what is it about people, that they allow themselves to be talked out of actually exercising their ability to change our sucky government? If I hear one more person say that want to vote for Nader, but don’t want to throw their vote away, I will punch them very hard in their nose.
Throwing your vote away? If your guy doesn’t get elected your vote has been thrown into the dumpster? That is utter bull shit. Two separate words this time, people. Bull. Shit.
If you voted for the green party, or the libertarians (god forbid!), then you have let the government know that you support that party. If they lose, they lose. but at least they know that they have one more supporter. Do you think that if Nader got 20% of the vote Gore should have gotten that this will go unnoticed next election? Unnoticed now?
Perot ran a nice campaign in 1992. But when he ran again, people assumed he wasn’t a valid candidate because they had “thrown their vote away” last time. But for godsakes people! the man ran with sizable support in two elections! He founded his own party!
Go ahead. Throw your vote away, by giving it to Al “Lesser of two evils” Gore. I dare you.
I’ve already determined I cannot possibly vote for either of the leading candidates, so I’ve decided mine will be a protest vote, possibly “thrown away,” but a protest just the same.
But who to support? Are write-ins still possible? Let’s start an Internet campaign and we’ll all write-in our candidate. I’m thinking…Fidel Castro!
I know many would say, “let’s write-in Cecil Adams!” but believe me, Mr. Adams is much too smart to want the job.
I think voting for a candidate that I don’t like or believe in is throwing my vote away. Why would I want him to think he won my approval somehow?
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, four weeks, one day, 1 hour, 34 minutes and 23 seconds.
6042 cigarettes not smoked, saving $755.33.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes.
People misapply the “commodity metaphor”. Comparing a vote to a sack of money, or a bunch of marketable securities is bogus. Do you really think if you vote for the winning candidate that you have invested something? Like, you’re going to benefit more from that official, or suffer less from whatever goes wrong?
I actually think the commodity metaphor is a big reason why people don’t vote at all in the United States. It’s the one of the many useless platitudes you hear at election time … it isn’t challenged, but I think subtly, a lot of non-voters know it’s a hollow reason to vote. They just don’t know the good reasons to vote, like, The demographic groups with the the highest turnout rates tend to be the ones the politicians listen to. (There are others, but I’m not going to list them here.)
Of course, the commodity metaphor can be twisted the other way. If your minor party candidate is going to get 1000 votes in your area, you can increase that total 0.1% all by yourself. A major party candidate might get 100,000 votes, so voting for one of them only increases their total 0.001%. Vote for the weakest candidates you can find! Also bogus, but no more so than major party stuff.
Naturally, if we had a majoritarian election system, none of this would be an issue, but a runoff?! For shame! That would add a whole three weeks to our 16-month election season!
Looking back, I realize that my overall opinion might not be clear. Basically I agree with the OP - every vote is counted, as long as it is cast.
I’d also like to say that it really irritates me when somebody takes the “throwing your vote away” crud to the next level and says “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush” or, alternately, “a vote for Buchanan is a vote for Gore”. Double baloney. I’ll grant that the plurality rule is confusing in elections, since it puts cross-pressures on the voter. That is, the voter might want to vote expressly, for the candidate they like the best, or strategically, for the candidate among the two top-rated candidates who they like better. I have no problem, on the whole, with either strategy; I tend toward express voting myself. But to say that express voting is a “waste”, when half the eligible population stays home watching The Fish Channel, is outrageous.
I am not a fan of those who say it’s a wasted vote. However, for me, at least in the upcoming election, I’m not so much voting for Bush as against Gore. So, not wanting Gore to win, I am voting for the candidate with the most chance to beat him, George W… So it am I not playing by the rules and/or risk getting a punch in the face by jb_farley?
I will then have to invoke the war cry of Arthur “Not in the face, not in the face!” Spoon.
I wholeheartedly agree with the OP, and have in fact voted many times for third parties. But I would make one observation about what causes people to adopt the seemingly strange “don’t-throw-your-vote-away” attitude.
Truth is, that any one vote, NO MATTER WHO YOU VOTE FOR, is going to have a negligable impact. Really, if a person considered the impact of their own vote, no one would vote at all. So when people vote, they are, in their minds, participating in a sort of group exercise, along with other likeminded voters. In their minds, the group of “them and their fellow voters” have, as a team, elected so-and-so. Looked at from this perspective, people would rather feel that they and their fellows have actually elected someone - or at least to have given it a good shot - rather than been participants in some hopeless lost cause.
I don’t think it’s bad to vote for Bush or Gore because you don’t like the other candidate, or to feel that you would be “throwing your vote away” if you voted for a third-party candidate. But I do think that it’s incredibly short-sighted.
People who think that not voting for one of the front-runners is a waste have a very narrow view of history, and act like they think that this election will be the last one, or is most important. If people had starting voting their conscience fifty years ago, who knows what would have happened? Maybe we would have a viable three (or four or five) party system. But to explain your vote by saying that a third candidate has no support, so he doesn’t get your vote, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Take the longer view, people!
Well, I don’t think we’ll ever have a viable three or four party system- every time a new major party has sprung up, one (or both) of the existing parties adopted the majority of the ‘new’ party’s platform in order to grab their support (see: Populists and Democrats, Bull Moose Republicans and Democrats, Dixiecrats/State’s Rightsists and Republcians).
But casting your vote for a minor party is no more throwing your vote away than casting your vote for a major party. Think about it- your one vote doesn’t mean a good goddamn to Bush or Gore; they’re thinking about votes on the tens of thousands scale. As, for that matter, are Buchanan and Nader. The difference between 104,529 and 104,530 is as pointless as the difference between 104,539,999 and 104,540,000. If voting for a “could win” candidate is all that’s important, then why bother voting for Bush if Gore is ahead in the polls, or Gore if Bush is ahead in the polls?
Since voting for someone just to make them win is pointless- because you can’t do it- why not then vote for the person you feel would do the best job? And if that person isn’t a major-party candidate, you add at least slightly to the chance that the Democrats and/or Republicans will start taking your views much more seriously in the future. If Nader takes more than 5%- especially if Gore loses by only a few points- expect the Democrats to put forward much more liberal candidates over the next few years.
(Brought to you by the council of Bush supporters who want as many people to vote for Nader instead of Gore as possible.)
Frankly, my pet peeve is the whiner who complains about what is going on in DC, or in their state/county and when asked who they voted for say, “Oh, I didn’t vote…mine wouldn’t haved counted anyways.”
When ya vote ya get THE RIGHT TO BITCH!!!
No vote is ever wasted (unless you are planning on voting Gore, then I would highly recommend it is and you should stay home :D).
The philtrum? I need to know what that is so I can protect it! If you have my ass, does it effect my philtrum? I rather like my ass, I’d like to keep it.
I usually don’t even vote. I think all politicians are not in it for themselves only and not for the people they represent. These people make 5 times the salary of their constituents and expect me to believe the tripe they spout out. Who ever gets elected, I’m getting screwed, without so much as dinner, a peck on the cheek or an “I love you”.
I dislike them all, but I dislike Mr. “Cavalcade of mistruths” Al Gore and his PMRC wife most of all and don’t want to see them in.
The philtrum is the double ridge of soft tissue that is between the nose and the upper lip.
Heard Jesse Ventura being interviewed on Talk of the Nation the other day. He said the “throwing your vote away” argument uses the logic of gambling - everyone tries to pick the candidate they think will win, rather than the one they would most like to win.
I was gonna vote for Gore until I had a chance to hear Nader speak. Unlike the other candidates, he actually had something meaningful to say. How refreshing.