Discussion » Questions » Politics » Is there any point voting for a splinter party?
Benedict Arnold

Is there any point voting for a splinter party?

Most countries have two parties which dominate government. Sometimes there's a minor party, like the Greens, or a number of splinter parties with their own axe to  grind.

If a person is dissatisfied with the two major parties is there any point voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning? Is the protest vote worthwhile? 

Posted - March 26, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 16792
    In a bicameral system, plenty. One of the major parties is almost certainly going to have a majority in the house of legislation, but it helps to have a sizeable crossbench in the house of review. Stops really draconian stuff from getting through.
      March 26, 2017 12:51 AM MDT
    2

  • We've certainly achieved that in Oz, recently. I hadn't thought of that angle. Still, it's not just draconian legislation that gets held up  but any legislation depends on splinter groups. 
      March 26, 2017 1:26 AM MDT
    1

  • Dear Slartibartfast, I wonder if you could say your answer in a different way? I do not fully understand...
      March 26, 2017 1:54 AM MDT
    1

  • Bicameral: two chambers. In the US that's Congress and Senate. A house of legislation and a house of review. 

    In Oz our senate is a hodgepodge of splinter parties who, when they combine, are able to support the opposition majority party and defeat unpopular legislation. 
      March 26, 2017 2:59 AM MDT
    3

  • So, Dozy...what Slartibartfast indicates is the effect of parties other than the two main ones? Like Canada, where the NDP, Green, etc. can indeed make a huge difference in legislation?
      March 26, 2017 8:52 AM MDT
    3

  • They can. It usually results from the splinter parties combining to blackmail the majority parties into giving them what they want so that they can pass the main legislation. Mutual back scratching.
      March 27, 2017 12:26 AM MDT
    1

  • Under certain circumstances I think your answer could potentially be YES.
    In this last US election 2016, the Libertarians had some kind of strategy where if they could get just 5% of the national vote, they could somehow prevent either of the two major candidates from taking the Presidential seat.

    I did not follow up, so not sure what they had in mind. But I do know that my own very opinionated State of Washington ALMOST did give them their 5%...did not happen nationally, though. But if the Libertarians did have a strategy that would work, then votes for them could REALLY have made a difference.
    (Washington is geographically red, but always goes blue because of the liberal concentration in Seattle and environs.)
      March 26, 2017 1:52 AM MDT
    3

  • What makes it geographically red? Sounds odd? (I won't see your answer till tomorrow.)
      March 26, 2017 3:00 AM MDT
    3

  • Hi Dozy, 'geographically red' means (to me) that the vastness of the state votes red; ALL the sparsely populated semi-arid farming and ranching east of the Cascade Mountains, along with some of the rural raincoast west of the Cascades.

    However, so much of the population lives in Seattle/Tacoma/Olympia, and those city folk tend liberal, so blue carries the day!
    * * *
    I just had a good time looking up our electoral history, and the last time WA voted red was the Reagan years, 1980 and '84...before that, much more back and forth, red/blue. And, in 1912 they went gold for Teddy Roosevelt, who in that tumultuous year ran on the Progressive Party, carried six states.

    Also, interesting and I did not know...in 2016, four of our 12 electors (who should have been solidly with Hillary, as WA is a winner-take-all state) well they were "faithless" and voted for Colin Powell (3) and one for Faith Spotted Eagle!
    Those four renegade electors could have been subject to a fine of $1,000.


      March 26, 2017 9:33 AM MDT
    3

  • Lots of new information for me there and a good explanation of why a Red state can be Blue. Thank you. 

    Would you believe that I had never heard of the Cascades? Even so, I did know about Mt. Rainier. My knowledge of the US is pretty spotty. 
      March 26, 2017 11:42 AM MDT
    1

  • Dozy, almost all of what I know about Australia, I have learned from you...although in that massive drought, began learning a little bit.

    This state WA, like many in the US, is quite fascinating. The clouds roll in off the ocean covering the western third of the state; then they hit the Cascades for what is known as adiabatic lifting, losing their payload of rain as they rise...keeping us all quite well-soaked here, while the eastern 2/3 was quite dry before irrigation from the Columbia River got going...
      March 26, 2017 11:54 AM MDT
    2

  • I learn so much on this site. Thanks, Virginia. 
      March 26, 2017 12:11 PM MDT
    2

  • NYS is similar.   It's considered a blue state in national and state elections( usually) because of NYC mostly  and a few urban centers but if you look at the local and county elections you see a whole lot of red and purple.
      March 26, 2017 3:10 PM MDT
    1

  • I did not realize that about NYS...maybe more states, too...
      March 26, 2017 3:18 PM MDT
    1

  • Yah,  If NYC was split from NYS we would probably be a battleground state.
      March 26, 2017 3:30 PM MDT
    1

  • Hmmm...Glis I have spent some time in Rhinebeck, the Hudson River corridor, and the Catskills...I think I can really visualize what you mean...got so entranced that I never even made it to NYC!
      March 26, 2017 3:39 PM MDT
    0

  • I voted for a Libertarian Party candidate in the last election as I couldn't bring myself to vote for either of the Stooges that were running. I don't feel like I wasted my vote as he actually did pretty well. I no longer vote for either of the two parties as they never have anyone worth voting for. The only other candidate that might have done a good job is this one. Couldn't be worse.

    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 26, 2017 11:42 AM MDT
      March 26, 2017 7:21 AM MDT
    6

  • Me and Goat ran and "couldn't be any worse" was our campaign slogan.
      March 26, 2017 8:39 AM MDT
    2

  • LOL!
      March 26, 2017 8:41 AM MDT
    2

  •   March 26, 2017 8:47 AM MDT
    2

  • I was astonished that the major parties could field two such inept candidates at the same time. I had to wonder whether there were any transfers out of the Presidential Protection Unit when Trump won. A dedicated agent might take a bullet for the president, but for Trump? I hope we never find out., 
      March 26, 2017 11:45 AM MDT
    3

  • They really did both  bring the biggest pieces of crap they could find  The DNC was slightly more offensive to me since they actually embraced and cheated their primary to bring Hillary.   The GOP at least tried to fight Trump out of it in their primaries.
      March 26, 2017 12:03 PM MDT
    3

  • That is what did it for me with the DNC...yes, "slightly more offensive" ...l
      March 26, 2017 1:25 PM MDT
    1

  • Yes, when the two parties are just archaic groups with only the party's existence in mind.

    It's sad how programmed the American public is into thinking it's GOP or DNC.   This election cycle should have been the time to give the finger to the toxic-two but the pied-pipers tune is powerful.  Sad.
      March 26, 2017 8:42 AM MDT
    3