Will the Libertarian Party actually make a difference this year?

[bencrix]

It's voting for who you truly believe in. Win or lose.

The point is, when voting for a 3rd party in a general election, it's not win or lose. It's more like lose or lose really badly (w/ respect to the politics that motivated you to vote in the first place).

That said, it might not be a waste if the value you derive from standing on principle is greater than the value you likely lose from the election results.

If you live in a deep blue or red state, at the end of the day, the stakes are pretty low. If you happen to live in Florida - the stakes are pretty high.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I get tired of those who say voting for a third party is a waste of time.

It is a waste...on the national level.  Third parties need to build their support on the local level, work their way up to the state, get some people elected to Congress, and then think about running a presidential candidate.  The way our system is designed, a third-party candidate will never win a national election.

Ha.  Something we absolutely agree on.  I just posted something similar on another thread.

[benmarcus]

I get tired of those who say voting for a third party is a waste of time.

It is a waste...on the national level.  Third parties need to build their support on the local level, work their way up to the state, get some people elected to Congress, and then think about running a presidential candidate.  The way our system is designed, a third-party candidate will never win a national election.

1000% agree. Libertarians are doing a much better job building out infrastructure, compared to other 3rd parties, but it's still at least 2-3 cycles of getting people elected to Congress away before a legit run for President can be made. All politics are local in this country. It's a principle often forgotten, but no less true than it was at the beginning of it all.

[bencrix]

Libertarian ideas are also already represented w/in the GOP via the "Freedom Caucus" (FKA Tea Party).

[Adam White]

I get tired of those who say voting for a third party is a waste of time.

It is a waste...on the national level.  Third parties need to build their support on the local level, work their way up to the state, get some people elected to Congress, and then think about running a presidential candidate.  The way our system is designed, a third-party candidate will never win a national election.

I don't expect you to understand, but if you were a socialist, you might (or a Libertarian, for that matter). When there are basic, central principles that you hold inviolate and form the basis of your political alignment, you wouldn't want to turn your back on those and vote against those principles just because you only have a choice of two people (both of whom are unacceptable in your eyes).

So I don't consider it a waste of time.

That said, I used to vote and I always voted out of fear - with the exception of 1992, when I relatively happily voted for Bill Clinton (my views were a bit more centre left then - I'd have voted for Sanders if he had been running - and Clinton had views on NAFTA and universal health care that I liked).  I always chose the "lesser of two evils" in order to prevent some terrible monster from getting into office. That's always the argument used. Trump this year... maybe Cruz in 4 or 8 years. And he's scarier than Trump.

(This is assuming we've not wiped out the human race by then).

[finehoe]

When there are basic, central principles that you hold inviolate and form the basis of your political alignment, you wouldn't want to turn your back on those and vote against those principles just because you only have a choice of two people (both of whom are unacceptable in your eyes).

See stephendare's post @ 12:25:14 PM.  If sticking to your principles results in the candidate who is farthest from those principles being elected, what have you gained?

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you vote in the system you have, not the one you wish you had.

[Adam White]

When there are basic, central principles that you hold inviolate and form the basis of your political alignment, you wouldn't want to turn your back on those and vote against those principles just because you only have a choice of two people (both of whom are unacceptable in your eyes).

See stephendare's post @ 12:25:14 PM.  If sticking to your principles results in the candidate who is farthest from those principles being elected, what have you gained?

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you vote in the system you have, not the one you wish you had.

I think it's a wash.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

And I am voting in the system I have - a system that allows multiple parties.

[coredumped]

So voting for someone that you align with is wasting your vote? No, it isn't. It's voting for who you truly believe in. Win or lose.

Downtown Osprey gets it.

And for those of who think it's a waste of time, in my particular case you may have missed what I said earlier: to me Hillary is no worse than Trump. They're both horrible horrible candidates. There's no choice for me. Flip a coin. Luckily, there are other options.

[Adam White]

When there are basic, central principles that you hold inviolate and form the basis of your political alignment, you wouldn't want to turn your back on those and vote against those principles just because you only have a choice of two people (both of whom are unacceptable in your eyes).

See stephendare's post @ 12:25:14 PM.  If sticking to your principles results in the candidate who is farthest from those principles being elected, what have you gained?

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you vote in the system you have, not the one you wish you had.

I think it's a wash.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

And I am voting in the system I have - a system that allows multiple parties.

And your vote will be as useful as any of the ones cast by Ralph Nader in 2000.  Its a good thing that losing to W made the Dems less corporate though.

Voting for Nader or anyone else is foolish if you think that is going to change one of the major parties. If you voted for Nader in order to make the Democrats "less corporate," then you're foolish.

Clearly, I'm not going to convince you or Finehoe. If it helps you sleep at night, know that I am not registered and can't "waste my vote" in this election.

[Adam White]

Have to take it seriously Adam. Shelton spilled a whole lot of ink encouraging people to send a message to the two party losercrats in 1999 Folio.

The Florida election was decided by 500 votes.  This county tossed 22k votes primarily cast by black voters.  The 5k people who voted to send a message here in Duval County ended up deciding the fate of the nation.

Shelton spills a lot of ink and mostly writes rubbish, IMO. So I have a hard time taking much of anything he writes seriously.

I am not going to vote for a Democrat. I don't think it's a wasted vote, as the outcome is going to suck, regardless.

[bencrix]

the outcome is going to suck, regardless

Hard to see it that way if one was contemplating the green party, for example. There is clearly going to be a differential.

As for libertarians, their ideas are already inculcated in a lot of the maintstream GOP and Trump at least believes he is a character in an Ayn Rand novel. I could see a D victory (particularly if Sanders' influence is enduring) as setting their agenda back too.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

The Florida election was decided by 500 votes.  This county tossed 22k votes primarily cast by black voters.  The 5k people who voted to send a message here in Duval County ended up deciding the fate of the nation.

Wow.  It's a bit more interesting to read as history as opposed to current events...

http://www.salon.com/2000/11/13/duval/

[Adam White]

Have to take it seriously Adam. Shelton spilled a whole lot of ink encouraging people to send a message to the two party losercrats in 1999 Folio.

The Florida election was decided by 500 votes.  This county tossed 22k votes primarily cast by black voters.  The 5k people who voted to send a message here in Duval County ended up deciding the fate of the nation.

I forgot to mention: surely the issue is with the 22k votes that were not allowed, not 5000 people who voted for another party. And what of the Republicans who chose to vote for Nader over Bush? Or the Democrats who voted for Bush. Or maybe those on either side that chose to stay home (I seem to recall the turnout was barely over 50%)? Or the fact that the Supreme Court was really the decider?

http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

It all shakes out in the end. Perhaps having two parties only would stop this sort of thing happening. Or perhaps we could go with a single-party state, that way we can ensure the correct person get the votes he or she deserves.

[Adam White]

Have to take it seriously Adam. Shelton spilled a whole lot of ink encouraging people to send a message to the two party losercrats in 1999 Folio.

The Florida election was decided by 500 votes.  This county tossed 22k votes primarily cast by black voters.  The 5k people who voted to send a message here in Duval County ended up deciding the fate of the nation.

I forgot to mention: surely the issue is with the 22k votes that were not allowed, not 5000 people who voted for another party. And what of the Republicans who chose to vote for Nader over Bush? Or the Democrats who voted for Bush. Or maybe those on either side that chose to stay home (I seem to recall the turnout was barely over 50%)? Or the fact that the Supreme Court was really the decider?

http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

It all shakes out in the end. Perhaps having two parties only would stop this sort of thing happening. Or perhaps we could go with a single-party state, that way we can ensure the correct person get the votes he or she deserves.

actually, If you think about it, the folio readers and kids most likely to feel like it was important to send a message to corporatist dems all lived in nice white suburban neighborhoods where their votes were far less likely to get chunked out.

Jville's 22k democratic votes would have decisively settled the election in Gores favor.  But the fix was in before that election ever happened.  Which made the liberal/left of center abstainers votes so much more weighty.

Perhaps.

I am of the (admittedly unsupported) opinion that Florida was delivered to Bush by his brother and then rubber-stamped by a partisan Supreme Court. Nader or not, Bush was going to get Florida.

I can't prove that.

[finehoe]

It sends a message that you're unhappy with the 2 other candidates.

It's voting for who you truly believe in. Win or lose.

When there are basic, central principles that you hold inviolate and form the basis of your political alignment, you wouldn't want to turn your back on those and vote against those principles just because you only have a choice of two people (both of whom are unacceptable in your eyes).

No one has explained what's the advantage of casting your vote in such a way that it results in the candidate who is farthest from your own beliefs and principles being elected, which is virtually always the result in American presidential politics.