• Try building support first

    You want to be idealistic? Get someone elected at the city or county level. Then, Get them up to the state legislature. After that, You may have a shot at Congress but you're going to have to work very hard for it. Try President after that. There's no road from zero to White House. Or even the Senate. Or the House. It's not going to happen. If you vote third party in a national election in our current environment, It is an absolute waste. It's not a philosophical experiment. There are real-life consequences.

  • It won't affect the outcome

    Voting for a 3rd party candidate is akin to staying at home, it will have zero impact on the outcome of the election.
    You can talk about having the Right to choose whomever you want to represent you, and yes you do of course. You also would have the right to bet on a 3 legged horse in the Kentucky Derby but it would not be a wise investment.

    Posted by: Jayo
  • Yes it is informative, but still a wasted vote

    Third party voting outcome usually is to capture attention for future change, instead of winning. Third party voters will still be under the leadership of whomever wins from the main parties, which is an issue to think about in the voting process. Third party voting has importance, but in a final campaign election situation, those voters have to be ok with the results.

  • An understandable yet realistic wasted vote

    Third party candidate voting allows you to express yourself but as for possible winning an election it is a waste. Its more about personal expression of your opinion. Voting for the leader of a country is so so important. Thinking beyond yourself and thinking about whats best for the country is critical.

  • I am savage i am ADAM STRECKER

    I am so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so s os os so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so savag

  • You don't vote in a vacuum.

    You can vote your conscience but you cannot pretend that means you vote in a vacuum. No. You vote in an established two party system. Why? Look at other countries with more than 2 parties. Then you have a president that wins with like 15% of the vote instead of close or a majority. Al gore lost by 500 votes, because 10,000s voted for Nader. If those people could vote over I bet more than 500 would change their mind. So vote knowing that you are possibly giving your vote to the least candidate you would be willing to vote for. You have to vote as if the election came down to your one vote. And if you vote third party it means the dem or rep candidate would win. If you are ok with that then vote third party. If not, then vote for one of major two parties.

  • They're not going to win

    What's the point? Your stupid vote will get completely lost in the masses. Hell, in that case, don't even bother showing up to the voting booths. At least that way, we've cut down on the wait time for those of us voting for someone who actually has a chance at winning.

  • Vote your conscience: Write in yourself

    Unless we change the way elections are held, to a ranked-choice or range voting system, for instance, we cannot express our true preferences without helping a worse candidate win. Voting for the candidate most likely to win is the most logical choice.

    The "No" side says you should "vote your conscience" and vote for the candidate that agrees with you most regardless of the likelihood that they will win.

    But they are not following their own advice. If they were, they'd write in a vote for themselves, since no one could possibly agree with you more than yourself.

    Of course this would be absurd, because there's no way you could win by writing in a vote for yourself, and your vote would be wasted. Voting for a third party candidate in a broken first-past-the-post winner-takes-all system is equally absurd, and for the same reasons.

  • Its math ok ....This video explains how a two party system comes about.. And why its useless to vote for some one other then the two front runners...Because it will never change unless the voting system changes. It doesn't prove anything to vote for a third party... Stay frosty my friends hooha

  • The candidate must be VIABLE!

    Voting 3rd party in a GENERAL election will NOT make that party stronger, it will only make whomever your not voting for weaker. UNLESS the said 3rd party has a viable candidate! This is where you guys are dropping the ball. The strength is needed BEFORE the general. If your guy isn't participating in debates and not even on the ballot during primary season then that party has not garnered the strength to be viable and any vote cast for them in the general is ABSOLUTELY WASTED!!

  • To Mr. Huge Waste:

    I will use your flawed logic in another way. Let's say that you wanted to vote for Mitt Romney, but were afraid that Mitt Romney was going to lose anyway. So you decided to vote for Obama because of your fear, even though you don't want him to win. That is not logical. You are actually deciding that your vote doesn't count, and this logic you show is truly a wasted vote.

  • We have the power

    There a seems to be a certain fatalism on the other side, an overwhelming assumption that we can not change the two party system - but we can, and all it takes is some third party votes. Just like companies will always go where the money is, politicians will always go where the votes are, and so we can disrupt the system but putting out votes elsewhere.

  • Be the Change

    If we all stopped thinking that voting for a candidate we actually want to vote for was a waste, then it wouldn't be! It is up to make a change in this country and break away from the two party system.

    The republicans and democrats win every time someone says, "voting third party is throwing your vote away." They have all of the power and we're allowing that to happen. If we don't want to live in a country that's run by two huge, uncontested parties that have long been bought out by giant corporations, then voting third party seems like a good way to go.

    Https://www.Facebook.Com/beyondredandblue - continue the debate.

  • Would rather vote for what I want and not get it then vote for what I don't want and get it

    The "two" parties have become indistinguishable. They are both filled entirely with corporate stooges. If this were ever in doubt, obama's reign has confirmed it. By all measures and tests, obama's proven to be no different from romney in all actions. The only way he *looks* different to the blindly obedient democrat voter is his hollow rhetoric. Claiming that a 3red party vote is worthless is the only reason why it has been so far. The false edichotomy of the "lesser evil" has blindly loyal democrat voters believing that they have to vote for one corporate stooge to avoid the other. It's self-fulfilling prophecy. They say they want a liberal but they won't vote for one because thy think that means a conservative will win. Well their "not-wasted" vote allowed a conservative to win! Vote Green in 2014 and from now on if you want to see any positive change.

  • Of course not

    Voting for someone that you do not believe in is what is really wasted. If you vote for a third party, and enough people do. There is a chance that, although they don't win, a spark can be set and that third party can be on the track to becoming a major party.

  • Lesser of Two Evils

    I never intend to vote for the lesser of two evils. I think it is better to vote with one's conscience, or to not vote at all in the case that no parties deserve one's confidence. Even though the same major political parties will defeat the competition for the foreseeable future, not voting for them makes a statement and sets a precursor for change. I understand that some people feel the need to make an immediate influence on the state of current affairs, discriminating between parties on only a few matters in their narrow list of concerns. However, I feel that I do not need to do this and I stand by principles. After all, party politics is just a game and real change happens when both individuals and communities proactively set out to do good in the world.

  • No vote wasted

    I think that the only wasted vote is the one not cast at all. The choice of the lesser of two evils is no longer a choice for me. I've voted for the Constitution Party candidate for President in the last three elections. We can't keep sending the same people to Washington and expect different results...

  • Vote your conscience!

    A single vote never decides the election. Voting for the candidate you most believe in lets the country know that you are part of a group that is not happy with the dichotomous two-party system. How often do complex societal issues have only two polarizingly opposite ways of thinking about them? Never.

  • No

    A wasted vote is voting for a candidate you don't believe in. If you are honestly voting for a person who you believe can have a positive impact on the United States, then it is not 'wasted'. Not voting for a democrat or republican doesn't invalidate your, or anybody else's, vote.

  • That's not how it works

    When you vote, you aren't voting to get the person into office. Your vote doesn't affect the decision. The point to voting is to represent what candidates the populace approves of. Voting for a lesser evil just tells the government that you'd approve of more idjits in the run over idealism

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

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