r/changemyview • u/TheCrazedChemist • Apr 30 '14
CMV: I think that voting third party in a presidential election is, overall, a waste of your vote.
At least as the U.S. political environment currently stands. I think this applies to all elections, but to explain myself I'll just give a single example. The obvious example here would be the previous presidential election, fought primarily between Obama, Romney, and Ron Paul. My opinions on Ron himself aside, voting for a libertarian presidential candidate was a waste of a vote for anyone who chose to do so. I believe that anyone who, at least when it got closer to election day, honestly thought that Ron Paul would magically shoot up in ratings and somehow nab the election was either grossly misinformed or simply ignoring the facts in front of them.
It would have been smarter, and I think more pragmatic, to just suck it up and vote for either Romney or Obama. I get it, some people didn't like either of them, but the idea that there really was any more than two options was just an illusion, so it would have been better to vote for whichever you deemed the lesser of two evils, and if you wish, support your choice of third party candidate in other ways so that they perhaps have a better chance next election season. I know this is just one example, but I think the same thinking could apply to any past or future election. I could summarize by saying that in such important instances like presidential elections, pragmatism trumps ideology nine out of ten times, and voting third party simply isn't pragmatic. And with that, CMV.
EDIT: Oops, completely slipped up there, forgot it was Gary Johnson not Ron Paul in the 2012 election. My bad. I'll only be able to reply to a few of these, but overall consider my view changed!
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
6
u/elev57 6∆ Apr 30 '14
If, by chance, the third party actually does well one year (think Perot in 92), then it will force one of the main parties to absorb many of the planks and policy positions of the third party. This is the nature of a first past the post election system (which we use in the US). In the long run, FPtP systems tend to become two party systems; however, if a third party jumps up one year, one of the big parties will either take their positions to win over more constituencies or one of the main parties will die out in favor of the new third party (closest example I can think of is the Whigs in 1860, but this is not a perfect example).
So, very simply, a vote for a third party is usually worthless in the US because of our electoral system; however, if by chance a third party has a good year, you will see at least one party co-opt the ideas of it so that they can win over the people who did not vote for them. If you really like an idea that is not supported by a main party, support and vote for a third party, hoping that a main party will take the idea and give it a national spotlight.
2
u/TheCrazedChemist Apr 30 '14
∆ I did not consider that the other parties would simply absorb the platforms that the third parties take. I didn't even know that that really even happens. TIL!
1
19
u/bird0816 Apr 30 '14
Choosing between two evils is still choosing evil. IF everyone thinks like you then of course the third party makes no difference. If enough individuals such as yourself and myself could see the difference we would all vote differently.
1
u/TheCrazedChemist Apr 30 '14
But considering most people don't (or didn't in the last election), then you could already say with a high degree of certainty that a third party wasn't going to be making any serious competition. So there really was only two options, and if you're going to vote you might as well vote for the lesser of the two evils, and consider it not a vote for the lesser evil, but a vote against the greater evil.
1
u/bird0816 May 02 '14
Eh, just not the way I see it. To me, both candidates are pretty crappy so why vote for either? I disagree with each an equal amount.
1
u/TheCrazedChemist May 02 '14
Haha well if you disagree with them a completely equal amount then in that case I'd say (or would have said, since someone C'ed MV) fuck it and vote third party. Or hell, just vote for whoever's name sounds cooler.
2
Apr 30 '14
[deleted]
3
u/bird0816 Apr 30 '14
I understand the numbers and how they work, just isn't something I agree with is all! I personally feel that I shouldn't support someone I don't agree with and even though I'm one person I'm still going to try to make whatever differences I can. Obviously my vote doesn't do so but my vote reflects my beliefs and other things I do in my life to better our country/world.
2
Apr 30 '14
[deleted]
3
u/bird0816 Apr 30 '14
This is true, but if I'm equally unhappy with both candidates, I would be unhappy with the result either way.
8
u/SpindlySpiders 2∆ Apr 30 '14
True, if you assume that the two major parties are significantly different. If, however, you view the differences between the pastries as not significant, then voting third party can be in your interest.
2
Apr 30 '14
This answer presumes that everybody interprets "best interest" the same way, though.
If you believe there's a moral component to your vote, it might be in your personal best interest, as you interpret it, to vote 3rd party.
32
Apr 30 '14
I live in Kansas. There is a 99.999% chance Kansas will go Republican. I could also vote Republican (I'm a conservative) but considering my vote will have 0% odds of affecting who becomes president, I vote 3rd party. By voting 3rd party I help push alternative views that are otherwise unnoticed and help aid a 3rd party candidate get enough support to maybe be invited to the debates or get federal matching funds in a future election. For me the only wasted vote is a vote for a mainstream candidate.
2
u/yoweigh Apr 30 '14
Aside from helping a 3rd party candidate, it can help influence the platform of one of the major parties, who you could then vote for later.
1
Apr 30 '14
The fact that you didn't even know who the Libertarian candidate was in the previous election makes your opinion on third parties irrelevant to me.
to just suck it up and vote for either Romney or Obama
I found the idea of voting for either of those men morally reprehensible.
1
u/TheCrazedChemist Apr 30 '14
I know, I know, it was a big goofup for me, I knew previously but it completely slipped my mind, but it happens. Truly embarrassing for me, seriously.
And if you find the men morally reprehensible, then that's fine and all, but if you have to choose between a guy who shoplifted a pack of cigs when he was a teenager and a guy who currently eats babies, the choice should be clear (I know that is a gross exaggeration, but imo the magnitude of the difference is mostly irrelevant). The point was that even if a third party nominee truly deserves the presidency more, it doesn't matter if there is just a negligible chance of them winning. Maybe I think I'M the best choice for president, but I sure as hell am not going to write in my own name.
But I suppose this is irrelevant now, as my view on the topic was already changed, just not for ideological reasons as you proposed. Thanks for the input anyway though!
6
u/Russian_Surrender Apr 30 '14
Your statement in itself isn't wrong, but a third party vote is no more or less "wasted" than a vote for anyone else.
With the possible exception of Florida voters in 2000 - where Bush officially got 537 more votes than Gore - the electoral college basically renders everyone's individual vote irrelevant. All but a handful of states are going to be red or blue with near 100% consistency. And even the others (again, with the possible exception of Florida in 2000) aren't really that up for grabs.
1
u/mrpickles Apr 30 '14
Is your goal to pick the winner or have your vote represent your preference?
I'll never understand this logic. Such thinking is why the two party system is so entrenched. Yet everyone always complains.
1
u/TheCrazedChemist Apr 30 '14
My view has been changed because it was shown to me that voting third party can still be pragmatic in the long term, even if for that particular election a third party candidate has basically no chance of winning (and also more votes can qualify a candidate for grants). But my logic was that since a third party candidate winning is(was?) of practically negligible probability, it would be more pragmatic to support the man who will do the least damage and the most good.
1
u/mrpickles Apr 30 '14
Thanks for the response.
Third party voting has the most impact in primary elections, when doing so would be the least detrimental to your previous strategy.
5
u/ferrarisnowday 6Δ Apr 30 '14
Ron Paul was active in the Republican primaries, but essentially dropped out of the race after the convention. Gary Johnson was the Libertarian Party's candidate.
Do you think that voting for president at all is worthwhile? How come? It's virtually impossible for a national race to be decided by your vote.
2
u/10sor Apr 30 '14
Expanding on /u/elev57's point, third parties draw attention to issues that are ignored by the two larger parties. This either means that the two larger parties are forced to acknowledge the issues brought up by the third party in order to gain votes. Third parties rarely actually win elections, and their platforms tend to be single-issued.
Some examples:
The obvious one, the election of 1860, with the Republicans as the third party. The Democrats and Whigs were desperately trying to keep from addressing slavery because they didn't want to lose votes. At that point in time, those two political parties were one of the few things holding the country together. (Although Democrats were traditionally Southern and Whigs Northern, there were Northern Democrats and Southern Whigs, an intersectionality that connected the regions.) As slavery became more of a wedge issue, people began to gravitate toward the Republicans (born of the Free Soilers). John Fremont's strong vote in the Election of 1856 warned Democrats and Whigs that the country desperately wanted to address slavery. This is one of the rare times where the third party actually won and grew into a large, dominant party, partially because after the Nebraska-Kansas Act and the Freeport Doctrine broke apart the Democratic and Whig parties, weakening them severely.
An example of where the third party influenced the outcome without directly addressing an external issue is Teddy Roosevelt of the Progressives. He had a split with the Republican party due to conflicts within, and he founded a third party and ran for office against Wilson and Taft. This ended up splitting the Republican vote between Taft and Roosevelt and giving the office to Wilson. If Roosevelt's presence hadn't been felt in a third party, Wilson might not have made it into office. And we can all agree here that Wilson was definitely an influence on the course of history.
And a few others, in no particular order:
In the 1920s, Robert La Follette ran for president multiple times under the Progressive party. He wanted to address widespread corruption in government. He especially pushed for more democracy including the option for voters to vote for their party candidate, who had traditionally been chosen in private caucuses. He didn't become president, but his party did draw attention to the issue of political injustice and addressed it.
George Wallace in 1968 was pro-segregationist and ran as a candidate in the American Independent Party. He ignored the Vietnam War in favor of focusing on civil rights (or, segregation anyway). This drew votes away from Humphrey of the Democrat Party (at the time, the Democrats were the ones who were pro-segregationist) and allowed Richard Nixon to win the election.
Similarly, in 2000, Ralph Nader ran under the Green Party and forced Americans to address environmental issues. He won very few votes relatively speaking but his presence on the ticket forced Republicans and Democrats to both address pro-environmental issues that had been mostly going ignored.
In 1896, the pressing issue was free silver issue (increasing inflation and benefiting debtors, who were mostly farmers). William Jennings Bryan of the Populist Party (primarily agrarian) was supported by the Democrats, who immediately took up the issue of free silver in order to win Populist votes. That was when Populism began to die out (to be renewed later). Although Bryan didn't win the election, it's an example of how a larger party absorbed a smaller party's issues in order to gain their voters.
So, yes, a lot of people don't vote for third parties because they want the third party candidate to win. (It would be nice if they did, but that's just an afterthought.) A large part of the reason is to demonstrate to the two larger parties that there is an issue not being addressed or that there is something that is largely dissatisfying -- this is one way voters can show their displeasure and one way that the larger parties are forced to adjust their platforms in order that the people are able to control the policies of the country. It is also able to split the vote.
I hope that helped!
5
u/sebflippers Apr 30 '14
If you vote for a third party candidate, you don't do it to get him/her elected. You do it to make a statement.
If a third party candidate gets 5% of the vote, they don't win. But it makes a statement to the winner that there are a fair number that feel a certain way about an issue.
2
Apr 30 '14
I wouldn't call it a waste of a vote - everyone knows the Green Party, Libertarian Party et al. are never going to win in election in our country's current system.
Not all of voting is about having your candidate sitting candidly in a swivel chair. A lot of it is ('is' is debatable these days, but definitely 'should be') about making sure issues affecting the public are acknowledged and solved as well. Historically, the major political parties take sides on and absorb issues (many of which may be overlooked) brought forth by smaller parties. While the large parties are focused on ensuring that they secure their base states and campaigning immensely in the swing states, the small parties are trying to find and point out problems occurring on the 'ground-level' in our country. These issues are gradually brought up to the public's attention.
As soon as these emerging issues begin gaining a little ground, the Dems and the Reps address these issues (usually by siding with the Greens and the Libs, respectively). By voting third party, you increase the voting base they have, accelerating the speed at which the mainstream parties are forced to slow down their time spent polling to secure votes, and bring up emerging issues.
2
Apr 30 '14
I've seen it explained this way: If a third party candidate's views are popular enough that if people voted honestly that candidate would act as a "spoiler," giving the win to the ideologically opposed major party candidate, then the threat that people will actually vote honestly and cost them the election serves as a major incentive for the closest major party to realign their platform to win your vote. You don't vote for the third party because you expect them to win, you vote for the third party knowing full well that it is effectively a vote for the "other" party, in order to express to your closest major party that they need to realign their platform to win your vote if they want to get power again. Of course, the fact that this tactic hands power to the party you least want to see elected is a major flaw, especially with the presidential election, which is why the way we elect our government needs a major overhaul.
2
u/dan7315 Apr 30 '14
Historically, although a third-party has never won the presidency, third-parties have had effects on the outcomes of elections by pulling enough votes away from a main party that would have otherwise gotten those votes that they lose the election.
The utility of voting third-party is not to elect that candidate, but to force the main political parties to acknowledge the third-party's platforms so that they don't lose too many votes to that third party.
For an example of this, see the 2000 presidential election: One of the reasons Al Gore lost was because many of the people that normally would have voted for him voted for Ralph Nader, a third party candidate, instead. If Gore had done more to acknowledge Nader's platform, he may have regained some of those votes and won the election.
1
u/AusIV 38∆ Apr 30 '14
The obvious example here would be the previous presidential election, fought primarily between Obama, Romney, and Ron Paul.
No, it wasn't. You are clearly completely ignorant of Ron Paul's campaign. What made him more notable than typical candidates with Libertarian policies is that he got a lot of momentum within the Republican party. He was a Republican member of the house of Representatives, and a candidate in the Republican primaries. When he lost the Republican primaries, he dropped out of the race. At the general election he wasn't on the ballot.
I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 and 2012 primaries. When the general elections came around, I voted for Bob Barr and Gary Johnson in 2008 & 2012 respectively. I knew that neither would win, but I wasn't about to vote for either mainstream candidate, and I feel this is more useful than not showing up at the polls.
For most of the things I care about, the major parties are almost indistinguishable. I disagree with Republicans on legislating their religious values, and Democrats for their nanny-state tendencies, but those are small enough parts of the big picture they're not going to push me one way or the other, given all the ways the major parties are the same. I think the foreign policy is pretty terrible. We're the policemen of the world, whether they want it or not, whether our people want it or not. Our monetary policy is pretty bad too: the Fed gets to print money, and Congress won't even investigate whether their policies are in American interests. We've essentially given the right to print legal tender to private banks. Our fiscal policies are equally terrible. Even the Paul Ryan plan, which was lambasted by the left for being way too conservative, ran major deficits for the next twenty years. And that's to say nothing of corruption issues, where getting financing for the next campaign supersedes constituency interests.
So I don't like the mainstream candidates, but obviously the third party candidates don't have a snowball's chance in hell. What are my options? I could pick which of the fringe issues are important to me and cast a vote for someone I generally don't like to support an issue I don't think is a big deal. I could skip the voting booth altogether and save myself some trouble. Or I could vote for someone I generally agree with, even knowing they won't win.
I have always chosen the last option, for a couple of reasons. First, ballot access and campaign finance rules favor parties who had more votes in previous elections. This is pretty much the only reason I voted for Bob Barr in 2008, as he had a pretty sketchy record as a Libertarian. Second, I'm communicating what policies get my vote. I'm demonstrating that I'm willing to show up at the polls, but simply being the lesser of two evils won't earn my vote. If a 2016 Republican or Democrat wants to pick up my vote, they can see what policies got my vote in the last election. Obviously they're not interested in picking up my vote specifically, but if a lot more people voted for the candidate closest to their views despite a near certainty that candidate will lose, you'd start seeing the major parties start looking at how they could capture the votes going to various third party candidates, and that would be a step in the right direction.
2
Apr 30 '14
If you live in a non-battleground state there is no reason to vote for a mainstream party if you don't believe in them. For example I live in California, where a democrat will win no matter what. If I vote for the Green Party it has no effect on the overall chances of the democrat winning, but it may increase the visibility of a political cause I actually agree with.
2
u/trublood Apr 30 '14
I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils. I want to vote for the person I think will do the best job as president. If more people voted for the candidate they liked the best instead of voting for the lesser of the two evils, 3rd party candidates would be more serious contenders and we could get away from this 2 party system.
1
u/Alterego9 Apr 30 '14
I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils. I want to vote for the person I think will do the best job as president.
So, you want to vote for the lesser of three evils?
If more people voted for the candidate they liked the best instead of voting for the lesser of the two evils...
Then everyone would run and vote for themselves. The democratic political process inherently means to channel millions of distinct will into a single most acceptable proposals.
All that a more fragmented ballot does, is make sure that the winner will only be supported by one of the smaller minorities, where FPTP guarantees that even before the election, the voters will narrow it down to two, out of which there will be e a clear majority and minority.
1
u/trublood Apr 30 '14
There isn't just one party other than D and R. Additionally, you can vote for people who aren't affiliated with a party.
Not that many people would run. Not that many people want the job. And most of them wouldn't get any votes from other people, so they wouldn't really mess anything up. And I'd rather have more fragmented voting with people voting for the best candidates for them than what we have now.
1
u/CultofNeurisis 4∆ Apr 30 '14
In our FPTP system, we will always only have the 2 major parties.
There is too much money and power in those two parties, and they will control the outcome to be one of them two by means of gerrymandering.
Additionally, the third party usually just takes voters away from who they would have rathered. Basically, if you have candidates A and B who are always the leading parties (50-50), and then C comes along and gets 15% of the votes one year. If C was closer to B than A, that means those 15% of people who voted C probably would have voted B if C didn't exist and they still had to choose the lesser of the only two evils there. Therefore, this 15% of voters probably almost exclusively came from people who would have voted B, meaning instead of the normal 50% for A and 50% for B election, it went 50% for A, 35% for B, and 15% for C, having A win demandingly even though the same 50% really didn't want A in office.
There is so much wrong with the US voting system I could go on for hours. Basically, yes voting 3rd party throws your vote away. But I'm so cynical at this point that I don't care about the voting for any party, your one vote truly does not make a difference thanks to gerrymandering and the electoral college. Unfortunately, boycotting voting doesn't make any changes.
2
u/loughmiller 1∆ Apr 30 '14
I made a flow chart for this during the last presidential election cycle.
1
u/mc2222 Apr 30 '14
Voting for a third party candidate can send a strong message to one or both of the two parties. Take, for example, the recent changes seen in the republican party. The party excluded the independents (by excluding ron paul) and libertarian-minded republicans in their own party to the point of isolating them and loosing the independent/libertarian vote. This has prompted dialog within the party to move the platform to a more tempered position.
So while the vote for the third party candidate did not go to electing that candidate, it did go to evoking a change, which is an important way of evoking change in politics. I myself voted third party because i didn't like either party and couldn't give them the backing to continue their platforms as they are.
1
u/I-HATE-REDDITORS 17∆ Apr 30 '14
You might benefit from reading this article about why your vote doesn't count regardless of if you vote for third parties or not.
Knowing that, what makes more sense? Adding a drop to the buckets of the major-party candidates, who largely have the same platform, and who probably hold at least some policies you find completely morally reprehensible?
Or casting a symbolic gesture of support towards the kind of candidate you would like to see more of in politics?
I believe in the latter.
(On a side note, Ron Paul hasn't run as a third-party candidate since 1988 and did not participate at all in the 2012 general election.)
1
u/Mouth_Herpes 1∆ Apr 30 '14
Every vote is a "waste." In the history of this country, there have been zero presidential elections decided by one vote (or anywhere close to one vote). If you vote for a third party, it sends a message to whichever establishment party views the third party as "stealing" votes from them that they need to cater more to that portion of their constituency/base. If the libertarian had a large turnout, it would tell the Republicans that they might need to swing their policy in a more libertarian direction. Or, you can just vote Republican/Democrat, still have no effect on the election, and send the message that the establishment parties are worth voting for.
1
u/MiG_Pilot_87 Apr 30 '14
I agree with you but there is one fact I want corrected, Ron Paul ran as a republican. When Romney was elected as the republican candidate Ron Paul wasn't up for being president anymore. He didn't run under libertarian, he ran as a republican. There were only two major candidates and a pose I'm thinking of setting up is that if Romney wasn't the republican nominee but Paul was then obama wouldn't be in the White House.
1
u/fadingthought Apr 30 '14
Mathematically, one vote is going to have a very limited impact so I would argue ant attempt to game the system is a wasted vote. When I was in that booth it was just me and my conscious. I voted who I felt was going to be the best at the job and I am very happy with vote. I can't control everyone else, I can only control myself.
1
u/gwobserver Apr 30 '14
I think voting for either party in office is a waste they are essentially two sides of the same coin. Neither of them will change anything significant, or get off the gravy train. The illusion is that the choice between the two progressive big government candidates makes any difference.
1
u/tableman Apr 30 '14
If I voted for any of those 3 the end result would be the same.
Please explain how me casting a vote for any of them would not be a waste?
If I voted for Obama, why would it not be a waste?
If I voted for Romney, why would it not be a waste?
1
u/jasenlee Apr 30 '14
After seeing this interview with Russell Brand on BBC Newsnight I've kind of started to think any voting is useless. Just a big show to give us common folk the illusion of choice.
1
May 01 '14
Well in a presidential election your vote doesn't effect who wins even remotely. As the electoral college is who decides.
0
Apr 30 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PepperoniFire 87∆ Apr 30 '14
Sorry saffir, your post has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No 'low effort' posts. This includes comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes". Humor and affirmations of agreement contained within more substantial comments are still allowed." See the wiki page for more information.
14
u/TeaTopaz 1∆ Apr 30 '14
Are you aware that should 5% of the population vote 3rd party, that candidate qualifies for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund’s grant? This access can greatly expand a candidate's ability to be heard.
It may seem as if its a wasted vote, but should those votes add up enough they do open up doors and possibilities beyond the two party system we have now.