6 ms·

I just had a small debate about this with some friends of mine. Let's imagine you live in a battleground state, and for the sake of argument, let's also assume

by Spoom 10y ago

I just had a small debate about this with some friends of mine. Let's imagine you live in a battleground state, and for the sake of argument, let's also assume that you're in one of the 48 states that are "winner take all" in that they assign all of their electoral college votes to the overall popular vote winner in that state. Say that state is Ohio. In 2012, the popular vote in Ohio was as follows (Source: Politico): B. Obama 50.1% M. Romney 48.2% G. Johnson 0.9% J. Stein 0.3% Let's say you're much more aligned with the Green Party platform. Why wouldn't you vote for Jill Stein? The answer is because your vote would likely otherwise go to Barack Obama, as the next closest candidate. So you're taking a vote away from Obama and putting it toward a candidate that has no chance of winning. If enough people do this, the second place candidate would win, in this case Mitt Romney. As a Green supporter, this would likely be the worst case scenario result. And yet, unintuitive as it is, your vote contributed to the candidate on the opposite side winning. "But if enough people voted Green, they would win," some cry. OK. Historically speaking, the Greens have averaged around this result... likely no more than 3% in any given state election. Do you really think that they're going to multiply their votes by several orders of magnitude by election day? This isn't the case in every electoral system; for example, in a Parliamentary system such as Canada's, you vote for your local MP, who runs on the basis of a riding, for which there are usually several within a city. The party that wins the most MP seats gets to form a government (PM, etc.) So the election becomes a much more local affair, rather than being a winner-take-all battle among the entire province, and results in practice in a multi-party system. Unfortunately, that's just not how US presidential elections work. The ridings are the size of an entire state, so your vote has less of an impact.

humanrebar 10y ago
> As a Green supporter, this would likely be the worst case scenario result. Confined to a single election. I have a theory that lately we're seeing the longer-term consequences of limiting agency to large sections of the population.
matwood 10y ago
Great explanation that I didn't have time to type up myself below. Thanks!
astazangasta 10y ago
The problem with strategic voting arguments are several: 1) There is a clear value to voting Green in terms of building the party. The more people vote Green, the more visible the success of the party, the better they do in future elections. Not all of what happens in an election need be about winning the current contest. 2) The idea of a linear political spectrum with candidates neatly arranged from 'good' to 'worse' to 'bad' is bunkum. In particular Libertarians are an obvious divergence from this model (and often emphasize this), and this strategic voting argument makes zero sense in their case. Greens also are generally quite different from Democrats ideologically (notably on war); the idea that a Democrat is a 'better compromise' is vulgar to many. 3) If a party wants your votes, generally they should take up the positions you favor, not refuse to countenance them on the belief that duty requires you to vote for them. 4) Mitt Romney is looking pretty good right now, even compared to Clinton.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  > 1) There is a clear value to voting Green in terms of building the party. The more people vote Green, the more visible the success of the party, the better they do in future elections. Not all of what happens in an election need be about winning the current contest. That makes sense in the abstract. In concrete reality, Trump is going to do his best to persecute hundreds of thousands of Americans, notably Hispanics and Arabs. (I don't say "Muslims" because I don't think his policies, or the people carrying them out, will recognize a functional distinction.) Shall we tell those people as they're being persecuted and deported that their suffering is okay, because they're contributing to the Greens possibly having a chance at winning in 20 years? I don't think we can reasonably ask that of people.
  - astazangasta 10y ago
    This is exactly the same thing we hear every election. You can't climb a hill if you don't ever try to go up. Of course I don't believe in elections so this whole debate is academic to me. In a world with ALEC and WPP, elections have nothing to do with governance.
    - 10y ago
corysama 10y ago
AKA: The Problem with First-Past-The-Post Voting http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
rbcgerard 10y ago
This strategy makes sense in battleground states but what about in the opposite case (say hawaii (very D) or wyoming (very R)) - I'd argue that by voting for the third party candidate is the better option as you are unlikely to change the outcome of the election one way or the other - but you reduce the mandate of the winner that you are less aligned with, and by marginally improving the showing of the third party, make it more likely that mainstream candidates will want to address issues of concern to a newly visible voting block?
- Spoom 10y ago
  I would agree that it matters less in non-battleground states, and could have the effects mentioned. This, in general, causes one of the two parties to absorb some of the causes put forward by the third party, which is one of the reasons the system tends to centralize toward two parties.
  - ascagnel_ 10y ago
    To a degree, this has already happened. Some planks of Clinton's platform came directly from Sanders (I'm thinking of revamping college tuition and enhancing other social safety nets specifically).
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Sanders is not a "third party", but a Democratic candidate. The effect unsuccessful major party campaigns have an on the major party despite failing to secure the nomination is a different issue than the effect of third parties on major parties.
- ende 10y ago
  Exactly. The general third party and independent share of the vote is a metric that should be tracked more visibly.
Diederich 10y ago
Spot on analysis. I tend to go with a concrete example: Florida in 2000.
- lostinny 10y ago
  537 votes. That was the official difference between Bush and Gore in Florida, out of almost 6 million votes cast. Nearly 100,000 people voted for Nader. These Nader supporters of course had every right to vote how they wanted, but the prevailing argument at the time by Nader was that there was essentially no difference between Gore and Bush and it was time to send a message to the "establishment." However you feel about Bush, I think history makes it plain that 1) there was likely a huge difference between a Bush and a potential Gore presidency, and 2) while it may be nice to simply send a message with your vote, we should remember that 0.0000895% of the electorate of a single state can determine the outcome.
  - Diederich 10y ago
    Right. I've engaged in a couple of such discussions on reddit. To say I'm unhappy with the two major candidates would be a huge understatement. But no matter how strong our emotions are about such things, should be extremely clear-headed about what our vote means. And, the point I try to hammer home, that we each need to take full responsibility for the result of our vote. If you want to vote to 'let the world burn', as quite a few Bernie supporters are talking, so be it. If you want to vote to 'send a message', so be it. If things go very badly after November, then you're not allowed to say "my vote didn't really matter" or "I had no choice but to vote the way I did." Own your vote; make it, and accept responsibility for your portion of the outcome. 537 out of 100,000 Nader voters in 2000 changed the world, and not in a good way, in my strongly held opinion at least.
logfromblammo 10y ago
You have unstated assumptions embedded in your post. You are not taking a vote away from Obama when you vote for Stein. It is far more likely that Obama is actually taking votes away from Stein, as Green party supporters vote strategically, because their 2nd choice is better than their 3rd or 4th choice. Until such time as any US state implements a ranked-choice voting system, you have no way of knowing whether the candidate receiving the vote is actually someone's first choice, or a strategic vote for the second-to-last choice. First-past-the-post voting essentially means that the 2 major parties are always stealing away almost all the votes that would have otherwise been cast for lesser parties. So a vote for Stein is actually "refusing to let Democrats steal your Green vote". You can't steal it away from the Democrats, because it wasn't theirs to begin with.
ende 10y ago
The problem has more to do with the mechanics of plurality voting than presidential vs parliamentary systems. Parliamentary systems can and are subject to the same winner take all mechanics. The scenario you outline would best be remedied via a ranked voting method such as IRV or approval voting. The one thing I would incorporate from some parliamentary systems into the US system is proportional representation. PR + IRV = more equitable representation of non-gamified votes.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> This isn't the case in every electoral system; for example, in a Parliamentary system such as Canada's, you vote for your local MP, who runs on the basis of a riding, for which there are usually several within a city. The party that wins the most MP seats gets to form a government (PM, etc.) So the election becomes a much more local affair, rather than being a winner-take-all battle among the entire province, and results in practice in a multi-party system. Parliamentary systems with FPTP also tend toward two-party systems locally, though there is somewhat more variation nationally sometimes. (The US also had some variation nationally, especially before the Missouri Farmer-Labor Party joined the national Democratic Party.) IF you want multiparty elections locally as well as nationally -- if you want more than two meaningful choices when you go into the ballot box -- you need something better than FPTP as a voting system (IRV with single-seat constituencies is like the smallest and least meaningful step in a positive direction, but STV with multiseat constituencies does better.)
- Spoom 10y ago
  Agreed, and I would love to move to a more proportional voting system. Ontario had a vote a while back to move to mixed-member proportional but the folks behind it failed to explain it well enough for people to understand, in my opinion, so it failed.

by Spoom 10y ago

humanrebar 10y ago

> As a Green supporter, this would likely be the worst case scenario result. Confined to a single election. I have a theory that lately we're seeing the longer-term consequences of limiting agency to large sections of the population.

matwood 10y ago

Great explanation that I didn't have time to type up myself below. Thanks!

astazangasta 10y ago

The problem with strategic voting arguments are several: 1) There is a clear value to voting Green in terms of building the party. The more people vote Green, the more visible the success of the party, the better they do in future elections. Not all of what happens in an election need be about winning the current contest. 2) The idea of a linear political spectrum with candidates neatly arranged from 'good' to 'worse' to 'bad' is bunkum. In particular Libertarians are an obvious divergence from this model (and often emphasize this), and this strategic voting argument makes zero sense in their case. Greens also are generally quite different from Democrats ideologically (notably on war); the idea that a Democrat is a 'better compromise' is vulgar to many. 3) If a party wants your votes, generally they should take up the positions you favor, not refuse to countenance them on the belief that duty requires you to vote for them. 4) Mitt Romney is looking pretty good right now, even compared to Clinton.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago
> 1) There is a clear value to voting Green in terms of building the party. The more people vote Green, the more visible the success of the party, the better they do in future elections. Not all of what happens in an election need be about winning the current contest. That makes sense in the abstract. In concrete reality, Trump is going to do his best to persecute hundreds of thousands of Americans, notably Hispanics and Arabs. (I don't say "Muslims" because I don't think his policies, or the people carrying them out, will recognize a functional distinction.) Shall we tell those people as they're being persecuted and deported that their suffering is okay, because they're contributing to the Greens possibly having a chance at winning in 20 years? I don't think we can reasonably ask that of people.
- astazangasta 10y ago
  This is exactly the same thing we hear every election. You can't climb a hill if you don't ever try to go up. Of course I don't believe in elections so this whole debate is academic to me. In a world with ALEC and WPP, elections have nothing to do with governance.
  - 10y ago

corysama 10y ago

AKA: The Problem with First-Past-The-Post Voting http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

rbcgerard 10y ago

This strategy makes sense in battleground states but what about in the opposite case (say hawaii (very D) or wyoming (very R)) - I'd argue that by voting for the third party candidate is the better option as you are unlikely to change the outcome of the election one way or the other - but you reduce the mandate of the winner that you are less aligned with, and by marginally improving the showing of the third party, make it more likely that mainstream candidates will want to address issues of concern to a newly visible voting block?

Spoom 10y ago
I would agree that it matters less in non-battleground states, and could have the effects mentioned. This, in general, causes one of the two parties to absorb some of the causes put forward by the third party, which is one of the reasons the system tends to centralize toward two parties.
- ascagnel_ 10y ago
  To a degree, this has already happened. Some planks of Clinton's platform came directly from Sanders (I'm thinking of revamping college tuition and enhancing other social safety nets specifically).
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Sanders is not a "third party", but a Democratic candidate. The effect unsuccessful major party campaigns have an on the major party despite failing to secure the nomination is a different issue than the effect of third parties on major parties.
ende 10y ago
Exactly. The general third party and independent share of the vote is a metric that should be tracked more visibly.

Diederich 10y ago

Spot on analysis. I tend to go with a concrete example: Florida in 2000.

lostinny 10y ago
537 votes. That was the official difference between Bush and Gore in Florida, out of almost 6 million votes cast. Nearly 100,000 people voted for Nader. These Nader supporters of course had every right to vote how they wanted, but the prevailing argument at the time by Nader was that there was essentially no difference between Gore and Bush and it was time to send a message to the "establishment." However you feel about Bush, I think history makes it plain that 1) there was likely a huge difference between a Bush and a potential Gore presidency, and 2) while it may be nice to simply send a message with your vote, we should remember that 0.0000895% of the electorate of a single state can determine the outcome.
- Diederich 10y ago
  Right. I've engaged in a couple of such discussions on reddit. To say I'm unhappy with the two major candidates would be a huge understatement. But no matter how strong our emotions are about such things, should be extremely clear-headed about what our vote means. And, the point I try to hammer home, that we each need to take full responsibility for the result of our vote. If you want to vote to 'let the world burn', as quite a few Bernie supporters are talking, so be it. If you want to vote to 'send a message', so be it. If things go very badly after November, then you're not allowed to say "my vote didn't really matter" or "I had no choice but to vote the way I did." Own your vote; make it, and accept responsibility for your portion of the outcome. 537 out of 100,000 Nader voters in 2000 changed the world, and not in a good way, in my strongly held opinion at least.

logfromblammo 10y ago

You have unstated assumptions embedded in your post. You are not taking a vote away from Obama when you vote for Stein. It is far more likely that Obama is actually taking votes away from Stein, as Green party supporters vote strategically, because their 2nd choice is better than their 3rd or 4th choice. Until such time as any US state implements a ranked-choice voting system, you have no way of knowing whether the candidate receiving the vote is actually someone's first choice, or a strategic vote for the second-to-last choice. First-past-the-post voting essentially means that the 2 major parties are always stealing away almost all the votes that would have otherwise been cast for lesser parties. So a vote for Stein is actually "refusing to let Democrats steal your Green vote". You can't steal it away from the Democrats, because it wasn't theirs to begin with.

ende 10y ago

The problem has more to do with the mechanics of plurality voting than presidential vs parliamentary systems. Parliamentary systems can and are subject to the same winner take all mechanics. The scenario you outline would best be remedied via a ranked voting method such as IRV or approval voting. The one thing I would incorporate from some parliamentary systems into the US system is proportional representation. PR + IRV = more equitable representation of non-gamified votes.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> This isn't the case in every electoral system; for example, in a Parliamentary system such as Canada's, you vote for your local MP, who runs on the basis of a riding, for which there are usually several within a city. The party that wins the most MP seats gets to form a government (PM, etc.) So the election becomes a much more local affair, rather than being a winner-take-all battle among the entire province, and results in practice in a multi-party system. Parliamentary systems with FPTP also tend toward two-party systems locally, though there is somewhat more variation nationally sometimes. (The US also had some variation nationally, especially before the Missouri Farmer-Labor Party joined the national Democratic Party.) IF you want multiparty elections locally as well as nationally -- if you want more than two meaningful choices when you go into the ballot box -- you need something better than FPTP as a voting system (IRV with single-seat constituencies is like the smallest and least meaningful step in a positive direction, but STV with multiseat constituencies does better.)

Spoom 10y ago
Agreed, and I would love to move to a more proportional voting system. Ontario had a vote a while back to move to mixed-member proportional but the folks behind it failed to explain it well enough for people to understand, in my opinion, so it failed.