"Wasted" votes

[srellim234]

The thread on the electoral college got me thinking about a consequence, specifically to those from the major parties who are voting for their candidate as the "lesser of two evils" and primarily to keep the other guy out of office.

Many people think that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. I disagree, but that's not the discussion I want to turn this to.

Given that the majority of states still place their electoral votes as "all or nothing", are you not also wasting the vote if you vote for the lesser of two evils in a state that is already off the table and against you? As an example, my home state, California, is generally off the table and counted on Obama's side. For a Republican who doesn't particularly support the direction the Republican Party has taken (and based on the polls there are a lot of them out there) why wouldn't you take the opportunity to place a "protest your party" vote by selecting a third party over the Republicans this time around? Your vote isn't going to affect the electoral college vote for President and it is a great opportunity to tell your party you're unhappy with what's going on.

The same applies to the Democrats voting for Obama as the lesser of two evils in a solidly Republican state.

I understand the "Dewey defeats Truman" comeback but that's pretty unrealistic in some states.

Are you wasting your vote if you vote for the lesser of two evils in a state where your candidate doesn't have a chance?

[rn79870]

It is hard to discuss that issue without coming back to whether or not a 3rd. party vote is or isn't a wasted vote.

As you've pointed out, you already feel California is a given for Obama. Let's say it is. If that's the case, and a Republican votes for a 3rd. party candidate, a vote lost to the Republicans. A vote lost to the Republicans benefits the Democrats. Following that logic, a vote for a third party candidate in California is a vote for Obama.

Now, a undecided state.With only two real choices (in the sense that one of the two will win the office), there is obviously one seen as the lesser of two evils. A vote for a 3rd. party candidate is a vote lost to the lesser of the two evils, therefore it benefits the greater of the two evils.

A state that is clearly for the candidate of choice.Voting for a 3rd party candidate is a vote lost to your candidate of choice. Of course, if there was a clear candidate of choice, there would be no reason to vote for a 3rd. party candidate.

In my opinion, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the candidate considered to be the greater of two evils in that it is a vote lost to the lesser of two evils.

[wingFeather]

Are you wasting your vote if you vote for the lesser of two evils in a state where your candidate doesn't have a chance?

How do you know McCain doesn't have a chance? Arnold got elected.

If it looks to be a fixed election, then move somewhere that your vote will make a difference.

[96Qowner]

It's hard to respond without bringing up the wisdom of 3rd Party voting, so let me know if I'm off-subject, but here goes.

In another thread someone (can't find it in Search) mentioned John Anderson in 1980. I was 28 years old and I voted for him. I had voted for Ford in 1976, and wrote-in Humphrey for 1972. So, I'm somewhat experienced in protest voting. At the time I was supporting Anderson, my father tried to convince me that I was wasting my vote. At that age, I felt I knew enough not to have to listen to an older entrenched man, and I distinctly remember trying to get him to understand that a vote should be in favor of the candidate you think is best, not the candidate you think might win. It's not like betting on horses, where you get some reward if you guess right. He argued with me, but still let me save face and think I was right. Since then, I've learned that he was indeed, right.

Here's the problem: This country is not run by individuals - it's run by political Parties. If a President has no political Party to support his goals, he is a lone individual with absolutely no power at all. There is absolutely no reason anyone at all needs to cooperate with him. He can't get his Legislature to listen to him, he can't get his Legislature to fear him. They will go on about their business as they see fit, no matter what he says or thinks. A President needs to have Legislators on his side and in his Party who are indebted to him and are afraid of what he can do to them.

A Legislator also needs his colleagues. Any Independent can offer his vote to one of the 2 Parties and be relevant, but he has no power at all to pressure the 2 Parties. He'll never wield power, himself - he can only choose which Party to help.

So, regardless of whether your 3rd Party guy can get elected or not, he will be able to accomplish nothing if he wins. For a good case study, check out Jesse Ventura in Minnesota. For the last couple years of his term, he was irrelevant, frustrated and cantankerous, because the Legislature had no reason to pay any attention to him at all.

A politician needs a Party to unite with him. Without a powerful Party, he's just an interesting novelty.

[srellim234]

How do you get through to your party that you disapprove of the direction it is taking if the most important factor, your vote, keeps going to them? If I verbally complain to Nissan but I refuse to take my business elsewhere, why should Nissan change what they're doing? They're still guaranteed my money every time I buy a car, so why bother?

96- you are right about lower level support, as I just pointed out in AZ's thread. I do wind up voting for third party candidates for lower offices the vast majority of the time. Effective change has to start from the bottom up to build that pyramid of support.

[rn79870]

I'm reading between the lines but I assume your saying a third party vote is a wasted vote due to the fact that a win produces an impotent officer?

[96Qowner]

I agree - makes much more sense to vote 3rd Party on the local and State level.

I'm reading between the lines but I assume your saying a third party vote is a wasted vote due to the fact that a win produces an impotent officer?

Basically, yeah. Also, with more than 2 Parties, you begin to flirt with a Parlimentary system, requiring coalitions to govern effectively.

[Encryptshun]

Voting for a 3rd-party candidate is not a wasted vote if you actually want that party to have a chance the next time around. In many districts (mine, for example), a party candidate receiving X number of votes automatically qualifies to have his/her party candidate added to the ballot in the next election. Otherwise, the party has to go through a petitioning process for every election cycle, which drains valuable party resources that could otherwise be used to drum up support.

So in that way, there ARE no wasted votes.

[rn79870]

How do you get through to your party that you disapprove of the direction it is taking if the most important factor, your vote, keeps going to them? If I verbally complain to Nissan but I refuse to take my business elsewhere, why should Nissan change what they're doing? They're still guaranteed my money every time I buy a car, so why bother?

Each party looks at an independent vote as a vote the other party didn't get. Independents are really the ones who are going to determine this election. I'm assuming the Dems will vote Obama, the Reps McCain. There may be a little cross over, but the independents will ultimately select the next president.

I would assume that after the votes are counted, and the next king crowned, the losing party will look at the independents who voted 3rd. party and ask "what did we do wrong" while the winning party will look at the victory as "the people have spoken." So at best, your protest vote is only half received.

Obviously anyone considering a 3rd. party vote is not satisfied with either of the 2 main line options. The problem is, once those two candidates are selected, it's too late to send a message. It just won't be heard. (IMO)

[srellim234]

Additionally, It is not inconceivable that if enough votes for a major party went to a third party (say Republican to another conservative party here or Democrat to another liberal party in a Republican state) that would really get their attention. It would affect things like qualifying for campaign financing the next time around.

If your party takes the hint and changes sufficiently for your taste, not a problem returning the vote to it next time.

[HashiriyaS14]

How do you know McCain doesn't have a chance? Arnold got elected.

Are you familiar with the idea of polls and sampling, or do you just discount them completely?

Yes, they elected a Republican governor, but then so did Massachusetts. Neither state is even approachable by the GOP in the Presidential election however, as pools show. Just like Texas isn't remotely approachable by a Democratic candidate.

Is it fun to ignore reality?

[rn79870]

Voting for a 3rd-party candidate is not a wasted vote if you actually want that party to have a chance the next time around. In many districts (mine, for example), a party candidate receiving X number of votes automatically qualifies to have his/her party candidate added to the ballot in the next election. Otherwise, the party has to go through a petitioning process for every election cycle, which drains valuable party resources that could otherwise be used to drum up support.

So in that way, there ARE no wasted votes.

Maybe for a local level that would work. The problem is that there are many pressing issues that are present at the national level. Those issues will fall into one of the camps, and there is probably a lesser of evils option in that regard.

A 3rd. party vote is not a vote, but as SR said, a protest. It ends up being a vote for the winner as much as a protest.

[srellim234]

My original question only revolves around those major party voters in "decided" states who are voting against the other guy, not for their guy. Their vote will not affect who becomes President.

Hypothetically (I don't have any hard numbers in front of me right now), say there are 30 million Democratic voters in a state. 20 million Republicans. The Democrat is projected to win even bigger, say 70-30%. If there are 20 million registered Republicans, only 10 million pull the lever for their top guy but the other 10 million pull the lever for a conservative third party, don't you think they would pay attention?

If you have the opportunity to move your party in such a situation and you don't, aren't you wasting the opportunity?

[Encryptshun]

To your point, srellim, I'd think the message would be sent before the election ever happened. If that much of the party was dissenting, then it would have affected state fundraising for the Republican candidate. Money talks, and they'd pay attention.

[HashiriyaS14]

I generally have a tough time with people voting for 3rd parties in meaningful states.

I mean, if people understand that a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama in, say, Virginia, that's fine, so long as they're doing it to have that effect.

A would-be Obama supporter voting for Nader in a swing state is, however, IMO, not living up to his/her responsibility as a voter.

A voter's responsibility, when their vote counts (i.e. swing-ish state), is to pick from what they believe is the least available electable evil. Generally, for the last century or so, this means picking between the Republican and the Democrat and deciding which is the least offensive and the most capable. If you don't do this and cast a 3rd party vote in "protest", you are being irresponsible with your own ability to impact the course of American history.

[AZhitman]

It's been stated here, but I think I also said it weeks ago in another thread:

Rather than all this scurrying about worrying about what will essentially be A MEANINGLESS VOTE, the third-party or protest voter will see FAR more return on his investment if he engages in the political process at the lowest level.

Support for independent / third-party candidates in local elections (or becoming one yourself) is the only meaningful way to effect such change. It WILL roll upwards with time and nifluence.

[96Qowner]

My original question only revolves around those major party voters in "decided" states who are voting against the other guy, not for their guy. Their vote will not affect who becomes President.

That's a great time to vote third Party in hopes of strengthening it.

It's a damned catch-22. I want a third Party made up of economic conservatives and social liberals. It seems easy, since most of the electorate falls into that camp, but it's just impossible to get over that 33% threshold.

[Encryptshun]

A voter's responsibility, when their vote counts (i.e. swing-ish state), is to pick from what they believe is the least available electable evil.

That is probably the most cynical statement about our governmental system that I've ever agreed with.

I want a third Party made up of economic conservatives and social liberals.

You and me both.

[HashiriyaS14]

That is probably the most cynical statement about our governmental system that I've ever agreed with.

I see how it could come off that way, but it's not even really cynicism. It's arithmetic. 1+1 does not equal 7. You can't expect to cast your vote for a 3rd party (someone who has no chance) in a zero-sum game and have it not negatively impact someone who DOES have a chance.

I think that all third-party candidates should have to say that, if they lose, all their votes go to "x" major-party candidate. That way, you still get to make the statement for the cause of a given 3rd party guy, but you aren't skewing the game that actually matters.

EDIT:

I want a third Party made up of economic conservatives and social liberals.

^^How is this not, at least approximately, Libertarian?

[wingFeather]

Is it fun to ignore reality?

Personal attack.

Reagan took California IIRC. It's possible.

[96Qowner]

^^How is this not, at least approximately, Libertarian?

It's purist Libertarian as I see it. The actual Libertarian Party is a joke, at present. You'd have to create a viable Party out of a Republican schism. Actually, McCain is a step in the right direction.

[HashiriyaS14]

Reagan took California IIRC. It's possible.

I hope so, he *was* the Governor at the time.

California actually used to be a reliably Republican state, just as the South was so totally Democratic (because Lincoln had been a Republican) that it was referred to as "The Solid South".

Things change. California is now and has been for some time a committedly liberal state with no chance whatsoever of flipping. If it was near flipping, the polls would reflect this. The "poll of polls" available at FiveThirtyEight.com today shows California as being a 94% chance of Democratic win.

Sorry for the reality comment, but seriously, the numbers are there. You can see for yourself how the state, or any other state, is slanting.

[AZhitman]

I want a third Party made up of economic conservatives and social liberals.

Let's do it.

Any room for an economic right-wing extremist and a social moderate in your Cabinet?

[96Qowner]

How 'bout Secretary of Education?

'course, that wouldn't last long ...

Then on to Secretary of the Interior!

[srellim234]

I generally have a tough time with people voting for 3rd parties in meaningful states.

I mean, if people understand that a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama in, say, Virginia, that's fine, so long as they're doing it to have that effect.

A would-be Obama supporter voting for Nader in a swing state is, however, IMO, not living up to his/her responsibility as a voter.

A voter's responsibility, when their vote counts (i.e. swing-ish state), is to pick from what they believe is the least available electable evil. Generally, for the last century or so, this means picking between the Republican and the Democrat and deciding which is the least offensive and the most capable. If you don't do this and cast a 3rd party vote in "protest", you are being irresponsible with your own ability to impact the course of American history.

I specifically steered this discussion to avoid "meaningful" states. They are not part of the purpose or discussion here.

I missed the textbook that said my responsibility as a voter is to vote for someone who has a chance. I thought my responsibility as a voter was to be as informed as possible and vote for the Person I thought could represent me the best. I didn't realize that voting for a Republican or a Democrat was my responsibility. Can you point me to the Founding Fathers' documents where that is mandated as my civic duty as a voter?

I still choose to vote "for" someone, the person I think is the right one for the job. It doesn't matter whether it is for President or for local dogcatcher. My vote counts the same as the next guy, and I'm expressing my opinion through my vote. If a major political party decides my vote is irrelevant, so be it. That's their right. I will still continue to work to change things from the local level on up.

Getting back to the votes in "decided" states, more specifically "decided" states that don't split their electoral votes. By your standard a vote for a major party who is going to lose in a decided state is also a wasted vote. Whether or not the party you vote for is defined as "major" or "third party" makes no difference if you're voting for someone without a chance to win.

[HashiriyaS14]

I missed the textbook that said my responsibility as a voter is to vote for someone who has a chance. I thought my responsibility as a voter was to be as informed as possible and vote for the Person I thought could represent me the best. I didn't realize that voting for a Republican or a Democrat was my responsibility. Can you point me to the Founding Fathers' documents where that is mandated as my civic duty as a voter?

Your responsibility is to consider the actual net impact of your vote on the course of America. Again, in a "non material" state, somewhere that isn't a swing state, there's no harm whatsoever in anyone voting 3rd party.

Even in swing states, people who wouldn't otherwise be voting at all and vote 3rd party aren't effecting anything.

I only take issue with, for instance, disaffected Republicans who feel like a vote for Barr is going to "spurn" the party. All they're doing is (in a swing state) handing Barack Obama the state. Likewise the disaffected Democrat who votes for Nader. These people may both be lukewarm on their parties' candidate, but does a disaffected "Nader democrat" really want to see John McCain in the White House? That's precisely what their vote will produce if they live in a swing state, so they would be a fool not to consider that.

A vote is not a "statement". A vote is the exertion of authority, and you should always endeavor to exercise authority justly, responsibly, and with the best intentions. That's all I'm saying.

[wingFeather]

Sorry for the reality comment

Thank you, and I'm okay now. I, too, tend to do this. It's difficult not to express what we're feeling on such a hot topic.

And yes, I know (having lived there) that Cali is now a blue state.

But much like Obama's campaign, I have my hopes & dreams

[srellim234]

Your responsibility is to consider the actual net impact of your vote on the course of America. Again, in a "non material" state, somewhere that isn't a swing state, there's no harm whatsoever in anyone voting 3rd party.

A vote is not a "statement". A vote is the exertion of authority, and you should always endeavor to exercise authority justly, responsibly, and with the best intentions. That's all I'm saying.

In your opinion, that is my reponsibility. We have differing opinions on what our responsibilities are and that's fine. It's what makes the world go round and doesn't need to lead beyond an "agree to disagree" conclusion.

A vote can be both the exertion of authority AND a statement. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[HashiriyaS14]

In your opinion, that is my reponsibility. We have differing opinions on what our responsibilities are and that's fine. It's what makes the world go round and doesn't need to lead beyond an "agree to disagree" conclusion.

A vote can be both the exertion of authority AND a statement. The two are not mutually exclusive.

And that's fine, I have no problem with the "agree to disagree" consensus, I'm just giving my opinion, however forcibly. I recognize that ultimately it's just an opinion.