As long as you're still voting for someone, I'm good with that.
Useless votes. Unless we change how our votes are counted, those votes are no better than not voting, especially if the main goal is to protest to top 2 nominees.
Unless we change how our votes are counted
Ask every politician you ever speak to about ranked choice voting.
For the record, I oppose their choice of candidate. I think we’re better off encouraging voting as a whole, than encouraging people to fully give in to the two party system - even if I’m convinced by those arguments and plan to vote for Biden, I know other people have other perspectives and priorities.
On the other hand, we KNOW for sure that people who oppose voting as a whole are Russian bots or completely reprehensible bastards, and that is a very easy sentiment to stand by. We also know that there is one party that wins more often when more people decide to vote. I’ll let you guess which one.
I’d also say for future elections, putting more and more votes on third parties can warn the two parties that a pure message of “At least I’m not HITLER” is not viable enough.
I realise the US uses FPTP, but can someone explain to me why this comment is being downvoted? I'd think participating in the democratic process would be considered a good thing regardless.
It's not as bad as refusing to participate, or voting for the downfall of democracy, but I don't think it crosses into the threshold of "good". Just "useless".
Legitimate question: is there no benefit to voting for a party if they won't win?
Do they get any future election funding or... anything?
If a third party gets at least 5% of the vote, they get a small amount of the official presidential campaign funds.
Despite what most people say, the only want you to vote if you're voting for the person they support.
As long as you're still voting for someone, I'm good with that.
Useless votes. Unless we change how our votes are counted, those votes are no better than not voting, especially if the main goal is to protest to top 2 nominees.
Ask every politician you ever speak to about ranked choice voting.
For the record, I oppose their choice of candidate. I think we’re better off encouraging voting as a whole, than encouraging people to fully give in to the two party system - even if I’m convinced by those arguments and plan to vote for Biden, I know other people have other perspectives and priorities.
On the other hand, we KNOW for sure that people who oppose voting as a whole are Russian bots or completely reprehensible bastards, and that is a very easy sentiment to stand by. We also know that there is one party that wins more often when more people decide to vote. I’ll let you guess which one.
I’d also say for future elections, putting more and more votes on third parties can warn the two parties that a pure message of “At least I’m not HITLER” is not viable enough.
I realise the US uses FPTP, but can someone explain to me why this comment is being downvoted? I'd think participating in the democratic process would be considered a good thing regardless.
It's not as bad as refusing to participate, or voting for the downfall of democracy, but I don't think it crosses into the threshold of "good". Just "useless".
Legitimate question: is there no benefit to voting for a party if they won't win?
Do they get any future election funding or... anything?
If a third party gets at least 5% of the vote, they get a small amount of the official presidential campaign funds.
Despite what most people say, the only want you to vote if you're voting for the person they support.