Voting for Third Parties Isn't a Waste(medium.com)
medium.com
Voting for Third Parties Isn't a Waste
https://medium.com/@pshanosky/democracy-and-the-alleged-wasted-vote-theory-397f714c0c04
6 comments
Can't read this since it tells me I must install the medium app but it better say something about how in the US, a party that gets 5% of the vote is eligible for public campaign funding and a spot at the debates.
The goal isn't for the third party to win outright immediately but to get a seat at the table.
The goal isn't for the third party to win outright immediately but to get a seat at the table.
I will never vote against anyone ever again. I'm done.
I'll vote for ANYONE in any party, who promises to pursue Ranked Choice Voting.
I'll vote for ANYONE in any party, who promises to pursue Ranked Choice Voting.
I kinda agree for the most part
Meh, seems like arguing over the definition of waste instead of actually grappling with the real argument being made.
local state is irrelevant when performing global measurements.
the measurement is determined by election process/law and so rational local behavior can be gamed out.
> [...] If you’re in any of those groups (plus many more), you’re politically homeless.
voting is about being a making a specific choice that describes you (not acheiving an outcome)
> you will dislike both candidates 16 times, but vote for them anyway. Now that is a waste
voting is about conferring approval (not outcomes)
> shouldn’t you actually vote for what you believe in? By implying that there are only two realistic choices, you’re really implying that we don’t have free choice at all.
voting is a statement of belief (implementation is irrelevant)
> I find it hard to believe that only two can be the far-and-away best options.
(strawman: no one believes this or asserts it)
> If you’re a Democrat in Kansas, your vote will not have a chance to alter the state’s results, will not alter the electoral college, and will have no impact on the election results other than a digit in a column somewhere. Might as well vote for who you actually support, then.
(no true scottsman fallacy: what you say is waste isnt! this is real waste)
> Even if your candidate doesn’t win, a 3rd party or independent candidate gaining a lot of support can change the trajectory of a race
you cant argue for strategic aggregation behind a 3rd party but ignore strategic "2nd" party voting
> Hard to claim a mandate if you limp into office with 41% of the popular vote.
fake messaging argument about how politicians should talk instead of acknowledging the real world
> Rather than give a false endorsement to someone I don’t support, I’ll be considering my other options.
you have none. These are all really bad arguments designed to pump the intuition that a vote is locally meaningful. it isnt meaningful. voting literally is designed to wash out individual preferences.
local state is irrelevant when performing global measurements.
the measurement is determined by election process/law and so rational local behavior can be gamed out.
> [...] If you’re in any of those groups (plus many more), you’re politically homeless.
voting is about being a making a specific choice that describes you (not acheiving an outcome)
> you will dislike both candidates 16 times, but vote for them anyway. Now that is a waste
voting is about conferring approval (not outcomes)
> shouldn’t you actually vote for what you believe in? By implying that there are only two realistic choices, you’re really implying that we don’t have free choice at all.
voting is a statement of belief (implementation is irrelevant)
> I find it hard to believe that only two can be the far-and-away best options.
(strawman: no one believes this or asserts it)
> If you’re a Democrat in Kansas, your vote will not have a chance to alter the state’s results, will not alter the electoral college, and will have no impact on the election results other than a digit in a column somewhere. Might as well vote for who you actually support, then.
(no true scottsman fallacy: what you say is waste isnt! this is real waste)
> Even if your candidate doesn’t win, a 3rd party or independent candidate gaining a lot of support can change the trajectory of a race
you cant argue for strategic aggregation behind a 3rd party but ignore strategic "2nd" party voting
> Hard to claim a mandate if you limp into office with 41% of the popular vote.
fake messaging argument about how politicians should talk instead of acknowledging the real world
> Rather than give a false endorsement to someone I don’t support, I’ll be considering my other options.
you have none. These are all really bad arguments designed to pump the intuition that a vote is locally meaningful. it isnt meaningful. voting literally is designed to wash out individual preferences.
The article seems to miss entirely that (in the US, at least), democracy is a two-step process. The primaries are widely open. That is where you meet other people with similar but not identical beliefs, and find a compromise before proceeding to the general election.
"Third parties" seem popular with people who want to limit their involvement to pulling a lever, once. At the very least, you can make your choice in a primary, often among many different candidates. You can also get as involved as you want to push for the candidate you prefer to stand out among all of the others.
People who want to be almost completely disinvolved in the process, and expect to use a single finger point to resolve the complex and multi-faceted issues that face us, seem to me to be lazy and not particularly thoughtful. No algorithm for dealing with more candidates is going to do the hard work of hammering out compromises.
"Third parties" seem popular with people who want to limit their involvement to pulling a lever, once. At the very least, you can make your choice in a primary, often among many different candidates. You can also get as involved as you want to push for the candidate you prefer to stand out among all of the others.
People who want to be almost completely disinvolved in the process, and expect to use a single finger point to resolve the complex and multi-faceted issues that face us, seem to me to be lazy and not particularly thoughtful. No algorithm for dealing with more candidates is going to do the hard work of hammering out compromises.
Things are just a lot more complex than the article wants to deal with. Do you focus long term and try to promote third parties despite their success being quite rare? Do you focus on the immediate issues that divide the main parties and therefore ignore third parties?
I don't like saying a third party vote is 'wasted', but it certainly results in little direct influence of the political process.