Is voting for Libertarians with no chance of winning a waste of your vote?

[2young2vote]

If you vote for a person who represents you then it isn't a wasted vote. If you vote for a person who doesn't represent your beliefs then THAT is a wasted vote.

 

[oyarde]

Not sure there is any " right " way to go about this . What I have taken to doing over the years is listening to the debates and checking the polling. If the gop is a true fiscal conservative I will vote for them if I believe they need my vote to keep out an evil Dem socialist . If not , I vote Libertarian . You must be careful though, I have a local Libertarian in congressional election this Nov. that talks about education spending like a Dem . I would never vote for him and the GOP in that race is going to need my vote to get rid of the current socialist .

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

How many Libertarian candidates in Texas have won?

 

[libertarian4321]

If the gop is a true fiscal conservative I will vote for them

Well, sure, I'd vote for Ron Paul too if he was in my district, but I don't know if there are any other true fiscal conservatives running in the Republican Party.

Well, maybe a few, but far too few unfortunately.

 

[MelissaWV]

Voting "Other Party," for me, is a vote of discontent with the two "frontrunner" choices. If enough people did that, it might shed a little more light on the disconnect between the popular vote and the electoral college somewhere down the line. It makes it easier to spot voter fraud (some districts where someone voted third party register NO third party votes, which tips them off immediately). It is a better option than staying home, because by staying home I am not voicing any opinion at all. By voting for the lesser evil, I would be half-heartedly cheering on someone I disagree with, and will probably regret voting for. By voting "Other Party," I am not likely to get that person elected, but I am making that party seem just a tiny bit more viable, and drawing attention to the fact that there are more choices out there than just "D" and "R."

Hell, if I am displeased with the two "main" choices, I'd even vote for an "Other Party" candidate that I disagree with if their chances are slim. I know the person would never get elected, but all the aforementioned statements would remain true.

 

[libertarian4321]

How many Libertarian candidates in Texas have won?

Eight are currently in office.

Dozens of other Libertarians have won in the past in Texas.

 

[pcosmar]

Here in Austin, there is a Libertarian candidate running on almost every ballot. I feel kind of guilty because though I am a hardcore 100% libertarian, I vote for the Republicans instead. I wish we had a multiparty system, but we don't. I think that Libertarian candiates should run as Republicans like Ron Paul and that the libertarian movement as a whole has its best chance at exacting real change through the Republican party. I also don't think there is anything particularly noble about throwing your vote away on a candidate with no real chance of winning.

So you vote for the fuck up rather that the better candidate because you believe they can't win?
And you would rather vote for a winner than voting your principals?

I wonder how many others are doing this, and if the libertarian would win if people voted for them.

Why not just not vote instead?

 

[MelissaWV]

So you vote for the fuck up rather that the better candidate because you believe they can't win?
And you would rather vote for a winner than voting your principals?

I wonder how many others are doing this, and if the libertarian would win if people voted for them.

Why not just not vote instead?

"Not voting" is seen as unpatriotic, of course.

"Voting third party" is seen as kooky and, after all, they have no chance of winning. This is why I said I would rather vote for a third party candidate I disagree with who has no chance, rather than vote for a two-party candidate I disagree with who does have a chance. Maybe enough people will do that in the future that "third party" won't be such a bad idea anymore, and "I" won't be associated merely with the likes of Lieberman and Crist.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If people took this "Representative" Republic to heart you would vote for who best represents you, not who has the "best" chance of winning. That is just moronic on a fundamental level. Then people wonder why their Representatives don't actually "represent" their beliefs. Besides, people all ready know my opinion on voting in general no need to re-hash that here.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Yeah, I usually just vote straight ticket Libertarian, but I'm not sure if I'll vote at all this year, voting for Glass would be nice, but it'll probably just help White out more, which I'd rather not do.

 

[Wesker1982]

Besides, people all ready know my opinion on voting in general no need to re-hash that here.

I'm curious.

 

[Howard_Roark]

I think this post has exposed a huge difference among libertarians in terms of what the best way to seek change is - via third party Libertarian candidates or via the Republican party.

Obviously, RP tried the whole 1988 Libertarian party thing - how did that go? In 2008 he ran for President as Republican and was able to influence a huge amount of people and get a ton of media coverage.

I think he is really the blueprint for libertarian minded candidates who want to seek office. In the 2008 debates RP was questioned numerous times on whether he was running for the wrong party. He explains that the modern Republican party has lost its way but that the traditional Republican party has a strong tradition of being anti war.

Just because the neo-cons have hijacked the Republican party doesn't mean libertarianism should be relegated to some fringe third party that doesn't even have one member or congress and has never held the Presidency.

 

[american.swan]

What gives you the impression that your 1 vote is somehow worth more than 1 vote if you vote Republican rather than 3rd party?

You have 1 vote. All you'll ever have is 1 vote. Non-'dog catcher' elections will never be decided by 1 vote.

Vote for the lesser of two evils in the Republican primary, then vote with your principles in the general. If there's a candidate that agrees with you on at least 90-95% of the issues, vote for him no matter what party. If there is nobody that good on the ballot, then don't vote. Remember, nobody is forcing you to vote. If you don't have any candidates, then you don't have any candidates.

I can agree with this...except, if there aren't any candidates for you to vote for, you should become a candidate.

On this topic, I think we're missing an important issue. I suppose we are supposed to be a nation of intelligent politically active people. I would suggest "only voting" doesn't represent an intelligent politically active people. You can debate the merits and demerits of voting libertarian or GOP all you like, but if all you do is sit on your couch the other 1460 days of the four year election cycle, we're missing the point. The landscape of the nation would change quite significantly if every election had a good swath of candidates to chose from. We're educated to sit on our hands and "only vote" and if the-lessor-of-two-evils votes continue, we aren't going to get anywhere.

 

[libertarian4321]

Yeah, I usually just vote straight ticket Libertarian, but I'm not sure if I'll vote at all this year, voting for Glass would be nice, but it'll probably just help White out more, which I'd rather not do.

It's Texas. Even in a good year, it's highly unlikely a Dem would win against a Rep incumbent, and this isn't going to be a good year for Dems.

Perry has a double digit lead.

Bottom line: White is going to lose.

We're stuck with Perry AGAIN (sometimes it seems like he's been in office for 50 years, but the hair never changes), nothing is going to change that.

So vote for the candidate you like.

I will proudly vote for the losing Libertarian candidate and curse yet another Perry victory.

 

[wormyguy]

The whole "don't vote" argument is based on a fallacious precept - that it is highly unlikely you will be the deciding vote. That's of course true - but the point of voting is not to be the deciding vote, but to increase the probability of your candidate winning.

 

[Imperial]

Yeah, I usually just vote straight ticket Libertarian, but I'm not sure if I'll vote at all this year, voting for Glass would be nice, but it'll probably just help White out more, which I'd rather not do.

Unless you are considering voting for Rick Perry, how would voting for Glass help Bill White anymore than not voting?

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Unless you are considering voting for Rick Perry, how would voting for Glass help Bill White anymore than not voting?

I think the word is spoiler, like the votes for Glass could've been for Perry so White would win.

I thought they were closer. As much as I dislike Perry, I'd rather keep the same boss (of course I'd rather a Libertarian won) but you know..Obama was bad change. I'm worried White would turn Texas into Michigan or something.

 

[american.swan]

I think this post has exposed a huge difference among libertarians in terms of what the best way to seek change is - via third party Libertarian candidates or via the Republican party.

Obviously, RP tried the whole 1988 Libertarian party thing - how did that go? In 2008 he ran for President as Republican and was able to influence a huge amount of people and get a ton of media coverage.

I think he is really the blueprint for libertarian minded candidates who want to seek office. In the 2008 debates RP was questioned numerous times on whether he was running for the wrong party. He explains that the modern Republican party has lost its way but that the traditional Republican party has a strong tradition of being anti war.

Just because the neo-cons have hijacked the Republican party doesn't mean libertarianism should be relegated to some fringe third party that doesn't even have one member or congress and has never held the Presidency.

+1

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The whole "don't vote" argument is based on a fallacious precept - that it is highly unlikely you will be the deciding vote. That's of course true - but the point of voting is not to be the deciding vote, but to increase the probability of your candidate winning.

You are aware there are other objections to voting other than that one which has no philosophical basis whatsoever, right?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think the word is spoiler, like the votes for Glass could've been for Perry so White would win.

I thought they were closer. As much as I dislike Perry, I'd rather keep the same boss (of course I'd rather a Libertarian won) but you know..Obama was bad change. I'm worried White would turn Texas into Michigan or something.

Most people who vote for third parties do so to not vote for the main parties. It isn't playing a spoiler, because most of those people wouldn't have voted if it was only GOP and Dem they could vote for. Moreover, there have been studies where it is shown that libertarians come from both conservative and liberal backgrounds about equally.

Again though, I will say it is moronic to not vote for who best represents your beliefs. Don't come crying when your "representative" republic isn't working because people aren't voting for the people who best represents them. I wonder sometimes if you guys aren't your own worst enemies.