Do you believe a Vote for a Third Party Candidate is a Waste?

[Charles_Main]

I also believe in a no confidence option for each race.
If it gets more votes than either candidate they have to do it again with someone else.

I am afraid we would be paying to hold election after election after election as a plurality of People selected non of the Above every time

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Often on USMB, I see people on USMB either act or outright state that a vote for a third party candidate is a waste despite the fact they'd be voting for someone they don't like otherwise.

Poll coming, simple yes or no. Feel free to state why you feel that way in a post.

Forgot depends. But then few people would call you fair and balanced.

 

[Charles_Main]

Another election recommendation of mine is all presidential primaries are held on the same date. And on the November final presidential election no results are released until after the last polls close in the last state.


Just an fyi I voted for Ross.

and no exit polling allowed

Personally I think real time coverage of exit polls and counts should be banned until after every polling place is closed.

We do not need people watching exit polls and going oh my guy is winning why bother, or he is losing by so much why bother. When the polls turn out to be off a lot of the time.

In the 2000 Election of Bush Liberals love to talk about how Gore won the popular vote, and while that is true. It is also true he only won it by less than 500,000 votes and it is also true that 2 Major news networks, Wrongly called the race for Gore on national TV with some polling places having 2 to 4 hours left to vote. You can not tell me that people on their way to vote for Bush who heard that result called may have turned around and not voted. Who knows how many people didn't vote because News Networks are telling them who won before all the ballots are even Cast, let alone counted.

No news Coverage of Exit Polls or Counts until after every polling place in America is done voting I say!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes

Often on USMB, I see people on USMB either act or outright state that a vote for a third party candidate is a waste despite the fact they'd be voting for someone they don't like otherwise.

Poll coming, simple yes or no. Feel free to state why you feel that way in a post.

One of your inferred premises is that the people as a whole have ever voted for candidates they like. As if a thrid party is restoring something lost.

am I right?

 

[hjmick]

Not if more people voted their conscience rather than voting to beat the "other guy."

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not if more people voted their conscience rather than voting to beat the "other guy."

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

your premise is that people other than you vote for the lesser of two evils.

you're warped perceptions color reality.


electoral choices have rarely include what people want most

 

[edthecynic]

I also believe in a no confidence option for each race.
If it gets more votes than either candidate they have to do it again with someone else.

And how many times should this be allowed to go on? Do they just keep going with different candidates until one of them finally beats "None of the above?" Or do they just keep that seat vacant after so many tries. Elections cost money, and I'm of the opinion that it's a waste of money to have elections over and over again like that.

As a lifelong registered independent because neither Party represents me, I have voted third Party or write in in every election so far, so obviously I don't consider my protest vote a waste.

I would like to see my vote have some teeth, and I have said in earlier threads I would like to see a "none of the above" or a candidate "NO" as a term limits mechanism. Any candidate who gets less votes than "NO" cannot run for that particular office again. It is essential that "NO" is used in all primaries to eliminate bad candidates before the national elections. But I would also want it in the national elections. We could always move up the national elections a month to give more time if "NO" beats both corporate candidates. But I definitely would like a protest vote with teeth.

What IS a waste is waiting on line for hours to vote third Party, so I always vote by absentee ballot.

 

[Claudette]

Often on USMB, I see people on USMB either act or outright state that a vote for a third party candidate is a waste despite the fact they'd be voting for someone they don't like otherwise.

Poll coming, simple yes or no. Feel free to state why you feel that way in a post.

Yes, it splits the ticket giving the opposition the advantage. I wouldn't want to take the chance in this next election.

Ditto.

 

[johnrocks]

I think voting for the lesser of evil year after year is a waste and the two parties count on that mindset for control.

 

[johnrocks]

Often on USMB, I see people on USMB either act or outright state that a vote for a third party candidate is a waste despite the fact they'd be voting for someone they don't like otherwise.

Poll coming, simple yes or no. Feel free to state why you feel that way in a post.

Yes, it splits the ticket giving the opposition the advantage. I wouldn't want to take the chance in this next election.

Then the nominee needs to sell himself/herself, have stands that bring people together instead of divide.

Don't give me someone who preaches fear, wants to "spread mockracy" or yaps about a Mosque in downtown NYC or screams about the gays and expect me or many others to drop what we're doing and vote for him/her because he/she promises to spend a dab less than the current fool in chief is.

 

[editec]

Every vote for a losing candidate is a wasted vote.

Lords knows I've wasted enough votes to know how that feels.

 

[CountofTuscany]

Often on USMB, I see people on USMB either act or outright state that a vote for a third party candidate is a waste despite the fact they'd be voting for someone they don't like otherwise.

Poll coming, simple yes or no. Feel free to state why you feel that way in a post.

Yes, it splits the ticket giving the opposition the advantage. I wouldn't want to take the chance in this next election.

The next elections are going to be very critical.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I also believe in a no confidence option for each race.
If it gets more votes than either candidate they have to do it again with someone else.

And how many times should this be allowed to go on? Do they just keep going with different candidates until one of them finally beats "None of the above?" Or do they just keep that seat vacant after so many tries. Elections cost money, and I'm of the opinion that it's a waste of money to have elections over and over again like that.

As a lifelong registered independent because neither Party represents me, I have voted third Party or write in in every election so far, so obviously I don't consider my protest vote a waste.

I would like to see my vote have some teeth, and I have said in earlier threads I would like to see a "none of the above" or a candidate "NO" as a term limits mechanism. Any candidate who gets less votes than "NO" cannot run for that particular office again. It is essential that "NO" is used in all primaries to eliminate bad candidates before the national elections. But I would also want it in the national elections. We could always move up the national elections a month to give more time if "NO" beats both corporate candidates. But I definitely would like a protest vote with teeth.

What IS a waste is waiting on line for hours to vote third Party, so I always vote by absentee ballot.

My point remains, however. If nobody can beat the "No" vote, then how many elections are you willing to have before you finally just let somebody win? It's just a waste of money and time in my opinion.

 

[edthecynic]

And how many times should this be allowed to go on? Do they just keep going with different candidates until one of them finally beats "None of the above?" Or do they just keep that seat vacant after so many tries. Elections cost money, and I'm of the opinion that it's a waste of money to have elections over and over again like that.

As a lifelong registered independent because neither Party represents me, I have voted third Party or write in in every election so far, so obviously I don't consider my protest vote a waste.

I would like to see my vote have some teeth, and I have said in earlier threads I would like to see a "none of the above" or a candidate "NO" as a term limits mechanism. Any candidate who gets less votes than "NO" cannot run for that particular office again. It is essential that "NO" is used in all primaries to eliminate bad candidates before the national elections. But I would also want it in the national elections. We could always move up the national elections a month to give more time if "NO" beats both corporate candidates. But I definitely would like a protest vote with teeth.

What IS a waste is waiting on line for hours to vote third Party, so I always vote by absentee ballot.

My point remains, however. If nobody can beat the "No" vote, then how many elections are you willing to have before you finally just let somebody win? It's just a waste of money and time in my opinion.

As many elections as it takes to get candidates who truly represent the people rather than the corporate masters of the elected politicians.

There is a lot more money wasted AFTER the corporate shills are elected than the cost of additional elections. Once the people have flexed their protest vote muscles, I think the corporate masters will get the message and follow up elections will become rare. So there will only be a considerable extra election expense temporarily during the transition, whereas the wasted spending by the elected corporate puppets goes on forever.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As a lifelong registered independent because neither Party represents me, I have voted third Party or write in in every election so far, so obviously I don't consider my protest vote a waste.

I would like to see my vote have some teeth, and I have said in earlier threads I would like to see a "none of the above" or a candidate "NO" as a term limits mechanism. Any candidate who gets less votes than "NO" cannot run for that particular office again. It is essential that "NO" is used in all primaries to eliminate bad candidates before the national elections. But I would also want it in the national elections. We could always move up the national elections a month to give more time if "NO" beats both corporate candidates. But I definitely would like a protest vote with teeth.

What IS a waste is waiting on line for hours to vote third Party, so I always vote by absentee ballot.

My point remains, however. If nobody can beat the "No" vote, then how many elections are you willing to have before you finally just let somebody win? It's just a waste of money and time in my opinion.

As many elections as it takes to get candidates who truly represent the people rather than the corporate masters of the elected politicians.

There is a lot more money wasted AFTER the corporate shills are elected than the cost of additional elections. Once the people have flexed their protest muscles, I think the corporate masters will get the message and follow up elections will become rare. So there will only be a considerable extra election expense temporarily during the transition, whereas the wasted spending by the elected corporate puppets goes on forever.

I'm afraid it's a pipe dream. The corporate shills would still have the best chance to win the election. So all you'd really do is waste a lot of money on extra elections and likely still get a loser elected in the end.

 

[edthecynic]

My point remains, however. If nobody can beat the "No" vote, then how many elections are you willing to have before you finally just let somebody win? It's just a waste of money and time in my opinion.

As many elections as it takes to get candidates who truly represent the people rather than the corporate masters of the elected politicians.

There is a lot more money wasted AFTER the corporate shills are elected than the cost of additional elections. Once the people have flexed their protest muscles, I think the corporate masters will get the message and follow up elections will become rare. So there will only be a considerable extra election expense temporarily during the transition, whereas the wasted spending by the elected corporate puppets goes on forever.

I'm afraid it's a pipe dream. The corporate shills would still have the best chance to win the election. So all you'd really do is waste a lot of money on extra elections and likely still get a loser elected in the end.

Are you saying the American people are so stupid they will always be powerless against the all powerful corporations?

I think it is at least worth a try, if it turns out to be permanent waste of money we can always go back to the old way.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As many elections as it takes to get candidates who truly represent the people rather than the corporate masters of the elected politicians.

There is a lot more money wasted AFTER the corporate shills are elected than the cost of additional elections. Once the people have flexed their protest muscles, I think the corporate masters will get the message and follow up elections will become rare. So there will only be a considerable extra election expense temporarily during the transition, whereas the wasted spending by the elected corporate puppets goes on forever.

I'm afraid it's a pipe dream. The corporate shills would still have the best chance to win the election. So all you'd really do is waste a lot of money on extra elections and likely still get a loser elected in the end.

Are you saying the American people are so stupid they will always be powerless against the all powerful corporations?

I think it is at least worth a try, if it turns out to be permanent waste of money we can always go back to the old way.

I'm not saying anyone is stupid. I'm saying the majority of people who vote are not like those of us who spend our free time on USMB. They're not as nuanced in politics. They don't follow every single issue. They'll take platitudes at face value and vote for whoever the parties throw at them. So adding a "No" vote sounds good, and that's what I'd vote for every time if it was an option, but all you're going to do is delay the inevitable. The establishment candidates are still going to have the most visible presence, the most money, and the backing of the parties. So they're still going to be the most likely candidates to win.

A "No" option doesn't give a potentially better candidate a better chance to win.

 

[QUENTIN]

A "waste" would be voting out of fear that the other party/candidate may win.

I want to vote out of my conviction that my choice is the best choice.

Exactly.

And at this point, the only way to not waste your vote is to vote third party. The two major parties owned by the same people don't give a flying fuck about the welfare of the voters.

 

[iggy pop]

Personally I take no issue voting for a third party candidate. It was voting for the third world candidate in the 2008 elections i have a problem with.