Is voting for Libertarian, Green Party, Reform Party, etc. a wasted vote ?

[deftron]

I know you should vote with your heart, but sometimes does it seem like
those who vote for "long shot" candidates just doing so to avoid any blame ?

They'll say things like "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian, etc.."

Seems like an easy excuse when there was obviuosly no chance of
their candidate winning, and also, that party doesn't have much, if any,
experience in office, so they couldn't be called out on anything.

Maybe their agendas and platforms look good on paper, but who knows
how they might work in real world use.

Is any impact really being made voting for these "paper politicians", especially
in Presidential elections?

Most of these Parties don't even have much representation on local or congressional level.
What makes them think they can get to the top spot (President) in one shot?
Wouldn't it be better to start at the bottom and work your way up, so your Party
can gradually gain more of a following.

And for the big elections, wouldn't it be smarter to pick the canditate who does
actually have a shot at winning that most closely represents the agendas and issues
you're looking for, though maybe not 100% like the long shot candidate.

 

[SherEPunjab]

I voted for the Green party. I live in Texas, and Gore would have never won (not that i liked him anyway) THAT would have been a wasted vote. however, if the greens got 5% nationally, they would have been eligble for federal campaign funds. No, I don't think it is always a waste, but depends on the situation. Whatever party we choose, most probably agree that we are better off having the OPTION of more than 2, if nothing else.

 

[Siddhartha]

A waste of a vote? No, voting for Nader in 2000 helped get G. W. Bush elected. Voting for Perot in 1992 helped Clinton get elected. Voting for T. Roosevelt in 1912 helped W. Wilson get elected

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
A waste of a vote? No, voting for Nader in 2000 helped get G. W. Bush elected. Voting for Perot in 1992 helped Clinton get elected. Voting for T. Roosevelt in 1912 helped W. Wilson get elected

blanket statements. it depends on each situation. Voting for Nader IN TEXAS didn't do anything to get G.W. elected.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
A waste of a vote? No, voting for Nader in 2000 helped get G. W. Bush elected. Voting for Perot in 1992 helped Clinton get elected. Voting for T. Roosevelt in 1912 helped W. Wilson get elected

blanket statements. it depends on each situation. Voting for Nader IN TEXAS didn't do anything to get G.W. elected.

People living in Florida who voted for Nader in 2000 helped elect G. W. Bush.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
A waste of a vote? No, voting for Nader in 2000 helped get G. W. Bush elected. Voting for Perot in 1992 helped Clinton get elected. Voting for T. Roosevelt in 1912 helped W. Wilson get elected

blanket statements. it depends on each situation. Voting for Nader IN TEXAS didn't do anything to get G.W. elected.

People living in Florida who voted for Nader in 2000 helped elect G. W. Bush.

Thats better

 

[deftron]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
A waste of a vote? No, voting for Nader in 2000 helped get G. W. Bush elected. Voting for Perot in 1992 helped Clinton get elected. Voting for T. Roosevelt in 1912 helped W. Wilson get elected

Huh ?

Voting for Nader helped G.W. get elected, right ? So, those voting for Nader would have voted for Gore, and
could have got him elected, but wasted their vote on Nader.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: deftron

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
A waste of a vote? No, voting for Nader in 2000 helped get G. W. Bush elected. Voting for Perot in 1992 helped Clinton get elected. Voting for T. Roosevelt in 1912 helped W. Wilson get elected

Huh ?

Voting for Nader helped G.W. get elected, right ? So, those voting for Nader would have voted for Gore, and
could have got him elected, but wasted their vote on Nader.

I do not consider voting for a third party a waste of a vote as history has shown that it can have long term and long ranging consequences.
1. Florida voters voted for Nader in 2000. Bush gets elected.
2. Bush helps return the Congress to the control of the Republican party.
3. Bush et al swings the Supreme Court strongly to the right by placing 3 or 4 very conservative jurists on the court.
4. Bush et al champions the agenda of the Religious right and much of it becomes law.
5. Bush et al overturns Roe vs Wade.
6. Prayer in schools become the law of the land.
7. Bush tax cuts push Federal deficits to historical highs. Which will lead to the Federal goverment reducing non-defense spending to historical lows
8. Bush will overturn laws meant to protect the environment or not enforce them.
9. I'm not too sure about this one: The rich will get richer and the middle class will get smaller.
.
Yes maybe the people who voted for Nader will not like consequences of their vote. But that is what they voted for!

 

[NutBucket]

If nobody votes for the third parties they will cease to exist. Pretty simple. Third parties are an important part of American Politics because the main parties always try to appeal to everyone as such never seem to take a hard stand on a lot of issues. The increasing prominence of third parties makes their platforms and opinions known.

That said, I voted for Nader in 2000 cause I knew there was no way GW was gonna win Cali.

 

[TheBDB]

I would vote for a third party candidate if they weren't all idiots.

 

[Jmman]

I vote for the most capable person in the election regardless of party.......I personally liked Clinton (well, maybe not his taste in women..), but I voted for Bush this time around since Gore is an idiot, even though I respect and appreciate the fact that he invented the internet.....

 

[Novgrod]

it's not a wasted vote and here's why:

sure you're not voting for a party that's going to win, but you are casting a dissenting vote; i.e. that you think the system needs to be changed.

furthermore, for me it's libertarian or don't vote, and i need to vote so a) politicians stop catering to old people and b) there are fewer gd commercials about perscription drugs. If you're young, these issues are probably important to you too so you ought to vote

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: TheBDB
I would vote for a third party candidate if they weren't all idiots.

You know every single one of them, huh? That's pretty amazing.

Vote your conscience. Anything else and you're simply a slave to another's designs. Third parties due play a significant role in politics. On the local levels they actually DO win elections and hold office. On the federal level they remind the two Power Parties they'd better be careful because there's competition out there....at least there was until the Campaign Finance legislation put a damper on their viability to contend at that level.

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: deftron

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
A waste of a vote? No, voting for Nader in 2000 helped get G. W. Bush elected. Voting for Perot in 1992 helped Clinton get elected. Voting for T. Roosevelt in 1912 helped W. Wilson get elected

Huh ?

Voting for Nader helped G.W. get elected, right ? So, those voting for Nader would have voted for Gore, and
could have got him elected, but wasted their vote on Nader.

I do not consider voting for a third party a waste of a vote as history has shown that it can have long term and long ranging consequences.
1. Florida voters voted for Nader in 2000. Bush gets elected.
2. Bush helps return the Congress to the control of the Republican party.
3. Bush et al swings the Supreme Court strongly to the right by placing 3 or 4 very conservative jurists on the court.
4. Bush et al champions the agenda of the Religious right and much of it becomes law.
5. Bush et al overturns Roe vs Wade.
6. Prayer in schools become the law of the land.
7. Bush tax cuts push Federal deficits to historical highs. Which will lead to the Federal goverment reducing non-defense spending to historical lows
8. Bush will overturn laws meant to protect the environment or not enforce them.
9. I'm not too sure about this one: The rich will get richer and the middle class will get smaller.
.
Yes maybe the people who voted for Nader will not like consequences of their vote. But that is what they voted for!

You have an active imagination.. Has Bush EVER said he would overturn Roe Vs. Wade? And the only "laws" Bush overturned on the environment were stupid "laws" Clinton's punk ass put in effect only after he knew Gore lost...

BTW: I am not a Bush fan either but I can at least look at the facts with an open mind.

 

[glenn1]

Is voting for someone with no chance of winning a wasted vote ?

Depends on who's answering the question. I voted Libertarian and don't consider my vote "wasted." You may feel differently. But since it was my vote, my opinion is really the only one that matters.

 

[wolf papa]

no, I don't think it's wasted, a vote is YOUR expression of your personal choice. Even if that candidate does not get elected, you are sending a message of support. That encourages more 3rd and 4th party choices, it also lets the major parties know that not everyone is buying or choosing what they are offering.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: deftron

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
A waste of a vote? No, voting for Nader in 2000 helped get G. W. Bush elected. Voting for Perot in 1992 helped Clinton get elected. Voting for T. Roosevelt in 1912 helped W. Wilson get elected

Huh ?

Voting for Nader helped G.W. get elected, right ? So, those voting for Nader would have voted for Gore, and
could have got him elected, but wasted their vote on Nader.

I do not consider voting for a third party a waste of a vote as history has shown that it can have long term and long ranging consequences.
1. Florida voters voted for Nader in 2000. Bush gets elected.
2. Bush helps return the Congress to the control of the Republican party.
3. Bush et al swings the Supreme Court strongly to the right by placing 3 or 4 very conservative jurists on the court.
4. Bush et al champions the agenda of the Religious right and much of it becomes law.
5. Bush et al overturns Roe vs Wade.
6. Prayer in schools become the law of the land.
7. Bush tax cuts push Federal deficits to historical highs. Which will lead to the Federal goverment reducing non-defense spending to historical lows
8. Bush will overturn laws meant to protect the environment or not enforce them.
9. I'm not too sure about this one: The rich will get richer and the middle class will get smaller.
.
Yes maybe the people who voted for Nader will not like consequences of their vote. But that is what they voted for!

when did all that happen?

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: deftron

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
A waste of a vote? No, voting for Nader in 2000 helped get G. W. Bush elected. Voting for Perot in 1992 helped Clinton get elected. Voting for T. Roosevelt in 1912 helped W. Wilson get elected

Huh ?

Voting for Nader helped G.W. get elected, right ? So, those voting for Nader would have voted for Gore, and
could have got him elected, but wasted their vote on Nader.

I do not consider voting for a third party a waste of a vote as history has shown that it can have long term and long ranging consequences.
1. Florida voters voted for Nader in 2000. Bush gets elected.
2. Bush helps return the Congress to the control of the Republican party.
3. Bush et al swings the Supreme Court strongly to the right by placing 3 or 4 very conservative jurists on the court.
4. Bush et al champions the agenda of the Religious right and much of it becomes law.
5. Bush et al overturns Roe vs Wade.
6. Prayer in schools become the law of the land.
7. Bush tax cuts push Federal deficits to historical highs. Which will lead to the Federal goverment reducing non-defense spending to historical lows
8. Bush will overturn laws meant to protect the environment or not enforce them.
9. I'm not too sure about this one: The rich will get richer and the middle class will get smaller.
.
Yes maybe the people who voted for Nader will not like consequences of their vote. But that is what they voted for!

when did all that happen?

stick around

not that i think all of that will happen but <50%

 

[chrisjor]

No!! Always vote Libertarian!!!

 

[Zugzwang152]

in the end, your candidate will probably not win, but it is not a wasted vote because you are expressing your discontent with the two major parties and their respective platforms. if enough people dissent, they WILL eventually take notice

 

[Parn]

Every vote counts!

 

[brtspears2]

A wasted vote is the ones that arent cast.

 

[sandorski]

If you're third party vote is for the Beer Party of Marijuana Party, then your vote just might be wasted!

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: deftron

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
A waste of a vote? No, voting for Nader in 2000 helped get G. W. Bush elected. Voting for Perot in 1992 helped Clinton get elected. Voting for T. Roosevelt in 1912 helped W. Wilson get elected

Huh ?

Voting for Nader helped G.W. get elected, right ? So, those voting for Nader would have voted for Gore, and
could have got him elected, but wasted their vote on Nader.

I do not consider voting for a third party a waste of a vote as history has shown that it can have long term and long ranging consequences.
1. Florida voters voted for Nader in 2000. Bush gets elected.
2. Bush helps return the Congress to the control of the Republican party.
3. Bush et al swings the Supreme Court strongly to the right by placing 3 or 4 very conservative jurists on the court.
4. Bush et al champions the agenda of the Religious right and much of it becomes law.
5. Bush et al overturns Roe vs Wade.
6. Prayer in schools become the law of the land.
7. Bush tax cuts push Federal deficits to historical highs. Which will lead to the Federal goverment reducing non-defense spending to historical lows
8. Bush will overturn laws meant to protect the environment or not enforce them.
9. I'm not too sure about this one: The rich will get richer and the middle class will get smaller.
.
Yes maybe the people who voted for Nader will not like consequences of their vote. But that is what they voted for!

when did all that happen?

stick around

not that i think all of that will happen but <50%

What I wrote was speculations based on current and past Republican economic, social, and ecological policies. What would Reagan had done if the Republicans had control of the Congress....

I am going to start a thread asking people who voted for Nader in 2000 what they think about the consequences of their votes. And will they vote for Nader in 2004. I will probably post the thread here and in a forum with a political focus.

 

[Vernor]

I get a vomit reflex when I see Nader supporters in Salon and The Nation thrash Bush these days.