Don't Throw Away Your Vote

I'm gonna make this thread because some guy who is presumeably more or less libertarian has said he's going to vote for the democrat next election rather than a libertarian, basically because he apparently seems to think republicans are the root of all evil or something. 

That logic might be fitting and fine if he as an individual held enough voting power to sway the election.  Let me let you in on a little secret:  he doesn't.  Yeah, that's right.. he doesn't.  How often is it, in your town, that an election for ANY major office is decided by a single vote? 

Probably almost never, if it ever even happens at all.  But if you can't sway the election one way or another no matter who you vote for, even if it is for a main party candidate that you view as the 'lesser of two evils', then why vote for the main party candidate if you don't think they are the best candidate of them all, without exception?

Damn good question, and I have yet to hear anyone provide a decent answer or justification for voting for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate rather than the candidate they REALLY want.

If you are a democrat, and you like the democratic candidate best, that's fine.  Vote democrat.  If you are a republican, and like the republican candidate best, that's fine.  Vote republican.  What I don't understand, is why anyone who supports a 3rd party or 3rd party candidate more than they do a major party or major party candidate would ever vote for a major party candidate when their single vote is simply never likely to sway the election.

Since your vote is never likely to sway the election, why does it need to be tied to any major party or their candidate, rather than the candidate you really like and would probably feel better voting for?

If you still aren't convinced, I would suggest you engage in a votepact with someone (http://www.votepact.com/).  I don't see any reason why anyone would vote for a major party unless they really like that party.  The entire 'lesser of two evils' argument is pure shit since your vote is never likely to sway the election. 

So what's my point? My point is:  don't throw your vote away by voting for the lesser of two evils.  There is absolutely no reason to do this, as I have just pointed out.  Vote for the best candidate.  Always. 

Voting has no impact at all, that is why it is pointless to do it.

>>2
Now that I have to disagree with.  Voting for a third party, for example, sends a strong message that you are not happy with the establishment and what is currently going on.  Voting is a way to send a message.  Voting for a major party sends the message that, more or less, you are happy with the way things are.  Voting for a third party says:  'I want change.'  The type of requested change depends on which third party you vote for. 

>>3
Not enough people want the change that the third parties offer. Voting for them sends no message, because the major parties, the media, etc. don't pay attention to third parties.

And really, most third parties are insane extremists. Green party, libertarian, communist party, etc. They're all nutjobs who are far off from the center. Get another third party that has a real message on every issue that's actually moderate and maybe they'll get decent votes. If the media will allow them time on TV.

>>4
"Not enough people want the change that the third parties offer."

I completely disagree.  There are lots of people who prefer 3rd parties who vote for democrats/republicans because of the whole 'lesser of two evils' thing.

"Voting for them sends no message, because the major parties, the media, etc. don't pay attention to third parties."

Voting for the democrats or republicans doesn't send a message.  Voting for a 3rd party equates to a firm:  "I am dissatisfied". 

"And really, most third parties are insane extremists.  Green party, libertarian, communist party, etc. They're all nutjobs who are far off from the center."

I think the only really 'insane' people are the moderates who somehow can't manage to see how fucked up current system is.

"Get another third party that has a real message on every issue that's actually moderate and maybe they'll get decent votes."

If they were moderate, they wouldn't get as many votes because there wouldn't be a significant enough difference between them and the main parties to warrant voting for them by the large numbers of people who want change.  The motivation people have for voting for a 3rd party instead of major parties is that the third parties are *DIFFERENT*.  As soon as they lose their distinctness from main parties, they lose what little influence they currently have.

>>4
The reason media doesn't want to pay attention to those third parties is because it's easier to paint them with that "insane extremist" stereotype you just parroted. Besides, if a third party actually was more "moderate," they'd also be ignored because they're not either of the two parties.

So the communist party of America aren't insane extremists? What.

>If they were moderate, they wouldn't get as many votes because there wouldn't be a significant enough difference between them and the main parties to warrant voting for them

Well you see, the majority of people are moderate. By not being moderate, they ensure they won't ever get enough votes to win anything important.

>>8
The majority of people are:

1.  Fucking retards who don't know jack shit about politics.

2.  Dissatisfied (but again, many don't know why). 

The fact that many people are 'moderates' does not mean that 3rd parties can't win.  Third parties have to capitalize on the general dissatisfaction people have with the current status quo, and explain to people why their ideas are good/will work better than what we have now.  Anyway, the validity of an idea, candidate, or party does not rest upon whether or not the person or idea is 'moderate' or not.  The notion that it should is what is really 'insane.'

>>9
Which the third parties can never win, because no one will give them a platform to do so. And really, if you think the majority of people are retards, why are you even in a democratic country? Go somewhere that's ruled by a benevolent intellectual elite.

>>10
Whether or not the 3rd parties can or can't win is beside the point.  As >>1 pointed out, if either the dems or repubs win, it isn't going to be because of your vote.  The point? There is no reason for you to vote dem or repub if you prefer a 3rd party or a 3rd party candidate over one of the main parties or one of the main party candidates.

>>11
My point is there's no reason to vote at all lol.

If one vote doesn't make a difference then why should you vote for a 3rd party? I'd rather support the best candidate that has a chance at winning. If we ever get instant runoff voting I will vote green then lib then dem.

>>13
If one vote really doesnt make a difference, you really shouldnt vote at all, as its merely a waste of time.

Yeah, I mean, why even have a democracy at all? None of our votes will ever matter, right?

>>14
That's the beauty of democracy. People who don't care enough about something to want to make a difference don't have a say, so you don't get a situation like /b/ with people pretending to be nazis for lolz etc...

The side effect though is that the quiet voice of reason tends to be out-voiced by the screaming extremists.

>>16
On further thought, the statements I made in >>16 are a part of the voice of reason, thus give it an incentive to speak up. So for the most part, while there will always be extremism, democracy at least permits reason to speak and for reasonable people to speak about issues they care about.

>>17
What is 'extremism'? Is 'extremism' just out of the political norm? What I think is really lacking in reason is how people tend to be so religiously anti-extremism.  The validity of an idea and whether or not it is well reasoned does not depend on whether or not it is 'extreme'. 

>>15
No, your votes count.  The more votes one party wins than another is an indication of what the public is thinking at the time.  The point of this post was just to point out that voting for the lesser of two evils because you are afraid the greater evil will win is bullshit since the election doesn't depend on your vote.  Since the election doesn't depend on your vote, there is no reason you can't vote for whatever party you really perfer. 

>>18
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/027a.php

>>20
Nearly all of those 16 points in that article are not applicable to my vision of a political extremist.  Extremist does not necessarilly mean that you are violent and feel strongly about your political stand.  Extremism could just mean that you have political thoughts that are out of the norm - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

>>21
Well that was the definition of extremism I was using. What do you call my definition of extremism?

Instant Runoff Voting.  Look it up.

>>23
?

I don't understand why we even need instant runoff voting.  Since an individual's vote is not at all likely to influence the election, there is no reason not to just vote for whoever is the best candidate.

>>22
My definition of extremism is GW Bush and Noam Chomsky

The votes of multiple people do matter. The vote of one does not. You are one person, thus, unless you can fix the election, there is no reason for you to vote, as the outcome will be the same no matter whether you vote or not. This is scientific and statistical fact.

Yeah! Screw democracy!

>>25
Are you dumb or something? With IRV, EVERYONE can vote for who they want and the better of the two major parties. Therefore, if half of all people vote 1. Green candidate 2. Major party candidate, then the Green candidate wins.

>>28

lets screw everything!

We need a ranking system like the Borda count for offices like the presidency and senate.  We need proportional voting for Congress.    Plurality voting is fucking retarded.

>>22
"Well that was the definition of extremism I was using. What do you call my definition of extremism?"

I don't know, but I don't think of extremists as being violent.  I consider extremists to simply hold opinions that are outside the political norm; or are simply far from the political 'center'.  I see nothing wrong with this.

>>29
And right now, practically everyone can vote for who they want without fear of losing the election solely because of their vote.  See >>1.  Since your vote isn't going to sway the election, there is absolutely no reason not to vote for whoever your favorite candidate is, and there is no reason to have IRV.  The only situation I can imagine where IRV would be worth anything is if your vote was likely to sway the election -- which it isn't. 

The point? IRV is not necessary.  Vote for your favorite candidate always.

>>33
you moron, with IRV everyone can vote for their favorite candidate without having to worry about the worse of the two big parties winning. Tons more people would vote for 3rd parties, it could very easily sway the election, and it would effectively eliminate the two party system. The candidate that bests represents the peoples interests would always be chosen, regardless of party. Many, many people I've talked to say they like a 3rd party better but vote for the best of the major two. With IRV they could, and all these votes would sway the election, and you could stop whining about people who "throw away their vote". There is no reason NOT to have IRV.

>>34
"you moron, with IRV everyone can vote for their favorite candidate without having to worry about the worse of the two big parties winning."

I am aware of that.  I also don't see why you can't do that now.  Again, see >>1.  Your vote will not decide the election.  There is no reason for you not to vote for your favorite candidate RIGHT NOW EVEN WITHOUT IRV.  Ok?

"Tons more people would vote for 3rd parties, it could very easily sway the election, and it would effectively eliminate the two party system. The candidate that bests represents the peoples interests would always be chosen, regardless of party. Many, many people I've talked to say they like a 3rd party better but vote for the best of the major two. With IRV they could, and all these votes would sway the election, and you could stop whining about people who "throw away their vote". There is no reason NOT to have IRV."

You seem to miss my point.  Since your individual vote is not going to decide the election, there is no point for you to not cast it for whoever is your favorite candidate right now.  You don't need IRV to vote for your favorite candidate.

>>35
Shhh... you'll destroy the lesser of two evils argument, and then people would actually be free to vote for whoever they want.

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple.
http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

I know most of you Libertarians can't read, and therefore, haven't actually read anything by Ayn Rand. Otherwise, you'd know that what her books stood for are nothing like what Libertarians claim.

Libertarians are just Republicans in denial. Have fun sucking Larouche's cock.

>>38
Sorry, I am a libertarian and I cannot read, so I could not read your argument and cannot respond.

>>35
"You seem to miss my point.  Since your individual vote is not going to decide the election, there is no point for you to not cast it for whoever is your favorite candidate right now.  You don't need IRV to vote for your favorite candidate."

Thanks, I understood your point the first 9000 times you stated it. I don't think my vote will decide it, but I would rather contribute the best side that has a chance. No matter how many times you spout "ONE VOTE DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE EVEN IN THE CLOSEST ELECTIONS", you aren't going to chance my mind. Your one vote circular reasoning is more an argument to not vote at all, no matter who you vote for you are throwing your vote away because it never makes a difference. But, with IRV, people like me, and there are a significant number of them, will vote for 3rd parties first and that WILL influence the election significantly.

if you want your individual vote to decide the election don't let anyone else vote. Its the democratic way.

Election? lol