PDA

View Full Version : Wasted Vote?



ednachman
11-04-2008, 08:35 AM
When people learn that I vote for the Libertarian Party they say I'm wasting my vote. I wonder how many people are going to vote "against" someone rather than vote "for" someone. Those voting "against" someone are wasting their vote and believe there are only two political parties. Sad!!!

geothefaust
11-04-2008, 08:39 AM
Yeah I hear you. I usually vote for Pacific Green. (Not to be confused with the Green party)

Admittedly, I voted for a democrat this time around. But honestly, no vote is a wasted vote. If you vote, that is good enough in my book. This two party "system" is crap anyway, and needs over hauled.

UnCommonGrafx
11-04-2008, 08:42 AM
That's what the ubiquitous "They" want you to believe. That way, you don't vote the next time.

Stick to the voice inside that's in control of your will and keep on doing what you do.

jburford
11-04-2008, 08:54 AM
Not a wasted vote! If you wish you can even, hmnn, does that work for the President spot, write-in candidate.

warmiak
11-04-2008, 09:31 AM
I voted for Barr as well ...

Normally I vote Republican but this time around I just couldn't bring myself to vote for McCain ( and Obama was out of question)

calilifestyle
11-04-2008, 09:33 AM
Well its true, it kind of is. hehe

MooseDog
11-04-2008, 10:03 AM
no vote is wasted. ever.

think of the untold billions of people, past present and future, who don't have this freedom.

adamredwoods
11-04-2008, 11:15 AM
The United States voting system is based on "winner take all". So yes, the losing party does not gain ANYTHING by voting.

In other words, there is no decision inclusion for the losing party. Not even partial. Those decisions are irrelevant.

Which is why, at best, we have the House of representatives and a Senate.

Lightwolf
11-04-2008, 11:29 AM
Every vote is sacred.
Every vote is good.
Every vote is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every vote is sacred.
Every vote is great.
If a vote is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!

Sorry, I couldn't help it ;) :chicken:

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
11-04-2008, 11:34 AM
When people learn that I vote for the Libertarian Party they say I'm wasting my vote. I wonder how many people are going to vote "against" someone rather than vote "for" someone. Those voting "against" someone are wasting their vote and believe there are only two political parties. Sad!!!

Yes, your vote was wasted. You are not sending a message. You are not "fighting the good fight". The reality of the situation is we are allowed to vote on one of two parties. You need to pick which one of these guys you think sucks less and vote for him.

ted
11-04-2008, 11:43 AM
I would respect a vote against my belief more than a no vote.
Of course, I can relate to people that honestly feel none of these barstards deserve to be in office! :thumbsdow

mattclary
11-04-2008, 11:57 AM
I would respect a vote against my belief more than a no vote.
Of course, I can relate to people that honestly feel none of these barstards deserve to be in office! :thumbsdow

I hate politicians. I wish we could get someone in office who was not a professional politician. Unfortunately, she is hindered by her running mate.

hrgiger
11-04-2008, 01:55 PM
When people learn that I vote for the Libertarian Party they say I'm wasting my vote. I wonder how many people are going to vote "against" someone rather than vote "for" someone. Those voting "against" someone are wasting their vote and believe there are only two political parties. Sad!!!

I think it's a wasted vote because what difference is it going to make that you're voting for someone who will probably get less tehn 2% of the total vote. If you don't see the democrats or republicans being any better then each other, then you've made the right decision to vote Libertarian. But if you have a preference of one over the other, and you're going to like one of them less then the other in office, then by voting Libertarian, you're essentially giving up your rights to ever ***** if you don't like the outcome.

IMI
11-04-2008, 02:06 PM
But if you have a preference of one over the other, and you're going to like one of them less then the other in office, then by voting Libertarian, you're essentially giving up your rights to ever ***** if you don't like the outcome.

How do you figure that?
If I don't vote for Obama and he wins and then screws up royally as Pres, I have the right to ***** about it, and the same goes for if it's McCain instead who wins and I'm bitching.

IMO, the only people who *don't* have the right to ***** are those who don't vote at all.

And still, even though I've conceded to the reality of it, I'll still maintain that it is "more proper" for a person to vote for who he WANTS, not who is the lesser of two evils.
And I'll also still maintain that as long as people DO continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, they're perpetuating the two party system; it will never go away, will never change as long as people remain largely complacent about it.

Next time around we need to have a massive push for NOT voting. Maybe something like Rock The Vote, but called F*ck The Vote!

To me, it would be nothing short of amazing if an election day came along and nobody voted. :devil:

Maybe tens of millions of "no confidence" votes would send a signal. Surely this complacency and flock mentality won't ever result in any real change.

IMI
11-04-2008, 02:19 PM
Maybe tens of millions of "no confidence" votes would send a signal. Surely this complacency and flock mentality won't ever result in any real change.

No, you idiot, that's not right!

What you're failing to consider is that the vast majority of people don't even realize the system's f*cked and the rest don't care, while those that do, think it's pointless to even try.

Not to mention, the sheep believe this is as good as it gets - a little Dem here, a splash of republican there, change shifts every four or eight years and call it change...

JeffrySG
11-04-2008, 02:30 PM
If you vote, that is good enough in my book. This two party "system" is crap anyway, and needs over hauled.

:agree::agree:

Couldn't agree more. Just think how many people don't vote the way the truly want to because they think it will be wasted. This country is so badly in need of political reform.

Stunt Pixels
11-04-2008, 02:37 PM
I like the preferential system over here. Means you can vote for party A, then B, C, and so on. When it gets to the count, if you're vote for A is not going to count, then it slips down to your next preference, and so on, until you run out of preferences, or one of the candidates has over 50% of the vote.

It means that smaller parties do get elected, and if your first preference is a no-chance, you still get to direct the flow of your vote.

I'd hate to have a single vote like the US does for President, as I'd often be 'wasting' my vote...

JeffrySG
11-04-2008, 02:41 PM
I like the preferential system over here. Means you can vote for party A, then B, C, and so on. When it gets to the count, if you're vote for A is not going to count, then it slips down to your next preference, and so on, until you run out of preferences, or one of the candidates has over 50% of the vote.

It means that smaller parties do get elected, and if your first preference is a no-chance, you still get to direct the flow of your vote.

I'd hate to have a single vote like the US does for President, as I'd often be 'wasting' my vote...

^I'd love to have that here!

They had the same thing for Map voting on Unreal Tournament 2004. If Unreal can do it, why can't the US? Oh yeah, the people in power don't want it that way. hmmm....

IMI
11-04-2008, 02:44 PM
Oh yeah, the people in power don't want it that way. hmmm....

That's exactly correct.
It's the only thing you can count on the right and the left agreeing on consistently - that they will never allow any further competition. And they use the full power of the US government and the media to ensure it never becomes an issue.

warmiak
11-04-2008, 02:45 PM
:agree::agree:

Couldn't agree more. Just think how many people don't vote the way the truly want to because they think it will be wasted. This country is so badly in need of political reform.

What political reform ?

Go and vote for someone else if you don't like major parties candidates ... what else is there to reform ?

In the age of the Internet there is plenty of information available about everyone who is on the ballot so it all comes down "to the people" who obviously don't give a damn enough to even consider other candidates.

adamredwoods
11-04-2008, 03:17 PM
What political reform ?

Go and vote for someone else if you don't like major parties candidates ... what else is there to reform ?

In the age of the Internet there is plenty of information available about everyone who is on the ballot so it all comes down "to the people" who obviously don't give a damn enough to even consider other candidates.

If you vote for someone else and they lose, is that a democratic system, a representative system, or neither?

ted
11-04-2008, 04:03 PM
I like the preferential system over here. Means you can vote for party A, then B, C, and so on. When it gets to the count, if you're vote for A is not going to count, then it slips down to your next preference, and so on, until you run out of preferences, or one of the candidates has over 50% of the vote.

It means that smaller parties do get elected, and if your first preference is a no-chance, you still get to direct the flow of your vote.

I'd hate to have a single vote like the US does for President, as I'd often be 'wasting' my vote...

That's an interesting concept. I think more people would vote for the 3rd party to make a statement if they knew their backup vote would hold some weight.
Cooool!

IMI
11-04-2008, 04:07 PM
If you vote for someone else and they lose, is that a democratic system, a representative system, or neither?

Far as I can tell, it's a democratic system. We're guaranteed the right to vote, but not any kind of guarantee our guy will win.

Although I'm not so sure there's anything particularly "democratic" about having only two viable choices over and over again, election after election.

Tom Wood
11-04-2008, 04:49 PM
When people learn that I vote for the Libertarian Party they say I'm wasting my vote. I wonder how many people are going to vote "against" someone rather than vote "for" someone. Those voting "against" someone are wasting their vote and believe there are only two political parties. Sad!!!

There ARE only two viable political parties in the US and I think that's a very good thing. It polarizes points of view in a way that brings clarity to the decision. The US is so diverse that if we had a system that had a political party for every stakeholder group we would now have thousands of political parties and end up in deep deadlock. IMO, people who can't see the clear distinctions between the two parties should take the advice in the tagline for the movie American Beauty (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169547/): Look Closer

warmiak
11-04-2008, 05:09 PM
If you vote for someone else and they lose, is that a democratic system, a representative system, or neither?

Somebody will always lose.

ednachman
11-04-2008, 06:35 PM
There could be many political parties to be voted in. It's called a coalition. The two party system does not address the diversity of this great country.

mattclary
11-05-2008, 06:07 AM
There ARE only two viable political parties in the US and I think that's a very good thing. It polarizes points of view in a way that brings clarity to the decision. The US is so diverse that if we had a system that had a political party for every stakeholder group we would now have thousands of political parties and end up in deep deadlock. IMO, people who can't see the clear distinctions between the two parties should take the advice in the tagline for the movie American Beauty (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169547/): Look Closer

IMO, a better approach would be a preliminary election to narrow it to two candidates. If you knew you could vote libertarian in full faith, then get to vote on the lesser of two evils in the final election, i think it would be better.

Had Ross Perot not run in '92, Clinton would never have gotten elected. All it did was divide votes between Bush and Perot.

Lightwolf
11-05-2008, 06:16 AM
Had Ross Perot not run in '92, Clinton would never have gotten elected. All it did was divide votes between Bush and Perot.
I suppose a normal majority vote would go a long way as well. Mind you, I suppose it would give the States with less inhabitants even less weight. Then again, isn't an election on a federal level supposed to weight the opinion of all citizens as opposed to all citizens but depending on where they live?

Cheers,
Mike

hrgiger
11-05-2008, 06:47 AM
Had Ross Perot not run in '92, Clinton would never have gotten elected. All it did was divide votes between Bush and Perot.

That sounds like a good argument for letting third parties run in the general election.

CMT
11-05-2008, 08:50 AM
IMO, a better approach would be a preliminary election to narrow it to two candidates. If you knew you could vote libertarian in full faith, then get to vote on the lesser of two evils in the final election, i think it would be better.

Had Ross Perot not run in '92, Clinton would never have gotten elected. All it did was divide votes between Bush and Perot.

Yeah, do it Survivor style. Put 'em all on an island with challenges and have the public vote one off every week until you get down to the last two. Then take it to the ballot.

Entertaining, fun, and informative as you get to see their backstabbing political abilities in action. :D