Wasting our Vote

[ArmedProgrammer]

I've been giving some thought to the arguments surrounding "wasting your vote". It has been and will be a hot topic of debate around here... I've tried to come up with a logical and rational way of looking at this.

I don't believe that it is fair nor smart to say that I won't vote for a "third party" candidate. I would, under the right circumstance. Specifically, they have to have a CREDIBLE shot at winning. So what, exactly is the dividing line?

After thinking about it, here's what I see as the minimum requirements.
1) they must have better than 75% name recognition
2) they must have a track record that gives me an idea of how they will behave under pressure

Consider: How the heck can %50 of the people vote for them if 75% of the electorate don't know who they are? Regardless of party - it's a simple, logical statement. If not enough people have even heard of them, then voting for them is effectively, intellectual masturbation. You might feel good for a minute, but it isn't going to get anything done.

As for the second item - sure, Justin Bieber has the name recognition thing - but there's no way of knowing how he'd react under pressure. Lots of people can get publicity, but that alone doesn't make them even remotely qualified.

So those minimum criteria determine exactly who is AVAILABLE for me to vote for. I may SUPPORT others , and agree with their views. But until they elevate their game to the above minimums VOTING for them has not realistic chance of making anything happen. They simply are not viable until they've crossed that threshold.

Right now that leaves two candidates.
Romney check.
Obama check.
Paul not running
Johnson name recognition issue I like the guy, he has a track record, but America can't find it's Johnson with both hands... (I apologize but the double entendre jokes are just too easy. I can't resist.)

In '92 three candidates met those criteria (Perot joined the game)

Thoughts? Can anyone tell me why I should consider voting for a person without enough name recognition to have a hope of winning. And Big L's in the crowd - there's your target.

 

[spec4]

It's a feel good thing. It's a sincere belief that they are doing what their conscience tells them and they can live with it. Unfortunately, it doesn't get the job done (see: Perot) We are a two party system. I'm convinced attempts to deviate bring us people like Clinton.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

I don't believe that it is fair nor smart to say that I won't vote for a "third party" candidate. I would, under the right circumstance. Specifically, they have to have a CREDIBLE shot at winning.

Just wondering... Did you vote for Dole/Kemp or McCain/Palin?

So what, exactly is the dividing line?

After thinking about it, here's what I see as the minimum requirements.
1) they must have better than 75% name recognition
2) they must have a track record that gives me an idea of how they will behave under pressure

75% name recognition is tough for any candidate considering how ignorant and tuned out we Americans are...

As for the track record letting you know how they behave under pressure... Is it only important that they have a track record or that they have one that shows that they will behave under pressure?

Consider: How the heck can %50 of the people vote for them if 75% of the electorate don't know who they are? Regardless of party - it's a simple, logical statement. If not enough people have even heard of them, then voting for them is effectively, intellectual masturbation. You might feel good for a minute, but it isn't going to get anything done.

People like to push buttons. Didn't we have one state where a convicted felon got almost as many votes as Obama in the primary?

So those minimum criteria determine exactly who is AVAILABLE for me to vote for. I may SUPPORT others , and agree with their views. But until they elevate their game to the above minimums VOTING for them has not realistic chance of making anything happen. They simply are not viable until they've crossed that threshold.

Support how? Did you offered to pat them on the back? Sending the money so they can advertise (and help increase their name recognition)? Walking door to door to raise awareness yourself?

Until people are willing to vote for them or actively support them, those candidates that you agree with aren't magically going to elevate to the levels that you say you need them at to give them a vote...

Thoughts? Can anyone tell me why I should consider voting for a person without enough name recognition to have a hope of winning. And Big L's in the crowd - there's your target.

I guess it all depends on what "winning" means to you... I know plenty of people who operate under the mentality that it is important to vote for the guy who is going to win. And then they complain about what that goes does when they "win" with him in office.

I myself see protecting my personal liberties via political participation as long game. I don't expect to undo the encroachment on our liberties of all past policy with a single election. Winning to me is effectively converting people over from worried about the political side show (who mistreats or eats dogs, if someone wears a flag lapel pin or not, which multimillionaire candidate is more out of touch than the other multimillionaires, etc) to discussing actual issues that our country faces.

 

[Classic Liberal]

I will vote for principle, not popularity. Romney and Obama have none.

 

[TheRude1]

I will vote for principle, not popularity. Romney and Obama have none.

+1, nicely said

 

[ATM]

My vote isn't wasted if it enables others to come off the fence and waste theirs with me next time.

After the next time, the numbers may be high enough to coax others into wasting theirs.

Eventually, all those wasted votes together total a win.

I wish there was some other way, but it seems most people have adopted some sort of "strategy" that does little more than keep the 2 current parties running the game.

 

[vsinic]

shouldn't base your vote on name recognition. the ones with out the name recognition can't get it by themselves they need people to publicly support them to go out and inform people about them. the only ones that are running that have good track records are Paul & Johnson. Paul has my support till he drops out then my support & vote will go to Johnson.

 

[mrjarrell]

Have to wonder why some people are so adamant that we should vote for a known socialist?

 

[Willie]

I held my nose and voted for McCain last time. I'll do that again for Romney. Only this time I will volunteer for his campaign too. Bozo the clown would be better than what we have now....

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Have to wonder why some people are so adamant that we should vote for a known socialist?

Not sure if your talking about Romney or Obama?

 

[mrjarrell]

Not sure if your talking about Romney or Obama?

Take your pick. Both are known for it. I won't be voting for either of them, based on their proven track records.

 

[jgreiner]

Have to wonder why some people are so adamant that we should vote for a known socialist?

You must mean the guy in the White House.

 

[jrwca]

The better voting system would be to have two votes.

First time around, all candidates are welcome and everyone votes for whichever candidate they like best.

Second time, only the top two candidates from the first vote (regardless of party) are on the ballot.

This lets everyone vote his conscience and not risk "wasting a vote" in the final election. Of course, our primary two parties wouldn't like this one bit.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

The better voting system would be to have two votes.

First time around, all candidates are welcome and everyone votes for whichever candidate they like best.

Second time, only the top two candidates from the first vote (regardless of party) are on the ballot.

This lets everyone vote his conscience and not risk "wasting a vote" in the final election. Of course, our primary two parties wouldn't like this one bit.

Seems to me that for a very long time all mainstream party votes have been wasted. If you doubt this, just look at the results.

 

[ATM]

I held my nose and voted for McCain last time. I'll do that again for Romney...

Why? Do you just really enjoy holding your nose when you vote?

 

[Wreaver]

I held my nose and voted for McCain last time. I'll do that again for Romney. Only this time I will volunteer for his campaign too. Bozo the clown would be better than what we have now....

I'd be interested in hearing how Romney would be any better than bummer? I mean, other than the standard "at least he's not a dog eating commie". Everything everyone dislikes about bummer Romney has already done in Mass. or has come out and said he supports and would have done the same thing.

 

[Wreaver]

I will vote for principle, not popularity. Romney and Obama have none.

THIS! I refuse to vote for the status quo!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Without getting into all the ins, outs and should'ves, I voted for Sarah Palin last election and against Barak Obama. I wouldn't have chosen Romney if the choice had been up to me, but again, I'll vote against Obama.

 

[ATM]

...but again, I'll vote against Obama.

If only there were multiple candidates that weren't Obama...

Oh wait, every other candidate except Obama is not Obama.



But I assume you meant that you just vote for whomever the Republican party selects. That seems wasteful to me.

 

[benjaminlee06]

I will vote for principle, not popularity. Romney and Obama have none.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Stand by your principles, so that the change has somewhere to start. The fact is it already has begun, and this is how I will vote, and how I will encourage others to vote. And in time as people wake up and begin to vote for principle, principle will eventually defeat popularity by becoming popularity. Don't cut and run to sub par because you think that is your only choice. Change takes a continuous concerted effort.