Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

The Irony of 3rd Party Critisism

Quadrunner
Posts: 2,746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 5:53:21 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I don't wish for this to become a bashing thread. I'd merely like to point out an interesting realism that I believe should be considered when picking your arguments for or against the semi-controversial decision to vote for the third party.

The state I officially reside in is DEMOCRAT run, and has been for my entire life. As an independent, I am in the minority, along with Republicans in my state. The last 40 years have consistently been voting democratic candidates, and to vote for a republican candidate would essentially be "throwing your vote away" because republican candidates have no chance of victory in this adamantly textbook blue state. Predictions this year all declare a relatively landslide victory for Hillary Clinton.

Why then should you vote for a republican candidate if they have no chance of victory? I mean, if the majority claim they can't win, that's essentially the sole reason people don't "waste" their vote for a 3rd party candidate. I don't mean to argue or change anyone's mind here. That's just the way I see it and I'm curious how minority voters for mainstream parties justify voting in the hypothetical situation that there is a more qualified third party candidate. So lets discuss openly.
kevin24018
Posts: 3,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 6:23:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 10/3/2016 5:53:21 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I don't wish for this to become a bashing thread. I'd merely like to point out an interesting realism that I believe should be considered when picking your arguments for or against the semi-controversial decision to vote for the third party.

The state I officially reside in is DEMOCRAT run, and has been for my entire life. As an independent, I am in the minority, along with Republicans in my state. The last 40 years have consistently been voting democratic candidates, and to vote for a republican candidate would essentially be "throwing your vote away" because republican candidates have no chance of victory in this adamantly textbook blue state. Predictions this year all declare a relatively landslide victory for Hillary Clinton.

Why then should you vote for a republican candidate if they have no chance of victory? I mean, if the majority claim they can't win, that's essentially the sole reason people don't "waste" their vote for a 3rd party candidate. I don't mean to argue or change anyone's mind here. That's just the way I see it and I'm curious how minority voters for mainstream parties justify voting in the hypothetical situation that there is a more qualified third party candidate. So lets discuss openly.

If these politicians actually gave a crap, they would take notice, especially when the race is close that maybe they should reexamine what they stand for, or at the very least maybe they should be a bit more moderate. Hillary will never look back and think wow just barely over half actually supported me, I wonder why, nope no one cares, it's all about winning and that's it. See once they win they can pay back those they owe, further their own agenda regardless of the harm to our country.
BobTheRocket2 wrote:
Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what, it's going to knock over the pieces, crap all over the board, and strut around like it's victorious.

"Beware the engineers of society, I say, who would make everyone in all the world equal. Opportunity should be equal, must be equal, but achievement must remain individual.
- Drizzt Do'Urden"
Stymie13
Posts: 3,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 6:31:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I don't believe a vote for one with 'no shot' is a waste at all. I contend one should only vote for one they believe in, not protest votes.