US elections: What's wrong with voting for independents (or third party)?

It always seems my friends who vote for independents get made fun of. I never understood what's so wrong with voting for someone, whose views you agree with? I don't think it matters if they have a worse chance of winning.

There is nothing "wrong" with it. It is kind of throwing away your vote though unless you just care about principle.

About 40% of americans when polled actually agree with the policies of either party.

So 60% of people shouldn't vote for democrat or for the GOP.

Independant parties are held down by the prominent two parties, and they've collaborated to stop any chances of them getting a high public opinion. Notice that Clintion only won because of the independant votes taking away from Bush, and then magically they were cut out of the next elections debates.

There is nothing wrong with voting independant.

There is nothing "wrong" with it. It is kind of throwing away your vote though unless you just care about principle.

Pirate700

^ this.

Nothing wrong. Its just that states have made it tough for third party candidates to get on the ballot.

They don't have a good chance at winning, if you vote for independant then it just seems you're wasting your vote on someone that can't win. I don't find anything wrong with voting for someone you like, but I do think it's a waste if he doesn't have a chance of winning

There is nothing "wrong" with it. It is kind of throwing away your vote though unless you just care about principle.

Pirate700

A third party candidate isn't going to win an election, but they still play an important part in elections.

You're basically making a protest vote . Nothing really comes of it . raiden509

The Democrats adopted the environmental platform because of Ralph Nader's third party getting a lot of popular votes.

Well, it technically is wasting a vote. Given that, I wouldn't do it unless I had absolutely no preference of either candidate within the actual race.

Many people think that voting for a third party is "wasting your vote". This is, of course, total bull**** and goes directly against EVERYTHING democracy is supposed to stand for. Just an idea the big parties like to perpetuate to keep the other parties down. If everyone voted for the party/people they really agreed with the most, instead of following this idiotic logic, maybe one of these "third parties" could have won already.
Its a good example of a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

Many people think that voting for a third party is "wasting your vote". This is, of course, total bull**** and goes directly against EVERYTHING democracy is supposed to stand for. Just an idea the big parties like to perpetuate to keep the other parties down. If everyone voted for the party/people they really agreed with the most, instead of following this idiotic logic, maybe one of these "third parties" could have won already.
Its a good example of a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

Cataclism

I voted for an independent for Governor last time. I knew the Republican, who is a pretty decent candidate would win by like 80% (he did) so I decided to make a statement by voting for someone I really really liked. Pretty sure he got like 34 votes.

3rd parties and independents are really just a waste of time and money. Green party spilits the liberal vote, and Libetarain/Consitution/Tea party/ parties split the conservative vote.

Your candidate doesn't have to win to have an impact. What sways politicians on the issues is populations who vote. That's why so many past elections have been about social security and senior citizen issues, because they vote. You can say that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away, but if neither republicans or democrats represent you, you are throwing your vote away if you go with one of them. If a third party suddenly starts getting a significant amount of votes, the issues they stand for will have to be addressed.

The only independent I will ever support is Bernie Sanders

Because they most often rely upon gimmicks. And they never win.

Many people think that voting for a third party is "wasting your vote". This is, of course, total bull**** and goes directly against EVERYTHING democracy is supposed to stand for. Just an idea the big parties like to perpetuate to keep the other parties down. If everyone voted for the party/people they really agreed with the most, instead of following this idiotic logic, maybe one of these "third parties" could have won already.
Its a good example of a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

Cataclism

As hopeless the other parties appear to be (in terms of winning chances), it's good to know that people at least have another "option". It's not a secret that many people consider the Democrats and Republicans to be more alike than different.

Well, in congressional races they can fare a little better. Not too long ago there was a Green Party member in Congress (don't remember which house), and there are two independents in the Senate right now. I'm pretty sure they both started out as Democrats, though, then built up a solid voter base and caucus with Dems in order to keep some sort of financial support. Basically, third parties don't get elected, especially not in Presidential elections.

Many people think that voting for a third party is "wasting your vote". This is, of course, total bull**** and goes directly against EVERYTHING democracy is supposed to stand for. Just an idea the big parties like to perpetuate to keep the other parties down. If everyone voted for the party/people they really agreed with the most, instead of following this idiotic logic, maybe one of these "third parties" could have won already.
Its a good example of a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

Cataclism

If that weren't true then there would be a helluva lot more third party candidates in office right now. It's not just about wasting your vote, it's about the fact that if your third party candidate loses then the candidate that more closely reflects your values loses your vote as well, it's like a two-vote swing in favor of the people you don't want in office. There are plenty of things holding third parties in this country back, including but not limited to: campaign finance, voter recognition, voter apathy, media attention, and the electoral college. You get rid of the electoral college and do Presidential elections by popular vote, then create a finance system where every candidate is guaranteed an equal amount of media exposure, then MAYBE third parties could actually get somewhere.

It's because we're stuck in a two party system and every other party(Green, Libertarian, etc) just syphons votes from the Democrats/Republicans.

Because the electoral system heavily favors the two major parties to the point where voting for a third party is completely futile, and in many cases counterproductive. This unfortunate reality is why we desperately need proportional representation. -Sun_Tzu-

Because the electoral system heavily favors the two major parties to the point where voting for a third party is completely futile, and in many cases counterproductive. This unfortunate reality is why we desperately need proportional representation. -Sun_Tzu-

Given the fact that the fundamental electoral framework of America practically enshrines the two-party system in law, voting in favor of a person with no chance of winning increases the likelihood that someone who completely does not represent your views and interests will get elected as opposed to voting for the person who best represents your views and interests and who also has a chance to win.

That said, there's nothing wrong with it if you understand that fact and are OK with that.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Because the electoral system heavily favors the two major parties to the point where voting for a third party is completely futile, and in many cases counterproductive. This unfortunate reality is why we desperately need proportional representation. kayoticdreamz

It's not "failed" (I assume you mean "flawed") at all. Proportional representation or some other similar alternate type of voting removes the "spoiler" effect of third-party candidates by allowing the voter to state his real preference without indirectly voting against his or her own interests. The winner-take-all format of American elections is exactly what creates the problem stated in the opening post.

There's nothing wrong with voting for independents and third parties. Here in Australia, as of the last election, the independents and third party (Greens) effectively have as much power as the government, as the government cannot enact any legislation without full support of the Greens and Independents in both houses. Heck, thecurrent government got about half a million less votes than the opposition coalition, but they were put into power thanks to the Independents and Greens.

Most votes are "throw away" votes. Example: in Illinois voting for the Republican in the Presidential election is "throwing your vote away" as the Democratic candidate is going to take the state easily. In Texas vice-versa.

Not an American, but I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't understand the logic of "throwing your vote away" If everyone thinks that the non democrat/republican candidate reflects their choice, but are afraid that they will waste their vote. Then of course the democrats and republicans will always get elected. Vote with whom you think is the right choice, if everyone did that I think the U.S would have a more colourful administration.

3 problems w/ third parties.

1. They lack funding. The two main parties have so much funding from supporters, and default funding from special interest groups, and corporations that it's almost impossible for a 3rd party candidate to be competitive in a major election.

2. They tend to be extremest. While not true for all, most third party candidates are independent for a reason they are way off on the political scale. Ron Paul is a good example. He's so far out there on some issues that it completely ruins his chance of connecting with a majority of voters. I think there needs to be more moderate 3rd party candidates before we take 3rd parties seriously.

3. Outside of hot button issues most voters can't really tell the difference between the two parties anyway. They don't really represent what they stand for, and with corporations so embeded into our politics I don't think it really matters what party is in office they aren't really looking out for the good of the people.

3 problems w/ third parties.

1. They lack funding. The two main parties have so much funding from supporters, and default funding from special interest groups, and corporations that it's almost impossible for a 3rd party candidate to be competitive in a major election.

2. They tend to be extremest. While not true for all, most third party candidates are independent for a reason they are way off on the political scale. Ron Paul is a good example. He's so far out there on some issues that it completely ruins his chance of connecting with a majority of voters. I think there needs to be more moderate 3rd party candidates before we take 3rd parties seriously.

3. Outside of hot button issues most voters can't really tell the difference between the two parties anyway. They don't really represent what they stand for, and with corporations so embeded into our politics I don't think it really matters what party is in office they aren't really looking out for the good of the people.

jrhawk42

Well, in congressional races they can fare a little better. Not too long ago there was a Green Party member in Congress (don't remember which house), and there are two independents in the Senate right now. I'm pretty sure they both started out as Democrats, though, then built up a solid voter base and caucus with Dems in order to keep some sort of financial support. Basically, third parties don't get elected, especially not in Presidential elections.

theone86

Teddy Roosevelt's progressive party? He beat Taft but lost to Wilson.

Because the electoral system heavily favors the two major parties to the point where voting for a third party is completely futile, and in many cases counterproductive. This unfortunate reality is why we desperately need proportional representation. -Sun_Tzu-

I don't think it would work here but IRV would though.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Because the electoral system heavily favors the two major parties to the point where voting for a third party is completely futile, and in many cases counterproductive. This unfortunate reality is why we desperately need proportional representation. GabuEx

It's not "failed" (I assume you mean "flawed") at all. Proportional representation or some other similar alternate type of voting removes the "spoiler" effect of third-party candidates by allowing the voter to state his real preference without indirectly voting against his or her own interests. The winner-take-all format of American elections is exactly what creates the problem stated in the opening post.

Who says its a problem? Proportional representation has its own long lists of problems.. The system was designed in this way.. Not just in having pluralist elections but how our house and senate must have a clear majority vote to pass anything through..

[QUOTE="jrhawk42"]

3 problems w/ third parties.

1. They lack funding. The two main parties have so much funding from supporters, and default funding from special interest groups, and corporations that it's almost impossible for a 3rd party candidate to be competitive in a major election.

2. They tend to be extremest. While not true for all, most third party candidates are independent for a reason they are way off on the political scale. Ron Paul is a good example. He's so far out there on some issues that it completely ruins his chance of connecting with a majority of voters. I think there needs to be more moderate 3rd party candidates before we take 3rd parties seriously.

3. Outside of hot button issues most voters can't really tell the difference between the two parties anyway. They don't really represent what they stand for, and with corporations so embeded into our politics I don't think it really matters what party is in office they aren't really looking out for the good of the people.

m25105

It has nothing to do with freedom :| the use political system has been like this for a long time.. Having a third party is unfeasible for a multitude of reasons.. Furthermore our two parties are far more unique and different from a multi party system in different countries.. This is a candidate based system, party's are weak and only have a loose affiliation.. When in other countries you are voting for the party where many times there isn't a canadidate even listed on the ballot just the party.

i always find it weird usa only got 2 sides basically sweden got 7 main parties...well and now the nazi like one:( and tons of minor who dont get voted into the goverment i really prefer to have a selection of parties to vote on and people wont get made fun off for what they vote if i had to choose between just the 2 biggest parties in sweden id get pissed i rather have many small having to work togethermetalkitten

[QUOTE="metalkitten"]i always find it weird usa only got 2 sides basically sweden got 7 main parties...well and now the nazi like one:( and tons of minor who dont get voted into the goverment i really prefer to have a selection of parties to vote on and people wont get made fun off for what they vote if i had to choose between just the 2 biggest parties in sweden id get pissed i rather have many small having to work togethersSubZerOo

There is nothing "wrong" with it. It is kind of throwing away your vote though unless you just care about principle.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="metalkitten"]i always find it weird usa only got 2 sides basically sweden got 7 main parties...well and now the nazi like one:( and tons of minor who dont get voted into the goverment i really prefer to have a selection of parties to vote on and people wont get made fun off for what they vote if i had to choose between just the 2 biggest parties in sweden id get pissed i rather have many small having to work togethermetalkitten

No all candidates that run for offices (can be from president, senate, house representative, governor etc etc) can have differing views even if the are affiliated with the same party.. Obama may have some leadership in a national platform, but senate and house reps can have completely different platform (the issue focuses and political strategy) and quite often do disagree with Obama's intitiatives.. Thats why earmarks, an unpopular practice by the public, is involved in the bill process.. To get it to pass you have to at least have a majority agree on the bill even if its a clear party majority for the bill.. To do so things like earmarks by the person as a compromise to vote for it puts in a line of text that sends money towards the district or state they represent. Afterall there is a helluva difference between a New York Republican and the average Republican, and a Southern Democrat and a average democrat.. So in the end you can't make assumptions of the views of candidates regardless of their party affiliation.. Obama may be the "leader" of the party, but his word is not golden nor unopposed even in his own party...

A great example this is with the first district of West Viriginia.. Andrew Mollohan who lost in the last primary was a democrat for decades in this house representative seat.. West Virigina's first disitrict has huge coal productions and industry in general.. A favorite policy by the democrat party mainly is/was cap and trade.. Something he could never vote for, because his voting population would suffer for it due to depending off such industries.. Cap and trade if you don't know basically was a tax on carbon emmissions more or less as well as trying to limit them, a huge blow against something like the coal industry with his district.. So put into perspective, Mollohan could never support something like that unless for damn good reason, even if President Obama supports it.. This is why the United States system is a candidate based system, parties are not controlling factors of the candidates unlike many multi party systems around the globe... In the end all systems have their problems and a multi party system has its own share of problems.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="metalkitten"]i always find it weird usa only got 2 sides basically sweden got 7 main parties...well and now the nazi like one:( and tons of minor who dont get voted into the goverment i really prefer to have a selection of parties to vote on and people wont get made fun off for what they vote if i had to choose between just the 2 biggest parties in sweden id get pissed i rather have many small having to work togethermetalkitten

[QUOTE="metalkitten"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] They don't its a candidate based systems.. One democrat can be extremely different from another, just like how one republican can be extremely different from another. If that weren't the case there wouldn't be primaries in selecting the democrat or republican candidate to run for general election.

SF_KiLLaMaN

Technically speaking we don't vote for the president.. We vote for democrat or republican representatives into the electoral college.. In which they are expected to vote for the president.. Though there are times where a electoral will not vote what so ever, this is considered a faithless electoral.. Not all states allow this though where there can be some harsh legal penalties leveled at the person who disobeys the electoral choice.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"][QUOTE="metalkitten"] so basically the leader of usa if he is a democrat he dont need to follow what other democrats think - he do what he stand for personally? and thats why people elected him? so basically the most important part lies in to vote for the leader of the 2 main and then make sure that party wins?sSubZerOo

Technically speaking we don't vote for the president.. We vote for democrat or republican representatives into the electoral college.. In which they are expected to vote for the president.. Though there are times where a electoral will not vote what so ever, this is considered a faithless electoral.. Not all states allow this though where there can be some harsh legal penalties leveled at the person who disobeys the electoral choice.