3 ms·

Voting for the lesser evil doesn't work. It allows one side to get your vote by being barely better than the other. But I've been wondering, does voting third

Voting for the lesser evil doesn't work. It allows one side to get your vote by being barely better than the other. But I've been wondering, does voting third party work better than voting for good else greater evil? Voting third party means in most races your desires can be ignored, as you won't be voting for either candidate likely to win and thus will have no impact on the election. But if you vote for good else greater evil, in a system where most are either voting party regardless of actual candidate are voting for the lesser evil, do you have a better chance of getting the lesser evil side to try to change policies enough they register as good? If you are lucky enough to live somewhere where third party has a chance, that is the best choice. But what is the optimal strategy for those of us who don't?

theandrewbailey 12y ago
> Voting third party means in most races your desires can be ignored, as you won't be voting for either candidate likely to win and thus will have no impact on the election. If you vote for the candidate that lost but still had 40% of the vote (and polls showed that ahead of time), does that mean your vote had no impact? Is your vote only meaningful if you vote for the candidate that won? If not, where is this (subjective?) line? > If you are lucky enough to live somewhere where third party has a chance, that is the best choice. But what is the optimal strategy for those of us who don't? The optimal strategy is to be the third option. It's how the system is supposed to work.
ctdonath 12y ago
The problem is the same as for a business which needs to make a major change that will tick off customers and lose business until a critical point is reached, when things will suddenly get much better. Voting third party leads to the more acceptable major party losing and the more-evil party winning more power until enough finally support the third party enough to win. This process rarely goes well.
DennisP 12y ago
I went to some political training once, which taught that the best use of third parties is to punish a major party. They gave an example of a reliably Democrat district, with Republicans getting 45% of the vote each time. Then the Democrats picked someone who was poor on environmental issues. A bunch of people voted Green and the Republican won with the standard 45%. But two years later, the Democrats chose a strong environmentalist and took it back. Longer-term, we can push for range or approval voting, which don't penalize you for voting your true preference. They're legal under current law and compatible with voting machines. We could start small: third-party primaries, local elections, etc.

theandrewbailey 12y ago

> Voting third party means in most races your desires can be ignored, as you won't be voting for either candidate likely to win and thus will have no impact on the election. If you vote for the candidate that lost but still had 40% of the vote (and polls showed that ahead of time), does that mean your vote had no impact? Is your vote only meaningful if you vote for the candidate that won? If not, where is this (subjective?) line? > If you are lucky enough to live somewhere where third party has a chance, that is the best choice. But what is the optimal strategy for those of us who don't? The optimal strategy is to be the third option. It's how the system is supposed to work.

ctdonath 12y ago

The problem is the same as for a business which needs to make a major change that will tick off customers and lose business until a critical point is reached, when things will suddenly get much better. Voting third party leads to the more acceptable major party losing and the more-evil party winning more power until enough finally support the third party enough to win. This process rarely goes well.

DennisP 12y ago

I went to some political training once, which taught that the best use of third parties is to punish a major party. They gave an example of a reliably Democrat district, with Republicans getting 45% of the vote each time. Then the Democrats picked someone who was poor on environmental issues. A bunch of people voted Green and the Republican won with the standard 45%. But two years later, the Democrats chose a strong environmentalist and took it back. Longer-term, we can push for range or approval voting, which don't penalize you for voting your true preference. They're legal under current law and compatible with voting machines. We could start small: third-party primaries, local elections, etc.