When you vote for a statistically lost candidate what statement are you making?

[justoffal]

Gary Johnson, Jill Stein....they ain't nevah gonna git there .... so why the vote? I ask not in derision or to make light of the process. For as long as I can remember a Ralph Nader type candidate has been part of the process.

As a pragmatist I would vote for a democrat if that democrat ( Elizabeth Warren for instance ) showed the hootspa I thought he or she needed to face down the globalist encroachment and take back this nation and as long as that candidate had a realistic chance. Other than that why go through the motions? I mean...I want my vote to count for something. It can't with a Johnson or a Stein....unless I'm missing something.

My ears are open.


JO

 

[Craig]

Gary Johnson, Jill Stein....they ain't nevah gonna git there .... so why the vote? I ask not in derision or to make light of the process. For as long as I can remember a Ralph Nader type candidate has been part of the process.

As a pragmatist I would vote for a democrat if that democrat ( Elizabeth Warren for instance ) showed the hootspa I thought he or she needed to face down the globalist encroachment and take back this nation and as long as that candidate had a realistic chance. Other than that why go through the motions? I mean...I want my vote to count for something. It can't with a Johnson or a Stein....unless I'm missing something.

My ears are open.


JO

To vote.

It's not that difficult a concept.

One could apply it to just about any losing candidate. Why vote for Romney? Everyone knew he would lose.

 

[justoffal]

To vote.

It's not that difficult a concept.

One could apply it to just about any losing candidate. Why vote for Romney? Everyone knew he would lose.

Nah...he was statistically close enough for a thinking person to make the decision to vote for him. I'm talking about totally hopeless cases like Johnson and Stein...what is the purpose of a vote for such a candidate?

JO

 

[Craig]

Nah...he was statistically close enough for a thinking person to make the decision to vote for him. I'm talking about totally hopeless cases like Johnson and Stein...what is the purpose of a vote for such a candidate?

JO

I disagree. He was slaughtered...and few thought he would win. Sure, the Fox loons were "positive"...but look at the results. If Romney isn't good enough for you, choose any other losing candidate and ask the same question.

The purposes are multi.

To vote, plain and simple. To take advantage of your franchise as a citizen.

Because that candidate closer represents one's ideals.

To register disgust with the major candidates.

 

[georgephillip]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/06/21/Your-Vote-Third-Party-Candidate-Won-t-Be-Waste-2016

"With both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump generating historically high negative approval ratings in polls, many voters will be looking at third party alternatives this year.

"But most will categorically reject minor party candidates, dismissing a vote for anyone other than Clinton or Trump as a wasted ballot.

"Such thinking is deeply flawed and very dangerous for America’s future."

Both candidates have announced their transition teams, and Team Hillary makes it clear her leftward drift during the primaries was all for show.

Ken Salazar heads the effort; he's behind the TPP and fracking. Virtually all other "players" on her transition team are alums of the Democratic Leadership Council which means more wars abroad and austerity at home.

If there's any truth to the rumors surrounding Hillary's health, putting Tim Kaine into the Oval Office won't be much of an improvement.

This might be the election where those "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat are wasting their votes?

 

[Jen]

Gary Johnson, Jill Stein....they ain't nevah gonna git there .... so why the vote? I ask not in derision or to make light of the process. For as long as I can remember a Ralph Nader type candidate has been part of the process.

As a pragmatist I would vote for a democrat if that democrat ( Elizabeth Warren for instance ) showed the hootspa I thought he or she needed to face down the globalist encroachment and take back this nation and as long as that candidate had a realistic chance. Other than that why go through the motions? I mean...I want my vote to count for something. It can't with a Johnson or a Stein....unless I'm missing something.

My ears are open.


JO

The only statement (of voting for a candidate that has no chance of winning) is to one's self........ and it's worthless since it helps elect the last person you would ever vote for.

 

[Wolfert Webber]

If either had a chance of carrying a state or two, it might make sense.

I truly wish the race could get thrown to the House, but, unless a Third Party can carry some states it is a protest vote that is essentially a non-vote.

 

[justoffal]

I disagree. He was slaughtered...and few thought he would win. Sure, the Fox loons were "positive"...but look at the results. If Romney isn't good enough for you, choose any other losing candidate and ask the same question.

The purposes are multi.

To vote, plain and simple. To take advantage of your franchise as a citizen.

Because that candidate closer represents one's ideals.

To register disgust with the major candidates.

 

[justoffal]

Nah...it was close even though he lost. It wasn't a 20 point loss or even a ten point loss.
But yes he was soundly defeated.

I like this statement here:

To take advantage of your franchise as a citizen.

That has some pull with me. But do you say that a vote for a statistically lost candidate is a protest vote or do you say that it is simply freedom of choice?

JO

 

[justoffal]

If either had a chance of carrying a state or two, it might make sense.

I truly wish the race could get thrown to the House, but, unless a Third Party can carry some states it is a protest vote that is essentially a non-vote.

Yeah...that is my sense also.

JO

 

[georgephillip]

The only statement (of voting for a candidate that has no chance of winning) is to one's self........ and it's worthless since it helps elect the last person you would ever vote for.

What if both major party candidates qualify as the last person you would ever vote for

 

[afella]

Gary Johnson, Jill Stein....they ain't nevah gonna git there .... so why the vote? I ask not in derision or to make light of the process. For as long as I can remember a Ralph Nader type candidate has been part of the process.

As a pragmatist I would vote for a democrat if that democrat ( Elizabeth Warren for instance ) showed the hootspa I thought he or she needed to face down the globalist encroachment and take back this nation and as long as that candidate had a realistic chance. Other than that why go through the motions? I mean...I want my vote to count for something. It can't with a Johnson or a Stein....unless I'm missing something.

My ears are open.


JO

To stay in tune with a person's own morals. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, they're still evil and won't get my vote simply because I won't vote for evil. Even though one candidate might be more in tune with my thoughts and beliefs that candidates immoral behavior is more than enough reason not to vote for them.

 

[Craig]

Nah...it was close even though he lost. It wasn't a 20 point loss or even a ten point loss.
But yes he was soundly defeated.

I like this statement here:

To take advantage of your franchise as a citizen.

That has some pull with me. But do you say that a vote for a statistically lost candidate is a protest vote or do you say that it is simply freedom of choice?

JO

To use a tired old saw...it is what it is. Every election is different. It all depends on the candidates and the office for which they are running. As a left wing libertarian...yes...it is a thing...there are few candidates who ever truly alight my political candle, so I am always forced to make a decision based upon other considerations.

I have voted for losing candidates regularly in the past and will do so in the future.

 

[justoffal]

To use a tired old saw...it is what it is. Every election is different. It all depends on the candidates and the office for which they are running. As a left wing libertarian...yes...it is a thing...there are few candidates who ever truly alight my political candle, so I am always forced to make a decision based upon other considerations.

I have voted for losing candidates regularly in the past and will do so in the future.

I don't agree with your positions but I do think that as a contributing poster in this thread you did an excellent job of adding to the subject and actually providing me with some satisfaction to the original question. Hmmm...interesting to say the least.

Thanks

JO

 

[Lukey]

Principle. I voted for Romney even though I thought he was a poor choice (as I did with Gore and Kerry when I thought Bush was a disaster of a candidate), simply because the alternative was a continued slide into socialism under Obama. Well, that's (apparently) what the American people want. I'm done fighting. I only have maybe a few national elections left, and I don't want to lay on my deathbed and have to admit I compromised my principles to the very end. Seriously, you are a Republican (or at least a conservative Independent) - why wouldn't you vote for Johnson/Weld, which is the most Republican (and conservative) ticket?

 

[Wolfert Webber]

Principle. I voted for Romney even though I thought he was a poor choice (as I did with Gore and Kerry when I thought Bush was a disaster of a candidate), simply because the alternative was a continued slide into socialism under Obama. Well, that's (apparently) what the American people want. I'm done fighting. I only have maybe a few national elections left, and I don't want to lay on my deathbed and have to admit I compromised my principles to the very end. Seriously, you are a Republican (or at least a conservative Independent) - why wouldn't you vote for Johnson/Weld, which is the most Republican (and conservative) ticket?

Before even considering them, then one should ask,"why didn't you run as Republicans if your claim is to be "the most Republican (and conservative) ticket?"'

 

[Lukey]

Before even considering them, then one should ask,"why didn't you run as Republicans if I your claim is to be "the most Republican (and conservative) ticket?"'

Simple - the Republican party is largely controlled by corporatist neo-cons.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Principle. I voted for Romney even though I thought he was a poor choice (as I did with Gore and Kerry when I thought Bush was a disaster of a candidate), simply because the alternative was a continued slide into socialism under Obama. Well, that's (apparently) what the American people want. I'm done fighting. I only have maybe a few national elections left, and I don't want to lay on my deathbed and have to admit I compromised my principles to the very end. Seriously, you are a Republican (or at least a conservative Independent) - why wouldn't you vote for Johnson/Weld, which is the most Republican (and conservative) ticket?

I'm an advocate for people voting for whomever they wish to vote for. I only say this because I remember how some folks denigrated those who voted for Nader a few cycles back, as if they had no right to ( I recall one post in which they were collectively branded as "traitors"). I'm not a Nader guy, but if someone feels that the other candidates are unworthy of their vote, why should they feel compelled to give it to them? Most people know intellectually that a fringe candidate has no realistic chance of emerging victorious, but that does not mean they are "wasting their vote" by casting a ballot for them. It sends a message, and it is their right to send that message. Better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness.

I'm not an advocate for blind allegiance to a political party. That is subservience, and no good is likely to come from it. Vote your conscience, or if you so choose, don't vote at all. That too is a right.

 

[Lukey]

I'm an advocate for people voting for whomever they wish to vote for. I only say this because I remember how some folks denigrated those who voted for Nader a few cycles back, as if they had no right to ( I recall one post in which they were collectively branded as "traitors"). I'm not a Nader guy, but if someone feels that the other candidates are unworthy of their vote, why should they feel compelled to give it to them? Most people know intellectually that a fringe candidate has no realistic chance of emerging victorious, but that does not mean they are "wasting their vote" by casting a ballot for them. It sends a message, and it is their right to send that message. Better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness.

I'm not an advocate for blind allegiance to a political party. That is subservience, and no good is likely to come from it. Vote your conscience, or if you so choose, don't vote at all. That too is a right.

Yeah, I probably just would refrain this time around, except the Libertarians look like they will garner some considerable piece of the vote - and that sends a message (as well as promoting libertarianism to the youths who think it is some kooky ideology, yet agree with almost all of its tenets).

 

[Jets]

Strictly my opinion here, but to me it's more important to vote and be apart of the process. I'm voting for Gary Johnson, because I have too many issues with the Establishment Two Party system. I feel that neither party is representing my interests. The special interest groups essentially call the shots and the electorate is a distant second. I'm disgusted with picking bad or worse as my options.