In the US, the statement only truly applies when voting for a 3rd party, due to how our absolutely fucked FPTP + gerrymandered + electoral college system works, which additionally gives rural (predominantly conservative) areas disproportionately more electoral power. The bar is very literally higher for liberal (in the American sense of the term, not the European/global sense) presidential candidates. So if you vote green or socialist or whatever, you are absolutely voting against your ostensible interests in a statistically-provable sense.
I fear the expression leads to voter fatigue. Why bother if 65% votes one way and I’d vote the other. But what they don’t factor in is that if EVERYONE voted, those margins are small.
For me, I go through the motions under the assumption that the other side is going to show up in droves, and am then pleasantly surprised if they don’t and it’s not that close. But that’s the nature of voting - you don’t really know whether YOUR vote will “make the difference” until after the fact.
But realistically, it really doesn’t matter in more than 3/4 of the country, due to how the Electoral College works. If your preferred candidate lost by more than all third party votes combined, there’s zero way your vote could’ve changed anything.
And that’s the situation I live in. My state (Utah) almost always gives 65%+ of the vote to the R candidate. In 2016, Trump won w/ only 45% of the vote, but that’s because the other 20% or so went to Evan McMullin (Hilary got ~27% of the vote). I even tried voting Biden in 2020 because I figured people hated Trump enough (he got dead last in the primary here in 2016, below candidates that had already withdrawn), and I guess I helped because Trump only got 58% of the vote to Biden’s 38%. Excluding McMullin (basically a conservative), third parties got 5.5% in 2016 and 4.2% in 2020. I’d be very surprised if Trump gets less than 60% of the vote this election.
It really doesn’t matter who I vote for, so I make my vote count by voting third party. If they get enough votes, people will take them more seriously and politicians might take some of their policy positions.
If they get enough votes, people will take them more seriously and politicians might take some of their policy positions.
Eh, the best way to be taken seriously is relevant experience. Flight simulator enthusiasts don’t immediately become fighter pilots, frycooks don’t immediately become Michelin star Chefs, nurses don’t immediately become neurosurgeons.
President is a high level job with high complexity and high skill requirements. When a candidate’s highest office held is “community organizer”, that’s not a serious candidate and their policy positions don’t carry any credibility.
I’m absolutely for progressive policy, I just didn’t think voting 3rd party in the presidential election helps, even in shifting sentiment. What will help is relentlessly voting for progressive down ballot and locally. Get those community organizers into real political offices where they can build real experience and forward real policy.
Politics is a long game, trying to skip the middle stages is shooting yourself in the foot.
Oh absolutely. But you only get so many options for each position, so it’s best to maximize the utility of each of those votes.
In my case, pretty much every office will go to the GOP by a 20%+ margin. We used to have a competitive House district, but they gerrymandered that away and now every House seat is uncompetitive. In fact, many seats have no competition at all (my State House rep seat hasn’t been contested since I moved here, and the State Senate seat has been contested once). So I leave those uncontested seats empty or write-in (if write-in is an option), and I vote for the best candidate for the job for the other seats. What ends up happening is that my ballot looks something like this:
50% - biggest third party
25% - Democrat - occasionally a decent candidate runs
The rest are uncontested (e.g. State House) or non-partisan seats (e.g. school board).
And yes, it’s a long game, hence why I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils when that lesser evil has zero chance to win.
Sure, I know Texas could be more competitive, and there may be others. That’s why I point out the vote spread, if it’s bigger than 10% in the past few elections, it’s not going to flip this year.
In the US, the statement only truly applies when voting for a 3rd party, due to how our absolutely fucked FPTP + gerrymandered + electoral college system works, which additionally gives rural (predominantly conservative) areas disproportionately more electoral power. The bar is very literally higher for liberal (in the American sense of the term, not the European/global sense) presidential candidates. So if you vote green or socialist or whatever, you are absolutely voting against your ostensible interests in a statistically-provable sense.
I fear the expression leads to voter fatigue. Why bother if 65% votes one way and I’d vote the other. But what they don’t factor in is that if EVERYONE voted, those margins are small.
For me, I go through the motions under the assumption that the other side is going to show up in droves, and am then pleasantly surprised if they don’t and it’s not that close. But that’s the nature of voting - you don’t really know whether YOUR vote will “make the difference” until after the fact.
But realistically, it really doesn’t matter in more than 3/4 of the country, due to how the Electoral College works. If your preferred candidate lost by more than all third party votes combined, there’s zero way your vote could’ve changed anything.
And that’s the situation I live in. My state (Utah) almost always gives 65%+ of the vote to the R candidate. In 2016, Trump won w/ only 45% of the vote, but that’s because the other 20% or so went to Evan McMullin (Hilary got ~27% of the vote). I even tried voting Biden in 2020 because I figured people hated Trump enough (he got dead last in the primary here in 2016, below candidates that had already withdrawn), and I guess I helped because Trump only got 58% of the vote to Biden’s 38%. Excluding McMullin (basically a conservative), third parties got 5.5% in 2016 and 4.2% in 2020. I’d be very surprised if Trump gets less than 60% of the vote this election.
It really doesn’t matter who I vote for, so I make my vote count by voting third party. If they get enough votes, people will take them more seriously and politicians might take some of their policy positions.
Eh, the best way to be taken seriously is relevant experience. Flight simulator enthusiasts don’t immediately become fighter pilots, frycooks don’t immediately become Michelin star Chefs, nurses don’t immediately become neurosurgeons.
President is a high level job with high complexity and high skill requirements. When a candidate’s highest office held is “community organizer”, that’s not a serious candidate and their policy positions don’t carry any credibility.
I’m absolutely for progressive policy, I just didn’t think voting 3rd party in the presidential election helps, even in shifting sentiment. What will help is relentlessly voting for progressive down ballot and locally. Get those community organizers into real political offices where they can build real experience and forward real policy.
Politics is a long game, trying to skip the middle stages is shooting yourself in the foot.
Oh absolutely. But you only get so many options for each position, so it’s best to maximize the utility of each of those votes.
In my case, pretty much every office will go to the GOP by a 20%+ margin. We used to have a competitive House district, but they gerrymandered that away and now every House seat is uncompetitive. In fact, many seats have no competition at all (my State House rep seat hasn’t been contested since I moved here, and the State Senate seat has been contested once). So I leave those uncontested seats empty or write-in (if write-in is an option), and I vote for the best candidate for the job for the other seats. What ends up happening is that my ballot looks something like this:
The rest are uncontested (e.g. State House) or non-partisan seats (e.g. school board).
And yes, it’s a long game, hence why I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils when that lesser evil has zero chance to win.
I wouldn normally agree with you, but I think there are several red states that could be a lot more competitive this year.
Sure, I know Texas could be more competitive, and there may be others. That’s why I point out the vote spread, if it’s bigger than 10% in the past few elections, it’s not going to flip this year.