Go ahead! Throw your vote away!

Post Reply New Topic

It's pretty funny how this doesn't seem to help the 3rd party candidates very much:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

That's why we have a two-party system, really.

Because a vote for a third-party candidate is automatically a vote for somebody you dislike.

America does not have a two-party system; it has a multi-party system dominated by Big Money, which focuses mostly on the two major parties because the normal mindset for humans is "black-and-white" thinking. The people who can think in "Shades of Gray" are not likely to embrace candidates of one extreme or the other.

Besides, the only truly "wasted" vote is the vote not cast.

Of course, technically, we have a multiparty system--but, in a de facto sense, on the Federal level, it's a two-party system.

There is a tendency for First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) electoral systems to result in two party systems, regardless of corporate influence.

This is known as "Duverger's Law".

And third party candidates can actually be detrimental to representativeness in FPTP-systems, as they may result in a winner who does not have a majority of votes behind him/her. As long as there are two candidates, the winner always captures (disregarding invalid/blank votes) at least a majority of the cast votes. With a third candidate, a candidate may win with a significantly lower percentage.

Here are some examples from US presidential elections where 3rd (or 4th) party candidates captured a significant share of votes:

- Lincoln won with less than 40 percent in 1860
- Wilson won with less than 42 percent in 1912
- Clinton won with 43 percent in 1992...

... And then there was Darth Nader in 2000...

So not only do those who vote for third parties throw their votes away... they may also end up throwing other people's votes away, as a candidate could end up winning the election, even though a majority might have preferred another candidate in a head-to-head contest between two candidates.

This is why France has a Two-round system, for instance...

In other words: Third party candidates risk (especially with voters who do not vote strategically) making the already unrepresentative US electoral system even less representative...

Also see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting

I don't think of the Republican Party in 1860 as being a "third party."

I think of it as, primarily, characterized by a split in the Democratic party between the pro and anti-slavery wings. I'll have to research further who the fourth candidate is. (It was John Bell, of the Constitutional Union Party--definitely a "third party," though he did get a good amount of electoral votes).

I believe the Republicans, even then, were thought of as being a "mainstream" party.

This clip is a classic.

I like it when they expose Sheeple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple

It's autistic revenge for all the years they made fun of me, humiliated me for being dumb.

Always better to have more choice than not... at one extreme, with FPTP, in the UK, a leader can be elected by only 199 people out of 64 million as if we're back to ancient Rome and the Emperor's appointment... even Erdoğan got much more of a simple majority, though with a divisive country had a coup... and May declared herself enemy of human rights and science and... ruled out a general election. Are violent coups sometimes the only way in supposed democracies?

Voting for someone you dislike is throwing your vote away. Anyone else think it's a little insane that so many people dislike the two candidates and yet most everyone who votes is going to vote for one of them?

I've thought about the math long and hard on this. If I do vote, it will be for someone I like. Maybe I'll vote for neighbor. That would be a less wasted vote than voting for someone I dislike.

Everyone has this issue wrong. It's not a wasted vote to vote for a 3rd candidate party. Statistically speaking, it really doesn't actually matter whether a single individual votes or not. It's statistically insignificant. Individual opinions don't matter and that's what's so sad about it.

Here's a way to do reform without having to amend the Constitution:

1. Under the Constitution, each state has plenary power to decide how its electoral votes are distributed in Presidential elections. A state can move to a different system.

2. For the House, seats are proportioned among the states, but the Constitution is silent on how they are to be distributed within each state. The Supreme Coury has ruled it must be proportional and that any system other than FPTP discriminates against minorities (something like that). This creates quite a hurdle, but reform may be had if Congress sets new rules for every State to follow.

3. Issues for the Senate are similar, though only 1 Senator is elected at a time in a state.

Thing is, I can't tell which would be worse.

When I vote for Gary Johnson, at least it will get us closer to that 15% mark where a third party candidate can show up in debates.

My broken record reply is that Instant Runoff Voting would instantly solve this problem.