By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Reasons why voting Libertarian (or another third party) is not "wasting" your vote.

You have trump, not needed this time



Around the Network

I really do detest the current two party nonsense we have in America. It honestly should've never gained traction in the first place, a completely nonpartisan way of voting/thinking is what we need and have needed since the start.



 

tsogud said:
I really do detest the current two party nonsense we have in America. It honestly should've never gained traction in the first place, a completely nonpartisan way of voting/thinking is what we need and have needed since the start.

We did start out that way. George Washington was our only independent president. The Founding Fathers did not intend to have the country run by major parties. Up until the years before the Civil War, even when there were major political parties, it was still a flexible system. In under 100 years, several major parties in America came and went. Unfortunately, since the end of the Civil War, we've had a two party monopoly that should have gone away 100 years ago.



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

I prefer to waste my vote than to vote for someone I am sure is bad



I think if the Libertarians nominate Austin Pertersen , he'll get their 5%. I supported Cruz this election, but since 40% of my party was duped by a Democrat who switched sides just to have a better shot at winning, I'll be voting 3rd party. Austin represents my principles the closest and I think would get a lot of Conservative voters who just can't hold their nose hard enough to vote Trump.



Around the Network

A vote is only wasted if you do not vote at all



Aeolus451 said:
sc94597 said:

People of his party are already going to vote. This is called the median voters theorem. 

You must have misunderstood me. Only 57.5% of americans who are eligible-to-vote voted in the 2012 presidential election. Source.  Those 40% that didn't vote are more important than trying to sway independent voters.

That 40% is more of reflection on the electoral system discouraging turnout in non battleground states.  I would be more interested in seeing the percent that didn't vote in the battlegrounds.  I'm guessing 20% or less.  



Aeolus451 said:
sc94597 said:

I mentioned in the OP how they still have influence even if they aren't elected. 

Hmm. If a politician has a choice between trying to get more people of their own party to vote and new voters or going after independents' vote. Which do you think he'll choose? Which do you think is more worthwhile. 

This is what has baffled me now I've paid proper attention to US politics.

 

It's a bit like the Corbynmania we've got going on at the moment.

 

Being overwhelmingly popular with your own party grassroots does not translate across to the full electorate.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

I agree with this in principle, but whether or not it should be done depends on the candidates of the party. If you have a crazy guy like Donald Trump, voting for a third party would likely take away from Hillary's vote count (assuming she's the nominee and nothing happens with the FBI investigation), which would increase the likelihood of Trump winning, which I'm sure a lot of people don't want that.



Can't wait for The Zelder Scrolls 3: Breath of The Wild Hunt!

The American winner takes it all system is stupid at least, that I think we can all agree on, right?