Go ahead! Throw your vote away!
It's pretty funny how this doesn't seem to help the 3rd party candidates very much:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
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.
Or perhaps, considering they both pay homage to the same corporate beasts,
we might call it a "single corporate system, undivided, with liberty and justice for all?"
I think our masters might like that.
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.
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
This^.
Countries on mainland Europe (Germany,France, Netherlands) have multi party systems because their whole election systems are different. Not because they are any less dominated by corporations than we are.
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.
Tiankay
Sea Gull
Joined: 27 Apr 2016
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 205
Location: 3rd Street on the right, just after the event horizon...
Im from germany. Yes we have a better voting system then you guys have, still we have a "de facto" two party system. We have the CDU (translates to chistian democratic union) and the SPD (social party of germany). CDU are the conservatives, SPD are the liberals. Yes we have more parties, but most of them are not normally worth even noting. Theres B90 - Die grünen (Treehugger party), FDP (party focussed on self employement), Die Linke (extreme left socialist party, some DDR remnants) and in the last years theres the AFD (Alternative for germany - basicly nazis in suits).
In the 2013 election, 67,2% of all votes got in for the 2 major parties (41,5 CDU, 25,7 SPD), Linke and Grüne recieved around 8.5% each and the rest didnt even achieved 5% each. Every legislative period the winning party has to form a coalition with another party to gain the 50% majority after votes are cast, but that doesnt really do anything. CDU runs the thing...
In next years election im gonna vote for "Die PARTEI" (The PARTY) wich is basicly a satire party wich makes fun of the whole flawed system. Thats a throwaway, but at least they are funny and dont lie to me to get my vote
Peace
TK
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.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
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.
Yes, voting for someone that one likes and approves of is not a wasted vote, even if the person does not win. Polls have shown most Americans are supportive of the idea of a third party candidate. And unfortunately polls also have shown that the majority of supports, both for Clinton and Trump, are actually people voting against the other. If even a fraction of these people went for third party candidates it could shake up the results.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Arizona initiative “Vote the Spectrum” |
03 Mar 2024, 11:41 am |