Is a vote for the 3rd party REALLY a wasted vote?

[pritchke]

Sometimes the vote is wasted sometimes it isn't. An example of when it isn't is as Aerich described.

One tactic that is often used up here is a candidate for a party will get his best friend (Independant) to run against him to draw votes away from the competition. This isn't always the case but it occurs and you really have to know the candidates to avoid the pitfall especially if you don't want the said candidate to get elected. In the case of Nadar you really have to look at who is friends are and why he is running. Is he funded by the Republicans to draw votes from Democrates or is he in it because he believes in his parties platform and values?

[ 08-04-2004, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Aerich: Here in Canada, there is another good reason to vote for a fringe party, but I'm not sure it works this way in the States. If a party gets a certain percentage of the overall vote (I think it's 5%), they get some federal funding as an official party. That funding allows them to run more candidates and raise their public profile in other ways. That 5% of the vote is an important stepping stone for a fringe party to become a viable option. Edit: In our most recent (June 30, 2004) election, the Green Party achieved the percentage it needed to get that funding.

If I remember my Government class correctly the numbers are similar here in the states, it might be as low as 4% of the vote (it's been about 6 years since I had that class, and it's not something I routinely use, so the info hasn't been accessed since that class).

[Morgeruat]

Actually I think I read somewhere that he isn't part of a party this time (IIRC he was green party last pres election)...

[Oblivion437]

The key tactic of third parties in the US is to steal votes from a major party. Next time round, they'll adopt some positions, planks, or parts of planks to lure those voters on back.

However, the policies of the DNC and GOP both run right against Libertarianism, so they pretty much have to fight it all or none.

[Jonas Strider]

From what I see of this election, I think it would matter if you vote for a third party. A 3rd party vote will not get your person elected. It's going to help one of the other two parties get in office. I wished Nader didn't run. He's helping the Bush team and I think he's doing it on purpose because in my view, he's a real Republican.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

That's something said tongue in cheek, JS, but one only has to look at Nader's track record to see the fallacy in that statement.

All in all, it depends on what state you live in. Let's say, for instance, that you want Bush out of office.
Hypothetically.
Let's also say that you support the Green party. But your primary goal is to get Bush out. Now, if you lived in a swing state, or a Republican state, you would vote for Kerry. But if you lived in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, you might be safe voting Green. It applies whether you're Democrat or Republican; just reverse the example.

[Gab]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: That's something said tongue in cheek, JS, but one only has to look at Nader's track record to see the fallacy in that statement. All in all, it depends on what state you live in. Let's say, for instance, that you want Bush out of office. Hypothetically. Let's also say that you support the Green party. But your primary goal is to get Bush out. Now, if you lived in a swing state, or a Republican state, you would vote for Kerry. But if you lived in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, you might be safe voting Green. It applies whether you're Democrat or Republican; just reverse the example.

I agree completely with that statement. Well said [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] .

[Magness]

Originally posted by pritchke: Sometimes the vote is wasted sometimes it isn't. An example of when it isn't is as Aerich described. One tactic that is often used up here is a candidate for a party will get his best friend (Independant) to run against him to draw votes away from the competition. This isn't always the case but it occurs and you really have to know the candidates to avoid the pitfall especially if you don't want the said candidate to get elected. In the case of Nadar you really have to look at who is friends are and why he is running. Is he funded by the Republicans to draw votes from Democrates or is he in it because he believes in his parties platform and values?

I do believe that Nader believes what he says and is very left wing. IMHO, he's running again because he truly believes in his platform. I also think that he's rather anti-Democratic Party. There's also no doubt that he's anti-GOP. However, he seems to be louder in his criticism against the Dems because he wishes that they were more like him.

The fact that some republicans have given Nader money is about the fact that these republicans are simply seeing that halping Nader ends up helping Bush in that it may draw some of the most liberal voters away from Kerry (or Gore in 2000) and to Nader. Nader is certainly free to refuse or return such money. But he may also just take the money and use it in spite of where it came from.

[Magness]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: The key tactic of third parties in the US is to steal votes from a major party. Next time round, they'll adopt some positions, planks, or parts of planks to lure those voters on back.

This is a salient point about third parties in the US, particularly in the 20th century. Third parties that performed strongly in a Presidential election almost always have their issues absorbed by the party closest to their views.

It's hard to say that this was the case after the 2000 election. Oh, the Dems are certainly paying more attention Nader this time around. But this "attention" is more along the lines of trying to prevent Nader from getting on state ballots, trying to convince voters that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, etc.