Voting for a Third-Party Candidate is NOT a Waste: Don't Be Fooled!

[front2back]

It's That Time of Year Again...

This November marks the election for a new President of the United States. As usual, the media is all over it and the debates have been going on for what has felt like forever. However, nothing much has changed really. You have a Republican Party candidate (Donald Trump) and a Democratic Party candidate (Hillary Clinton), and of course it turns out that neither of these candidates are very popular...at all. I've seen so much slander for both candidates I wonder who the hell actually nominated these two in the first place. The voter base for each party isn't happy either. Liberals are disappointed that Bernie Sanders didn't make the ticket and Conservatives are disappointed that literally anyone who wasn't Donald Trump didn't make the ticket either.

But as usual, someone just always says, "Just pick the lesser evil."

No. Don't just settle for the "lesser evil". Vote for who you WANT to vote for, even if they're in a third party. Of course, if you choose this path you'll always get one of these responses: "Your vote will be wasted, it won't matter anyways.", or, "But a vote for 'X' is a vote for 'Y'! You have to vote 'Z'!"

Well I'm going to explain to you why these arguments don't make logical sense.

"But a vote for (Johnson/Stein) is a vote for (Trump/Clinton)!"

This has got to be by far the dumbest argument I've heard against voting 3rd party. Let me explain why with a basic understanding of how votes are cast.

When someone votes, they make a choice, let's say choice number "2". Their vote is counted as part of a total for all votes for number "2". I vote for number "2", number "2" gets one more vote. Not number "1", not number "3", only number "2".

When people say this, what they're really trying to say is they're upset you aren't voting for their personal favorite candidate or party.

So if I voted for say, Gary Johnson, guess who got my vote?

Oh yeah! GARY JOHNSON. Not Trump, not Clinton. Gary Johnson got one more vote and both Trump and Hillary's vote counts have remained unchanged. The reason why everyone says this is because they personally believe that you should only care about their favorite candidate's votes and that you should help them win the state. A Trump fan only tells you this because he wants you to vote for Trump. A Clinton fan only tells you this because she wants you to vote for Clinton. It's not because your vote magically spills over into the other candidate's ballots, it's because they're mad that YOU didn't help them out.

"But Your Vote Won't Mean Anything, it Will Just be Wasted!"

Okay I'll admit it, this argument DOES have some truth to it. The United States is not like other Republics. Here, the popular vote doesn't matter really. What matters is the amount of Electoral College votes that are won. Doesn't matter if only a mere 100 more people in Iowa vote for a certain candidate, Iowa's EC votes automatically go to that candidate, instead of being split or having the popular vote count. This is called a "winner take all" system, and it's what has allowed the two biggest political parties in the United States to rule for one and a half centuries.

However, don't be discouraged by this system though. Even though many, MANY people think it's a dumb idea, it has still been around forever. Neither of the two biggest parties want to abolish it, however, because that would threaten their power. The two parties NEED this system, otherwise some independent with the popular vote could steal the election. The more everyone votes in their best interest and for a different party, the less and less grip the Dems and Republicans will have on the country.

Part of the reason why we can't get a major Third Party in the country (unlike nearly every other Western Republic) is because people are either too scared to vote for a third party, thinking the vote will be wasted, or just don't vote at all. The more people vote in their interests (and in a Third party) the greater the third party's popularity will grow, and thus more people will vote for it, and suddenly the United States is a 3 party country whose Third party amended The Constitution to rid of the EC.

So Remember Americans, you Have the Power to Make a Change...

Don't forget that you should vote for ONLY who you support, and that voting is your civil duty as a citizen in this country. Don't be complaining about the next president or party in power if you didn't even at least try to make change.

Anyways, thanks for reading!

[Rawrzz]

Really, really good take. It's very unfortunate that so many people feel like "Oh no, I *have* to vote for ------, otherwise ------- will win!" They completely disregard all the other potential candidates, because they don't believe they have a chance. But the only reason they don't have a chance is because everyone thinks they don't have a chance, because everyone thinks that only two have a chance... >_<;;; It's infuriating. If people would just vote for who they believed in and avoided voting for someone they *don't* believe in...

Fuck that. I'm voting for Jill Stein. If we could get an *actual* candidate that isn't a heaping pile of human disgrace into the White house--not to mention one that's just hanging on the coattails of her husband's Presidency--that would be great. Really, how insulting would it be to women to have the first female President the wife of a previous male President? It just seems retarded , to me. Not to mention all this shit with Bush - Bush Clinton - Clinton. What is this a fucking oligarchy? Why are the same families running this bitch over and over?

That reminds me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyHPCv4ZcCM

[TuMeManques]

Good take. I'll be voting 3rd party. Either Johnson or someone else... still undecided unfortunately.

[NearlyNapping]

The first time I voted in a presidential election I voted third party. Whether or not it is throwing away a vote depends on what you want to accomplish.

I no longer vote, but if I voted in this election I might vote third party - problem being I don't like any of them either, but some are better than the two front runners.

I have voted lesser of the evils before, well that's usually the case. But in this election the evils are just too evil - I could never bring myself to vote for either one of them.

We have had some relatively strong third party candidates. Ross Perot was the most recent who did pretty well. Some people believe he actually had a chance of winning if he hadn't dropped out, then reentered. I seriously doubt he could have won, but he would have made a very good showing for a third party.

One reason Perot did well is because he was a moderate. He probably drew more votes from the Republicans than Democrats, but he did have some appeal to both sides. Few if any of this views were extreme, so he didn't alienate many people out of hand, unless they were the ones who were extreme.

The third parties we have in this election are not moderates. They are on the far left or right. Some may disagree with that, and I understand why. However you can't look at all issues. Debate can cover a wide range of issues, but people mostly vote based on a few core beliefs. On those core beliefs, the third party candidates are not moderate. I think a strong moderate third party could have done quite well in this election, but none of them fit the bill.

As for the electoral college, personally I strongly favor it. It's a far more representative system than a popular vote would be.

[Phoenix98]

Actually it is a waste of time, they get no media coverage, barely anyone watches their debates, nothing of them was even shown on air during the primaries and they are both leagues below Trump and Hillary in the polls and a independent hasn't won the presidential election in over I think it is 150 years or so. Plus there what the election of 2000 which further affected independents in the presidential election more negatively.

Anyone who has studied politics knows that neither Stein nor Johnson is going to get elected, and every year guys like you come out of the woodwork saying how it's the independents year this year, this election is going to be no different. If you think any different your delusional.

There is a pretty good reason why an independent hasn't won in like 150 years.

Also why would anyone vote for Gary Johnson? he has some of the worst fiscal/economic views I've ever seen. And when your 20 trillion dollars in debt and just 4 trillion away from the debt limit of no return you can't afford to put someone in office who has backwards and catastrophic fiscal views.

[tyber1]

The polling for the 3rd party candidates is significantly higher this time, so there is a measurable difference this election. And Gary Johnson is the only one who plans to make balancing the budget a priority so he is better on the debt issue than anyone in the race.

[Phoenix98]

@tyber1 Even so doesn't make that much of a difference in the long run.

Johnson also among other things is for ending minimum wage which is a bad idea, all it will do is put more money in the pockets of the rich and make the poor, all the more poor.

[cipher42]

Buddy, you clearly haven't studied politics enough. Ever heard of what happened during the election of 2000 and how people voting third party affected that? Apparently not, otherwise you'd understand why basically all of what your saying is incorrect. Like, I agree that we shouldn't be limited to just two parties. However, that's not gonna get fixed by following the system as is, it's gonna be fixed by actually reforming the system. But since the system is how it is right now, you gotta deal with that and vote accordingly, in a way where your vote isn't just going to waste. AFTER the election, go ahead and launch a campaign to reform our election system as a whole. But for now, just deal with the fact that the system is how it is.

[tyber1]

3x as many Democrats voted for Bush as opposed to Nader. The 2000 election was lost because Gore got fewer votes. End of story.

[1whetam1]

@tyber1 Al gore had more votes

[tyber1]

@1whetam1 that's speculation. We will never know the true vote total because counting stopped. But as it stands, Bush won.

[tyber1]

I meant more votes in Florida, not the country.

[1whetam1]

@tyber1 At the end of the day the electoral votes are the only votes that matter

[tyber1]

@1whetam1 yes, which is why it was important to point out that I was only referring to the vote total in Florida, which swing the electoral votes in favor of Bush. Al Gore lost because some Democrats and Independents thought Bush was better.

[JohnDoe3000]

The "winner take all" system is a huge problem in parliamentary (congress and the senate in the US) elections, but it's even worse in presidential elections because presidential elections inherently tend to between only two or three candidates. France has 6 parties in parliament but its presidential elections are almost always between the two main parties while France doesn't have a "winner take all" system. In the UK some third parties actually managed to take home a decent number of votes in the past several parliamentary elections and still the "winner take all" system hasn't been abolished.

[rjroy3]

It's not that a third party vote is for the opposing party. It's a wasted vote, because in the end the majority will be voting Trump or Hillary. So it's a negative vote from the person you'd rather be in over the other. Johnson doesn't have the votes realistically. Had it been Ron Paul still on the third party this would be a very different story. But no one has faith in johnson and honestly, even with Trump or hillary. Almost no one wants johnson. They'd rather pick the lesser of two evils. Voting for him is like voting for the gazelle in a three way fight between a Lion and Hyena.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

Then voting for anyone that loses is a wasted vote anyways.

[rjroy3]

@Nice_Guy_Last you could say that at the end.
But right now it's about odds

[Nice_Guy_Last]

A wasted vote is not voting at all; voting third party at least gives you the chance, no matter how small, that someone you actually want in will get voted.

Also, evil hits a plateau: at some point, it doesn't matter whether one is greater than the other. It's like debating whether murder or rape is worse: they are both universally viewed as evil, and it doesn't really matter, because ultimately, they are just evil, and shouldn't be committed.

That's how I view this election. Sure, arguments can be made that Hillary is worse, or Donald is, but it doesn't matter to me. They have both reached a threshold where their differences no longer matter. In my eyes, America is doomed if either of them get elected, so I will hold onto my hopes that maybe, just maybe, there's a chance that something good could come out of this.

Voting out of fear will only beget more fear, until, one day, we are all sniveling cowards, afraid of believing and hoping in a better world.

[rjroy3]

@Nice_Guy_Last also true, but in fairness. Johnson isn't exactly a quality candidate. Maybe he has good character, but as far as competence eh.
I'm voting for Trump, because I think he's better for now. The system is broken and needs to be changed. He's the candidate most likely to deconstruct the shit storm we have.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

I just don't think he has the American people in mind. I see his financial plans helping only the rich like him, his foreign policy further alienating allied countries, his immigration policies trampling on the rights of actual citizens and denying access to productive individuals who wish to come to America, and his racist and bigoted rhetoric becoming the basis of social and political policy.

[rjroy3]

@Nice_Guy_Last if you think about the little he's actually mentioned as far as plans, it makes sense. Albeit he's said almost nothing. His big deal is bringing jobs back to America and sticking to a budget so that we can actually put a dent in the national debt. The only tax he has proposed is taxing products coming to America from American companies that shipped work overseas (ie, super rich people that get cheap labor in other countries and sell the goods in America to get insane profit). He's essentially said he'd tax the rich, but in the form of an incentive. If they hire American workers, they'll make more money. I don't see a downside there.

As for immigration, what he's actually stated on the issue is to simply enforce the laws that we currently have. So if someone came here illegally, we send them back to go through the legal process. But he's also talked about changing the process so that it's not very difficult for good people to come to our country. Again, how is that bad?

[Nice_Guy_Last]

This is Trump you say? First, Trump's finiancial policy would add about 5 trillion to our debt (https://crfb. org/papers/promises-and-price-tags-preliminary-update) compared to Hillary's 250 billion. That may create jobs immediately, but it will cripple the economy later.

Secondly, his talk about what he will do about immigration is simple: build a wall to keep out Mexicans (a laughable concept) and make Mexico pay, and deport all 20 million illegal immigrants, a process that would involve tearing families apart. Also, Muslims are all denied access to America until further notice.

[rjroy3]

@Nice_Guy_Last

" These numbers are rough, rounded, preliminary, and based only on our central estimates (instead of the broader range we originally provided). They also exclude any economic impact and are based on our best understanding of the candidates’ policies as of September 21, 2016. "

I think they're not accounting for the human factor of having more people working, more people spending and giving more space for small businesses to create. All of their numbers are based on current taxes received and they don't show the revenue the country actually makes.

[rjroy3]

@Nice_Guy_Last plus, they themselves said that whole page of findings has no economic impact.

[tyber1]

Apparently my vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Trump. And a vote for Clinton. Apparently I'm voting for everyone but Gary Johnson. The people who say these kinds of things need to shove it. I'm not voting for your shitty candidate. Pick someone who doesn't suck next time.

[Hasaboyfriend]

Wish you guys had the Canadian voting system, the party with the most seats in the house wins, but it's not winner takes all. Even the Green Party has a seat in the house, which means that the Green Party has a say even though they are not the majority they still have a say in important matters.

[Rawrzz]

Pfff. Like we'd listen to our goodie two shoes cousins. What do you know anyway, eh?

I actually really agree with you. It's just the American in me that has to mock Canadians.

[nog6422]

That's how it works in the US when we elect congress. People don't give enough shits about those elections though.

[Giacomanzo]

There are a lot of cons in this system. I don't know about Canada, but in Italy it is similar, and our parliament is all fucked up with a shitload of parties with one or two sits over 900 in total, who get to be there because they are parts of larger coalitions.

[Pacificblue62]

Its a waste in the sense that neither Johnson or Stein will win. So you wouldn't be affecting anything by voting or not voting for them. But also if you live in a solid blue or solid red state your vote for Trump or Clinton won't matter. If you are in a purple state and want to make a very slight difference this election vote for Trump or the other main option. But if you prefer one of these third party candidates and dont mind if your vote won't make a difference in the result whatsoever go for it.

[DarkHumorRUs]

Harambe and I think Deez Nuts beat Jill Stein in a poll in Texas.
thehill.com/.../291759-poll-jill-stein-tied-with-harambe-trailing-deez-nutz-in-texas

I love America.

[Bandit74]

Lol, thats hilarious 😂

[DarkHumorRUs]

@Bandit74 as hilarious as people having faith in third party candidates

[ObscuredBeyond]

Exactly why I don't give in to pressure to vote for Trump, and why I'm supporting Darrel Castle in spite most of my family going for Trump. (My dad was originally interested in Ben Carson.)

I didn't think an election could get more divisive than 2012. But 2016 found a way.

[Saoirse_Nua]

Yes the fault does lie with the two party system in the States - I am not a voter but if I was I would probably be a Bernie Sanders supporter on the progressive side so logically you would assume that my support would switch to Jill Stein but the realistic alternative is so unthinkable for me, I have to switch my support to Hillary Clinton just like Bernie did.

[CisScum]

Fuck even if the third party loses anyways I would still vote for a third party if I was American. At least that vote doesn't go towards corrupted or stupid/sociopath.

People vote for Hillary because their reason is she is a girl, well Jill Stein is obviously a female. People vote for Trump because he speaks the truth, but I mean I could do that too but that doesn't make me a president.

[somebodysaycheese]

Have you looked into Johnson and Stein? They are just as stupid as hillary and Trump. Plus in the end of the day its NOT the voters who really vote in our new president. I wish people would understand that.

[AmongTheApples]

What are you implying by at the end of the day, it's NOT the voters who really vote in our new president?

[somebodysaycheese]

@AmongTheApples the elite vote in our president. People with money and who run ish choose them.

[allietheallie]

The only thing is that Johnson and stein are about 100x dumber then trump and Clinton. Johnson is a dumbass pothead and stein has a record of getting arrested and claiming the internet kills you. I'd take my chances with crooked hillary or small penis don.

[QuestionMan]

What is Aleppo?
Can you eat it?

[Anonymous]

For those that don't plan on voting I think some of them plan to go away and leave the country for awhile, at least for 4 years or something. Although not everyone can simply just drop everything and ditch.

But for those that are able to leave, I'm certain they're part of the crowd that don't want to vote at all in this election, and planned on not voting for any of the candidates.

[Anonymous]

It is more important to the elites that you keep the two party system. They would even prefer to lose this election to their (ha ha) "opponent" than permit the possibility of a genuine 3rd party candidate.

So each side, Republican and Democrat, will continue to scaremonger the public by saying "A vote for a candidate you actually like, is a vote for your bogeyman! Continue to vote for the lesser of two evils! (Sponsored by EVIL. corp)"

[Rahdle]

Problem is, until we change the "winner takes all" type system, voting for a third party is bassically a waste. We need to change our system cuz it kinda sucks. But voting for a third party won't change anything until the system is changed

[JessTheMess]

Kennedy was a 3rd party, people saying it's not possible for them to win are wrong. I hope enough people can read this and be informed!

[EnglishArtsteacher]

John F. Kennedy was a Democrat, not third-party, and Democrats weren't "third-party" in the 1960's.

The last non-Republican, or Democrat to win an election was Millard Fillmore, but back in his day, the Wig party was mainstream.

[Phoenix98]

What history books are you reading Jess?

Kennedy was a democrat with views more like that of conservative republicans but the party he belonged to was the Democratic party. He was not nor ever was independent and the last independent to win the presidential election did so around 150 years ago more or less.

[JessTheMess]

@Phoenix98 EVERYONE keeps saying that!! omg I should've google it first.. but I thought I could trust my facebook friends :/

[Phoenix98]

Lol well I just figured your school and teachers taught you basic history, I guess not though.

[JessTheMess]

@Phoenix98 I haven't learned history in a long time... it wasn't my fav

[Phoenix98]

Still though /=

Well anyway now you know he was not a independent ^^

[JessTheMess]

@Phoenix98 haha I'm probably voting 3rd party anyway... but I feel betrayed..

[Phoenix98]

Your choices aren't really that great either since Johnson wants is anti capitalism and for ending the minimum wage would only make the rich more rich and the poor more poor. His fiscal views are a unmitigated disaster.

[JessTheMess]

@Phoenix98 Either way I feel like we're screwed.. so it's a matter of picking the best of the worse

[Phoenix98]

Well all I ask is that you don't be a sheep like everyone else, do your do diligence and read up on the candidates, their polices, actually go to their websites and look at their stances and of course read about them from none biased sources like private news because mainstream news are incredibly biased and are bought and paid for by and for politicians little more then whores is what they are.

[JessTheMess]

@Phoenix98 Will doo...

[ginny_weasley]

The third party candidates are just as bad. Stein thinks vaccines cause autism, while Johnson doesn't know about Aleppo.

[front2back]

In Johnson's defense, nobody knew what the fuck Aleppo was until he was in the news about it.

[Righttobeararms83]

Good take neither Clinton or trump are worthy of the presidency. Trump is a windbag and Clinton is corrupt.