Throwing Your Vote Away

[Green Arrow]

Mark III said in another thread that voting for Bernie Sanders is throwing your vote away. Republican partisans like Mac-7 have also expressed the idea that voting for a candidate that can't win, or voting third party, is throwing your vote away.

What does that mean, exactly? That suggests your vote is worthless, but since it is your vote, isn't that something only YOU can place a value judgement on?

See, to me, voting for Bernie Sanders or a third party isn't throwing my vote away, because that is what I believe in. No other vote could be as valuable as that one. To me, throwing my vote away would be voting for a candidate I can't stand and don't want to see anywhere near the White House, like Hillary Clinton.

[Peter1469]

I will vote for who I think is best and not settle for who the Establishment wants me to vote for.

That is how we get the clowns winning nominations.

[Mark III]

Mark III said in another thread that voting for Bernie Sanders is throwing your vote away. Republican partisans like Mac-7 have also expressed the idea that voting for a candidate that can't win, or voting third party, is throwing your vote away.

What does that mean, exactly? That suggests your vote is worthless, but since it is your vote, isn't that something only YOU can place a value judgement on?

See, to me, voting for Bernie Sanders or a third party isn't throwing my vote away, because that is what I believe in. No other vote could be as valuable as that one. To me, throwing my vote away would be voting for a candidate I can't stand and don't want to see anywhere near the White House, like Hillary Clinton.


There are different ways of looking at it. On that other thread someone said they were going to vote for the Green Party candidate.

0.71%
2.74%
0.10%
0.12%
0.36%

Those are the percentages of the vote won by the Green Party over the past 20 years, or the length of their existence in the presidential elections, starting with 1996.

So a vote for the Green Party effects the election only in the sense that it might have gone somewhere else, but in absence of knowing where we have to "allocate" that vote evenly among all the other candidates.

People can and should vote for the Green Party or another minor party if they want, but the truth is one could say it is more like splitting your vote between the Democrats and Republicans than anything else.

[Mac-7]

Mark III said in another thread that voting for Bernie Sanders is throwing your vote away. Republican partisans like Mac-7 have also expressed the idea that voting for a candidate that can't win, or voting third party, is throwing your vote away.

What does that mean, exactly?

Since you ask I will tell you.

If bernie is the democrat candidate he has as good a chance of winning as hillary does.

So for a barking at the moon liberal who wants government to take care of everyone a vote for bernie is not a wasted vote.

He actually could win the election.

but if you vote for ralph nader or or some other third party leftist wacko in the general election they stand zero chance of winning and ypu are without a doubt throwing your vote away.

[Cigar]

That's why it One Person One Vote ... who cares how others Vote? You can't control it anyway.

[Mark III]

The 2.74% figure by the way , was when Ralph Nader ran on the Green Party ticket in 2000. Some people believe the Nader vote "gave" the election to George W. Bush in the closest election in American history.

"Nader won enough votes in two states — Florida and New Hampshire (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=2000) — to put either of them in Gore’s column. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which easily could have swung the election to give Gore the state’s 25 electoral votes, and there would have been no need for a recount. Even without Florida, adding Nader’s 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote to Gore’s 47 percent would have given Gore a 270 to 267 victory in the electoral college."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-nader-cost-gore-an-election/2015/02/05/3261cc22-abd2-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html

[Green Arrow]

Since you ask I will tell you.

If bernie is the democrat candidate he has as good a chance of winning as hillary does.

So for a barking at the moon liberal who wants government to take care of everyone a vote for bernie is not a wasted vote.

He actually could win the election.

but if you vote for ralph nader or or some other third party leftist wacko in the general election they stand zero chance of winning and ypu are without a doubt throwing your vote away.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
- John Quincy Adams

[maineman]

It's 2000. You're a granola crunching greenie from the backwoods of New Hampshire. You truly believe that voting for Ralph Nader will bring this country closer to respecting the environment. You and five thousand of your fellow greenies feel the same way. What did it get you? Did you ever really think that a vote for Ralph Nader would actually put Ralph Nader in the White House and would give him a congress that would agree with him? Of course not. If you took the time to sit back and say....Well.... Ralphie boy is certainly all that and a bag of chips, and if he were elected and congress magically went along with all of his environmental advocacy, what a wonderful world this would be... but, given the fact that Ralphie boy is polling in single digits nationally, that won't happen. What WILL happen instead? Well... either a guy who's got his nose so far up the oil industry's ass that he can smell their breakfast before it digests - and whose VEEP takes it up the ass with crude oil as a lubricant - gets elected... or a guy who truly understands the environmental issues that we believe in as greenies - even if he is not realistically capable of making all our dreams come true all at once - gets elected. Those five thousand well meaning, moronic greenies in New Hampshire ELECTED George W. Bush President of the United States. That's not even throwing your vote AWAY, that is giving it to the enemy, which is even worse.

[Green Arrow]

There are different ways of looking at it. On that other thread someone said they were going to vote for the Green Party candidate.

0.71%
2.74%
0.10%
0.12%
0.36%

Those are the percentages of the vote won by the Green Party over the past 20 years, or the length of their existence in the presidential elections, starting with 1996.

So a vote for the Green Party effects the election only in the sense that it might have gone somewhere else, but in absence of knowing where we have to "allocate" that vote evenly among all the other candidates.

People can and should vote for the Green Party or another minor party if they want, but the truth is one could say it is more like splitting your vote between the Democrats and Republicans than anything else.

The problem with your analysis is that it assumes those people would have voted for one of the two major candidates if the third parties were not on the ballot, which is not a valid assumption.

[Green Arrow]

It's 2000. You're a granola crunching greenie from the backwoods of New Hampshire. You truly believe that voting for Ralph Nader will bring this country closer to respecting the environment. You and five thousand of your fellow greenies feel the same way. What did it get you? Did you ever really think that a vote for Ralph Nader would actually put Ralph Nader in the White House and would give him a congress that would agree with him? Of course not. If you took the time to sit back and say....Well.... Ralphie boy is certainly all that and a bag of chips, and if he were elected and congress magically went along with all of his environmental advocacy, what a wonderful world this would be... but, given the fact that Ralphie boy is polling in single digits nationally, that won't happen. What WILL happen instead? Well... either a guy who's got his nose so far up the oil industry's ass that he can smell their breakfast before it digests - and whose VEEP takes it up the ass with crude oil as a lubricant - gets elected... or a guy who truly understands the environmental issues that we believe in as greenies - even if he is not realistically capable of making all our dreams come true all at once - gets elected. Those five thousand well meaning, moronic greenies in New Hampshire ELECTED George W. Bush President of the United States. That's not even throwing your vote AWAY, that is giving it to the enemy, which is even worse.

Is it? Would I have voted for Al Gore if Ralph Nader, or any other third party candidate, was on the ballot?

The answer is no, I would not, so I didn't give the election to G.W. Bush. You nominated a candidate that couldn't beat a village idiot from Texas. Stop blaming other people for your mistakes.

[Mark III]

The problem with your analysis is that it assumes those people would have voted for one of the two major candidates if the third parties were not on the ballot, which is not a valid assumption.

If someone who is eligible to vote does ANYTHING other than vote for one of the viable candidates, including stay home, it acts like a split vote evenly allocated between the viable candidates, which are almost always just the Democrat and Republican.

[Green Arrow]

If someone who is eligible to vote does ANYTHING other than vote for one of the viable candidates, including stay home, it acts like a split vote evenly allocated between the viable candidates, which are almost always just the Democrat and Republican.

Oh well. Back to the point - who cares? My vote is supposed to be cast for whichever candidate I want. As such, if I cast it for a third party or independent candidate, it's not wasted.

Simple.

[Mark III]

Oh well. Back to the point - who cares? My vote is supposed to be cast for whichever candidate I want. As such, if I cast it for a third party or independent candidate, it's not wasted.

Simple.

Whatever.

[maineman]

Is it? Would I have voted for Al Gore if Ralph Nader, or any other third party candidate, was on the ballot?

The answer is no, I would not, so I didn't give the election to G.W. Bush. You nominated a candidate that couldn't beat a village idiot from Texas. Stop blaming other people for your mistakes.

I am blaming them for THEIR mistakes, not mine. If they had wanted a better environmentally aware president, they voted in such a way as to guarantee the exact opposite.

[Crepitus]

My vote is my statement. I will cast it for whom I choose. I will not support a candidate I don't believe in no matter what letter is next to their name

[del]

if al gore's neighbors had voted for him, florida would have been moot.

i vote for candidates who most closely align with my views.

the letter after their name doesn't enter into the calculation.

[Green Arrow]

I am blaming them for THEIR mistakes, not mine. If they had wanted a better environmentally aware president, they voted in such a way as to guarantee the exact opposite.

I don't believe Al Gore would have been better for the environment than Ralph Nader.

Also, LOL at your arrogance. They made a mistake in choosing the candidate that they believed most aligned with their views? GTFO. This is why I have zero interest in voting for your candidates, I'm sick of the insults and the shitty attitudes you people give when I say no.

[JVV]

A vote for Ralph Nader in the general in 2000 is completely different from a vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary in 2016.

Sanders will not put his name on the official general election ballot and draw any votes away from the Democratic nominee. He will not help give the election to the Republican.



As a matter of fact, if Sanders is not the nominee, then I will be writing his name on my ballot. I won't be voting for Hillary. But I don't consider that vote a waste. If Hillary can't win the general without people like me, then Democrats need to think harder about nominating her. If she loses the election to the Republican nominee she will have lost because of her own baggage and inability to inspire trust.

[Mark III]

A vote for Ralph Nader in the general in 2000 is completely different from a vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary in 2016.

Sanders will not put his name on the official general election ballot and draw any votes away from the Democratic nominee. He will not help give the election to the Republican.



As a matter of fact, if Sanders is not the nominee, then I will be writing his name on my ballot. I won't be voting for Hillary. But I don't consider that vote a waste. If Hillary can't win the general without people like me, then Democrats need to think harder about nominating her. If she loses the election to the Republican nominee she will have lost because of her own baggage and inability to inspire trust.

People can rationalize it any way they want, but in America, if you do anything other than vote for one of the two party candidates, (or a potentially viable independent like Perot or maybe Bloomberg would be) , it is the same result as if you cast half a vote for the Republican and half a vote for the Democrat. That may not be what people want to hear, but, whatever.

[maineman]

I don't believe Al Gore would have been better for the environment than Ralph Nader.

Also, LOL at your arrogance. They made a mistake in choosing the candidate that they believed most aligned with their views? GTFO. This is why I have zero interest in voting for your candidates, I'm sick of the insults and the shitty attitudes you people give when I say no.

And I don't believe that Gore would have been better for the environment that Nader would. I DO believe that he would have been better that Dubya WAS. Five thousand greenies in New Hampshire who apparently cared a great deal about the environment effectively elected the worst candidate possible for the environment. That is worse than throwing your vote away, it is tantamount with giving your vote to the candidate who least reflects your views. Voting isn't about giving yourself a warm and fuzzy feeling about what a great citizen YOU are, it's about participating in electing the president who would best address your concerns. Greenies in New Hampshire, I am sure, are still feeling warm and fuzzy about their 2000 Nader vote. Good for them. I wouldn't cross the road to piss on any of them if they were on fire. It's because of them that we went to war in Iraq and that we suffered 37K American casualties. Fuck 'em all.

[JVV]

People can rationalize it any way they want, but in America, if you do anything other than vote for one of the two party candidates, (or a potentially viable independent like Perot or maybe Bloomberg would be) , it is the same result as if you cast half a vote for the Republican and half a vote for the Democrat. That may not be what people want to hear, but, whatever.

In a system where there is not much difference between voting for a Democrat and voting for a Republican, the only way that my vote has any chance of meaning anything is by showing the parties that I AM a voter but they cannot take my vote for granted.

If Hillary needs my vote to win, then what a pathetic candidate she is, and shame on the Democrats for choosing her instead of choosing someone who would have given voters a person to actually vote FOR.


If Democrats show me that they are trustworthy, I will vote for their candidate.

If they show me that they are not trustworthy, then I will not.

It's that simple.

[Green Arrow]

And I don't believe that Gore would have been better for the environment that Nader would. I DO believe that he would have been better that Dubya WAS. Five thousand greenies in New Hampshire who apparently cared a great deal about the environment effectively elected the worst candidate possible for the environment. That is worse than throwing your vote away, it is tantamount with giving your vote to the candidate who least reflects your views. Voting isn't about giving yourself a warm and fuzzy feeling about what a great citizen YOU are, it's about participating in electing the president who would best address your concerns. Greenies in New Hampshire, I am sure, are still feeling warm and fuzzy about their 2000 Nader vote. Good for them. I wouldn't cross the road to piss on any of them if they were on fire. It's because of them that we went to war in Iraq and that we suffered 37K American casualties. Fuck 'em all.

Persuasive argument. I'll definitely hold my nose and vote for your nominee in November regardless of my feelings about them.

Actually, I'm quite sick of partisans insulting and throwing tantrums like petulant children when I say no. Earn my vote or fuck off. You aren't entitled to my vote.

Also, how fucking Christian is that, pastor?

[maineman]

Your vote is all yours. Own it, but then also fully own the consequences of it. If you want your vote to MATTER, then own up to what your vote made happen. If you don't want to vote for either a democrat or a republican, it is certainly no skin off my ass. I could give a fuck. I own MY vote and I take responsibility for it, and all that it cause to happen as a result of it. You are suggesting that New Hampshire greenies should proudly own their votes, but somehow not be accountable for the carnage that their votes inevitably caused. "Gosh, officer... sure, I rolled that giant snowball off the top of this big hill, but how was I supposed to know that it might get bigger and bigger and crash into the school that sat at the bottom of the hill directly in its path killing a bunch of kids. Certainly their blood is not on MY hands!" Well... if you hadn't rolled the big snowball off the top of the big hill in the first place, the kids would still be alive, so yeah... it really is.

[Green Arrow]

Your vote is all yours. Own it, but then also fully own the consequences of it. If you want your vote to MATTER, then own up to what your vote made happen. If you don't want to vote for either a democrat or a republican, it is certainly no skin off my ass. I could give a fuck. I own MY vote and I take responsibility for it, and all that it cause to happen as a result of it. You are suggesting that New Hampshire greenies should proudly own their votes, but somehow not be accountable for the carnage that their votes inevitably caused. "Gosh, officer... sure, I rolled that giant snowball off the top of this big hill, but how was I supposed to know that it might get bigger and bigger and crash into the school that sat at the bottom of the hill directly in its path killing a bunch of kids. Certainly their blood is not on MY hands!" Well... if you hadn't rolled the big snowball off the top of the big hill in the first place, the kids would still be alive, so yeah... it really is.

Believe what you want. Like I said...you want my vote, you earn it. Throwing tantrums and treating me like the second coming of Hitler won't earn you my vote.

[maineman]

and your little dig at my past religious employment is a cheap shot of which I would hope you are already ashamed. But probably not.

[maineman]

I am not here to convince you to vote for any-fucking-body. You're a big boy. Vote for whoever the fuck you want to vote for... or DON'T vote. I really - honestly- could care LESS.

[Green Arrow]

and your little dig at my past religious employment is a cheap shot of which I would hope you are already ashamed. But probably not.

Not in the slightest. You've brought it into plenty of discussions in the past and frankly, I feel it's relevant when you claim to be a pastor and want to hold that over people's heads but then say things like you wouldn't piss on someone if they were on fire just because they voted differently than you.

[maineman]

Not in the slightest. You've brought it into plenty of discussions in the past and frankly, I feel it's relevant when you claim to be a pastor and want to hold that over people's heads but then say things like you wouldn't piss on someone if they were on fire just because they voted differently than you.

if you could find one post where I EVER held my experience as a pastor over anyone's head, you'd be a big boy and go find such a post. Or.... you'd be a little boy and simply hem and haw and not back up that claim with anything other than bluster.

I know where I've got MY money.....lil' fella.

[Green Arrow]

if you could find one post where I EVER held my experience as a pastor over anyone's head, you'd be a big boy and go find such a post. Or.... you'd be a little boy and simply hem and haw and not back up that claim with anything other than bluster.

I know where I've got MY money.....lil' fella.

Sure. Give me some time to find the threads I'm thinking of and I'll get back to you on that.

In the meantime, you're awful defensive. Struck a nerve?

[maineman]

Sure. Give me some time to find the threads I'm thinking of and I'll get back to you on that.

In the meantime, you're awful defensive. Struck a nerve?

not in the least. I'll await the results of your searching.

[JVV]

I don't like the idea of people staying home. Of course that is their choice.

But if large numbers get out and vote -- and vote for someone one other than the corporatist establishment candidates -- then that sends a message.

If more people do that next time than this time, then that sends a bigger message.

Maybe one day it will be loud enough that the corporatist parties are forced to listen.



Orrrrr ... maybe it won't come to that. Maybe they'll listen now. Maybe they'll take steps now to show that they actually want to involve us in the process and not just treat us as sheep to fleece.



If Democrats choose a candidate I can trust, then I will vote for the Democrats' candidate.

If they don't, then I won't.




Let's see what the Democrats do.

[Hal Jordan]

People can rationalize it any way they want, but in America, if you do anything other than vote for one of the two party candidates, (or a potentially viable independent like Perot or maybe Bloomberg would be) , it is the same result as if you cast half a vote for the Republican and half a vote for the Democrat. That may not be what people want to hear, but, whatever.

Why is that exactly? There are two possible reasons. 1: People are sold on the hype, and therefore stupid. 2:People don't have the balls to vote their conscience. Either way, it's a sad statement on America.

[Peter1469]

The problem with your analysis is that it assumes those people would have voted for one of the two major candidates if the third parties were not on the ballot, which is not a valid assumption.

Right, a lot of people stay home rather than support a corrupt system. What is the voter participation rate these days?

[Mac-7]

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
- John Quincy Adams

My principle is that the worst republican candidate in new hampshire would make a better president than bernie, hillary or joe.

[Mac-7]

Why is that exactly? There are two possible reasons. 1: People are sold on the hype, and therefore stupid.

2:People don't have the balls to vote their conscience. Either way, it's a sad statement on America.

Maybe you are the one who is too stupid or too indecisive to choose between the two candidates, one of which WILL win the election.

TBed by OP.

[midcan5]

Alfred E. Neuman 2016

"Most people are so lazy, they don't even exercise good judgement!" AEN

[donttread]

Mark III said in another thread that voting for Bernie Sanders is throwing your vote away. Republican partisans like Mac-7 have also expressed the idea that voting for a candidate that can't win, or voting third party, is throwing your vote away.

What does that mean, exactly? That suggests your vote is worthless, but since it is your vote, isn't that something only YOU can place a value judgement on?

See, to me, voting for Bernie Sanders or a third party isn't throwing my vote away, because that is what I believe in. No other vote could be as valuable as that one. To me, throwing my vote away would be voting for a candidate I can't stand and don't want to see anywhere near the White House, like Hillary Clinton.

The only true way to throw your vote away is to vote for a candidate you know to be somewhat corrupt and ineffective or who's belief you don't share because the DNC or RNC tells you to. People usually tell me that if I vote LP, I'm taking a vote away from the GOP. To which I respond, GREAT since the GOP is exactly half the problem!

[Mac-7]

The only true way to throw your vote away is to vote for a candidate you know to be somewhat corrupt and ineffective or who's belief you don't share because the DNC or RNC tells you to. People usually tell me that if I vote LP, I'm taking a vote away from the GOP. To which I respond, GREAT since the GOP is exactly half the problem!

The RNC does not tell me who to vote for.

I know you think you are smarter than the rest of us but you really arent.

Voters are choosing the best candidate on the ballot with a reasonable chance to win.

Some third party yoyo does not meet that standard

[Common]

Mark III said in another thread that voting for Bernie Sanders is throwing your vote away. Republican partisans like Mac-7 have also expressed the idea that voting for a candidate that can't win, or voting third party, is throwing your vote away.

What does that mean, exactly? That suggests your vote is worthless, but since it is your vote, isn't that something only YOU can place a value judgement on?

See, to me, voting for Bernie Sanders or a third party isn't throwing my vote away, because that is what I believe in. No other vote could be as valuable as that one. To me, throwing my vote away would be voting for a candidate I can't stand and don't want to see anywhere near the White House, like Hillary Clinton.

WHOEVER an individual wants to vote for and does is not throwing your vote away. Its called the freedom to vote for who you choose.

[nic34]

There are different ways of looking at it. On that other thread someone said they were going to vote for the Green Party candidate.

0.71%
2.74%
0.10%
0.12%
0.36%

Those are the percentages of the vote won by the Green Party over the past 20 years, or the length of their existence in the presidential elections, starting with 1996.

So a vote for the Green Party effects the election only in the sense that it might have gone somewhere else, but in absence of knowing where we have to "allocate" that vote evenly among all the other candidates.

People can and should vote for the Green Party or another minor party if they want, but the truth is one could say it is more like splitting your vote between the Democrats and Republicans than anything else.

If you are talking about an alternative "party" then don't you think building it from the ground up, creating a solid foundation is the best way to go? Why do you think no one has ever attained higher than a mayorship in the US?

[Hal Jordan]

Maybe you are the one who is too stupid or too indecisive to choose between the two candidates, one of which WILL win the election.

TBed by OP.
For everyone else who reads this, no, I have a firm belief in what I believe is right, and if the candidates from both parties are against that, I can not support them. It's not stupidity or indecisiveness to go against those that will increase harm to the country. Giving a damn whether it is a D or R or something else after their name is stupidity and indecisiveness.

[Hal Jordan]

The RNC does not tell me who to vote for.

I know you think you are smarter than the rest of us but you really arent.

Voters are choosing the best candidate on the ballot with a reasonable chance to win.

Some third party yoyo does not meet that standard

Maybe voters are choosing the candidate with the best chance to win, but that is fucked up, and the exact opposite of what this country was founded on. Go ahead, partisans, and go against everything the founding fathers as a collective (as determined by what they eventually agreed on). I will have no part of your bullshit.

[donttread]

I will vote for who I think is best and not settle for who the Establishment wants me to vote for.

That is how we get the clowns winning nominations.

It's a good sign that two of the three most discussed candidates are non-mainstream.

[Peter1469]

It's a good sign that two of the three most discussed candidates are non-mainstream.

It is. It shows that the Establishment is losing grip on the main parties- its puppets.