Voting third party...is a waste of a vote

[Revoltingest]

Hey, Revoltingest......I'm not a Trump fan by a country mile, but I am genuinely interested in your reasoning for favoring him. This is not an attempt to get into a
Trump versus Hillary thing (not especially fond of her, either, although I tend to lean to the left on most things). I simply wish to know....no agendas. If you prefer, a PM is just fine, too.

I've covered it much, but a brief summary which comes to mind.....
- Hilda has a hawk's record & rhetoric, while Trump appears to be more isolationist. Less risk of war, especially with Iran.
- Hilda is far more likely to be pro-big government.
- Hilda's civil liberties record is weak, so advantage to neither here.
- Trump understands business, which is likely to translate into better economic policy.
- Hilda's accomplishments, managerial competence & experience are lacking.
Granted she's spent some time in actual government, but without measurable positive results.
- She appears more likely to appoint judges & justices who would alter the Constitution by fiat in a more authoritarian direction. (This one is a low confidence guess.)
- She'd foster a culture of corruption in government.
- She has a record of crony capitalism.
Trump also has a lot of negatives for me, eg, social conservatism, trade restrictions, no gov service record by which to judge how his agenda will match his actual performance.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm voting third party.

It sends a more definite message than just not voting.

It can mean the same thing, but it says it louder.

 

[Flame]

It is a large waste considering the last election. http://www.whiteoutpress.com/timeless/2012-general-election-presidential-results-for-all-candidates/

Adding another fact that my county didn't even Libertarians/Green/ect on it's ballot.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Trump also has a lot of negatives for me, eg, social conservatism, trade restrictions, no gov service record by which to judge how his agenda will match his actual performance.

If his business record is anything to go by, chances are good he'll be a failure in every measurable way. He can't even give a reasonable estimate as to what his "value" is, very inconsistent when he does give an answer, and it's left many doubting he's even a billionaire at all. He's claiming he's worth in excess of 10 billion, he's probably not worth 5, and some wonder if he's in debt.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It sends a more definite message than just not voting.

It can mean the same thing, but it says it louder.

I'd say it would depend on the particular election. There are many who run third party who no one, even in the local elections, has heard of, but sometimes it can show there is potential, and occasionally that it happens, so it's definitely much louder than not voting and a completely different message.

 

[Revoltingest]

If his business record is anything to go by, chances are good he'll be a failure in every measurable way. He can't even give a reasonable estimate as to what his "value" is, very inconsistent when he does give an answer, and it's left many doubting he's even a billionaire at all. He's claiming he's worth in excess of 10 billion, he's probably not worth 5, and some wonder if he's in debt.

He survived.
That's a measurable success.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He survived.
That's a measurable success.

So did Josef Mengele.

 

[Quagmire]

I'd say it would depend on the particular election. There are many who run third party who no one, even in the local elections, has heard of, but sometimes it can show there is potential, and occasionally that it happens, so it's definitely much louder than not voting and a completely different message.

It can be, or it can mean any of a number of things. Depends as much on the voter as who they're voting for.

For me, it'll mean, "See? I took the trouble to vote, but I'm still not voting".

Then again, if Sanders pops up on an independent ticket . . .

 

[Revoltingest]

So did Josef Mengele.

I wouldn't vote for him (for several reasons).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wouldn't vote for him (for several reasons).

But he survived for a few decades after WWII. Financially surviving, he's lost a ton of his assets over the years, and he's even sold some of his assets during this campaign season. Some speculate he may even be in debt, or "at best" a "low grade billionaire."

 

[suncowiam]

I'm voting third party.

It sends a more definite message than just not voting.

It can mean the same thing, but it says it louder.

If a person voted third party in the middle of a forest... Oh nevermind.

 

[Quagmire]

If a person voted third party in the middle of a forest... Oh nevermind.

More like, "in the middle of a forest fire".

 

[Revoltingest]

But he survived for a few decades after WWII. Financially surviving, he's lost a ton of his assets over the years, and he's even sold some of his assets during this campaign season. Some speculate he may even be in debt, or "at best" a "low grade billionaire."

I don't see that Mengele's survival is even remotely relevant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see that Mengele's survival is even remotely relevant.

It's that survival isn't that big of a measurable accomplishment. Lots of people do it, including some rather unsavory types.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's that survival isn't that big of a measurable accomplishment. Lots of people do it, including some rather unsavory types.

It is what it is, ie, not a singular reason to vote for someone.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

This is the first time in my life that I will vote third party. Most likely Johnson, but Stein is starting to get more of my attention. However, when I mention this to others I get pretty much the same response; "You'd be throwing your vote away", "That is a waste of a vote", "That would just guarantee a Trump presidency", and so on.

To me, those arguments sound exactly the same as someone who says they are not going to vote at all. "It's just one vote. Its not like it would make a difference"

Am I wasting a vote? I'm tired of voting for someone I hate less than the other.

I'm starting to like the "rank choice voting" system she proposes at the 12 minute mark.

The problem with this thinking is like saying we need to repair an airplane while it's in the air, before it's even landed.

Are there some serious issues remaining with the electoral process? Sure there are. But when we're staring down an incredibly xenophobic, narcissistic presidential candidate with a vehemently anti-LGBTQ running mate, issues such as whether we need a different voting system are not what we need to be talking about. Hillary Clinton is the progressive antihero, and we need to elect her.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Oh... I jumped away from the initial topic.

I want to support third parties but our system just doesn't support it in practice. Not even sure what type of system would naturally nurture it.

A parliamentary system with MP superdistricts, I think. No way we get multiple viable parties with our current setup--it's just not a likely outcome.

 

[averageJOE]

 

[Karl R]

If you don't vote, you're throwing away your vote.

Historically, third parties have steered the future direction of the major parties. They don't win elections, but one party (or both) changes their future positions to capture that segment of the public.

When George Wallace split from the democrats in to run as an independent on a segregationist platform, the Republicans shifted their platform to the right to capture the votes from this "white backlash."

More recently, Ross Perot captured 20% of the California vote, breaking 20 years of Republican dominance. Now it's solidly Democratic.

If the third parties capture large minority shares of the vote (which seems highly likely), then they the repercussions will be felt for decades, if history is any indicator.

I intend to carefully study the platforms of the third party candidates this year. It's possible that I'll vote for one of them.

 

[averageJOE]

The thing is, voting third party is a waste of time, and you know it while you're doing it because you know not enough people are going to do it for it to make it matter - and you know during the results you're going to be a part of that small bit over there next to the giants.

So...if someone who lives in a deep red state, like Texas, votes for Hillary, a state that always goes Republican, wasting a vote? Your same logic applies here. That they'd be "doing it because you know not enough people are going to do it for it to make it matter - and you know during the results you're going to be a part of that small bit over there next to the giants."

If someone living in California, a deep blue state, wasting their vote if they vote for Trump? Knowing that that state historically always goes to the Democrat?