Worth it to vote for a third party?

[In My Memory]

(This thread will probably be of most interest to USians.)

 

I am like most Americans: I find voting to be very frustrating - the Dems hardly stand for anything at all in recent times (its almost as if they exist for the sole purpose of opposing the Republicans), and the Republicans are deeply unethical. Both parties are so inconsistent that I cannot persuade myself to vote for them at all. But, like all the others, I cant help but vote for them because in the grand scheme of things, I could either chose to vote for the "lesser of two evils" or for nothing at all.

 

If I may be permitted to paint with a wide brush, I find most people do not vote for third parties, but those who tend to vote Libertarian are often academics and intellectuals, Green Party voters are suprisingly rational (despite pop-culture stereotypes) and sympathetic to the underappreciated needs of the environment.

 

I like these two particular parties because they have a complete, consistent, and dedicated platform which they can compare to competing parties (as opposed to many of the other third parties which are either single-issue oriented, such as the Prohibition and Pot Party, merely excuses for theocracy, such as the Constitution Party, or otherwise desperately out of the mainstream interests of Americans).

 

I have considered voting for a third party (either the Greens if they ever have a candidate to run, or the Libertarians). On one hand, I suppose there is some intrinsically worth in voting for a third party for the sake of letting my opinion be heard, but on the other hand its no secret that a vote for a third party is essentially throwing your vote away.

 

If were possible to simply vote for the lobbyists, I'm sure we all would, but until then, we are stuck with our political parties.

 

Any thoughts?

[Pangloss]

I voted for the Libertarian candidate for US House for my district in November. Lincoln Diaz-Ballart (a strongly conservative Republican) was (and still is) my current representative. I had some problems with his position on various issues, most recently when he refused to prop up the assault weapons ban not long before the election. I wrote him about that, and received a letter back saying they were going to pursue a new bill on that after the new year. (Not surprisingly, no such legislation is on the horizon. The issue has been forgotten completely.)

 

He had no Democrat running against him -- like I believe about half the House, he was essentially running unopposed. I ranted about this at great length -- basically the Presidential election sucked all the oxygen out of the atmosphere. Oh well.

 

But I'm generally not a vote-against guy -- I much prefer to vote for a candidate. Which leads us to one of the problems with third-party candidates. It's really hard to get information about them.

[Flareon]

This administration has done a swell job cutting the divide of partisanship even deeper. Unless there is unity among those who are "for a third," there will not be a successful third candidate because no one wants throw their vote away.

 

Even though unification seems like a daunting, if not impossible task, I believe that we may be ripe for it, because even many Reps have been becoming uneasy if not outright disillusioned by their party's wanton extreme rightism (especially the Reps who are economically conservative, but not necessarily socially conservative), and many Dems are sick of their party's whiny rhetoric.

[Pangloss]

Some valid points there, Flareon.

 

But do we need someone to unify us, or do we need to stop behaving like children and unify ourselves? W doesn't exist in a vacuum....

 

(It's... like... surrounded by 25 other letters... ar ar)

[Skye]

What is the usual (or at least possible) way that minor parties are represented in US politics?

[Pangloss]

Not sure I understand the question.

[Flareon]

Well, Perot was well-connected and had gobs of money...yes, like Pangloss says, please elaborate.

[Skye]

Sorry, I meant were minor parties represented more in the Senate or the Representatives. It appears they are represented in neither :|

 

Slightly different here, as the Senate usually has a reasonable number of minor party members, basically because the larger states have more senators. So the pie is then cut into more pieces, and the little guys get a slice.

[TimeTraveler]

but on the other hand its no secret that a vote for a third party is essentially throwing your vote away.

 

I agree completely.

 

For me, I usually side Republican, it seems thats where most of my views align, however not on everything. So I consider myself open, I think I share certain veiws with all parties and determine my stance on each issue seperatly regardless of which side believes what.

 

Democrats have become gutless in important issues of foreign policy, the republicans are alot more agressive and usually stand up and do the necessary things to keep world peace without getting walked on for being to politically correct, and the neo-cons slipped in under the guise of being republicans (and possibly hijacked elections), and the voting for third parties is so minimal it is a huge waste to vote this way even if some of these parties might be what this country needs. I dunno, I am frustrated with the political system of the US, it doesn't seem to work very well from what I have witnessed in my short time on the Earth.

[Phi for All]

I think the idea of throwing your vote away on a third party is all illusion. If a third party could come up with a strong, just platform that pushed all the right buttons for voter dissatisfaction, then made a huge appeal to the non-voting block to get involved and vote to help themselves, and finally convince everyone that their polls showed they had at least 30% support instead of the typical 1-5% that third parties usually get, they could pull it off.

 

Showing the public that they are being taken seriously by tens of millions of people is the key. Then it's not throwing your vote away.

[ecoli]

That would really force the Rebublicrats and Demicans to revise their political agenda as well... If more people are voting for third parties, their obviously doing something wrong.

[Pangloss]

People who vote for Democrats or Republicans often feel like they're throwing their vote away as well. That's one of the perceptions we need to work on.

 

One thing I started to do in 2004 (and to a much lesser extent in 1999) is to email all my friends and family members over the months before the election and remind them about voting. Letting them know it's important for them to do it, and that it also matters to me. I figure it probably means a lot more coming from a friend or relative than it does coming from some celebrity on "Rock the Vote".

 

I always made sure not to impose my opinions about whom they should vote for, and I included a number of links to election information for their area, including how to register, how to find out where they should go to vote, and (most importantly!) sites where they could read non-partisan issue summaries. (Several threads I posted here on SFN back in the summer and fall of 2004 was straight out of the stuff I collected for friends and family. I actually learned a lot myself while doing this, and it really wasn't a lot of work at all.)

 

Anybody reading this is probably pretty familiar with the Internet, and I'll bet all of us have friends and/or relatives who are completely helpless with a computer. Take a few minutes and collect some information for them. Why not? It really doesn't take much work, and it could make a big difference to someone.

[Flareon]

We had great turn out in the last election. What is disturbing may be that a disproportionate amount of voters were motivated by the fear of the other candidate winning, rather than the desire to see their man get elected.

 

Phi, you seem to have the right idea...care to venture what kind of appeal would get the non-voters out and into the booths?

[Phi for All]

Phi, you seem to have the right idea...care to venture what kind of appeal would get the non-voters out and into the booths?

I like what Pangloss said about personal messages from someone you know and care about, letting the non-voter know, "Hey, it's important to me, will you take a few hours out of your year and vote for my sake?"

 

I don't think this approach has ever been tried on a national basis. Have you read the Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell? It would take some heavy Connectors and a few Salesmen to make such a grass roots, personal approach successful, but I think it could really catch on. Figure a way to remove the chain-letter stigma and the former non-voter may just rise up and feel good about his own power, possibly for the first time in his life.

[Pangloss]

You're right, that could be a tipping point thing. I like that idea. I'll try to remember to bring it up again here when the mid-term election comes around and we can all start chain letters or something.

 

I've flipped through a couple chapters of that book but I've got a couple others stacked on top of it at the moment. It does look interesting.

[In My Memory]

Skye

 

Sorry, I meant were minor parties represented more in the Senate or the Representatives. It appears they are represented in neither :|

 

Slightly different here, as the Senate usually has a reasonable number of minor party members, basically because the larger states have more senators. So the pie is then cut into more pieces, and the little guys get a slice.

I think one of the benefits of having a bipartisan system is the fact that minor parties, such as the Constitution and White Knights party, have a habit of being extremist. In some sense, its beneficial to give as little representation to extremists as possible.

 

Too much overrepresentation of minor parties is harmful to the internal "checks and balances" system that is present in the very nature of a bipartisan system. I would guess the utilitarian argument is something along the lines of having the greatest amount of representation for the greatest number of people, or something to that effect.

 

 

Phi for All

 

I think the idea of throwing your vote away on a third party is all illusion. If a third party could come up with a strong' date=' just platform that pushed all the right buttons for voter dissatisfaction, then made a huge appeal to the non-voting block to get involved and vote to help themselves, and finally convince everyone that their polls showed they had at least 30% support instead of the typical 1-5% that third parties usually get, they could pull it off.

 

Showing the public that they are being taken seriously by tens of millions of people is the key. Then it's not throwing your vote away.[/quote']

The most successful third party in past 100 years has been Theodore Roosevelt running under the Bull Moose party in 1912 (it won 28% of the popular vote, and 88 electoral votes). Followed by Ross Perot's Reform party in 1992 (19% of the popular, 0 electoral), then by Robert M. La Follettes Progressive Party in 1924 (17% of popular, 13 electorate). The remaining third parties have had dismal success.

 

Ross Perot did suprisingly well in his 1992 campaign by running almost exclusively from the Rush Limbaugh radio show. And I think John McCain has had much success in internet campaigns. I think some of the best way to garner more votes for these third parties is media exposure, because in actuality there are probably very few voters in the 2004 election who actually took the time to go to the Democratic or Republican websites and read the actual party platform.

 

I think the fact Mr. Bush won the last election with a 51% to 49% popular vote is evidence that most people simply voted along party lines. The only way for third parties gain more votes is to gain more (positive) media exposure so that the parties are appear much more mainstream. If Perot can do it, so can Badnarik and Nader.

 

I dont know if its possible to get all the non-voters out to vote, and I dont know how much it could help. Statistically, while non-voters might identify themselves as Independents, they are going to vote along partisan lines about 2/3 of the time. Although I'm almost certain we can get a higher voter turnout if we just declared our election day a national holiday so that everyone has the day off.

 

Ecoli

 

That would really force the Rebublicrats and Demicans to revise their political agenda as well... If more people are voting for third parties, their obviously doing something wrong.

And we keep re-electing these people because they are the best of the best

[TimeTraveler]

I agree, a third party could win, but I don't think it has anything to do with being taken seriously. I think, and this might sound off the wall, that it depends on how much money the candidate spends on his campaign (in most cases). Well, why is that the case? Well as Pangloss illustrated we have tried to make it more important for people who usually do not vote to get invloved and vote. I don't think a majority of people pay attention fully to everything that is going on. People don't research the candidates or the issues. Alot of people who just are not interested, or do not have the time to pay close attention decide their vote based on what they see from the huge smear campaigns and massive advertising campaigns.

 

Pepsi spends some rediculously high amount of money on advertising, yet most people will say "I don't buy pepsi because of the advertising." Well, they would not spend that kind of money if it wasn't proven to work, and thats the same thing that is happening in our elections. Money doesn't gaurantee an election, but it is a huge factor.

 

I think maybe we need some kind of test/quiz that determines someones knowledge about issues and politics before they are allowed to vote, and if people passed the test and voted they could be eligible for some kind of tax right off as motivation to pay attention and to vote. Also I don't think limiting how much a candidate can spend on a campaign is a bad idea. I think I remember someone saying that in the UK a candidate cannot spend more than $1 million (correct me if I am wrong). I think that is a good idea, between Bush and Kerry last election I think over $500 million was spent, and I don't remember seeing huge campaigns discussing important issues and what the candidates stances on those issues were, I remember flashy advertising commercials just trying to smear the other guy.

 

In my memory,

 

Making it a national holiday so people can have the day off to vote is an awesome idea in my opinion.

[ecoli]

Skye

 

The most successful third party in past 100 years has been Theodore Roosevelt running under the Bull Moose party in 1912 (it won 28% of the popular vote' date=' and 88 electoral votes). Followed by Ross Perot's Reform party in 1992 (19% of the popular, 0 electoral), then by Robert M. La Follettes Progressive Party in 1924 (17% of popular, 13 electorate). The remaining third parties have had dismal success.

 

[/quote']

 

The Populist Party (1880's) was one of the most successful 3rd parties. In 1892, they got 1,027,329 votes and four states in the presidential election. Not to mention numerous senators.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Populist_Party

[Hellbender]

I would vote for a Green Party candidate provided he or she had hopes of being elected, but this never seems to be the case. Voters seem to like the black and whiteness of either republican or democrat, and thats it. While I supported John Kerry, I did so out of the desire to not see Bush re-elected, which someone was saying before, isn't the best reason to support a candidate. The way I see it is, if there is a green party candidate with at least some hopes of being elected alongisde the other two standard choices, he/she has all my support, but if not (which always seems to be the case ), then I have to go for the lesser of 2 evils and support the democrats. So I guess my point is that it is worth it to vote for a third party if the chances are good, but if not, I wouldn't waste my vote.

[ecoli]

I would vote for a Green Party candidate provided he or she had hopes of being elected, but this never seems to be the case. Voters seem to like the black and whiteness of either republican or democrat[/u'], and thats it. While I supported John Kerry, I did so out of the desire to not see Bush re-elected, which someone was saying before, isn't the best reason to support a candidate. The way I see it is, if there is a green party candidate with at least some hopes of being elected alongisde the other two standard choices, he/she has all my support, but if not (which always seems to be the case ), then I have to go for the lesser of 2 evils and support the democrats. So I guess my point is that it is worth it to vote for a third party if the chances are good, but if not, I wouldn't waste my vote.

 

But without your support, and the support of other's that agree with you, then a Green party candidate could never have a hope of being elected. If everyone voted who they actually wanted in power, the political structure would be much different. The Democins and Republicrats would have a lot less power.

[Phi for All]

Voters seem to like the black and whiteness of either republican or democrat[/u'], and thats it.

This is part of the myth of US politics, one which is furthered by calling elections races. Americans are so competitive that they refuse to back a candidate who doesn't have at least a hope of winning, and that's why we speak of throwing our vote away. It really has very little to do with black and white, because Reps and Dems are not polar opposites in ideology, and never have been. They agree on several points (especially lately) but fostering the idea of competition between "our side" and "the enemy" keeps us sniping at each other, focusing on the problem instead of the solution.

[Hellbender]

I consider throwing my vote away voting for a party that has no chance of winning. Phi and ecoli, you have good points here, but what I meant is that third parties, like the green party, do not seem to enjoy much support and rarely get a candidate into the final stages of the election process. I am aware that a single vote can make a difference, but again, I am not eager to throw away my vote for exactly that same reason. But that is just my opinion, I don't know that much about politics, but enough.

[Guest Bonaparte]

I don't think that voting for a third party is necessarily a waste of your vote. When Ross Perot ran in 1992, there were actually some polls that showed him beating both Bush and Clinton. So its certainly possible for a third party candidate to win. Quite frankly I wish we had a parliament, because with a parliament, you simply vote for a party and based upon the percentage of the vote they get from the national population, they get that percentage in seats within the parliament.