It has been said (unsurprisingly often by supporters of one of the two main parties) that voting for a third party is wasting your vote. I beg to differ. In fact, it is often voting for one of the two main parties that is a waste of a vote.
Consider this year’s presidential elections. Already most states have been decided. There are only about a dozen or so states where your vote could possibly make a difference. If you live in Massachusetts for example, why vote for Obama and run up the total on what will be a certain victory? Or, for that matter, why vote for McCain in an already doomed effort?
However, a vote being “not wasted” is about more than just having your vote decide something. It is about expressing your views in a way that matters. So often, we hear that many people are voting for the lesser of two evils. Well, when you do that what you get is still evil, and you will never have anything else. Why not vote for someone who does actually share the majority of your views?
Now, for those who feel their views are adequately represented by either the Democrats or the Republicans, I’m not telling you to vote otherwise. The true tragedy of our system is that many people feel they have to vote for one of the two main parties and don’t even examine other candidates to see if they would prefer one of them.
Therefore, today I’m pleading with you to take the time to examine the positions of third party candidates. Below are some links showing many of the major third part candidates and their parties. (Note that due to overly strict ballot access laws not all candidates may be on the ballot in your state).
Third Party Links:
Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party
Cynthia McKinney - Green Party
Brian Moore - Socialist Party USA
Ralph Nader - Independent
I understand your point about voting in a state where the result is already assured, but what would the point be for voting a third party? To encourage candidates to continue to run in a third party and waste the money (and efforts) of their supporters? Why not change the parties from within, which is slowly happening to the Republican Party (and Democratic Party, though in the wrong direction)? The Republican primaries showed an obvious interest in a more libertarian strain of conservatism. Continuing to fight for your values (be they liberal, libertarian, conservative, socialist, or what not) within the two major parties is the ONLY chance you have to ever see your values represented in the highest office.
I like the idea of voting third party, and have done so at times in the past. I guess I don’t feel like my vote means much of anything anyway, but to support a third party candidate is a tiny way of saying (if anyone is listening) that maybe there is some support for something besides a two-party system. After all, lots of other countries have a multiparty elections.
You’re right. For those in close states their vote really could decide the election, but for the rest of us the choice of voting third party really does make sense if we are thoroughly disgusted with both parties (as most American’s are).
Darius T, you are wrong about “Continuing to fight for your values (be they liberal, libertarian, conservative, socialist, or what not) within the two major parties” since the party controllers (those with money) will still bring the party to how they want it.
Did you ever notice that those who say voting third party is a waste of your vote are usually from the other two parties?
Voting for a third party will help that party get access to funding plus if enough people did it, would freak out the media.
The media has a big play in the lack of third party access since they never report on them…
Until they print ballots with a NONE OF THE ABOVE option, I will be voting third party.
Perhaps if enough people do so, whoever wins the election will be barred from claiming a “mandate” and will listen to the American citizens before jumping into decisions.
I might consider voting for the “lesser of two evils,” but frankly, I cannot tell which candidate that is.
You don’t have to vote for anybody. You can cast a blank ballot. I did that once.
That’s true, just vote for your local elections and leave the presidential part blank.
Voting for a third party in a swing state really does require a difficult choice though. For example, in 2000 voting third party in Florida may well have given the election to Bush. For someone who thought Bush was far worse for the nation than Gore, voting third party was a major sacrifice.
The more I think about it, the more I support the idea of allowing candidates to delegate their own votes. This would mean that votes for a third party might end up going toward a major candidate, but those major candidates would have to negotiate for those votes. This means that if the only issue that matters to me is national health care, I can vote for the minor candidate that campaigns on a platform to demand health care concessions in my positions favor to pass on his votes. If the election ends up relying on that candidates votes, He can offer them up to whichever candidate legally obligates themselves to do more for my position. This still wouldn’t be a perfect situation since the candidate decides where the compromises are made, but it would avoid throwing votes away while allowing a clear way of indicating which platform with which one most closely agrees.
Exactly HOW is that honoring the people who voted for you???
Well put. I am torn between voting for Bob Barr or possibly not voting. Tough choice.
Exactly HOW is that honoring the people who voted for you???
It seems to work in a parliamentary system where a minor party makes an alliance with a bigger party to form a majority and take control. The idea of allocating votes isn’t as good, because it’s just a one-time irrevocable act, whereas if you’re in a parliament the minor party can pull out of the alliance at any time.
I’ve always voted for a third party in those higher elected offices, mostly Socialist and a few WRI or IND because we are the change we seek regardless of the differences within the third party option or by Third Way from within like the worm of an apple. We must look at all tactical options with our lone vote, hold our nose over the smell and do our civic duties or be ignored and dismissed.
Because by voting for a third party candidate today my vote has no direct effect on the election, but under the modified system it would. In 2000, many people in Florida voted for Nader. He had more than enough votes to choose the fate of the presidency had he been able to delegate those votes. The people who voted for Nader did so because they had specific policy demands they wanted met. Had Nader been allowed to delegate his votes, he could have negotiated with the other two candidates for concessions that would have allowed his voters to be represented.
Why would it have made sense for the major parties? People voting for Bush would likely rather have had Bush with a few concessions to Nader than to have gotten Gore, and the other way around as well. Those to whom Nader’s policies were completely unacceptable would likely have voted for ANOTHER third party candidate, whose votes would be delegated on the condition that the receiving party NOT make binding concessions to Nader. In the end, we have a representation of the issues most important to the voters finding a compromise that the candidates can live with. The challenge for the voter just becomes finding a candidate to vote for who you believe will make the RIGHT compromises. This is actually no different than the present though, since once in office politics is ALL about making the right compromises.
I would much rather be allowed to vote for someone whose judgment I trust, and let that person negotiate for the best compromise possible. As Jew said, this is basically what parliamentary systems do today, which is why countries with parliamentary systems can have more than three parties.