2 ms·

You would have only made a difference in 2000 if you lived in Florida. And even then I would argue that if you really didn't believe in Al Gore, you shouldn't f

You would have only made a difference in 2000 if you lived in Florida. And even then I would argue that if you really didn't believe in Al Gore, you shouldn't feel compelled to vote for him. The president should be the candidate the most people really believe is best. Not someone who wins through tactical voting and crushing better third parties.

mikeash 10y ago
A lot of states in 2000 had more votes for third parties than the gap between the two major candidates. I happened to vote in one, although it went for Gore anyway. A decent number of people had the idea that they should vote for who they liked rather than voting for the least bad major candidate. And the result of this idea was a major disaster for the country. I agree, the president should be the candidate most people believe is best. Voters should be able to cast their vote in good conscience without tactical considerations. Third parties should be more than a joke. But so what? A bunch of shoulds and $5 will get you a Starbucks latte. The system is built such that third parties are not viable. You can either use this knowledge to cast your vote productively, or you can ignore it and waste your time. I'd be all for electoral reform that gives third parties a chance by eliminating the ridiculous first-past-the-post system we have now, but that's a separate question. Casting a pointless vote for a third party does nothing to change the system. Indeed, it basically takes you and your views out of play for the major parties. If people who think that we need electoral reform reliably vote for third parties, then the people who actually wield power will know that they can ignore electoral reform as an issue, because that demographic is unavailable to them regardless. The system sucks, but it's what we have. Pretending it doesn't work the way it does is not the same as reforming it.

mikeash 10y ago

A lot of states in 2000 had more votes for third parties than the gap between the two major candidates. I happened to vote in one, although it went for Gore anyway. A decent number of people had the idea that they should vote for who they liked rather than voting for the least bad major candidate. And the result of this idea was a major disaster for the country. I agree, the president should be the candidate most people believe is best. Voters should be able to cast their vote in good conscience without tactical considerations. Third parties should be more than a joke. But so what? A bunch of shoulds and $5 will get you a Starbucks latte. The system is built such that third parties are not viable. You can either use this knowledge to cast your vote productively, or you can ignore it and waste your time. I'd be all for electoral reform that gives third parties a chance by eliminating the ridiculous first-past-the-post system we have now, but that's a separate question. Casting a pointless vote for a third party does nothing to change the system. Indeed, it basically takes you and your views out of play for the major parties. If people who think that we need electoral reform reliably vote for third parties, then the people who actually wield power will know that they can ignore electoral reform as an issue, because that demographic is unavailable to them regardless. The system sucks, but it's what we have. Pretending it doesn't work the way it does is not the same as reforming it.