Voting third party is the electoral equivalent of sending thoughts and prayers.
The Chicago Cubs have won the World Series, not once, but TWICE, more recently than a third party candidate has won the presidency. You might as well just stay home.
Wait, that last is definitely wrong. If it’s a choice between staying home or voting third party, you do accomplish more voting third party.
Really? What do you accomplish?
I realize that my utter disgust for and contempt of Trump may be preventing me from recognizing mathematical realities. I’ll just say this, back in a previous election, I voted Nader. I did so because I figured (correctly) that my red state would go for Bush and I could cast my vote in favor of the* idea* of a viable third party. Even though it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference I still kick myself over that vote.
FWIW, I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, or how it bears any relationship whatsoever to anything I said.
And in case you missed my point, those who voted for Nader in 2000 effectively took themselves out of the decision-making process in what turned out to be a critically important election with consequences that will last for generations. And they would probably have made all the difference.
What is the value of a vote in general? As far as influencing the election goes, I see it as this: “what is the probability that your vote will decide the election?”
This is a very small number for everyone–but it isn’t zero. And due to the electoral college, it varies depending on which state you live in. Being Californian, my vote is worth perhaps a millionth of someone in Florida.
As such, I consider it a waste to use my vote to actually elect someone. To give my vote power, I use it for signalling instead. The signal is that I don’t actually approve of Hillary as president, even if I’d (much) rather have her than Trump. Ideally, she would win but with much less than 50% of the popular vote.
In a way, I’m glad I don’t live in a swing state, because it means I’m not required to vote strategically. I agree that it’s the equivalent of “sending thoughts and prayers.” That has more value than trying to send actual support, but having it cut by a factor of a million due to the vagaries of the system. The messaging comes through undiluted.
Nope.
There is no scenario in which I’d vote for Clinton or Trump. If the election was to be decided by my vote, I would not vote for either. My vote for Johnson or Stein will be because I want to vote on the local and state issues and it takes minimal effort.
It’s deeply ironic that you consider your vote for an actual electable candidate to be so diluted that it’s negligible, yet at the same time you believe that your single solitary vote for some fringe nutbar constitutes “signalling” that “comes through undiluted”. Guess what? Nobody will care. Your signalling will be completely unseen. Your strategy and everyone else’s when the nation’s future is in the balance should be to vote for the sane electable candidate and thus directly against the crazy one. If you want to signal messages, then start a blog, write letters to the editor, or better still go knocking on doors for the sane candidate and explain why it’s so important that she win. You send no particular message by just throwing your vote away.
You’re either under the seriously incorrect impression that Clinton and Trump are equivalently flawed, or you’re willing to throw your country under the bus for some reason that I’m unable to fathom.
You’re unable to fathom someone not wanting to commit aggression against millions of people? I will question your fathoming ability.
There is no such thing as an electable candidate in my state. All the EC votes will go to Clinton with essentially 100% probability. From my perspective, there’s no election at all.
The popular vote is the only place where my vote can be seen. I get exactly the same share of the popular vote as anyone else, so although the share is small, it is at least much higher than my share of the EC vote.
The president isn’t elected by popular vote, so this is just signalling. But people do pay attention to it, as evidenced by all the whining about Bush losing the popular vote.
Perhaps it will nevertheless be ignored, because future candidates can’t pander to third parties without pissing off their base. I couldn’t say. But even so, I am still no worse off than I would have been voting for an “electable” candidate.
Ok, but realize that we’re discussing the popular vote at the national, state and district levels. Because all of those will be studied by the politicos.
Exactly. My vote cannot determine the president. But it can influence the overall picture that the politicians see. If possible, I don’t want them to think I am a Hillary supporter, as opposed to someone that does not want Trump in office. I would not have that luxury in a swing state–I’d have to vote Clinton. But in California I have more choice.
If there were a “none of the above” choice, I’d probably go for that. But Johnson will do.
-
The politicos will also study exit polls and changes in the vote shares and turnout relative to 2012, adjusted for demographic changes. So if you voted for Hillary, part of the signal might be picked up. I think it’s obvious that a lot of conservatives are holding their noses and voting for Hillary.
-
Go ahead and vote for Johnson if you want - I’m not claiming #1 is decisive. I’m just saying.
-
I confess that I generally perceive “None of the above” requests as whining, especially in races like Obama-Romney, Dole-Clinton, or Clinton-Bush when you have sturdy though imperfect representatives of two currents of American politics. Admittedly, this year is an outlier, even more than 1964.
-
ETA: My personal strategy is to vote as if I controlled 1-2% of the electorate. …
You make a valid point with #1; the pollsters aren’t dumb and they’ll realize people like me exist. Still, as you acknowledge, the signal is weakened–voting Johnson vs. Stein vs. whomever gives them more information as to which kind of dissatisfied voter I am.
That 1% of the electorate–if they all lived in California–would still not make a meaningful dent in Clinton’s margin of victory if they went for Johnson. 2%… maybe.
But will they see you, and your fellow one-percenters, as being *for *something, or just against everything? What result are you really trying to achieve?
Johnson’s polling at more like 7%.
Ideally, they would see me for what I am: a “libertarian-lite”, social-liberal/economic-conservative with a lot of pragmatism mixed in. In practice, they can’t pin me down that accurately. They might see me as a goldbug nutjob, or some guy launching a protest vote because Trump isn’t conservative enough, or someone that got like super-high that day and can’t remember who he voted for.
I’m sure the pollsters have little demographic slots that they can shove people into probabilistically, though, so to the extent that they can do that accurately, my vote is meaningful. More meaningful, at least, than a hold-your-nose vote for Hillary, where even more groups are lumped into the same pool and they have even less to go on.
7% isn’t winning the presidency, but it ain’t nothing, either. Candidates pay a lot of attention to much smaller demographics than that.
I saw this article in my Facebook feed.
I don’t agree with it 100%, but it does have much truth. Those deserting Trump to vote for a “real conservative” ignore that Trump isn’t the opposite of a modern Republican, merely a caricature of it.
You register some kind of support instead of nothing at all. And you have a possibility, however small, of actually winning an election.
If you vote for the Rent Is Too Damn High candidate, all you need is for a majority (or in some states a plurality!) of other voters to do the same, and you elect a candidate. On the other hand, in most US elections, a majority of the eligible do not vote, and yet it would take absolutely everyone not voting for that to affect an election result.
Even if you don’t get that plurality, you create an indication that someone was thinking different from the two majors. You accomplished a teeny-tiny thing, but it was a thing. You put a little bit bigger number for a loser party in the history books. That’s still something.
Why is this link in this thread?