Still think voting 3rd party or not...

[Mayo]

voting doesn't matter? Think again!

99% Precincts Reporting
Jim Webb Democrat 1,141,052 (50%)
George Allen (i) Republican 1,138,676 (49%)
Glenda Parker Independent Grassroots 25,512 (1%)


Next time you might want to actually have your vote count and mean something.

 

[real_name]

I'm sorry but just because 49% and 1% of (probably) 30% of the electorate doesn't agree with your particular politics doesn't mean someone shouldn't vote for an alternative to the BUMS that are presently crying into their milk tonight.

Goodnight.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

That sucks (assuming the majority of the 3rd party voters would have voted for the republican).

 

[Mayo]

real name,

All it means is that IF you were 1 of the 3rd party voters or non voters and you DIDN'T want 1 party or the other to win, then you COULD have made a difference with your vote instead of having it decided for you by essentially what amounts to a non vote. Just the way it is. Poll could have been 1% the other way just as easy. In fact, this 1 race COULD decide the whole control of the Senate in the end, so it matters more then what you portray.

 

[Wedcopan]

Their votes did count. They requested change. I (and many others on this board) share in that desire.

Continuing to throw your support behind people who are doing things you don't approve of is not among the most efficient ways to get them to stop.


EDIT: I know nothing of Glenda Parker's politics and, therefore, do not know if I would consider her better then status quo. My main point is that as long as people consider 3rd parties a waste of a vote, it will be and that idea of 3rd parties will not be changed by voting R/D

 

[ArmedBear]

vote for an alternative to the BUMS

A vote for Glenda Parker is a vote for FREEDOM!

Yeah, right.

Want to vote for the Democrat, go ahead. But be honest with yourself.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

......

 

[North Texan]

Looks to me like that shows voting for a 3rd Party does make a difference. All the loser had to do was pick up a few more issues that matter to independents instead of catering to the party line, and he could have won.

 

[tyme]

Did it occur to you that some of those 25k LP voters may not want a Republican in office either?

Game theory. Even if one of those 25k voters knew those results ahead of time, why should he vote Republican? One vote doesn't matter. Unless a bloc of at least ~2.5k LP voters colluded and switched their votes, the outcome wouldn't change.

So, you might argue that every LP voter should vote Republican because the LP voting bloc does have a significant chance of affecting close races. But that doesn't work. Say you've convinced every LP voter they should switch to Republican. Once that LP voter gets to the polls, that agreement breaks down. The chance that a voter's single vote is going to matter is still vanishingly small, so it very well might make philosophical sense for the voter to make a statement by voting Libertarian.

Your complaints are better directed at our lousy voting system, which encourages tactical and dishonest voting, and helps keep the two degenerate parties in power.

 

[ArmedBear]

It's not.

Allen is the incumbent, and apart from being a tool lately, was not poised for being booted out.

 

[Mayo]

Their votes did count. They requested change. I (and many others on this board) share in that desire.

??????????Just what change exactly did the 25,000 3rd party voters and countless non voters want? The Democrat or Republican, because they were the only 2 viable options. Pretty simple concept to follow here. Only 1---D or R is/was going to win. IF---again IF you didn't want 1 or the other to win then you should have:
1. Voted at all
2. Voted for R or D

 

[real_name]

You know, I used to firmly adhere to the belief that it doesn't matter who you vote for, that the government always gets in..
Then I grew up some.

Their is no such thing as a no-vote.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NO-VOTE.

Just because someone votes for the absolute minority, it counts against, and hopefully against the BUMS.

Speaker Pelosi.

New tide turning...

 

[ArmedBear]

tyme-

The problem with Libertarian voting strategy is that tactics, game theory and philosophy are unthinkingly swapped for each other based on the moment's emotion.

Don't give us too much credit. We don't deserve it.

 

[tyme]

I might as well tell all freedom-loving people to vote libertarian. If they all took my advice, Libs would show up in a lot more offices.

We vote Libertarian for the same reason you vote Republican. As a matter of fact, we have more reason to complain than you, because we get screwed -- by Democrat and Republican voters alike -- out of just about every single election, while you only get screwed in an occasional close race.

 

[Evil_Ed]

Simple, with enough votes going to the Libertarian party the vote whore politicians in the Democrat and Republican parties will attempt to woo those swing votes by moving closer to the Libertarian position. Playing the long game as opposed to compromising constantly and losing a little bit of ground at a time.

 

[ArmedBear]

tyme-

Another weakness of Libertarians is that we can't handle or even fathom criticism from friends. The response is a robotic litany of standard complaints and truisms, none of which get us any closer to having real influence, or, God forbid, someone in office.

Because I didn't echo your trust cues, you assumed I am a Republican or Democrat. Read my post again.

 

[Wedcopan]

??????????Just what change exactly did the 25,000 3rd party voters and countless non voters want? The Democrat or Republican, because they were the only 2 viable options. Pretty simple concept to follow here. Only 1---D or R is/was going to win. IF---again IF you didn't want 1 or the other to win then you should have:
1. Voted at all
2. Voted for R or D

What about voting for whom you think is the best man for the job? Oh, never mind...

Besides, voting for a losing third party can make a difference. Using the Texas Gubernatorial race as an example. Kinky Friedman (I) and Strayhorn (I) received a combined 39% of the votes. That lets other 3rd party hopefuls know that Texas just might be ready for an independent governor, just not one of these independent governors.

I, personally, vote for who I want to win. But, in all honesty, I am still young and idealistic and I am willing to admit I don't have it all figured out.

 

[ArmedBear]

Ed, playing a long game involves more than miming a granite block. It involves tactics, and even compromises -- the right ones, though.

Libertarians aren't playing the game, at all. Something to think about.

 

[Mayo]

[Did it occur to you that some of those 25k LP voters may not want a Republican in office either?
/QUOTE]

Please grasp the concept of the meaning of the original post. Doesn't matter whether the 3rd party would have gone to the R or the D! Let's say the following:

D candidate----150,000
R candidate----149,999

I candidate----3,000

Now is it hard to follow that IF some of the 3,000 absoluetly did not want R or D to win over the other, that by voting R or D their vote would have actually determined something. Their first choice would have been I, but then knowing I has 0 chance SOME might want to consider their 2nd option if they hate the 3rd?!

 

[real_name]

It really doesn't matter if 150 million vote Dem and 149,999,999 vote Republican... or whatever ratio of banality you prefer.

One vote for a third party is NOT a wasted vote.

The sooner the great American public realizes that the better.

One vote, one say, it's not wasted.

 

[tyme]

Mayo, races are never 150k to 149,999. If they are, a recount will yield different results. Basically, if the election is close enough that your vote matters, it's lost in the noise of tallying error.

Armedbear, I was responding to Mayo both times.

 

[Alex45ACP]

You're right. Next time around I'll be sure to vote for the **** sandwich instead of the ********.

 

[Mayo]

real name, tyme, others...

Let me ask you your answer to a simple scenario. You are in a class of 61 students who the class is voting on to be in charge. Now you know for a fact that either student A or student B is going to win because you've talked to the other students. Now you absolutely HATE student A and whatever happens you wouldn't want them to win. Student B you aren't crazy about either but at least better then A. Now you and 1 other student would prefer you to be the winner---are you really, knowing the possible results of your vote, going to vote for yourself even though you have 0 shot? What would you think if the final result was:

Student A----30
Student B----29
You-----------2

 

[real_name]

Mayo.

I would vote with my heart.

As I did in the US election.

But any element of futility would not enter into it, neither Diebold or slim odds should prevent you from voting with your instinct.

Why should anyone vote with the herd, just to let the herd win, regardless of allegiance?

 

[tyme]

Mayo, the probability of casting a deciding vote in an electorate of 61 people is significant enough to merit tactical voting.

However, the proper tactic in that situation is to hold the election using a voting system like range voting or one of the better condorcet variants.

There's also the matter of having personal contact with the other voters. I routinely lie to people in real life about how I vote, depending on whether I have a chance in Hades of opening their minds to the possibility of 3rd party voting, etc. I'm not likely to engage in that sort of deception for small informal votes.

You're also forgetting that nobody knows the election results ahead of time. You're treating as a given a situation which, before the fact, has a fairly low probability. Then you're chaining to that a much lower-probability event: that you can get a good chunk of Libertarian voters to defect (or un-defect, depending on your perspective).