Third Parties and Wasted Votes
Print ViewWelcome back after an extra week off blogging! Today's topic is just in time for the elections: is a vote for a third-party candidate a wasted vote?
A "third party," of course, is any party besides the Democratic and Republican parties. So, why do they exist? If you vote for a third-party candidate, doesn't that mean that you are helping to defeat the better of the two major-party candidate? In other words, if you think Barack Obama is better than John McCain but vote for a third-party candidate, aren't you taking your vote away from Obama and thus helping McCain to win? If you think George Winner will be okay but John Tonello will be terrible, but then vote for a really cool third-party candidate you know can't win, isn't that helping Tonello? After all, you could have voted for Winner...
Grab a pen and paper and jot down your thoughts AS YOU READ these two articles (or print them and highlight them). Then from your notes write a good response: do you agree, disagree, or a little of both? Are the writers telling it straight or are they slanting their stories? Remeber Proverbs 18:17: "the first to plead his cause seems just, until another comes and examines him."
The first article is from a Canadian running under a third-party call "the Christian Political Party Union." Her article is titled "The Myth of the Wated Vote." The second article is "3rd Parties: What They’re For and What They Do." You only need to read this second article to the last bullet point; you don't have to read the quotes and such, but you certainly may.
Remember: take some notes, write your opinions, and Monday bring in your notes and be ready to also discuss it in class!
I think voting for third party candidates could be worth it. I agree with the first article in that it mentioned not compromising and not choosing the lesser of two evils by compromising. I had never thought of it that way before and the second article also said that you shouldn't go away from voting feeling 'dirty.' When I vote I want to feel good about the choice I made no matter if that person wins or not. Also mentioning the part about keeping the 3rd party ballots on the polls i think is very important too. It may not seem like any christian 3rd parties are getting anywhere but it is a lot better than doing nothing. nothing will ever start to change in america if we just watch it happen and give up just because no 3rd party has been voted in on a national level. even if it starts small i think we should keep trying, and God can do anything so who knows? maybe there will be 2 candidates that everyone hates so much that no one wants to vote for either and out of nowhere a 3rd party gets in, highly unlikely but you never know. I think 3rd parties are worth trying for if there is a descent person running, i don't think we should give up on them, and even if no 3rd party gets elected in a big race it's still worth making your voice heard. As to if the writers stretched it a little, it seemed like they were just a titch. they sort of made it sound like the 3rd party was the only descent ppl running, that might be true in a lot of cases but not always. the other perk to a 3rd party is that they don't have to compromise their beliefs to get votes. the big party candidates pretty much always don't tell the whole truth, change their minds, or simply compromise things that have stood for because they had to get the votes and please everyone. 3rd party can say what they believe in and get votes for their true honest to goodness beliefs and not just what things seem to be. the big parties are equally as important but sometimes we may need to 'think outside the box' w/ third parties because nothing in life except God is certain and as i said before you never know what can happen.
Posted by Gracie — Oct 29, 2008 02:16
I also think that voting for a third party candidate could be worth it if u agree with what they stand and dont agree with what the major candidates stand for. But i also agree that it is sort of wasting your vote because they usually dont win. "If you think the Republican or the Democrat candidate really does best mirror your beliefs, by all means, vote for that candidate. But if you don't, and you still vote for them, you're helping to preserve the status quo you probably despise."That is pretty much what i think.
Posted by carrie — Oct 30, 2008 19:54
I disagree that voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. If an eligible voter dislikes the major party candidates, then they should still exercise their voting rights for a third party candidate. However, I think it might not be good to have third party candidates because the voter might be too careless in deciding to vote for them. They might see a third party candidate as a quick solution and not bother to check out the history of the major party candidates. However, as the article says, you will not go away "feeling dirty" if you didn't want to vote for a major party. I've watched some of the debates, and I think that sometimes the candidates say things about issues that they know the people want to hear, whether it's true or not, just so they'll win more votes. As for the writers telling it straight, yes, I think they are being very honest about their personal opinions. I think it is good that we have third party candidates. Like the article says, they "keep the pressure on" and give the major parties "leverage and ideas and [emphasize] principles they tend to abandon or ignore."
Posted by Brittney S. — Oct 30, 2008 20:26
In my opinion, voting for third party candidates is not really a waisted vote. Aaron Bitterman tells us that the only waisted vote is the unprincipled vote. I really think that if we don't really agree with any of the major party candidates that we should vote for the third party candidates if the elections have a third party candidate. Bitterman tells us that if we don't agree with any of the third party candidates but we vote for them, we are just helping to preserve the status quo. That pretty much sums up the reason why voting for a third party candidate is no t always a waisted vote.
Posted by Brian — Nov 01, 2008 22:59
I disagree with people that say voting 3rd party is a wasted vote. If the candidate you're voting for is someone that has beliefs and qualities that you truly want and agree with, it doesn't matter what party they are, your vote is not wasted. The writer of the first article was kind of a bad writer, and seemed to avoid a few facts, they did have a couple good points. They repeatedly said "The lesser of two evils is still evil", to prove that yo should not vote for one major party candidate simply because they're a little better than the other major party candidate. If you can find a third party candidate that you fully agree with, then vote for them. Regardless of their chances of winning or not. If the polls come out and people see that alot of people actually voted for a third party candidate, then it might encourage them to check the person out, and it might also intimidate the major party candidates. Voting for a third party candidate could also encourage the candidate to run again the next election, where he might have more votes. I agree with that the only wasted vote is a vote against your own principles. Voting for your beliefs, regardless of the chances of winning, is the best way to go. "If you want change, then create change. "
Posted by Elise — Nov 02, 2008 15:41
I read the two articles as well as the comments written prior to this one. I to agree, that third party votes are not wasted votes. In the first article, Bitterman stated that, the only vote that is a wasted vote, is the one with no pupose, no reasoning for it. I totally agree with that thought. As well as the idea that voting for a third party candidate is smarter than voting for a lesser of two evils(Republican and Democrat). We should not vote, thinking that our choice is going to decide who wins. We should be voting rather, to make a statement to others who we want to be running our country, and if that decision results in you voting for a third party candidate, so be it!
Posted by Danyule — Nov 03, 2008 21:08
I don't think voting for a third party candidate or voting for "the lesser of two evils" is a wasted vote. If we went on that basis how many people would vote? It is true that your one vote will not be the deciding vote but you can atleast vote for what you think is right. There could be 1,000 random people that believe in the same thing and if they didnt vote just because they thought their vote didn't make a difference, well thats minus 1,000 votes for that candidate. But if everyone went out and voted thats better for the person they support. It is deffinately not a wasted vote...in my opinion. I think that everyone should get out and vote and encourage others to vote also, and I guarantee you will make a difference.
Posted by Jordan — Nov 03, 2008 23:01
I completely agree with the first article in that voting for the lesser of two evils is wrong. It may seem useless since that theres no way they will win, but theres also no way that your vote will be the winning ballot. Voting is solely for voicing your opinion, by voting for a third party candidate, you show that you do not support the other two candidates. Another good point that the article makes is that the only way to waste your vote is to not vote at all, not by voting for a third party candidate.
Posted by Ethan — Nov 03, 2008 23:53
I believe that it is important to vote for who represents you. I believe that having different parties is a bad idea. We should be voting for people that we feel represent our own ideas, not because they are in the more or less conservative party. Party labels put extra emphasis on a candidates possibly not so stressed issues. They limit the number of candidates. So, in a sense, I believe all politicions should be third-party candidates: part of a special, not so cliched group that truly represents them...which is the same way we vote, because that is what our votes are: representations what we believe because we should vote for the person with the most of our values.
Posted by Seth, the Jeenior — Nov 03, 2008 23:56
Let me be the contrarian here and say that I think third party voting is just plain selfish. Perhaps you get the illusion of having cast a principled vote for someone who more fully represents your views but no matter how you look at it you are assissting the greater evil. The first article mentioned a couple of times that a third party candidate either won or successfully took a large share of the vote. Resulting in what? When Jesse Ventura won the election as governor of Minnesota he went in without any help in the state legislature. Making him unable to get anything done. Ineffective government. Ross Perot gave us two elections that Bill Clinton won without a majority of the vote. Therefore HE appointed the judges to the Supreme Court. To actually achieve a change on the court that may overturn Roe vs. Wade we need to be able to get a majority, not just keep replacing the ones that already conservatives. If third party presidential candidate actually won, who will side with him? No one. One man with no party in congress is completely useless. Third parties cannot come from nowhere and try to win the big elections. If these parties are serious they have to run for state offices and congress and build their party to an effective level.Otherwise they should keep their movements WITHIN one of the larger parties. Running for president when you have no real party behind you is nothing but a run for vanity's sake.You don't play the championship game first and you shouldn't for president without representatives in congress. Voting for a third party for president is pure selfishness and delusional no matter how puritanical your intentions. The only thing worse is running for president on a third party ticket.
Posted by Sidney Allen Johnson — Nov 18, 2008 17:31