The Worthyness of a Wasted Vote

[Rattrap]

In the interest of attempting some interesting discussion, I want to talk about voting. Specifically, what voting for a third-party is worth - most folks I talk to claim doing such is a wasted vote, or a favor against whomever they think should win/lesser evil is (i.e., a vote for Green helps Republicans, a vote for Libertarian helps Democrats, etc). I often hear about third-party 'viability' and many times something along the lines of "When [X-third-party] is viable, I'll vote for them!" without realizing that until people do vote for them, they'll never be viable.

I suppose one underlying, optimistic assumption one has to make in this sort of discussion is that voting actually matters. I believe it does for the same reason I often don't believe in many conspiracy theories: the powers that be have already fixed the players (i.e., uninformed, uncritically-thinking, partisan voters), so why go through the extra trouble of fixing the game?

To the wasted vote argument, my counter is often: isn't a vote for an R or D just that, a wasted vote? Other than doomsday rhetoric against the far left or far right, pragmatically little seems to change between the two. I'll give the Democrats the better when it comes to social liberties and this is no small thing - but I'm otherwise unconvinced they work any less for big money interests than the Republicans. One can even bring in the electoral college into this topic, and I think fairly so - in my own situation, my vote never actually matters because my state will always go blue. Red, purple, green, yellow - whoever I vote for, at the point it matters (electoral college), I have effectively not participated due to the all-or-nothing practice of electoral votes in my state.

I've got more I can ramble on about, but I'll leave it here to see if this ball will roll.

 

[Mayhem]

I've said this before and gotten a resounding silence for it: A two Party system means the winner gets a 51% or higher vote. That's a consensus. If there was a viable third Party, then each would be seeking 34%. Add a fourth, success starts at 26%. I don't see it working.

 

[Will E Worm]

A wasted vote is a vote not cast.





Constitution Party

 

[Occam'sTweezer]

I couldn't find worthyness anywhere in the dictionary.

 

[Will E Worm]

I couldn't find worthyness anywhere in the dictionary.

Worthiness

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

I've said this before and gotten a resounding silence for it: A two Party system means the winner gets a 51% or higher vote. That's a consensus. If there was a viable third Party, then each would be seeking 34%. Add a fourth, success starts at 26%. I don't see it working.

Except that you still need a majority to pass laws. Having more than two parties, and further dividing the vote, forces everyone toward compromise to achieve their goals. It has worked elsewhere.

 

[Mayhem]

Except that you still need a majority to pass laws. Having more than two parties, and further dividing the vote, forces everyone toward compromise to achieve their goals. It has worked elsewhere.

Where? I don't claim to follow the internal politics of other countries and I have no interest in starting. But I know that Italy has a multi-coalition government and things are a constant mess there. I believe that England has 3 or 4 parties going at any given time and they have never impressed me with their ability to get anything done.

When the majority is, by definition, the minority, I don't see too many happy endings. Especially in the US.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

Where? I don't claim to follow the internal politics of other countries and I have no interest in starting. But I know that Italy has a multi-coalition government and things are a constant mess there. I believe that England has 3 or 4 parties going at any given time and they have never impressed me with their ability to get anything done.

Canada for one. Liberal, Conservative, and NDP are all viable nationally, and the Bloc Quebecois is a dominating force in Quebec, enough so to gain a national voice.

 

[Rattrap]

I've said this before and gotten a resounding silence for it: A two Party system means the winner gets a 51% or higher vote. That's a consensus. If there was a viable third Party, then each would be seeking 34%. Add a fourth, success starts at 26%. I don't see it working.

Something like instant run-off voting would solve that right-quick, while still allowing us real choice.

I believe that England has 3 or 4 parties going at any given time and they have never impressed me with their ability to get anything done.

Britian's pretty much in the same two-party lock-down as the US; 2010 was the first time in a long time (if I'm not mistaken) a third-party had any relevance; the first time since sometime 80 years ago or so there's been a coalition.

But I have to ask: has the US with two parties really impressed you with the ability to get things done?

Canada for one. Liberal, Conservative, and NDP are all viable nationally, and the Bloc Quebecois is a dominating force in Quebec, enough so to gain a national voice.

I don't mean to compare apples to oranges (parliamentary to single-member districts), but in Germany it looks like the government will be formed by the two biggest parties - meaning around 65% of the voters have their choice in government.

There's something: are single-member districts the best way to election the national government? It's undoubtedly a tool for local representation, but then a person is already represented locally at city, county, and state levels.

 

[Mayhem]

But I have to ask: has the US with two parties really impressed you with the ability to get things done?

Yes. We won two world wars, carpeted our country with superhighways, developed a society (for better or worse) that can fight 2 wars and still give a damn who wins the Superbowl, cured polio, smallpox and a host of other diseases/conditions. What we're learning the hard way is that it's much easier to build than to mantain.

Actually, it's just this second that I've realized that the 3 Party system that you're hoping for is in place and proving my point that it doesn't work. The Tea Party is the third party. And it's fucking everything up. And it certainly isn't "forcing anyone towards compromise".

To address other points on this thread, I'm not saying that a multiple Party system won't/can't work for other countries. I don't really think it does, and Canada doesn't fit my criteria for a viable example. But I'm convinced that it won't work here. And for the record, I have never liked comparisons between other countries and the US on any level or context. There are only two countries that can come close in any comparisons and those are China and Russia. And even then, most are apples/oranges comparisons because of the people involved.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Yes. We won two world wars, carpeted our country with superhighways, developed a society (for better or worse) that can fight 2 wars and still give a damn who wins the Superbowl, cured polio, smallpox and a host of other diseases/conditions. What we're learning the hard way is that it's much easier to build than to mantain.

Actually, it's just this second that I've realized that the 3 Party system that you're hoping for is in place and proving my point that it doesn't work. The Tea Party is the third party. And it's fucking everything up. And it certainly isn't "forcing anyone towards compromise".

To address other points on this thread, I'm not saying that a multiple Party system won't/can't work for other countries. I don't really think it does, and Canada doesn't fit my criteria for a viable example. But I'm convinced that it won't work here. And for the record, I have never liked comparisons between other countries and the US on any level or context. There are only two countries that can come close in any comparisons and those are China and Russia. And even then, most are apples/oranges comparisons because of the people involved.

The Tea Party should not be thought of as a viable third party. They are repugnant to the majority of the nation. Fundamentalists of any kind don't make for a good political party. Similarly, the Libertarians will never be a true, viable party in the US (I've never quite understood their position - "I hate government. Please elect me to government.")

In Canada it works pretty well. Yeah, it's a completely different system, but watch a Canadian minority government enact policy. It's a thing of beauty because it requires true compromise on all parts, as well as at least a couple of parties working together on a fundamental level.

 

[Johan]

A wasted vote is a vote not cast.





Constitution Party

Exactly.

Not voting means your let other people choose for you. Then, don't ever come and criticize the President or the Government 'cause when you've been asked about what you want for your country, you just said "Do whatever you want, I don't care !"

 

[Mayhem]

The Tea Party should not be thought of as a viable third party. They are repugnant to the majority of the nation. Fundamentalists of any kind don't make for a good political party. Similarly, the Libertarians will never be a true, viable party in the US (I've never quite understood their position - "I hate government. Please elect me to government.")

In Canada it works pretty well. Yeah, it's a completely different system, but watch a Canadian minority government enact policy. It's a thing of beauty because it requires true compromise on all parts, as well as at least a couple of parties working together on a fundamental level.

Anyone who can shut down the government for a couple weeks is a viable third Party. I find them just as detestable as you, but their power cannot be denied.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Anyone who can shut down the government for a couple weeks is a viable third Party. I find them just as detestable as you, but their power cannot be denied.

I suppose that's a fair point. I'll wager that in the future this will not be a real possibility. I believe we have witnessed the peak of the tea party, and it is now waning. Or perhaps I'm projecting my hopes and dreams...

 

[Rattrap]

Yes. We won two world wars, carpeted our country with superhighways, developed a society (for better or worse) that can fight 2 wars and still give a damn who wins the Superbowl, cured polio, smallpox and a host of other diseases/conditions. What we're learning the hard way is that it's much easier to build than to mantain.

That's fair.

Actually, it's just this second that I've realized that the 3 Party system that you're hoping for is in place and proving my point that it doesn't work. The Tea Party is the third party. And it's fucking everything up. And it certainly isn't "forcing anyone towards compromise".

This I disagree with - I think a large part of the Tea Party's power is that because it is a part of the Republican party, it threatens more moderate Republicans with primaries where Tea Party members wouldn't win in a general election - or hell, the rare open primary. As a proper third party we'd only be hearing a little more from them than any other third party.

 

[lurkingdirk]

This I disagree with - I think a large part of the Tea Party's power is that because it is a part of the Republican party, it threatens more moderate Republicans with primaries where Tea Party members wouldn't win in a general election - or hell, the rare open primary. As a proper third party we'd only be hearing a little more from them than any other third party.

It hasn't really separated itself from the Republican Party sufficiently, has it?

 

[Mayhem]

This I disagree with - I think a large part of the Tea Party's power is that because it is a part of the Republican party, it threatens more moderate Republicans with primaries where Tea Party members wouldn't win in a general election - or hell, the rare open primary. As a proper third party we'd only be hearing a little more from them than any other third party.

I get what you're saying, but where exactly is a third and/or fourth Party supposed to come from? What belief system are we looking for? If you're thinking that Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans should form a separate Party, OK. I see it as a confusing jumble that pukes itself to death and causes more confusion for the voters than it's worth. Which is my original point.

 

[lurkingdirk]

What about a third party born of labour, or of business? A finance party. A labour party. Could you not see the unions of the land rallying behind a candidate that is for the working person? Imagine if a single candidate were to gain support from all the labour unions in the land. Powerful stuff.

 

[Mayhem]

What about a third party born of labour, or of business? A finance party. A labour party. Could you not see the unions of the land rallying behind a candidate that is for the working person? Imagine if a single candidate were to gain support from all the labour unions in the land. Powerful stuff.

In terms of business/finance, it's called Wall Street and they have all the Parties in their pocket. In terms of Labor/Labour, from where I sit the Dems have it locked up already and that's where it should stay. A Union/Working Class Party that separated itself from the Democrats commits political suicide for both in doing so.

Keep in mind that I'm not disagreeing with the concept just to disagree with the concept. I've given this idea my own share of thought over the years and especially when it has come up here. I've tried to look at it from as many different angles as I could. I want to like the Libertarians, but they've had long enough to sink or swim. I've wished for a separate Liberal Party, but we're too lame and reactionary to pull it off. OWS had their chance and they not only blew it, they blew it spectacularly.

Another angle to look at things from: Who is going to run for President in 2016? On one side Hillary, who I am absolutely no fan of. On the other side Cruz, Rubio, Christie, Rand Paul. Who besides me finds this ridiculously depressing? None of them deserves to be our President, but we're going to get stuck with one of them. And this is not a new problem. Dukakis, Perot, Dubya, Gore, Kerry, Romney. We keep getting hit with shitty choices. And that's with the two Parties that we have. Again, I just don't see how we make things better for ourselves by diluting the mix with a third and/or fourth Party.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Indeed, the choice for President seems to be the lesser of two evils at this point. We need a really charismatic, talented leader. The kind of leader many people were hopeful that President Obama was going to be, though he has fallen far short.

Know who I'd like to see on a ticket? Colin Powell and Condalisa Rice. That's a pair of people I could vote for, regardless of who was the top of the ticket.