Don't waste your vote, please.

[tidesong]

This was posted over on rubian77's LJ. I wholehartedly agree. I obtained her permission to repost it here. It's uneditted, but an important read.

Yeah, I know that I'm a free-thinking liberal and most of you already know where my ticket is going. And I know that I've got readers on both sides of (as well as on) the fence when it comes to politics. But

Comments

[ex_infragil]

I'm uncomfortable with the notion that any citizen's vote -- even for a cause where failure is a certainty -- is wasted. A civic assertion of opinion, expressed through the proper channels, is infinitely superior to an opinion unexpressed.

[voiceboxx]

but it's not a beneficial vote to any candidate because 3rd party candidates almost never have a chance at winning an election, meaning the votes aren't going where they need to impact the most, rendering them rather useless

[ex_infragil]

Some of the language you've chosen here confuses me

[voiceboxx]

you're right. since any vote is not wasted and is beneficial to the country at large, i think i'm going to write in God for my vote on Nov. 4th, since i believe He is the right entity for the job, and since you say 3rd party votes (for the unofficial Religious Party in my case) do have an obvious impact. even though He can't win the popular vote, much less the presidency, my vote isn't useless because i'm simply exercising my civic duty to have my opinion heard on election day. and hopefully my vote won't negatively affect the outcome of this election in such a way that the worse of the two guys likely to win gets the presidency.

p.s. - my comment was not meant to offend religious persons, but rather to make a point. 3rd parties are good in theory. but right now, the way things are shaped in the "real world", until a solid foundation is laid down for a 3rd party to be properly formed and represented, they're never going to have enough support or votes to make a positive difference in any election, much less to win.

[danceswithcats1]

I like the idea of a third party. I've been wishing for the dems to give me someone to vote for who runs on a platform other than, "I'm not like them". I'd also like a pub candidate who is more like Barry Goldwater. Mr. McCain isn't just like W any more than Mr. Obama is just like ____________. Let's put these shopworn generalizations aside if you wish intelligent discussion.

[rubian77]

I like the idea of a third party, too -- but voting for them (for president) at this point doesn't work because the infrastructure isn't in place to help them get any further than the ballot. Whether you put in for Goldwater or Alfred E. Neuman, it falls on deaf ears when it comes to the electoral college.

[0485c10]

Just to let you know. I do think this is a valuable editorial and I have passed it on w/o gaining advance permission. It does not have a copyright & it is in the public domain. I do think it is a worthy editorial. I let you and rubian77 know that it is being passed along.

[rubian77]

The whole journal is protected under Creative Commons.

(for anyone else considering reproducing it - I don't mind, just credit me.)

[cellio]

I disagree. If those of us who support third parties always throw that vote away by voting for one of the big two, then how exactly will anyone know that third parties have support?

In my state, every vote for a third-party candidate helps with both ballot access and voter registration. (We need a certain percentage of the vote in order to be listed on the voter-reg form and to have lower signature requirements for ballot access.) I'm not voting for Bob Barr because he can win; I'm voting for him because I think he's the best candidate and because my vote for him will help smooth the way for future candidates. And because that vote does much less good in some other state, no I won't be doing a vote trade -- or, at least, I won't trade even, and trading uneven causes other integrity problems that I'm not sure I want to get mixed up in.

A vote for Obama or McCain when I support neither would be throwing away my vote -- because it would not be the candidate I believe in. I would be abandoning my duty as a citizen to cast a

[rubian77]

I'm not against third parties as a general rule - in fact, I think we need more choices - but until the electors are willing to vote for the third party, nothing's going to change.

Even if 90% of Americans voted for Bob Barr this election, he still would not get into office. The popular vote doesn't mean anything in the presidential election because it's the Electoral votes that actually do the deciding; the Gore/Bush election proved that.

I think it's great that they need a certain percentage in order to be on the form, but not every state is like that. :(

Ideally there would be electors who would be willing to vote third-party -- but until that happens, the president will always be a Republican OR a Democrat. So of the two, it's up to us to choose who will screw us the least in the meantime.

[cellio]

Don't we elect the electors? That is, we don't directly vote for candidates; we vote for people who have pledged to vote for those candidates. So if a third-party candidate won a state then yes, those electors would cast their votes for him.

The popular vote doesn't mean anything per se, but the popular vote within each state determines that state's whole wad.

[rubian77]

It should work that way, yes -- but they are not required by law to do so. That's part of the problem.....plus, if you live in a state with 3 Republican electors who don't want to vote for the Libertarian who's won, they'll vote Republican anyway.