• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which is a bigger waste of a vote?

Which is a bigger waste of a vote?

  • Voting for someone who won't win?

    Votes: 13 38.2%

  • Voting for someone you don't like?

    Votes: 21 61.8%
  • Total voters
    34
JC Callender said:
If you believe Trump and Hillary are both hopelessly corrupt then I understand your point. If you believe both are bad but one is better than the other, then I can't understand why you wouldn't vote for the better one, even if you're not fond of that person, simply to affect a better outcome.
Click to expand...

It is simple, I always ask myself one question, "Will candidate A leave this country better off once he or she leaves office than when he or she first entered?" The answer in my opinion was a resounding no for both major party candidates. I will never vote for anyone whom I think will do harm to this nation. There are always other options, don't vote or vote third party. I will never for the lesser of two evils either, that is knowingly voting for evil. It may be the lesser of the two, but you are still knowingly voting to put evil into office. I have to live with myself, voting for evil is also not an option.

I realize there are varying degrees. It is like driving a car and hitting a concrete barrier at 150 MPH or driving the other car and hitting that same barrier at 140 MPH. You just as dead regardless of the degree. People need to wake up, they need not be satisfied with the least worst candidate. That too is knowingly voting to put bad into office. If one wants a decently run government with a decent president in charge, then one needs to vote accordingly. If one doesn't care how government is run or whether the person in charge is or will make a good president, then voting for the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate of the two major parties is what you do.
 
Sparky2 said:
I do believe that THIS Presidential election will see millions and millions of Americans voting for someone they don't like.

This is the very worst pair of candidates in the history of American politics, and that's saying something.
:(
Click to expand...

And if people voted for a candidate they wanted in office rather than against the one they dont?
 
Perotista said:
It is simple, I always ask myself one question, "Will candidate A leave this country better off once he or she leaves office than when he or she first entered?" The answer in my opinion was a resounding no for both major party candidates. I will never vote for anyone whom I think will do harm to this nation. There are always other options, don't vote or vote third party. I will never for the lesser of two evils either, that is knowingly voting for evil. It may be the lesser of the two, but you are still knowingly voting to put evil into office. I have to live with myself, voting for evil is also not an option.

I realize there are varying degrees. It is like driving a car and hitting a concrete barrier at 150 MPH or driving the other car and hitting that same barrier at 140 MPH. You just as dead regardless of the degree. People need to wake up, they need not be satisfied with the least worst candidate. That too is knowingly voting to put bad into office. If one wants a decently run government with a decent president in charge, then one needs to vote accordingly. If one doesn't care how government is run or whether the person in charge is or will make a good president, then voting for the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate of the two major parties is what you do.
Click to expand...

Well if you don't vote, then you should learn to be satisfied with the worst candidate. And if you vote for someone who you believe doesn't have a chance, then it's a wasted vote.
 
Kreton said:
And if people voted for a candidate they wanted in office rather than against the one they dont?
Click to expand...

There will be precious little of that, good friend Kreton.

Only a few thousand voters actually like Hillary Clinton (on the Democrat side) and probably an equal number for Trump on the Republican side.

Everyone, by and large, will be going to the polls in November, holding their nose tightly, and voting against the hated other candidate or the hated 'other side'.

I believe we can all agree on that, good sir.
;)
 
JC Callender said:
Well if you don't vote, then you should learn to be satisfied with the worst candidate. And if you vote for someone who you believe doesn't have a chance, then it's a wasted vote.
Click to expand...

I refuse to waste my vote on either Trump or Clinton. Voting for incompetence only because incompetence has a chance to win is the true wasted vote. It means one is satisfied with incompetence. Mine is a vote against incompetence.
 
Perotista said:
I refuse to waste my vote on either Trump or Clinton. Voting for incompetence only because incompetence has a chance to win is the true wasted vote. It means one is satisfied with incompetence. Mine is a vote against incompetence.
Click to expand...

Everyone has a certain level of incompetence. Voting for the least incompetent person is the most reasonable option imo. Voting for someone who has no chance is basically like not voting at all, isn't it?
 
JC Callender said:
Everyone has a certain level of incompetence. Voting for the least incompetent person is the most reasonable option imo. Voting for someone who has no chance is basically like not voting at all, isn't it?
Click to expand...

If my choice was not voting or voting for Trump or Clinton, my only choice which it isn't. I would stay home and not soil myself. As it is I want a say in the down ballot offices. Voting third party gives me that option. I'll help neither Trump or Clinton obtain the Oval office, it is as simple as that, I detest both of them. Not personally, what I detest is the idea of either one becoming president. That I abhor. I will do what I can to prevent either one winning and that is at the ballot box voting for a third party candidate.

That is unless you can come up with a better idea of how to prevent either one from occupying the White House. I am open to suggestions. But neither Trump or Clinton can expect any help from me and they will not get any.
 
Kreton said:
2 options

Which is a bigger waste of a vote.
Click to expand...

Voting for someone who won't win, or voting for someone you don't like.

In this election it's pretty clear it's not voting FOR someone, it's rather voting AGAINST someone else, and being pretty much forced to vote for someone you don't like.
 
Honestly it really depends on the candidates.

If Hillary were up against say Kasich rather than Trump, I wouldn't be terrified into voting for her.
 
Kreton said:
2 options

Which is a bigger waste of a vote.
Click to expand...

A fairly even split so far 11-9, which surprises me. I've been told on this site so many times I lost count that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Trump or a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Clinton. It's a vote against both. Perhaps there's hope after all. Not this year, but in the future if we survive whichever one wins this year.
 
Perotista said:
I refuse to waste my vote on either Trump or Clinton. Voting for incompetence only because incompetence has a chance to win is the true wasted vote. It means one is satisfied with incompetence. Mine is a vote against incompetence.
Click to expand...

I have to concur, incompetence should not be rewarded.
I also believe that we should have 3 or more political parties, because two parties is much too inflexible.
Sad but true, there's little to be gained by voting for a 3rd party in a two-party system, where the price of nobility is a wasted vote.
Rather than waste your vote, be selfish. Vote for the candidate you believe will be more beneficial to our nation's safety & economy.
 
Roger1 said:
I have to concur, incompetence should not be rewarded.
I also believe that we should have 3 or more political parties, because two parties is much too inflexible.
Sad but true, there's little to be gained by voting for a 3rd party in a two-party system, where the price of nobility is a wasted vote.
Rather than waste your vote, be selfish. Vote for the candidate you believe will be more beneficial to our nation's safety & economy.
Click to expand...

I am, that is why I am voting for Gary Johnson. Also, you will never have a viable third party unless people begin to vote for them. This year both the Libertarian and Green Party have no money vs. over a billion for Hillary and Trump's cash so far has been unannounced. Say Trump is fairly close to Hillary, that is being out spent 2 billion give or take to to close to zero. One doesn't get their message out when the media totally ignores them. But at least third parties haven't been bought heart and soul by corporations, wall street, lobbyists, special interests and mega money donors as our two major parties have.

Let's face it, our two major parties have a monopoly on our election system and they will maintain it. They write our election laws as a mutual protection act. When a third party candidate or an independent spends money on political ads and more important gets into the presidential debates, they begin to become viable. Perot in 1992 spent a third of the amount Bush and Clinton each did, he received close to 20% of the total vote. Money to get your face before the public counts and counts big time. Perot showed that.
 
Last edited:
Kreton said:
2 options

Which is a bigger waste of a vote.
Click to expand...

I don't consider either vote or any vote a waste. We are granted one vote, and if you take advantage of that right, you're not wasting your right, no matter who you choose.
 
Sparky2 said:
There will be precious little of that, good friend Kreton.

Only a few thousand voters actually like Hillary Clinton (on the Democrat side) and probably an equal number for Trump on the Republican side.

Everyone, by and large, will be going to the polls in November, holding their nose tightly, and voting against the hated other candidate or the hated 'other side'.

I believe we can all agree on that, good sir.
;)
Click to expand...

I do not disagree that that is what is going to happen.

It is sad that we have reached this point in American politics that the 2 major parties and literally put up any 2 candidates and people will still put them in office.
 
eohrnberger said:
Voting for someone who won't win, or voting for someone you don't like.

In this election it's pretty clear it's not voting FOR someone, it's rather voting AGAINST someone else, and being pretty much forced to vote for someone you don't like.
Click to expand...

You aren't. You could vote for a candidate that you want to see if office.
 
Perotista said:
A fairly even split so far 11-9, which surprises me. I've been told on this site so many times I lost count that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Trump or a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Clinton. It's a vote against both. Perhaps there's hope after all. Not this year, but in the future if we survive whichever one wins this year.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly believe that there will not be hope until people start voting for candidates they truly believe in. Not the who the like the most, or dislike the least, between 2 people.
 
Kreton said:
I have heard countless times that a vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote.
Click to expand...

In a Presidential election it is. I got my absentee ballot a few days ago. Sure, there was Johnson and Stein for President. You know how many other Libertarians and Greens there were for local and state offices?

Not one.

They don't bother to do anything but show up once every three and a half years to offer fake hope to those who aren't completely satisfied with the major party nominees. Then they disappear before rearing their lazy, ineffective, hopeless heads again three and a half years later.

Do the work, build a structure on the ground at local and state levels, recruit voters, and then maybe they'll have something to offer. But for now they don't. So the vote is wasted because it's a vote for an illusion. It's like a choice between buying three bottles of beer. The first two are brands you may not like, but the third bottle doesn't even have any beer in it.
 
I would say voting for someone you don't like because if you do not pick the candidate that best represents your own platforms and ideology, then you end up voting for folk who are still bad but one tries to rationalize it by the other person being so bad. But if both are bad, then that's end of story.

To keep a free Democratic Republic, you cannot continually vote for a lesser of two evils. You have to support the best candidate for the job, not simply one you think can win.
 
Opopanax said:
In a Presidential election it is. I got my absentee ballot a few days ago. Sure, there was Johnson and Stein for President. You know how many other Libertarians and Greens there were for local and state offices?

Not one.

They don't bother to do anything but show up once every three and a half years to offer fake hope to those who aren't completely satisfied with the major party nominees. Then they disappear before rearing their lazy, ineffective, hopeless heads again three and a half years later.

Do the work, build a structure on the ground at local and state levels, recruit voters, and then maybe they'll have something to offer. But for now they don't. So the vote is wasted because it's a vote for an illusion. It's like a choice between buying three bottles of beer. The first two are brands you may not like, but the third bottle doesn't even have any beer in it.
Click to expand...

If you don't like a beer, why drink it?


Also, in your analogy you are voting for a party. Why vote for a party? Why not vote for a person?
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
I would say voting for someone you don't like because if you do not pick the candidate that best represents your own platforms and ideology, then you end up voting for folk who are still bad but one tries to rationalize it by the other person being so bad. But if both are bad, then that's end of story.

To keep a free Democratic Republic, you cannot continually vote for a lesser of two evils. You have to support the best candidate for the job, not simply one you think can win.
Click to expand...

I think if people started voting for what they truly believe in, and stop voting because of fear for a different party, the dem and rep parties would self destruct. Every year these parties put up candidates who are more and more hated. And every year we keep voting these parties into power. When is enough enough? I would have thought when they put Clinton and Trump on a ballot it would finally send people over the line to abandon those parties. In reality, people are just digging in further. Its like the dems and republicans drunkenly decided at a party to test the grip they have on the throat of this country by putting up a giant douche and a turd sandwich (south park reference :p) to see if people would stay loyal. I guess we passed?
 
eohrnberger said:
You mean Kasich is still in the running?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be awesome? Coming into the primaries he was one of the only candidates I actually wanted to see as POTUS. Throughout the primaries and even today he is a candidate that I would be proud to have as president.
 
Kreton said:
Wouldn't that be awesome? Coming into the primaries he was one of the only candidates I actually wanted to see as POTUS. Throughout the primaries and even today he is a candidate that I would be proud to have as president.
Click to expand...

So you are as much stuck as many others of a similar view. Choosing between one of the two major parties, and not liking either of them.
 
Kreton said:
If you don't like a beer, why drink it?
Click to expand...

The analogy stands fine as is. The point was made, you know what I meant.

Also, in your analogy you are voting for a party. Why vote for a party? Why not vote for a person?
Click to expand...

Why don't I vote for my neighbor then? He's a person. And statistically speaking, he has the same chance to win as Gary Johnson. And his name appeared on my ballot with the same frequency as third party candidates. So sure, I'll vote for him. Because he's a person.
 
I don't know how to define a 'wasted' vote. You could claim that any vote for a losing candidate was wasted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom