This upcoming presidential election is definitely more interesting due to this issue. My brother is a staunch Democrat, but he's made it clear that he's not voting for them if they put someone up who's soft on China. I suspect he'd be voting 3rd party in that scenario.
I have someone I work with who quite literally mocks people for voting for a 3rd party and actually tries to "shame" them for it, usually using a line like "which means he is voting to keep the incumbent in" (usually with more colorful words about the incumbent and the voter).
Voting 3rd party exercises your right to say you don't like either of the other 2 candidates. I will not argue which candidate it will help, but i think this line of thinking is detrimental to our voting process and wrong to rub in peoples faces.
> Voting 3rd party exercises your right to say you don't like either of the other 2 candidates
You can say whatever you want, but no one is listening. Voter turnout is so low that the signal of voting 3rd-party is completely lost in the noise of passive non-voting. 3rd-party votes might feel good, but pragmatically (and what is voting except a pragmatic attempt to advance your preferred policy), they are useless.
I encourage everyone on this comment chain to read Clay Shirky's "There is no such thing as a protest vote" [0], and really take it seriously, instead of jumping to thought-terminating cliches by angrily denouncing him as a sheep or whatever. He's right.
In a Presidential election it really depends on the state you vote in. California is going team blue no matter what, Alabama team red. Voting 3rd party in one of those states is not going to change the outcome.
Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin etc the calculation totally changes of course.
"Voting 3rd party exercises your right to say you don't like either of the other 2 candidates"
I actually voted for a third party, i liked better than the other 2. It was not a protest. I did just read your link and won't denounce him as anything, but I do think telling people who vote for someone they like who is not in the main 2 parties that their vote was a "throw-away" is again not a good thing.
We will have to agree to disagree on this. Although it is interesting in some other countries where there are more than 2 parties that do all compete.
Pragmatically every vote is useless. The chances that the election outcome will come down to your single vote are infinitesimal. Every individual vote is a protest vote lost in the noise. So anyone reading this should feel perfectly free to vote their conscience.
Can’t you both be right at the same time? Going all in for poker may be interpreted as an exercise of my human rights, but it can also be interpreted as giving all my money to the chip lead.
Of course I don’t wish to argue the efficacy of my poker moves. They are an expression of my free spirit.
I like to think of it as showing up to not vote. You made an effort to express your disappointment that can't just be argued away as 'people are too busy'.
Here in Australia at least I can do that every time and still have my vote go to the lesser evil due to preferences.
Well unfortunately the idealism in voting 3rd party (which I understand) to make a statement can't really stand up to the realities of game theory and the American political landscape.
> this line of thinking is detrimental to our voting process and wrong to rub in peoples faces.
Our voting framework is detrimental to our voting process. The line of thinking that a 3rd party vote is a vote wasted is simply an assessment of reality.
There are only two realistic candidates for President in a given US election. And no matter the reasoning, a vote for third party is equivalent to a half vote for both major candidates.
If you truly find equally unappealing, then a third party vote is a (very quiet) way to voice that opinion. Otherwise, you are giving a half vote to your least preferred option.
As far as fallacies that can be demonstrated to be mathematically incorrect to bright 5-year-olds go, this one is absurdly common.
0 may not be equal to 1, but it isn't equal to -1 either. It takes TWO people changing their vote from <your favored major candidate> to <third-party candidate> to match the effect of one person changing from <your favored major candidate> to <the opposing major candidate>.
Its not a full vote for the incumbent, but it is mathematically equivalent to a half vote for both candidates, so the statement that they are "voting for the incumbent" isn't incorrect.
