Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

_"A vote for __________ is a vote for __________; it's a wasted vote!"_

I'm aware that our third-party candidates [Jill Stein and Gary Johnson] have literally no chance on winning this election. I want to learn from all you guys about your thoughts on what and how they should've done to help them win.

Here are the rules…

• Explain first; then state your opinion.

• Please be relevant.

Go!

IMHO, you can't. Not with the current system, at least. As it stands, the two-party system is set up specifically to place people from those parties in power; for a third-party to really work, you'd need to reform the system entirely, and purge all those responsible for this one from influential positions.

Now is not the time for a protest vote.

I don't know if it's possible but I think we should try. Like I regularly try to convince people to go for Johnson and that's all we really can do or if it's for Stein or even another it doesn't matter. The "vote wasted" or "my vote doesn't matter" is the worst argument ever. Mainly because of the fact that 50% of the population doesn't vote. All those are people who see voting as too much of a chore or "doesn't count". All those millions, literally 50% of our country.

It's not just 1 vote that's very very faulty logic. When you decide to vote you are one of many. Use the system you were given it's not rigged. Not using the system is legally and morally accepting whatever happens.

Personally I don't feel it's important to vote for either candidate. I don't see one as particularly better than the other. I prefer Trump to Hillary primarily because Hillary is the literal anti-christ and Trump is just dumb and I prefer stupid to the pure incarnate of all that is unholy. But I don't prefer Trump enough to give him a hate vote.

Why go for the left nut or the right nut when you can go straight for the Johnson? This election is so weird 3rd party could get some of the biggest support it's gotten in decades even if the chance of winning is minimal. If you don't like the system, change it this is a democratic-fucking-republic.

When you tell yourself your vote doesn't count or that you're wasting it you push off the real issue: that by not voting or conceding to the system you hate you are committing the biggest waste of all.

I mean what have you got to lose this cycle? It's a giant, smelly, heaping pile of shit and another slightly bigger heap that smells a little less. Pick your poison. But you don't have to. Pick the weak-ass poison that will make you sick for 30 minutes but you shake off. Pick 3rd party. Do it. Don't be a weenie. You're a fuckin American you're living on one of the best countries to ever exist use that to your advantage. Make it even better.

Third parties have won before, we just have to work towards making it happen again. It's easy all you have to do is vote. If you took all the people who were too afraid to vote 3rd party because it would do nothing and got them to vote 3rd party you'd upheave the system. Be the change you want to see, stand up. It's not hard to understand the electoral college has to vote with the majority. Again, it's not rigged. Just a little difficult is all.

Change the voting system to be in order of preference.

10 candidates
All are listed
You list them, 1-10. 1 being preferred 10 being least preferred.

Candidate with the lowest score (whoever gets more low numbers) Wins.

No vote is wasted because even if your number 1 doesn't win you can still get your number 2.

Then when? At what point will we have had enough of this shit? I've heard this from so many people. "Don't worry. Just vote for the establishment. I know you wanted change, but we'll just get them next time. How is it going to be any better next time? If it didn't work in 2016, what's so different about 2020 (or 2024 given the rate of incumbency in the white house) I think that now is the perfect time for a protest vote. If enough people protest vote, maybe it'll get through their thick skulls and they'll actually learn a lesson about what shady tactics, corporate shilling, corruption, and lies will get them. If we just vote for the same old nonsense again, the only thing they learn is that all of that scumbaggery is working.

From the beginning, the establishment hierarchy has been assuring us that no matter how much we bitch and moan, at the end of the day, once we're staring down the barrel of the crazy orange billionaire/cold-blooded lizard monster, we'll come crawling back to them. If we do just that, we're only reinforcing their sense of invulnerability. If a significant portion of the population votes for third parties, even if they don't end up winning, it may actually give them something to think about; It may actually scare them.

As for the question, I think the abolishing of the electoral college , and reforms to the process by which debaters are allowed in, and candidates are put on ballots are necessary before a third party candidate could have a decent shot.

Tell 'em it's the lesser of 3 evils.

Honestly, considering both the Democratic & Republican nomination, it may well be impossible for a 3rd party candidate to ever win in a US election

People don't vote third party because the candidates are just watered down versions of the other two parties. What, are you going to vote for Gary Johnson who has no idea what's going on in the world? He couldn't name Kim Jong Un in his latest interview, and then said he doesn't need to know about foreign relations because the politicians who know anything about foreign relations are only putting troops "in harm's way". Inspiring. He'd have less chance against Trump than Hillary even if he was the Dem nominee.

If you want third party politicians putting forward third party legislation, stop obsessing over the Presidency and pay more attention to the Congressional races. They're the ones who write the laws, all the President does is sign them.

More media exposure is definitely a must. Why'll i don't think the media is an accurate representation of reality, it certainly affects people's perceptions of reality. If third party candidates got nearly the amount of media exposure of democratic and republican candidate, the general public's interest in them would sky rocket.

I have a bachelor's degree in political science, and have studied elections and politics, and let me tell you something. Third parties have only won 1 national election in the history of the united states. That being the Republican party, after the Whig party imploded onto itself and scattered into smaller independent parties, as its platform became irrelevant to the modern political climate, that being the issue of slavery.

The only way this could occur is if we had a modern party implode onto itself and cease to exist, and that would require the party to ignore a number of major issues for years to the point that people no longer hold faith in them. A possible solution would be to implement a reform to how representatives and senators are elected where it works on a percentage basis more then a winner take all basis and elections are made for parties more then individual candidates.

Even then however, third parties would only manage to eek out an existence on the local political level.

You would need someone of high power to try to reform the system, allowing third parties to participate in activities that usually only the Democrats and Republicans would attend.

That or what Lisa said; vote third parties into more smaller positions and help them slowly make their way up, giving them more prominence.

MiloticExalted wrote:

IMHO, you can’t. Not with the current system, at least. As it stands, the two-party system is set up specifically to place people from those parties in power; for a third-party to really work, you’d need to reform the system entirely, and purge all those responsible for this one from influential positions.

I don't know about purging all responsible, but yes, the system is set so that Republicans or Democrats will almost always get the Electoral vote. While there are cases where third parties did see a relatively sizable section of the vote, and there are some who believe that Nader's run in 2000 did actually influence the 2000 election in the end, it's still Republican or Democrat being elected. By all means, vote for who you want, but as Black Graphic T said, the likelihood of any third party candidate winning would really depend on if one of the current parties collapse. While some have speculated that either (or both) the Republican and Democrats may collapse due to things that have happened during this election, both seem to have held themselves together out of fear of the other party winning.

Slutty Sam wrote:

50% of the population doesn’t vote. All those are people who see voting as too much of a chore or “doesn’t count”. All those millions, literally 50% of our country… Use the system you were given it’s not rigged.

Here's the thing… With the way the electoral college and gerrymandering is done, it kinda is rigged. With a winner take all system, a blue vote in an extremely red state, or a red vote in an extremely blue state will make no difference in the election. Not saying you stay at home a not vote, but depending on where you live, your votes matter more or less.

Look at Project thirty Five Eight. If you live in New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, etc. your vote counts quite a bit. If you're like me, and live in Oklahoma, you could literally stuff the ballot with 10,000 votes either way and it wouldn't really make a difference. Same would go for a blue state like Hawaii.

Basilius wrote:

Change the voting system to be in order of preference….No vote is wasted because even if your number 1 doesn’t win you can still get your number 2.

Cipher_Oblivion wrote:

I think the abolishing of the electoral college… and candidates are put on ballots are necessary before a third party candidate could have a decent shot.

I don't see this happening, as I don't see the elected Republicans or Democrats really choosing to make their next election more difficult for them to win.

Should be noted that doesn't mean I disagree with doing it. I think in any non-binary poll where the results are exclusive should try to do this, as it does allow for the option that is the least disliked by all to actually have a chance at winning even if you have people who would prefer the more extremes. Candidates that failed the primaries of the major parties could still run without "stealing" votes from the more major candidates which, under the current system, would only make their opponent win easier.

Also, in case what I said is a mess, (Basilius did a good job at keeping it simple, but it's something that is worth explaining why this is a more ideal system). CGP Grey made some videos about this exact topic a few years ago.

For the record I don't believe that my solution is likely to happen; I just feel that something like that would be necessary to give third parties a real chance. I still don't think either party would allow it to occur.

Step 1:Have everyone know that other parties exist.

Almost there, folks.

Actually having good 3rd party candidates might be a start.

Don't.

I would say the best way is to build from the ground up. The strategy of "focus on the Presidential election" that the Libertarian and Green Parties have been using just doesn't work that well, since the main parties will always scream "Nader!" and "Perot!" in response, followed quickly by the standard "lesser of two evils" argument.

If they both focus on local elections--county seats, state reps, trustees, etc.--they can slowly build up not just their party organization in each state, but get voters more aware of just what the Libertarian Party and Green Party actually stand for--just what their ideologies are and how they might suit you better than the all encompassing Democrats or Republicans.

Then, when libertarian isn't just regarded as an internet meme about privatized roads and green isn't just a color, and there's serious organization and party affiliation, they can go after the big fish--the Senate, House, and Presidency.

Historically, it will be very difficult. Because of First Past The Post, our system is tailored for two parties, and a third party only really ever rises when one of the two main ones implodes. Perhaps someone will eventually come along to upend everything and get rid of FPTP--it isn't, after all, specified in the constitution what voting system shall be used to elect people--but given how entrenched politicians are, it would take someone truly extraordinary to implement a system that might cause their party to lose.

MadDoc The cutie said:

Now is not the time for a protest vote.

People wonder why Congress has a lower approval rating then root canals, why a majority don't trust both main candidates, why people hate it when politics is brought up in nonpolitical settings, why we have one of the lowest voter turn out rates--significantly lower than Botswana!

This is why. When people feel like they have to vote for a candidate they hate anyway because of some BS realpolitik excuse, they'll either opt out entirely, or grow to despise the very system and the people in it that they vote for.

If everyone voted for who they personally thought was the best candidate, I can guarantee the voting public wouldn't be so cynical and apathetic.

Definitely more exposure.
We are facing a similar problem here.
However, we have six candidates running for governor, of which two are independent candidates.
There have been two debates to date. All of the candidates have been present. The independent candidates have gotten a significant amount of media and social media exposure. For smaller parties, it's extremely difficult to get much exposure, let alone independent candidates.
System reform is a must. The independent cadidates here have had to go to court because of all the rules that are skewed towards party candidates (like raising an insane amount of signatures while party candidates don't have to raise as much, and a lot more).
But I think the most important of it all is to educate the people. Here, people have had it instilled in them that voting for another party is a vote lost, that they are better of not voting. For years, they have voted out of just pure political fanaticism, failing to see that there are better options. Because of this, our country has been plunged into the worst economical crisis it has seen, causing a mass exodus of hardworking and young people, while leaving an aging, non-productive population behind. On top of all, we have the "Junta de Control Fiscal", which is basically a body of government above our own to deal with all this (thanks Obama, and I don't mean it ironically). Hell, people here are scared about the notion of Puerto Rico being independent, which is THE ACTUAL BETTER OPTION, BECAUSE THE COMMONWEALTH HAS FAILED AND IF STATEHOOD HASN'T HAPPENED SINCE 1898, IT ISN'T HAPPENING EVER. They think the sugar cane fields will grow back, we'll start to live in huts, and would have to walk 40 miles to school.

Didn't you guys vote for people who vote for the president?

You don't have to convince the people to vote third-party. You'll have to convince the electoral college.