Active Now

Spunky
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


  • I guess I was thinking in terms of the Australian system where voting is "preferential". If your candidate is eliminated your vote goes to the next person on your list. That means that, no matter who you vote for, it will almost certainly be one of the two major parties (with the possibility of the Greens.)
      March 26, 2017 11:47 AM MDT
    3

  • Personally I think the USA should adopt some sort of score voting system based on voting for more than one candidate in a top down order.  Not one where candidates are eliminated though.  I wouldn't mind if party noms were done away with completely either.  I  think the people should be able to cast  a "No faith" vote as well and if it reaches a certain level than the candidates thrown out and a start over.

    The one thing that boggles my American mind about AU is the compulsory voting thing.
      March 26, 2017 11:59 AM MDT
    3

  • Love the No Faith vote. I can't imagine any politician voting to allow such a dismissive appraisal of their efforts, though.

    I consider the compulsory voting to be a mistake. It forces people to vote who have absolutely no interest in politics and no awareness of what's going on in the country. Far better to allow people to abstain if they don't want to vote.
      March 26, 2017 12:10 PM MDT
    3

  • That's sorta how i always felt about the "noble cause" of going around to register people to vote by knocking on doors and convincing them to do it.   I think it's great if everyone would and did vote,  but a big part of me thinks that if you can't go do it yourself ( which is very easy ) then you don't care enough to make informed decisions and don't really care to begin with.  You have the right buit can't even be bothered to put in any energy to exercise it.  If that's the case I don't really care if your voice is heard or not.  To me it's just numbers wrangling by a political party at that point.

    I can't in good faith critique another's system too much though considering the complete mess of my country's political climate and system.  I guess I see it like the Freedom of religion also means Freedom from religion concept.   If a person truly has the right to vote wouldn't that by definition mean they have the right not to vote?
      March 26, 2017 1:45 PM MDT
    2

  • Hi Didge and Glis,
    I really like the perspective Glis brings..."by definition the right not to vote"...and my own tweaks on that would include...

    Sometimes I don't vote, for (to me) the legitimate reason that I don't want to descend into a partisan fray...i.e., my vote is so important to me that sometimes I prefer to withhold it, and to live my beliefs instead.

    So; I DID make a point to go out and vote Obama in 2008, even though I knew he was inexperienced for what he was facing. But then his January 2016 State of the Union address, "Unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word."
    His ability to understand that, is what I was voting for 2008.

    And I don't care if some consider that unrealistic and unfeasible, I am going for the gold in life, as I see it, and when I cast my vote it is a kind of prayer...and the world needs to leave space for the idealistic dreamers, hearing their own strange drummers...and not force everyone into the same old tired pedantic molds. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 26, 2017 3:10 PM MDT
      March 26, 2017 3:06 PM MDT
    1

  • You'd think so, Glis. Unfortunately that's not how our government views it. We have the right to vote or the right to be fined.
      March 27, 2017 12:28 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    Even though I am conservative, I thought on balance, that Trump would be bad (worse) for America.--- 

    I voted for Clinton for one simple reason---Trump has the character, ethics, boundaries, and insight of the typical monkey---the primary distinction is that Trump wears a business suit.---

    And I learned over 50 years ago that the basic principle of Aristotelian metaphysics is "First you are and then you act."--- 

    And running a real estate empire and a troop of monkeys is too similar and explains his attempted rule by ultimatum and revenge.---

    The other similarities is that he looks at females like monkeys do---and he mates to declare dominance.  Other categories he tends to just f*ck at will.---

    To answer your question, Didge, I would separate it slightly.---

    In a local election, it is sometimes possible that a more qualified candidate will run under the "splinter" banner.  That is why I remain an independent.

    The presidential splinter party is more of a catch 22.   Many people that I talked to didn't like either Clinton or Trump and were going to vote for a 3rd part candidate---primarily in the hopes that they would get enough of the popular vote to get matching political funds.---

    If enough people thought and voted that way---less as a matter of conviction but dissatisfaction (with the presumption that the polls were right and Clinton would win)  Trump could have been elected by accident.---

    Fortunately, voting for the third party in my state did not influence the electoral vote of my state.
    This post was edited by tom jackson at March 27, 2017 9:27 AM MDT
      March 26, 2017 1:47 PM MDT
    3

  • Thanks for a comprehensive answer, Tom. I'd wondered how ordinary conservatives felt about Trump. I realise that it must have been the grass roots Republicans who put him in the White House but I can't see how any thoughtful Republican could have been happy about that. The refusal to pass his anti-Obamacare bill may indicate that they have drawn a line in the sand.
      March 27, 2017 12:32 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    I found some intelligent people who voted for him did so because he was conservative---preferable for them to extension of Obama liberalism.---

    Apparently, just like me, there was one consideration which they felt overrode all others.+
      March 29, 2017 12:28 PM MDT
    1

  • And there he sits...
      March 29, 2017 1:49 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    Yes--If the devil is the only one who can get done what you want done, it's probably still not a good idea to elect him.
      March 30, 2017 7:50 PM MDT
    1

  • 739
    With the mess Labour (UK, folks!) are in, I hope so, because there is no effective opposition to the Conservatives, and we need one!
      March 27, 2017 9:26 AM MDT
    0

  • 739
    Also, I sympathise with you Aussies on the compulsory voting issue; it sounds like a terrible idea, in my opinion. And I just don't understand the US electoral college system, but it doesn't sound democratic to me. Different states have different ways of doing it, so it is not even a level playing field.
      March 27, 2017 9:33 AM MDT
    0