The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Votes for third party candidates in US elections are wasted.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
EvaCanFly has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 339 times Debate No: 96957
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Despite claims made to say otherwise, votes for third party candidates are in no way "wasted votes". One of the most popular claims made include the sentiment that "the candidate won't win, so the vote for them is a waste of a vote". However, that statement, upon further analysis, is easily found to be entirely fallacious. Let's begin with the segment that says "They won't win." Well, of course they won't win as it stands in recent years, the last candidate to break double digit percentages in popular votes was Ross Perot. However, if we examine the second portion of the aforementioned statement, it is completely wrong. This is because of the FEC (the federal election committee), and their policy regarding public campaign funding. If a third party candidate gathers just 5% of the popular vote, their party will be eligible to receive up to and over $20,000,000 US dollars to be used in the next election. This election cycle, libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, with his running mate Bill Weld, gathered a record breaking 4,042,291 votes, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, with her running mate Ajamu Baraka, collected 1,207,141 votes. This equates to 3.2% and 1% of the popular vote, respectively.
This equates to a respective increase from the 2012 election results of 300% and 250%. As more and more people learn of third party options, these factions such as those represented in 2016 by the likes of Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Evan McMullin, will continue to become more and more influential in American elections by challenging the status quo.


I supported a third-party candidate (Evan McMullin) which means that I completely agree with you. However, under the instruction of my local debate club, I'm supposed to debate for the opposing side to expand my viewpoints :) I look forward to a debate with you.

Debate Round No. 1


Hillary Clinton supporters have often cited Jill Stein and Gary Johnson (third party candidates) as the reason Donald Trump won the presidency less than a week ago. However, that is an absurd argument, because that assumes that if Johnson/Stein/McMullin supporters didn't have those option, they would've voted Hillary without fail, which simply isn't true. Many of these voters likely would've joined the segment of America that didn't vote, and the rest would vote in either direction, which likely would still result in a Trump victory. The claim that these votes are 'wasted' as made by Clinton and Trump supporters is nothing more than a scare tactic used to silence the voice of third party voters and make louder the voice of voters for two mainstream parties.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ZenekPr0 1 year ago
Of course they aren't. What does it even mean "wasted" ?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.