Does the post tell you who to vote for? No, it just says voting is better than not voting.
I don’t get why people keep getting confused over this. Vote for yourself, for none of the above, or anyone else. But do vote! That’s all the post is saying.
Voting 3rd party in a FPTP electoral system means you voted for the most popular candidate of the 2 main parties. If you vote for the lesser of two evils of the 2 main parties, at least you stand a chance at keeping out the greater of 2 evils. In essence, voting 3rd party in a FPTP system is a wasted vote.
I disagree with this sentiment. I’d say the vote is wasted in the immediate election, and probably any immediately following elections. However, those numbers are still tracked, and the more we see people voting third party, the more motivated we’ll see third party candidates. If I run third party and get 25 votes one cycle, and then the next cycle I get 25k votes, I would call that gathering momentum. If it keeps increasing with each attempt, the signal is getting louder and louder. Eventually, that wasted vote becomes a very serious threat. Think long term.
I once thought that myself, but then it occurred to me to look at history. I could not find a single instance in the US or in several other countries that I considered to have a comparable electoral system of this actually happening. No third party has ever grown to become a real contender as far as I could find, at least not without a considerably different electoral system enabling it.
Given that the chances are close enough to zero for me to consider them such, it’s clear that wasn’t a viable route. Instead, every time major changes to policy have happened it’s because of sufficient internal change within an existing major party, or in the couple cases where a major party has actually changed, it has been through internal division and collapse.
History thus tells us that if we want to enact that sort of change, we should get into whichever party is already closest to our position, and push hard from within, and bring as many like minded people with us to do so. It will be a difficult fight against entrenched interests that oppose such change, but far more successes have been had that way than through competing minor parties.
what about voting 3rd party? To show that you do care but hate both candidates.
Does the post tell you who to vote for? No, it just says voting is better than not voting.
I don’t get why people keep getting confused over this. Vote for yourself, for none of the above, or anyone else. But do vote! That’s all the post is saying.
Voting 3rd party in a FPTP electoral system means you voted for the most popular candidate of the 2 main parties. If you vote for the lesser of two evils of the 2 main parties, at least you stand a chance at keeping out the greater of 2 evils. In essence, voting 3rd party in a FPTP system is a wasted vote.
I disagree with this sentiment. I’d say the vote is wasted in the immediate election, and probably any immediately following elections. However, those numbers are still tracked, and the more we see people voting third party, the more motivated we’ll see third party candidates. If I run third party and get 25 votes one cycle, and then the next cycle I get 25k votes, I would call that gathering momentum. If it keeps increasing with each attempt, the signal is getting louder and louder. Eventually, that wasted vote becomes a very serious threat. Think long term.
I once thought that myself, but then it occurred to me to look at history. I could not find a single instance in the US or in several other countries that I considered to have a comparable electoral system of this actually happening. No third party has ever grown to become a real contender as far as I could find, at least not without a considerably different electoral system enabling it.
Given that the chances are close enough to zero for me to consider them such, it’s clear that wasn’t a viable route. Instead, every time major changes to policy have happened it’s because of sufficient internal change within an existing major party, or in the couple cases where a major party has actually changed, it has been through internal division and collapse.
History thus tells us that if we want to enact that sort of change, we should get into whichever party is already closest to our position, and push hard from within, and bring as many like minded people with us to do so. It will be a difficult fight against entrenched interests that oppose such change, but far more successes have been had that way than through competing minor parties.
A 3rd party getting more votes could also push the “closest” party in that direkten when they are trying to get the people back