The Wasted Vote Myth

[PostmodernProphet]

a vote for Johnson is not a wasted vote.....I firmly believe that everyone who voted for Obama in the last election and cannot live with themselves out of shame for what they did should vote for Johnson and encourage all their friends to do likewise.....

 

[Howey]

Your party never gets elected because your party is shitty and nobody likes it. If there were a party that were truly popular outside of some crazy nutjobs on the internet, it could easily get elected. No such party exists.

Why are you picking on the Republicans?


By all means, vote Paul. Often!

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Annata, thanks for sharing the article. I quoted it for my site (www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com).

Voting for a candidate that I actually WANT shouldn't be considered a waste.

This is the key point. I will not vote for someone I do not believe to be the best choice. This idea of voting for the lesser of two evils is why we have what we have in Washington now.

I vote for teh candidate that I believe best supports my own beliefs. That is my duty as a voter.

 

[Socrtease]

I'm voting for a couple reasons.
1. refuse to vote for either man, as I don't support either of their ideas - amazing - they both suck in their own way. I wouldn't want either in the WH.

2. the better showing Johnson pulls off, just might make others think that the duopoly (gridlock/hyperpartisianship) is killing this country's ability to govern.
Enlighten the masses to the dangers of partisianship, as Washington did during his Farewell Address

3. I actually LIKE Johnson's positions on many matters, i'll never be a modern conservative, but I have little use for modern liberalism, that seeks to bury us in debt. While Bush started this, Obama has actually managed to surpass his spending levels - the gov't is approximately = to 24% of out GDP.
up from 20% 4 yearws ago.

4. I see absolutely nothing in the future but more of the same identity politics ( so called demographics) from either side. Unless the GOP becomes extinct -the Dead White Guy Party.

5. Obama lost me, his various wars, Big Pharma sellouts, and inability to articulate any ideas except "spend more to get us into prosperity" is asinine.

6. I have to live with myself - the vote is always personal choice, some vote for the goodies the Fed's can give you, some vote to keep the Fed's from getting your rich guy money. Being neither, I am not voting for a partisian position on either of these.

You not voting is your way of saying Obama hasn't earned your vote, OK fine -your choice. My voting FOR someone I think is on the right track, is my way of saying I actually support Johnson;
he's closer to federalism then either party, he wants to stop the wars both partys are addicted to, and he will severely cut the size and scope of the fed's reaching into state law. If I have any "attachments" it's towards federalism -the size and scope of the US gov't threatens to swamp everything.

So I'm voting for someone whom is closest, if not completely a set of my ideas of governing. I could give a damn about (D.) (R.) the best thing that could happen to this country long run is ending the partisan stranglehold on our Republic.

Anyways, time for some change we can believe in - and not just shout out stupid campaign lines, as such.

No Idea if you are male or female, but I LOVE YOU!

 

[Socrtease]

I would suggest that anyone that supports Johnson, show your Obama or Romney friends his position on different issues and show them how much they actually have in common with him. Just the other day I convinced a 72 year old woman to vote for Johnson. I am actually going to take her to the polls when early voting begins.

 

[anatta]

No Idea if you are male or female, but I LOVE YOU!

great minds think alike
I am "annata" Buddhist for "no self" - it means do not focus on the self as you practice compassion, or any part of the 8 Fold Nobel Path.

When Buddha was asked "is there a self" he refused an answer.
Karma reintegrates the person, into another at rebirth, but it's not the same "soul"/self" it is just a bunch of past deeds/ actions/ thoughts, that you lived before - integrating into a new bodily form, but NOT "you" coming back as a new self identity.

No avatars, you don't NEED to know 'who I am' - just my thoughts, although I appreciate the compliment.

 

[blackascoal]

This is the key point. I will not vote for someone I do not believe to be the best choice. This idea of voting for the lesser of two evils is why we have what we have in Washington now.

I vote for teh candidate that I believe best supports my own beliefs. That is my duty as a voter.

Very well said.

The mindfuck of lesser evil is mindless. You might as well be a trained seal .. no offense intended to seals.

 

[blackascoal]

I'm voting for a couple reasons.
1. refuse to vote for either man, as I don't support either of their ideas - amazing - they both suck in their own way. I wouldn't want either in the WH.

2. the better showing Johnson pulls off, just might make others think that the duopoly (gridlock/hyperpartisianship) is killing this country's ability to govern.
Enlighten the masses to the dangers of partisianship, as Washington did during his Farewell Address

3. I actually LIKE Johnson's positions on many matters, i'll never be a modern conservative, but I have little use for modern liberalism, that seeks to bury us in debt. While Bush started this, Obama has actually managed to surpass his spending levels - the gov't is approximately = to 24% of out GDP.
up from 20% 4 yearws ago.

4. I see absolutely nothing in the future but more of the same identity politics ( so called demographics) from either side. Unless the GOP becomes extinct -the Dead White Guy Party.

5. Obama lost me, his various wars, Big Pharma sellouts, and inability to articulate any ideas except "spend more to get us into prosperity" is asinine.

6. I have to live with myself - the vote is always personal choice, some vote for the goodies the Fed's can give you, some vote to keep the Fed's from getting your rich guy money. Being neither, I am not voting for a partisian position on either of these.

You not voting is your way of saying Obama hasn't earned your vote, OK fine -your choice. My voting FOR someone I think is on the right track, is my way of saying I actually support Johnson;
he's closer to federalism then either party, he wants to stop the wars both partys are addicted to, and he will severely cut the size and scope of the fed's reaching into state law. If I have any "attachments" it's towards federalism -the size and scope of the US gov't threatens to swamp everything.

So I'm voting for someone whom is closest, if not completely a set of my ideas of governing. I could give a damn about (D.) (R.) the best thing that could happen to this country long run is ending the partisan stranglehold on our Republic.

Anyways, time for some change we can believe in - and not just shout out stupid campaign lines, as such.

APPLAUSE

 

[Supposn]

None of the above.

This is the key point. I will not vote for someone I do not believe to be the best choice. This idea of voting for the lesser of two evils is why we have what we have in Washington now.

I vote for teh candidate that I believe best supports my own beliefs. That is my duty as a voter.

Winterborn, we concur on this point.

It’s extremely unlikely that third party votes, (even significant numbers of votes) will be sufficient to elect their candidate to office. Third party votes, even what seem to be less significant numbers of votes can affect the policies of one or all major parties and our nation.

Voting for a party that acts or aspires to act too far from your preferences
IS A SQUANDERED VOTE!
It’s a vote encouraging activity that you believe to be contrary to our nation’s best interests. You’re voting against yourself.

A vote for a third party that may not satisfy but is closer to the policies that you prefer, is highly unlikely to elect the third party candidate.
BUT IT’S NOT A SQUANDERED VOTE.

Votes for third parties, even minority and less significant numbers of votes can affect the political positions of one or both major parties and thus affect our national policies.

The questions you should ask yourself are in your opinion:
Will denying a major party your vote more likely enable detrimental national policies, or in the medium to long term future would it benefit or be of inconsequential affect upon our nation?

Then consider the pros and cons of a vote for a third party.

///////////////////////////////
I regret my state does not follow Nevada’s example. “None” appears along with all other candidates’ names on the ballots.

By voting for "None", the voters’ are implying a willingness to vote for future candidates who are more amiable to their, (the voters’) political positions. This year’s lot are all unacceptable.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[anatta]

^ nicely stated. Gary Johnson isn't perfect, he's a tad too libertarian for me, but he's not another Ron Paul.
Also any thing he wants to end ( such as the DoE) isn't going to end by executive order. I refuse to vote for a warmonger, tht includes Obma 's war on medical marijuana
( see thread in general politics), or Romney who is even more bellicose.

I don't trust either of them not to get tangled up in yet another war with Iran, as Obama says "acccomadation (with Iran nukes) isn't an option"

So what is the option left? I've sen enough Obama wars to know he proly won't go there, but i can't take that chance.

Gary Johnson has a lot of good ideas too - but the wars make it or break it for me.

 

[midcan5]

The problems I have with voting for most third party candidates are two: first the vote is an ideology vote based on some mystical magic candidate, and second, should we ever arrive at a powerful third party, we enter a political world no better and no different than what we already have. What is added is another group who would then retain more power than they should have based on popular vote and the desires of the people. While I won't offer magic, getting money out of politics would be the better goal, but the corporate SCOTUS screwed that up. This video explains the whys of my second reason. 14 minutes, listen and learn.

 

[anatta]

no. "nothing "magical" about a 3rd party

and second, should we ever arrive at a powerful third party, we enter a political world no better and no different than what we already have

no. it breaks up the duoply into more then 2 pieces which forces coalitons to form, the coalitions are not static, they shift over different issues.

Unlike the locked in positions of the 2 party system

 

[blackascoal]

The problems I have with voting for most third party candidates are two: first the vote is an ideology vote based on some mystical magic candidate, and second, should we ever arrive at a powerful third party, we enter a political world no better and no different than what we already have. What is added is another group who would then retain more power than they should have based on popular vote and the desires of the people. While I won't offer magic, getting money out of politics would be the better goal, but the corporate SCOTUS screwed that up. This video explains the whys of my second reason. 14 minutes, listen and learn.

I disagree with all of that.

First and foremost for me is that I vote my conscience. I have no illusions about "lesser evil."

Secondly, I will not vote for corporate-owned political parties or politicians. What is the point of that?

Additionally, I can think of no better use of my time spent in politics than building a political party that stands for the American people, not profit, not campaign contributions.

The mention of corporate-owned is usually where those who support either mainstream political party begins to change the subject .. no offense intended brother.