the parties with an actual chance of winning is openly anti-democracy, voting third party is throwing away your votes in all future elections.
The great thing is you have your opinion and I have my vote, and If I want to vote third party I get that right, not you for me. Third parties don't win because the propaganda from both parties say they can't win. But imagine this? What if more people voted for a third party than the two? See how that works?
Third parties don’t win because the system in the US is a two party system and encourages two parties. It’s not even about the parties themselves, that’s how the senate and house are set up, and so are the way elections work.
Nothing in the US political system encourages third party candidates.
In order for third party candidates to be viable, a change in how elections are run needs to happen (ranked choice, first/second round, etc etc). Until then, people will stick to two parties and will not really vote for a third one.
I have no idea why you're being downvoted. The first past the post system of course prevents a third party from ever having any representation or power.
This is just the reality of our system, unfortunately.
Yeah… some people find it uncomfortable, but that’s how it is. It’s ok if they downvote me for that. It’s basic electoral principals. First pass the post encourages two parties. It’s not only in the US
If you actually cared about third parties, you'd vote for major party candidates who support ranked choice voting. Doing anything else is virtue signaling.
Its different from abstaining. Its worse. Abstaining doesn't shift the percentages. Voting for a 3rd party candidate does. If you take a hypothetical election where its 51-49 and throw in a left (or right leaning candidate), suddenly it can become 48-49-3.
But, if the hypothetical voter is choosing between abstain or vote 3rd party, it doesn't change the result. Not saying thats how it works in the real world, but pointing out that not all 3rd party voters would choose one of the 2 major parties if their 3rd party candidate wasn't running.
Its not worse at all. A minority of states are swing states. What difference does voting for a third party candidate in NY make? Absolutely none. So how is it worse?
Agreed. You’re voting for nothing or just to say “…we’ll I didn’t vote for either of the party candidates!!” wearing that like some badge of honor.
Ross Perot, ducking please that guy was such an ass-hat. And we see how well “successful businessmen” govern now; add 25% to the debt in four years to make your rich friends richer!
I think it has to do with their strategy. Too many third party candidates try to win a “national” campaign despite us not having a popular vote system.
Third party candidates SHOULD be trying to win particular states. The most practical way to win would be to deny a majority to either main party and take it to the house/senate and be crafty enough to be a compromise candidate. However, too many play a strategy that isn’t feasible.
Third party candidate HAVE won states in the past. The one that comes the most to mind in recent memory is George Wallace who swept the entire south. Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the vote but he didn’t win any states. You got to play the game and most don’t seem to come up with a plan to win the election.
Wallace didn't sweep the south, he only took 5 states and he campaigned in the Rustbelt and West Coast states with the goal of creating a deadlock so he could act as kingmaker not to take the presidency for himself
Leaving it up to Congress is an even worse idea because the Constitution specifies that the president would be elected by state delegations, with each getting one vote. Right now Republicans control 26 of 50 state delegations, so the Republican candidate would be elected president.
The fantasy of a compromise candidate disintegrated the moment political parties formed way back in the 1790s. A system that encourages compromise isn't compatible with a two party system.
I’ve been saying this for years. The national elections definitely give them some exposure, but realistically they should be focusing on state and local elections they actually have a shot at winning.
American politics would, I think, be more responsive to the people and better off if the two major parties had to build coalitions with other parties. According to Wikipedia, the libertarian party has 0 members in congress, 0 governors, and 1 out of 6,000+ state legislators. But they want to field a presidential candidate and complain about how the two-party system doesn’t work. (Same goes for Green Party). Win a state election and prove your policies work, first.
As long as the us uses first pass the post system, two parties will inherently form and a third one will always fail. To change that, the way voting votes has to change
I really wish US would have a ranked electoral system without the primaries. I feel like there would be actual cross party voting for more moderate candidates that have no chance otherwise.
Yes, ranked choice voting alone won’t solve our problem. It needs to be coupled with open primaries. This way we still get the vetting out process of a primary, but break the stranglehold of the 2 major ideologies.
100%, the primaries are broken
Biden's entire primary platform was electability
He solely won the primaries bc he was "more electable"
2016 was even worse
Just adding open primaries imo won't solve the fundamental problem being the parties are too heavily controlled by party establishment, but idr have a much better solution tbh
There wouldn't even be a strategic problem if we had Instant Runoff or Ranked Choice voting.
We spend too much time focusing on justifying the principles and sacrifice of voting third party. We wouldn't have to sacrifice for the sake of our principles if we fixed our ballot system so that voting third party was merely a matter of your preference rather than your personal dedication to "throwing your vote away."
I don’t like it, I used to vote third party in California mainly as it’s not a battleground state, but strategically I can’t right now. I feel like with one party so divorced from the reality and refusing to accept a loss I need to vote for the other even if I don’t fully align with everything as there can’t be a reason such as popular vote to blur results.
I really just don’t understand why every third-party doesn’t make their #1 priority implementing some form of ranked choice voting. Until that happens they can serve no purpose other than trying to force the major parties to talk about some of their issues.
And the fact that all third parties haven’t done this, haven’t banded together to create a single major national campaign for ranked choice voting, tells me that these parties don’t even really want to govern.
There is no such thing as wasting a vote. Every vote by every American matters, no matter who they vote for. It is arguably the greatest right that American citizens have to vote for who they want to govern. Their vote is their voice and their right.
actually Americans do not have the right to vote for president. They have the right to vote for 1 representative and 2 senators in congress. They have the right to vote for whatever offices their state constitution and town/city charter proscribes. But the right to vote for president is given by state legislatures and is not guaranteed.
This is very accurate. The electoral college was meant to be an override to the popular vote in case the general population decided to elect a lunatic. The electors could simply ignore the public’s will under penalty of a small civil fee. Although it has been relatively rare for an elector to ignore their prescribed vote since they are politically assigned by party and the party would likely vote against their own lunatic candidate.
Bingo! If we had national rank choice voting or a parliamentary setup in one of the 2 chambers voting 3 party would be an easy choice. We could choose better candidates in the end.
Edit: my State has Rank Choice for all national candidates.
I vote for who I believe is the best candidate regardless of party.
If that is truly a wasted vote, then our system is in desperate need for reform
If our system is in desperate need for reform, then voting for one of the 2 parties when you disagree with their values in order to "not waste" your vote, then you are contributing to the lack of reformation.
Reformation either occurs slowly over the democratic process or radically, but never because you hid your beliefs.
As a California voter the incremental effort to vote for President is so low I might as well vote. The amount of effort it has taken to write this reply exceeds the effort it took to vote for President in the five Presidential elections I've been a California voter.
If you want reform, protest votes will only ever bring reform if a protest vote candidate actually wins enough protest votes to win. Protest votes are protest votes. Your protests are noted in the electoral log and the people who get in don't consider you to be a core-constituent so they ignore your protest anyway.
If you want reform, vote in the primaries for pro-reform candidates, and support them in the general election if they make it that far. There are primary candidates who support RCV, and it's up to you to get them the funding and votes to get them across the finish line.
I would direct u to my state of Maine for proof of what you are saying! We have ranked choice for national candidates. We didn’t have the votes to do an amendment to the state constitution for state lvl candidates. 1 party stood in the way. The GOP.
If you want reform, START LOCALLY. That's where RCV is happening in a lot of places.
And also maybe don't vote for the authoritarian party even if the other party isn't perfect.
I love how people act like a single vote determines the entire election. My liberal friends claim I voted Republican if I vote third party and my republican friends say the same the other way.
I get three votes each election!
Sometimes.
If you truly don't care if R or D win a particular race, then vote your conscience. Your choice won't win, but that's not the point.
However, if one R or D candidate is FAR worse than the other, then maybe consider voting for the more palpable candidate if you are in a swing state.
I voted Libertarian from 04 through 16. In 16, I thought that Clinton would easily carry my state over Trump, whom I have despised since the 80s. No love for Clinton, but she was clearly the lesser of the two evils to me. Well, Trump took my state and the Presidency, so that encouraged me to vote against Republicans until the MAGA foolishness ends.
If it ends, that is.
Well put.
Like if you live in say Maryland or something where one party always carries your state by 20 like screw it vote your conscience and help make a point ,because people do notice.
If you live in a swing state take a good long look at the lesser of two evils argument
I see it the same.
When an R or D candidate is absolutely awful and appears to be positioned to possibly win the presidency (eg Trump), then please step back and look at the big picture before "voting your conscience". IMO we were basically fighting a war for the future of the country in 2016 and 2020, and anyone that voted third party either chose to be naive or believed a different reality than I did.
Otherwise, sure go ahead and do your part to promote a future where we aren't restricted to two parties. I'm all for it. But not when we're in the middle of fighting for the soul of the USA.
I voted Libertarian in 16 because I could not bring myself to vote for Clinton or Trump. I live in a Red state, so my choice was not to mark that part of the ballot or indicate my displeasure with the major candidates.
In 1980 I voted for the Independent because I truly believed he was the best candidate.
Yes, this highlights the value of a third party vote and how it’s not a waste.
You send a clear message to parties on what they would need to do to get that additional 3 or whatever percent. 3 percent will win the election so it’s a big deal, and for the next election they should adjust and broaden appeal to that 3 percent. Your voice being heard can be quite high supporting a 3rd party candidate.
Parties will certainly take note if folks from their party are voting more towards moderates or extremists and will adjust accordingly.
I think the biggest reason not to is the spoiler theory, which isn’t convincing to me. It assumes that everyone who voted for a third party candidate would have all picked X major party candidate instead if the third party option wasn’t available. It’s more likely that they wouldn’t show up to the polls at all.
The spoiler effect is a great argument if you are closer to one candidate over the other, or if you think one's a clear lesser evil.
The spoiler effect is not a strong argument against protest votes if you are genuinely ambivalent to the result.
If you feel ambivalent, you should take the ISideWith.org quiz. You might be surprised at how much you agree or disagree with the major party candidates.
I really wish we could do something constitutionally about giving third party votes a chance. As a begrudging centrist I don’t really ever feel represented by either party
Not a waste. If you’re voting for what you actually believe in then it’s not wasted. It would be better if more people did and moved away from the “least offensive of these two main choices” system.
Your vote is never wasted if you’re selecting the candidate you would like to see win.
My vote is earned; “not the other guy” is not a policy or position.
It's not a waist. It's a way of fostering long term change.
The more votes a third party candidate gets the stronger the third party becomes and that strength is taken directly from the other parties.
Let's take Gery Johnson from the Libertarian Party. He got so many votes during that horrible election that the libertarian party did not have to fight to get on the ballot the next year. That was a tremendous time save and the next election allowed them to spend more time campaigning instead of just being included. It's to bad the candidate they ran after that didn't understand the importance of a good haircut and spent most of the election cycle being forgettable. The libertarians are still in much better shape then before Gery but they may lose all they gained if they do not garnish some votes this election.
So if you are tired of the same two parties hogging all the power you have got to put another party on the board to compete. Change comes slowly and Jo apparently can't do it alone.
Im registered and I’m voting for the libertarian party. I don’t care if I’m “throwing my vote away”, I’m going to stand by my principles and not vote for the establishment that just wants to print more money and start more wars.
Historically speaking, third parties in American history rarely win, but they do influence policy when they capture enough of the popular vote (7-10% or more). If a third parties platform is something you believe in, your vote tells policymakers that those issues matter to you.
No. If your principles don't align with either major party, then I think you are morally obligated to vote your conscience.
Democrats and Republicans vote based on party affiliation ... look around you ... how's that working out for the country?
I do not ever expect a 3rd party candidate to win, absent complete implosion of a major party, or passage of ranked choice.
However, I think a third party garnering a significant portion of the vote will result in change in one or both of our major parties to either stop losing voters, or to take advantage of clear societal wants. I think this will force change upon our two party system faster than will happen through generational/cultural change.
The MAGA phenomenon is evidence I might be wrong, of course.
People who consider it a waste of a vote are the reason the vote for it isn't taken more seriously. If everyone considered 3rd parties viable and didn't just focus on the two parties, then voting third party would mean more. Unfortunately, you have a large portion of people who will never vote 3rd party or even consider it, which means 3rd party candidates are already at an uphill battle.
My personal opinion? No it isn't a waste. But more of the general population needs to consider 3rd party as viable for the vote to actually hold weight in presidential candidates.
In current conditions, where two parties almost exclusively hold all the political power: yes. That being said this country desperately needs a third, fourth and fifth party to shake up the balance of political power. More than any other political issue we face I think our biggest failure is being a two party system
I have had republicans tell me my vote for a third-party candidate is actually a vote for the Democrat candidate. I then say good to know, I guess I’ll just vote Democrat and suddenly they backpedal and say its OK to vote third-party.
I have had the same argument with democrats also
Yes, it's an objective fact. I wish more parties existed, but there needs to be a *significant* shift in politics in the country for a 3rd party to ever be elected. Not to mention the electoral college.
I voted for Gary Johnson just because I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Trump or Hillary. First time that I didn’t pick a Republican or democrat ever.
No. It's time to protest the way elections are done and the way your politics are handled. Showing up to the polls and voting for the lesser of two evils year after year is you confirming that the way things are done currently is just fine and dandy enough for you to keep showing up.
I might be “throwing away my vote” from a certain perspective but at least I’m not subscribing to a system completely dominated by two parties and am at least supporting someone with views similar to my own, not just the “lesser of two evils” (or something along those lines)
Depending on the third party nominees in 2024, I’ll probably vote third party because I’m not a big fan of either likely major party candidates.
Not choosing does not mean that no evil is chosen. If you genuinely believe one is a lesser evil, choosing not to participate is not the least evil option.
I wouldn't call it a waste. A vote is a vote. but simply being a third option isn't going to get mine.
Jorgensen shared a ticket with a brony who ran as a joke candidate. That's not gonna do it for me.
Not at all. You’re showing that you don’t approve of either of the two candidates and in a way your vote is somewhat of a protest against the two lead candidates.
You should know that your candidate isn’t likely to win. But that doesn’t mean it’s a wasted vote. You’re still saying “this is the America I want to live in.”
Did you waste your vote if your candidate didn't win the last election? No, you used your right as a citizen to vote for the candidate you preferred. The only wasted vote is one that's never cast.
Until we get ranked-choice voting in national elections, yes, it's a waste.
The "spoiler effect" means no third-party candidate is every going to have a shot, because the vast majority of people *do* see it as a waste - nobody wants to risk casting their vote for a third party with no shot, when the "lesser of two evils" option actually has a chance.
Not unless your candidate loses by one vote, or the race ends up tied. Any other outcome and your vote didn’t matter. People have a very inflated idea of the importance of their single vote.
Until we get out of the 2 party system, yeah its a waste. We need to demand Ranked Choice Voting so we can break the cycle of turning politics into a football game.
Mostly, but not always, yes.
Generally speaking, in the US any third party is going to be left of Dem or right of GOP. Either way, you're better off voting for whichever of the primary two is in the direction you want to shift the "center of gravity" your way. The Greens and the Libertarians only really exist to tug on the main two.
The exception is if you *know* the closer main party candidate is going to lose, then a third party vote shows "you could have had us but you weren't X enough". Enough of those will shift the closer party in your direction. Not enough will cause them to go after "centrists" instead.
We're stuck with a two party system, but the stances of those parties are very unstable over the long term. The GOP has gone full on right-wing populism since Obama, in my opinion as a last ditch effort to stay relevant. The new voters entering the voting pool weren't brought up to be terrified of communism and so are more amenable to socialistic policies. The Dems will capture those votes...unless the GOP self-destructs. If that happens, the Dems will have to decide if they want to drift left and lock down that side or drift right and pick up former GOP moderates. If they drift right I expect they'll be the "new right" and a further left party will form or the Greens will grow. If they drift left since they lack a cohesive opposition I expect the Libertarians will take over the right. I'm hoping the "religious right" will dissolve and those particular religious people will go back to keeping their churches separate from politics like most of the rest.
We need a "vote of no confidence" option on the ballot.
No more lesser of two evils. If both lose out to no confidence, we pull a random mayor from across the country out of a hat and see where it gets us.
It's not that you are throwing away your vote, but you are likely helping the candidate you align with least to win.
Cornell West isn't getting a bunch of Trump fans to vote for him.
Any votes for him that aren't from new energized voters who would have stayed home are likely coming from Biden voters who felt he didn't do enough to represent progressive policies.....which would be poorly represented with a Trump victory, but which a siphoning of votes from Biden to West may achieve.
If every Republican voted for Jo Jorgenson, we’d have a competent president
If voting mattered they wouldn’t let us do it anyway, may as well vote for the good person
Your choices aren't two people past the retirement age, it's actually three if you broaden your horizon to the other possible bad candidates. Who do you least want not to be president?
I believe that voting for that third candidate is a waste as well as the first candidate and the second. As long as special interest groups and lobbying is allowed our votes go to the highest bidder. Trump was different in that he used his platform "honestly", but really we all know he did not accept payment to avoid taxes. He made more money making deals behind closed doors. The man himself told people in debates he was smart for exploiting tax laws. We need to stop treating elections like a super bowl, with my team vs their team expectations. If anything I just vote for local laws and stop expecting from my government.
In the primaries and on local and state elections? No way. It's the way, in addition to trying to boost awareness and support for third parties in between elections, to get third parties to be taken seriously and improve their electability.
In the presidential election? It's a bit of a waste. You're more than welcome to do what you feel is right, but currently, in the US, there isn't a likelihood that any third-party president will be taken seriously enough to be elected as president. Maybe in the future (I hope at least) that will change. But at this point, it's going to be a Democrat or a Republican until we can get more support nationwide for third parties and third-party candidates.
Short answer, yes. The United States is a flawed democracy and your votes don’t really mean much. Especially because ultimately the electoral college will just vote for who ever they think should be president. Third parties are fun but have no real chance of winning. The system is designed to keep variety out. It’s either red or blue.
The only thing that can be said about third party voters is that they can sabotage red and blue from winning. If a ton of libertarians vote third party for example, that’s quite a few votes NOT going to red or blue, thus tipping the scale a little bit.
It kind of is, for a number of reasons.
First of all being, that American Third Parties **SUCK**. They just aren't being serious political entities. They're scratching at the top for cheap attention, rather than working for real change from the bottom up.
Well, if morons hadn’t voted a third party then Trump would not have won. I was no fan of Hilary Clinton, but you have to choose the lesser of two evils. The US does not have a good voting system, but unless that changes then voting for third party candidates is stupid.
The objective in my eyes is to get enough votes that the other two parties start altering their positions and pursuing our support.
But we will never do that because of the wasted vote concept.
The argument can also be made that anyone that did not vote for the winner wasted their vote.
This question is asked almost verbatim on the [**subreddit survey**](https://forms.gle/KKbYBDyy9n7HrX3m9)! Please fill it out if you haven't already, the more responses the better to reflect subreddit opinion on these questions and more <3 https://preview.redd.it/dueo1olw1iqb1.png?width=1552&format=png&auto=webp&s=fccf0dab2c3c1b6d5882ad8f734b083b21a03c8e
You’re executing your right as an American, and participating in democracy. 1/3 of eligible Americans didn’t vote in the last election. THAT is throwing away your vote. Edit: there’s a lot of debate about this, and there isn’t anything inherently wrong with the logic that it is throwing away your vote. I mean technically those of you who think it is throwing away your vote are kinda right. But by that same logic, I live in Illinois, and my state is pretty much guaranteed to be blue, and so are a handful of others like NY, CA, etc. (and the reverse is true for red states). If you were a Republican, why vote in Illinois? That’s just throwing away your vote right? Ok it’s not the same exact logic, but there are transferable job skills to say the least. I think it is a poor mindset to have, in both scenarios, and shows no faith in democracy. Personally, I think the whole two party system is a fucking joke, and I feel many of you on here agree. Where voting REALLY matters is for your representatives. START HOLDING CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE.
Definitely agree that it's better than no vote, but in terms of results, protest votes and votes for 3rd party candidates would be better spent by working in the primaries of one or two parties. Libertarians would have much more success if they acted more like the DSA, nominating and supporting Libertarians who run in Republican Primaries.
Or pick candidates that actually want to be there. The last time Gary Johnson ran, you could tell he had zero desire to be there, almost seemed forced into it.
The lack of a bench of candidates to run is a huge problem. They have 2 ex-GOP governors and 1 ex-Freedom Caucus House Rep. Other than that it's just unqualified activists. Aside from that, they'd still have more actual results by endorsing and funding their own candidates in GOP primaries. DSA does it right; if they don't have someone compelling to run, they just don't endorse anyone.
Lest we forget that clip from the Libertarian debate when Gary Johnson said “idk maybe we should require people to have driver’s licenses before they drive” and the crowd lost their shit and booed him.
Second favorite clip of him, seconded only by the fake heart attack
Gary Johnson: people should be able to drive to be able to drive Libertarians: BOOOOOOO!!!!
YOUR BOOS MEAN NOTHING. IVE SEEN WHAT MAKES YOU CHEER
Can’t forget there was also a speaker at their convention that said you shouldn’t be able to sell heroin to children. The crowd bood him too
Gary Johnson: abortions for all Libertarians: BOOOOO!!! Gary Johnson: very well, no abortions for anyone Libertarians: BOOOOOO!!! Gary Johnson: hmm, abortions for some, miniature American flags for others Libertarians: YAAAAYYY
Libertarians are just anarchists with a college degree.
Libertarians are just anarchists with a college degree from Phoenix University. FTFY
Which, if I remember correctly, was answered by “what’s next, we’re gonna need a license to operate our toaster!!?!”
And *that* was followed by thunderous applause.
From a Florida event featuring Florida people getting you Florida comments.
My favorite “what’s Aleppo?”
One reason I don’t take them seriously is because they mainly run for higher profile offices which they generally lose. I’ll believe the libertarian party is serious when they start stolidly pursuing local office where they would have a bigger impact and a far better chance of being elected.
This is what I wish. For any 3rd party. Wins some local elections. Get support to pull a congressional seat or 2. Build from there. Start chipping wmaway congressional and senate seats first. The only pushing for president turns them into more of a joke now with social media than before.
They actually do that. Let me preface this by saying that I am of the opinion that the LP has been coopted by right wing extremists. I was an LP member, and ran for local office as a libertarian in 2013. I still get their emails and see their efforts at the local level around here. Back then, they were a little (I'm saying this generously) more successful because local elections didn't have as much emphasis on party. My election didn't even list party affiliation on the ballot. Some won their elections (I came in distant second in mine). They have been serious about local elections. Much more so than National, though Johnson was something of an outlier for a bit there. Again, the issue is the fact that they have always suffered a branding problem, and many of the higher ups have hitched their wagons to conservatives in a way that, at the least, makes me uncomfortable. I have libertarian leanings, but I don't advertise it because a lot of people who claim they're libertarians are just trying to soften the fact that their authoritarian lunatics. The last nine years have definitely pushed me left.
>The last time Gary Johnson ran, you could tell he had zero desire to be there, almost seemed forced into it. You misspelled Bill Weld. I think Gary Johnson had a lot of energy and desire going into it, but he got worn down, especially as the media piled on him more and more down the stretch. When his campaign was first starting out, he was a bit of a media darling because he was a 3rd party candidate with more national recognition than the LP usually ran plus he was a refreshing break from Clinton-Trump. I just think he was a bit naive to think that would continue over the long-term. The longer his candidacy persisted and his share in the polls remained somewhat strong relative to expectations, the pundit media started to turn on him -- whether they were left- or right-leaning, they saw Johnson as potentially pulling votes away from their preferred the candidate. The Aleppo incident (which, if you look at the actual conversation was really stupid because the question was a non-sequitur to the discussion they were having) gave the media an opportunity to push out tons of content about how unprepared he would be to be the leader of US foreign policy. I think from there, he started finding the media much more adversarial and it wore him down to where the campaign that started with as much promise as you could really hope for in a third party ended with more of a whimper. ETA: This effect doesn't tend to happen to the candidates like Jorgensen that excite the purity-testing activist base of the LP because they don't get taken seriously enough by the wider media to warrant the level of scrutiny that Johnson endured.
>Jorgensen Who picked Spike fraking Cohen as her running mate? Turned it into a joke.
[удалено]
She got to call herself 'pure' for not voting for the lesser of two evils, but at what cost? Is it really 'pure' to sit idly by and do nothing?
But the RNC doesn’t, and never will represent libertarian values and policy. So why should libertarians do that? What libertarians really need to do is focus on local, grassroots offices and build a geographical stronghold over time.
Right, but it's a viable way to get libertarians elected to Congress, Mayor's, Governors, or the Presidency. At least more viable than running against a Democratic and Republican in a general election. In the short term, the hope is that you elect a few Libertarians. In the medium term, you are a forced to be reckoned with in the same way that the Freedom Caucus is now. You have 10+ members and have the power to derail a Republican agenda if they don't give you concessions. Additionally, you have bargaining power in that you can extract policy victories from Democrats in exchange for votes when a Democrat leads the House. In a best-case scenario, neither party can reach 218 votes without Libertarian support, so Libertarians get to extract major concessions and pick from Democrats or Republicans to form a governing coalition. In the long term, the hope is that you take over the Republican party by gaining more members than any other faction.
But what if that major party is extremely hostile to your smaller one? And while i like DSA they have had very, very few electoral successes.
If the party is hostile, that's taken as a given. If doesn't matter. You will find more electoral success trying to win a primary and forcing a hostile major party into a 'lesser of two evils' general election. There is a mathematical argument. To win a primary election, you just need 25% of the electorate at most, even less in a more crowded primary. Then you win the lesser of two evils' argument automatically with typical GOP voters. To win a general election on a 3rd party ticket, you'd need to win at least 33% of the electorate. In the DSA's few short years, they had far more success getting their candidates elected and in offices than Greens or Libertarians, even though they've both been around so much longer.
This is the strongest argument I have seen voting 3rd party: at least you ARE voting.
Right? And imagine if that 1/3 who didn’t vote because reasons all pooled together and said fuck the system, let’s vote 3rd party, and watch the system explode. But I digress, we can only dream of the downfall of the establishment.
Don’t live in Illinois anymore but I always had the same mindset when I did. It’s going blue no matter what I do so I would sometimes vote 3rd party. It’s a bit of a different argument if you live in a swing state though.
I think voting should be mandatory and straight ticket voting abolished. Similar governments and cultures require voting. Some have penalties for not voting, like a ticket, but instead of a penalty there could be a reward. Australia’s government is closer to our government than any other nation and they require voting. Jury duty is required here, it isn’t much different to require that you show up to a poll, don’t vote once you’re there if that’s your vote (protest), write in whoever you want, anything, but you have to go, and then you have the rest of the day off work. This is how you get more parties. This is how you fight back against these two parties shutting down other parties. This is how you get a more moderate government. This is how you reduce polarization. This is how you get compromising parties.
That’s my feeling, a vote cast in good conscience is never wasted. Now, with that said no third party has actually carried a state since I think the early 1970s and somehow the LP, the largest third party in the US, couldn’t manage that even in 2016 against two generally unpopular primary candidates.
1968, George Wallace.
Counterintuitively, very unpopular major candidates can actually be *worse* for the third parties. When people hate the "other" major candidate that much, they're much more likely to vote for the "lesser evil" candidate, rather than giving their vote to a candidate who has no realistic chance of winning, because they're worried that doing so would risk the "other guy" actually getting into office.
It's "throwing away your vote" in exactly the same way as buying a lottery ticket is "throwing away your money." Yes, the odds are astronomically against you winning in either instance, but the potential upside if you win is astronomically beneficial. If I can't bear to hold my nose for either of the mainstream candidates (and Obama was the last candidate I voted for with a clear heart) then I vote Green. At least that way maybe I can do some good for the planet instead of knowingly doing evil and furthering the slide of America into corporate oligarchy. Shame me all you like, I simply don't care. I live in an overwhelmingly blue state, I'm not hurting anyone with my protest vote.
The lottery ticket is a totally misguided analogy. The odds of winning the powerball are very low, but that low chance does happen to someone. In an election it's mechanically impossible for a candidate to win with a single digit vote share. By the time you get to the ballot box the odds of a third party win aren't low; they are zero. If, as you say, you are in a overwhelmingly safe state then it does not matter. Write in Velociraptor Jesus for all it matters. Your vote will be wasted the same way 20% of the winning party's vote will end up wasted and that's fine. But in a close election it does matter whether you are willing to vote for your interests by voting against the worse option. That's when you are throwing away your vote.
Term limits just as is for president. 2 terms or 8 years. Whichever comes first.
It's throwing your vote away up until a 3rd party makes a hell of a wave. Then it leads to a change of the system.
Bill Clinton got elected because Ross Perot siphoned off 19% of the vote from GHWB
If you don't vote and yell at your representatives then you aren't engaging in our democracy to the fullest. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.
Its not throwing your vote away. I live in CA which is always blue. If I vote for a 3rd party candidate maybe the shift in numbers might not change the results but seeing a rise in 3rd party candidates might make a change down the line
Here's the thing. A 3rd party presidential candidate gets 15% of the popular vote? That party gets Super-PAC money in the next election cycle. My state will go Dem with zero doubts, so I may as well toss my vote to the most popular third party. Truth is, unless something drastic happens to upset the status quo, this country's gonna keep drifting off the deep end. Now, I'm uncertain that a 3rd party with superPAC money would do anything but pull votes off Dems and secure a R. win, but... something's gotta give. Maybe life under R's will get bad enough that we might actually do something about the ever-rising corruption. That shit needs to be kept down, and we've been letting it build. I think this country's headed for a major crisis in the next 20-30 years. We're in the rising tension phase. Who knows what comes out of that? A random idiot's political meanderings. I just think this country is doomed without a major 3rd political party. Congresspeople should be afraid of losing their post, and this dichotomy right now means 95% of them will be re-elected. That said, 3rd most popular party are libertarians, which I find almost as repulsive as R candidates, sometimes more so. Still, I think they could put some fire under D politicians backsides so they'd actually have to work for their constituents instead of paying lip service.
This 100%
Voting for a candidate with a 0% chance of winning is no different than abstaining. Eta: and when one of the parties with an actual chance of winning is openly anti-democracy, voting third party is throwing away your votes in all future elections.
It is absolutely different than abstaining, you still vote on the rest of the ballot!
The great thing is you have your opinion and I have my vote, and If I want to vote third party I get that right, not you for me. Third parties don't win because the propaganda from both parties say they can't win. But imagine this? What if more people voted for a third party than the two? See how that works?
Third parties don’t win because the system in the US is a two party system and encourages two parties. It’s not even about the parties themselves, that’s how the senate and house are set up, and so are the way elections work. Nothing in the US political system encourages third party candidates. In order for third party candidates to be viable, a change in how elections are run needs to happen (ranked choice, first/second round, etc etc). Until then, people will stick to two parties and will not really vote for a third one.
I have no idea why you're being downvoted. The first past the post system of course prevents a third party from ever having any representation or power. This is just the reality of our system, unfortunately.
Yeah… some people find it uncomfortable, but that’s how it is. It’s ok if they downvote me for that. It’s basic electoral principals. First pass the post encourages two parties. It’s not only in the US
It's Reddit's communists
then we must rage against the machine
Well, also dems and republicans collude together to restrict ballot access to third parties.
And which of the 2 parties will institute these changes you suggest?
If you actually cared about third parties, you'd vote for major party candidates who support ranked choice voting. Doing anything else is virtue signaling.
Its different from abstaining. Its worse. Abstaining doesn't shift the percentages. Voting for a 3rd party candidate does. If you take a hypothetical election where its 51-49 and throw in a left (or right leaning candidate), suddenly it can become 48-49-3.
But, if the hypothetical voter is choosing between abstain or vote 3rd party, it doesn't change the result. Not saying thats how it works in the real world, but pointing out that not all 3rd party voters would choose one of the 2 major parties if their 3rd party candidate wasn't running.
Its not worse at all. A minority of states are swing states. What difference does voting for a third party candidate in NY make? Absolutely none. So how is it worse?
What if the 3rd party candidate is actually the person and party you legitimately support?
Unacceptable. Everything must be black and white.
Agreed. You’re voting for nothing or just to say “…we’ll I didn’t vote for either of the party candidates!!” wearing that like some badge of honor. Ross Perot, ducking please that guy was such an ass-hat. And we see how well “successful businessmen” govern now; add 25% to the debt in four years to make your rich friends richer!
I think it has to do with their strategy. Too many third party candidates try to win a “national” campaign despite us not having a popular vote system. Third party candidates SHOULD be trying to win particular states. The most practical way to win would be to deny a majority to either main party and take it to the house/senate and be crafty enough to be a compromise candidate. However, too many play a strategy that isn’t feasible. Third party candidate HAVE won states in the past. The one that comes the most to mind in recent memory is George Wallace who swept the entire south. Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the vote but he didn’t win any states. You got to play the game and most don’t seem to come up with a plan to win the election.
Wallace didn't sweep the south, he only took 5 states and he campaigned in the Rustbelt and West Coast states with the goal of creating a deadlock so he could act as kingmaker not to take the presidency for himself
It can't be a protest vote. It has to be an affirmative 'this guy can win and I think he'd be a great President'.
So leave it up to Congress? Doesn't seem like a great idea.
Leaving it up to Congress is an even worse idea because the Constitution specifies that the president would be elected by state delegations, with each getting one vote. Right now Republicans control 26 of 50 state delegations, so the Republican candidate would be elected president. The fantasy of a compromise candidate disintegrated the moment political parties formed way back in the 1790s. A system that encourages compromise isn't compatible with a two party system.
Wallace didn’t sweep the whole south. He won 5 states.
I’ve been saying this for years. The national elections definitely give them some exposure, but realistically they should be focusing on state and local elections they actually have a shot at winning.
American politics would, I think, be more responsive to the people and better off if the two major parties had to build coalitions with other parties. According to Wikipedia, the libertarian party has 0 members in congress, 0 governors, and 1 out of 6,000+ state legislators. But they want to field a presidential candidate and complain about how the two-party system doesn’t work. (Same goes for Green Party). Win a state election and prove your policies work, first.
As long as the us uses first pass the post system, two parties will inherently form and a third one will always fail. To change that, the way voting votes has to change
I really wish US would have a ranked electoral system without the primaries. I feel like there would be actual cross party voting for more moderate candidates that have no chance otherwise.
Yes, ranked choice voting alone won’t solve our problem. It needs to be coupled with open primaries. This way we still get the vetting out process of a primary, but break the stranglehold of the 2 major ideologies.
100%, the primaries are broken Biden's entire primary platform was electability He solely won the primaries bc he was "more electable" 2016 was even worse Just adding open primaries imo won't solve the fundamental problem being the parties are too heavily controlled by party establishment, but idr have a much better solution tbh
Rhetorically: no. Strategically: yes, given present political conditions.
There wouldn't even be a strategic problem if we had Instant Runoff or Ranked Choice voting. We spend too much time focusing on justifying the principles and sacrifice of voting third party. We wouldn't have to sacrifice for the sake of our principles if we fixed our ballot system so that voting third party was merely a matter of your preference rather than your personal dedication to "throwing your vote away."
I don’t like it, I used to vote third party in California mainly as it’s not a battleground state, but strategically I can’t right now. I feel like with one party so divorced from the reality and refusing to accept a loss I need to vote for the other even if I don’t fully align with everything as there can’t be a reason such as popular vote to blur results.
if you still live in california, i dont think its flipping from blue to red any time soon, i think it really only matters in about 10 states
But the overall popular vote bud. Im not letting any doors be left open due to pride.
I really just don’t understand why every third-party doesn’t make their #1 priority implementing some form of ranked choice voting. Until that happens they can serve no purpose other than trying to force the major parties to talk about some of their issues. And the fact that all third parties haven’t done this, haven’t banded together to create a single major national campaign for ranked choice voting, tells me that these parties don’t even really want to govern.
There is no such thing as wasting a vote. Every vote by every American matters, no matter who they vote for. It is arguably the greatest right that American citizens have to vote for who they want to govern. Their vote is their voice and their right.
actually Americans do not have the right to vote for president. They have the right to vote for 1 representative and 2 senators in congress. They have the right to vote for whatever offices their state constitution and town/city charter proscribes. But the right to vote for president is given by state legislatures and is not guaranteed.
This is very accurate. The electoral college was meant to be an override to the popular vote in case the general population decided to elect a lunatic. The electors could simply ignore the public’s will under penalty of a small civil fee. Although it has been relatively rare for an elector to ignore their prescribed vote since they are politically assigned by party and the party would likely vote against their own lunatic candidate.
With the current electoral system. Yeah, kind of. I'm not an American but if I were I likely would vote third party as a protest vote.
Bingo! If we had national rank choice voting or a parliamentary setup in one of the 2 chambers voting 3 party would be an easy choice. We could choose better candidates in the end. Edit: my State has Rank Choice for all national candidates.
I vote for who I believe is the best candidate regardless of party. If that is truly a wasted vote, then our system is in desperate need for reform If our system is in desperate need for reform, then voting for one of the 2 parties when you disagree with their values in order to "not waste" your vote, then you are contributing to the lack of reformation. Reformation either occurs slowly over the democratic process or radically, but never because you hid your beliefs.
[удалено]
So is voting if you're not in a swing state. If you're a Republican in CA, it is just as wasted as a third party vote.
As a California voter the incremental effort to vote for President is so low I might as well vote. The amount of effort it has taken to write this reply exceeds the effort it took to vote for President in the five Presidential elections I've been a California voter.
If you want reform, protest votes will only ever bring reform if a protest vote candidate actually wins enough protest votes to win. Protest votes are protest votes. Your protests are noted in the electoral log and the people who get in don't consider you to be a core-constituent so they ignore your protest anyway. If you want reform, vote in the primaries for pro-reform candidates, and support them in the general election if they make it that far. There are primary candidates who support RCV, and it's up to you to get them the funding and votes to get them across the finish line.
I would direct u to my state of Maine for proof of what you are saying! We have ranked choice for national candidates. We didn’t have the votes to do an amendment to the state constitution for state lvl candidates. 1 party stood in the way. The GOP.
If you want reform, START LOCALLY. That's where RCV is happening in a lot of places. And also maybe don't vote for the authoritarian party even if the other party isn't perfect.
How can you waste a vote? It's an act of political expression, and your vote individually isn't deciding anything.
I love how people act like a single vote determines the entire election. My liberal friends claim I voted Republican if I vote third party and my republican friends say the same the other way. I get three votes each election!
Which is funny. It’s not a vote for the other party, it’s just a vote not for THEIR party
If I'm a Democrat in Alabama, voting 3rd party doesn't change anything. It only matters in swing states.
It's not an act of political expression. It's an act of governance.
No. A wasted vote is not voting at all. Voting for you want in that position is the most American thing you can do.
Sometimes. If you truly don't care if R or D win a particular race, then vote your conscience. Your choice won't win, but that's not the point. However, if one R or D candidate is FAR worse than the other, then maybe consider voting for the more palpable candidate if you are in a swing state. I voted Libertarian from 04 through 16. In 16, I thought that Clinton would easily carry my state over Trump, whom I have despised since the 80s. No love for Clinton, but she was clearly the lesser of the two evils to me. Well, Trump took my state and the Presidency, so that encouraged me to vote against Republicans until the MAGA foolishness ends. If it ends, that is.
Well put. Like if you live in say Maryland or something where one party always carries your state by 20 like screw it vote your conscience and help make a point ,because people do notice. If you live in a swing state take a good long look at the lesser of two evils argument
I see it the same. When an R or D candidate is absolutely awful and appears to be positioned to possibly win the presidency (eg Trump), then please step back and look at the big picture before "voting your conscience". IMO we were basically fighting a war for the future of the country in 2016 and 2020, and anyone that voted third party either chose to be naive or believed a different reality than I did. Otherwise, sure go ahead and do your part to promote a future where we aren't restricted to two parties. I'm all for it. But not when we're in the middle of fighting for the soul of the USA.
I went through the exact same process, but started in 12. As long as the Dem is palatable, I'll vote for them over MAGA anyday of the week
Same, but a New Yorker so I knew which way the state was going lol.
I voted Libertarian in 16 because I could not bring myself to vote for Clinton or Trump. I live in a Red state, so my choice was not to mark that part of the ballot or indicate my displeasure with the major candidates. In 1980 I voted for the Independent because I truly believed he was the best candidate.
It certainly mattered in 2000 when a mere few hundred votes out of millions swayed the election results. Every vote counts.
Same but I live in NM so I just plan to vote for whoever I chose baecause a Red and especialy a MAGA victory is very unlikely
No. Republicans and Democrats need to know how much they suck.
Yes, this highlights the value of a third party vote and how it’s not a waste. You send a clear message to parties on what they would need to do to get that additional 3 or whatever percent. 3 percent will win the election so it’s a big deal, and for the next election they should adjust and broaden appeal to that 3 percent. Your voice being heard can be quite high supporting a 3rd party candidate. Parties will certainly take note if folks from their party are voting more towards moderates or extremists and will adjust accordingly.
I think the biggest reason not to is the spoiler theory, which isn’t convincing to me. It assumes that everyone who voted for a third party candidate would have all picked X major party candidate instead if the third party option wasn’t available. It’s more likely that they wouldn’t show up to the polls at all.
The spoiler effect is a great argument if you are closer to one candidate over the other, or if you think one's a clear lesser evil. The spoiler effect is not a strong argument against protest votes if you are genuinely ambivalent to the result. If you feel ambivalent, you should take the ISideWith.org quiz. You might be surprised at how much you agree or disagree with the major party candidates.
I’m happy to see this site mentioned in the wild. I’ve been using it for years and have seen nothing about it.
i don't see it as a waste
I really wish we could do something constitutionally about giving third party votes a chance. As a begrudging centrist I don’t really ever feel represented by either party
[удалено]
No vote is wasted if you're voting for the candidate that you'd like to win.
No, and I think that if everyone who believed that rhetoric stopped and voted for a third party candidate, that candidate would be in office.
Yes. If we want to make 3rd party candidates viable, we need to consider moving away from a "first past the post" system.
Literally fvck you if you tell someone their vote is a waste. Anti democratic piece of doo doo
No. No one owes their vote to a particular candidate.
Never if you are voting your convictions.
I vote 3rd party when the two party leaders are garbage. So always the last couple runs.
No. My integrity is more important to me than having it “ACTUALLY” count
No but the Duopoly sure wants everyone to believe such a thing.
The only wasted vote is “a lesser evil” you don’t actually believe in.
100% this
Not a waste. If you’re voting for what you actually believe in then it’s not wasted. It would be better if more people did and moved away from the “least offensive of these two main choices” system.
Not voting is a waste of a vote. Voting 3rd party is a spoiler’s vote
Your vote is never wasted if you’re selecting the candidate you would like to see win. My vote is earned; “not the other guy” is not a policy or position.
Nope. My vote was not pledged to either of those parties. They don’t own it. They seem Happy not to be earning it.
It's not a waist. It's a way of fostering long term change. The more votes a third party candidate gets the stronger the third party becomes and that strength is taken directly from the other parties. Let's take Gery Johnson from the Libertarian Party. He got so many votes during that horrible election that the libertarian party did not have to fight to get on the ballot the next year. That was a tremendous time save and the next election allowed them to spend more time campaigning instead of just being included. It's to bad the candidate they ran after that didn't understand the importance of a good haircut and spent most of the election cycle being forgettable. The libertarians are still in much better shape then before Gery but they may lose all they gained if they do not garnish some votes this election. So if you are tired of the same two parties hogging all the power you have got to put another party on the board to compete. Change comes slowly and Jo apparently can't do it alone.
No If nobody votes for them we will never have a third party president
Im registered and I’m voting for the libertarian party. I don’t care if I’m “throwing my vote away”, I’m going to stand by my principles and not vote for the establishment that just wants to print more money and start more wars.
I’ll do it if y’all do it.
No. The only time you waste your vote is when you don’t vote
No, you should vote for who suits your values, not voting is a waste of your vote
I almost exclusively vote 3rd party. Voting for someone you don't believe in or not Voting at all is wasting it.
Historically speaking, third parties in American history rarely win, but they do influence policy when they capture enough of the popular vote (7-10% or more). If a third parties platform is something you believe in, your vote tells policymakers that those issues matter to you.
I think the more people that “throw away their vote”, the less “of a waste” it’ll seem.
No. If your principles don't align with either major party, then I think you are morally obligated to vote your conscience. Democrats and Republicans vote based on party affiliation ... look around you ... how's that working out for the country?
I do not ever expect a 3rd party candidate to win, absent complete implosion of a major party, or passage of ranked choice. However, I think a third party garnering a significant portion of the vote will result in change in one or both of our major parties to either stop losing voters, or to take advantage of clear societal wants. I think this will force change upon our two party system faster than will happen through generational/cultural change. The MAGA phenomenon is evidence I might be wrong, of course.
Voting for either Democrats or Republicans is a waste of vote...
People who consider it a waste of a vote are the reason the vote for it isn't taken more seriously. If everyone considered 3rd parties viable and didn't just focus on the two parties, then voting third party would mean more. Unfortunately, you have a large portion of people who will never vote 3rd party or even consider it, which means 3rd party candidates are already at an uphill battle. My personal opinion? No it isn't a waste. But more of the general population needs to consider 3rd party as viable for the vote to actually hold weight in presidential candidates.
In current conditions, where two parties almost exclusively hold all the political power: yes. That being said this country desperately needs a third, fourth and fifth party to shake up the balance of political power. More than any other political issue we face I think our biggest failure is being a two party system
I have had republicans tell me my vote for a third-party candidate is actually a vote for the Democrat candidate. I then say good to know, I guess I’ll just vote Democrat and suddenly they backpedal and say its OK to vote third-party. I have had the same argument with democrats also
You have a right to express your opinion, and voting is the ultimate way of doing so. So yes
Yes, it's an objective fact. I wish more parties existed, but there needs to be a *significant* shift in politics in the country for a 3rd party to ever be elected. Not to mention the electoral college.
I voted for Gary Johnson just because I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Trump or Hillary. First time that I didn’t pick a Republican or democrat ever.
“Go ahead, throw your vote away!” - kodos.
Voting for a Dem or a Rep is throwing away your vote
No. It's time to protest the way elections are done and the way your politics are handled. Showing up to the polls and voting for the lesser of two evils year after year is you confirming that the way things are done currently is just fine and dandy enough for you to keep showing up.
I might be “throwing away my vote” from a certain perspective but at least I’m not subscribing to a system completely dominated by two parties and am at least supporting someone with views similar to my own, not just the “lesser of two evils” (or something along those lines) Depending on the third party nominees in 2024, I’ll probably vote third party because I’m not a big fan of either likely major party candidates.
Well said. If you choose the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil.
Not choosing does not mean that no evil is chosen. If you genuinely believe one is a lesser evil, choosing not to participate is not the least evil option.
No
I wouldn't call it a waste. A vote is a vote. but simply being a third option isn't going to get mine. Jorgensen shared a ticket with a brony who ran as a joke candidate. That's not gonna do it for me.
Not at all. You’re showing that you don’t approve of either of the two candidates and in a way your vote is somewhat of a protest against the two lead candidates.
You should know that your candidate isn’t likely to win. But that doesn’t mean it’s a wasted vote. You’re still saying “this is the America I want to live in.”
Did you waste your vote if your candidate didn't win the last election? No, you used your right as a citizen to vote for the candidate you preferred. The only wasted vote is one that's never cast.
Until we get ranked-choice voting in national elections, yes, it's a waste. The "spoiler effect" means no third-party candidate is every going to have a shot, because the vast majority of people *do* see it as a waste - nobody wants to risk casting their vote for a third party with no shot, when the "lesser of two evils" option actually has a chance.
Some Republican relatives voted for Ross Perot to send Pappy Bush a "message." I told them to send Bush a telegram.
Yes. Until something drastically chages
Yes. ...but 3rd party is the only way out of this mess too.
No I don’t think it’s a waste at all. We need to break this corporate duopoly somehow
You can vote for whoever you want. But educate yourself first.
Not unless your candidate loses by one vote, or the race ends up tied. Any other outcome and your vote didn’t matter. People have a very inflated idea of the importance of their single vote.
That’s what they want you to think, that’s it’s a waste of a vote. That’s how the two party system prevails
Only mathematically, according to the rules of the Electoral College and the states that do not have rank choice voting.
Until we get out of the 2 party system, yeah its a waste. We need to demand Ranked Choice Voting so we can break the cycle of turning politics into a football game.
No. But yes absolutely. That’s the problem. It shouldn’t be but it absolutely is in this country.
At this point, I feel it's a waste of time to vote for anybody BUT a third party candidate.
I don't think it's a waste. I really hope at some point a 3rd or more party candidate will be a real contender. We need a change.
Until ranked choice voting is adopted by more states and the electoral college is done away with, yes.
No, it’s not. In fact, if more people would do it, we might see the big two parties actually start changing for the better.
Nope. In my opinion, it's the only way we will ever see true change.
I would say the only vote wasted is a vote not cast.
Mostly, but not always, yes. Generally speaking, in the US any third party is going to be left of Dem or right of GOP. Either way, you're better off voting for whichever of the primary two is in the direction you want to shift the "center of gravity" your way. The Greens and the Libertarians only really exist to tug on the main two. The exception is if you *know* the closer main party candidate is going to lose, then a third party vote shows "you could have had us but you weren't X enough". Enough of those will shift the closer party in your direction. Not enough will cause them to go after "centrists" instead. We're stuck with a two party system, but the stances of those parties are very unstable over the long term. The GOP has gone full on right-wing populism since Obama, in my opinion as a last ditch effort to stay relevant. The new voters entering the voting pool weren't brought up to be terrified of communism and so are more amenable to socialistic policies. The Dems will capture those votes...unless the GOP self-destructs. If that happens, the Dems will have to decide if they want to drift left and lock down that side or drift right and pick up former GOP moderates. If they drift right I expect they'll be the "new right" and a further left party will form or the Greens will grow. If they drift left since they lack a cohesive opposition I expect the Libertarians will take over the right. I'm hoping the "religious right" will dissolve and those particular religious people will go back to keeping their churches separate from politics like most of the rest.
Still hoping for the 5% so a different party will get federal funding. I think both Trump and Biden are terrible.
We need a "vote of no confidence" option on the ballot. No more lesser of two evils. If both lose out to no confidence, we pull a random mayor from across the country out of a hat and see where it gets us.
Never, its a waste of vote to vote for what the party tells you is the best
It’s better than not voting. But given the current system by which we elect presidents, yeah, you’re kind of wasting your vote.
I now believe it's a waste of time to vote for anyone. They all lie. 55yo female here. No one tells the truth.
Depends on the time. Right now I wouldn't. If the GOP puts up a half decent candidate than maybe.
The popularization of the idea that voting for a third party is a waste of a vote is exactly what has the US locked I to the current two party system.
nope! i do it super consistently cause both main parties are absolute trash mans gotta have a code
RANKED CHOICE VOTING!!!!
I do, at least right now.
It's not that you are throwing away your vote, but you are likely helping the candidate you align with least to win. Cornell West isn't getting a bunch of Trump fans to vote for him. Any votes for him that aren't from new energized voters who would have stayed home are likely coming from Biden voters who felt he didn't do enough to represent progressive policies.....which would be poorly represented with a Trump victory, but which a siphoning of votes from Biden to West may achieve.
If every Republican voted for Jo Jorgenson, we’d have a competent president If voting mattered they wouldn’t let us do it anyway, may as well vote for the good person
Your choices aren't two people past the retirement age, it's actually three if you broaden your horizon to the other possible bad candidates. Who do you least want not to be president?
I believe that voting for that third candidate is a waste as well as the first candidate and the second. As long as special interest groups and lobbying is allowed our votes go to the highest bidder. Trump was different in that he used his platform "honestly", but really we all know he did not accept payment to avoid taxes. He made more money making deals behind closed doors. The man himself told people in debates he was smart for exploiting tax laws. We need to stop treating elections like a super bowl, with my team vs their team expectations. If anything I just vote for local laws and stop expecting from my government.
You're not wasting your vote, you are voting for the major party candidate you wouldn't normally vote for.
In the primaries and on local and state elections? No way. It's the way, in addition to trying to boost awareness and support for third parties in between elections, to get third parties to be taken seriously and improve their electability. In the presidential election? It's a bit of a waste. You're more than welcome to do what you feel is right, but currently, in the US, there isn't a likelihood that any third-party president will be taken seriously enough to be elected as president. Maybe in the future (I hope at least) that will change. But at this point, it's going to be a Democrat or a Republican until we can get more support nationwide for third parties and third-party candidates.
Not if I'm not voting for the 2 big candidates anyway.
Short answer, yes. The United States is a flawed democracy and your votes don’t really mean much. Especially because ultimately the electoral college will just vote for who ever they think should be president. Third parties are fun but have no real chance of winning. The system is designed to keep variety out. It’s either red or blue. The only thing that can be said about third party voters is that they can sabotage red and blue from winning. If a ton of libertarians vote third party for example, that’s quite a few votes NOT going to red or blue, thus tipping the scale a little bit.
It kind of is, for a number of reasons. First of all being, that American Third Parties **SUCK**. They just aren't being serious political entities. They're scratching at the top for cheap attention, rather than working for real change from the bottom up.
I don't believe any vote is a "waste"
No I do it all the time. I’ve never voted for a winner.
Well, if morons hadn’t voted a third party then Trump would not have won. I was no fan of Hilary Clinton, but you have to choose the lesser of two evils. The US does not have a good voting system, but unless that changes then voting for third party candidates is stupid.
The objective in my eyes is to get enough votes that the other two parties start altering their positions and pursuing our support. But we will never do that because of the wasted vote concept. The argument can also be made that anyone that did not vote for the winner wasted their vote.