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

[Howard_Roark]

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.

[fisharmor]

I'm getting more and more to the point of realizing that voting for practically anyone is a waste of time. Last couple elections I've showed up and either written in myself, or left it blank because I just don't care.

But without taking into consideration the overall meaninglessness of the act, voting for a candidate who doesn't represent your views is definitely a waste of your vote.

[ClayTrainor]

Personally, if I'm going to ever take the time to go out and vote, I'll only consider someone who is dead serious on their principles of reducing government on all fronts, regardless of their ability to win or not. Politics has educational value, as evidenced in the Ron Paul 2008 campaign, but I don't think winning offices should be the fundamental goal of liberty advocates, to be perfectly honest.

I wouldn't waste too much time thinking about who you should vote for, and don't feel like you have to compromise your principles to push for the kind of change you want to see. The voting booth isn't much more than a suggestion box for tax slaves... Nothing wrong with throwing in your suggestion, but don't delude yourself into feeling like you can change the world for the better by doing so. :)

[ViniVidiVici]

Its not a waste of my vote because if there weren't any libertarian candidates running, I just wouldn't vote.

[Imperial]

http://libertyticker.blogspot.com/2010/10/spoil-your-vote-case-for-voting-third.html


Let’s confront reality- your one individual vote will often not change the outcome of an election. Most congressional and state legislative districts are gerrymandered, so we know which party will win an election before it ever happens (unless you were in Massachusetts for Scott Brown’s upset). In addition, if an election is close enough to make each individual vote count, you simply move into the recount stage (which puts its primary emphasis on which votes are deemed valid).

However, individual votes do matter for minor parties and Independent candidates. The simplest function of this is the protest vote- you are an average citizen who is pissed off with the major party candidates, and you want to scream your displeasure by ‘spoiling’ your vote. This does serve a certain purpose, as it can force the major parties to expand their political base to account for your interests (provided enough similarly-minded voters also ‘protest vote’).

Nevertheless, there is a more practical function performed when you vote third party. Candidates outside of the major parties have difficulty creating a political base with the requisite fundraising capabilities and volunteer network. However, a strong showing at the polls can help alleviate this burden. For starters, many states have vote tests that determine ballot access for minor parties. Without meeting a certain polling threshold in previous elections, minor parties like the Libertarians and Greens must funnel thousands upon thousands of dollars to petition their way onto the ballot. However, if a party meets a vote test it can save this money for actual campaigning. In addition, strong electoral performances signal viability to potential donors and volunteers in subsequent bids for office for third party candidates. Thus, in a paradoxical fashion voting for a candidate who will not win can have a bigger effect than voting for the candidates that can.

I find myself with the same problem sometimes. If I have a pretty good Republican and an ideologically pure Libertarian, I will vote Republican every time. But if I have to vote for Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich or Mike Huckabee, I'll pull the lever for a third party.

[BuddyRey]

The only way you can waste your vote is by giving it to a candidate who doesn't deserve it.

[emazur]

Take Harry Browne's advice. You may think that by voting for the lesser of 2 evils instead of the Libertarian that you're being "practical", but in fact voting for the lesser 2 evils is the most impractical action you can take b/c it tells the parties that be that it's OK to keep supplying evil candidates because by being "practical" you have ensured ensured them that your vote is secured. If you're wondering why the GOP has consistently grown bigger and bigger over the years, it's b/c you keep rewarding them
YouTube - Harry Browne on voting for the lesser of 2 evils (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euckWFonKaU)

And as I noticed in a thread posted yesterday:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=264925
a Libertarian candidate received nearly 20% of the vote in '08 when he went 1 on 1 with a Democrat, and that was in an ultra liberal district and the Libertarian raised virtually no money.

So long as I'm here, give this video a watch:
YouTube - More and more Americans believe the 2-party system of politics is a failure, many support secession (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWPlirZnO2E)

[Brett]

If there aren't any Libertarians or good Republicans I plan on writing in my own name. For as many offices as necessary.

[surf]

no

[Wesker1982]

Was voting for Ron Paul in 2008 a waste of time?

It helped spread the message. Maybe voting for libertarians in local elections could have similar results, on a much smaller scale of course. Multiplied maybe it could have an effect? I'm not sure about this yet.

[Akus]

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...You, sir, are a part of the problem.

[AJ Antimony]

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.

[Gleaner]

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 candidates 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.

You are quite correct in you assessment. The answer is to take over the Republican Party. I think this slate of candidates is a great start. The biggest hurdle to get over is this idea of "Republicans & Demorats are out of the same barrel".

[LibertyMage]

There is an opportunity cost to every vote. Some Republicans are worth voting for. Most are not. The cost is subjective and it is up to you to make the choice about the value of the candidates.

[surf]

imo, if you feel "good" about your vote or voting a certain way gives you a clear consience, it is not a wasted vote.

a libertarian vote may or may not send the message to the politicians you may wish, but you can hope it does.

i wish i had libertarian options on my ballot but instead i have neocons vs neocons. the R candidate for senate (16 of 20 on C4L survery - yes to war and empire of course) blasts the D incumbent for voting for the bailout. my R incumbent representative voted for the bailout (and cap and trade) and the D opponent blasts him for voting for the bailout and voting to raise taxes. go figure.

[fatjohn]

how many others might be there thinking just like you? so no it is not a waste, it will show that the party has more potential and should be reckoned with and in turn your extra vote might be the drop in the bucket that persuades another republican voter to vote libertarian.

[libertarian4321]

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.

No, you are NOT wasting your vote when you vote Libertarian, especially in Texas.

Aside from what everyone else is saying, there is another important consideration in Texas.

In Texas, the Libertarian Party currently has "major party" status- ONLY because we have managed to pull in enough votes in the last election.

That means our candidates get easy ballot access- we no longer have to jump through hoops like the Greens and other small parties do.

However, that status is only good from one election to the next- you have to keep establishing yourself as a major party every election, and that is determined by VOTES.

If we don't get enough votes, we'll lose that ballot access and have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to jump through hoops and get on the ballot.

So your vote for a Libertarian, even if he loses, can be very important!

I'll be voting Libertarian whenever I can.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

voting for practically anyone is a waste of time.

Ding ding!

[LibertyEagle]

In this election cycle and the next, we have quite a few liberty candidates running for office. I hope none of you are suggesting that people do not vote.

[Brian4Liberty]

The only waste of a vote is to not vote. There are many advantages to voting Third Party in the General, as already pointed out.

[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.

:confused:
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]

:confused:
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. :D

[american.swan]

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. :D

Sorry, but I feel I should quote myself. Voting isn't enough!!


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.

[AJ Antimony]

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.

Very good point

[fj45lvr]

what has any other political party done for you lately??






The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes—a large class, no doubt—each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.

[cindy25]

the number of votes for governor usually determines ballot access for 4 years, so that is often the goal.
in some southern states there are run offs. so vote your heart the first round.
there is no one answer to this.