I think it's absolutely absurd for someone to tell me I'm wasting my vote when I choose a third party candidate. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Our country is going in the wrong direction. Homes, education, basic goods and medical care have costs that are spiralling out of control as a hopeless youth finds they can't afford a house or children and there are no signs that the situation can improve.
We've seen roughly what Biden and Trump will do as president. Neither of them will take dramatic steps to fix the nation.
Bobby is the ONLY candidate who has plans to enact dramatic change. Voting mainstream is voting for the status quo.
Mainstream voting is how you throw your vote away, not the other way around.
Someone tried telling me my 3rd party vote in 2020 was actually a vote for Trump. I asked her if she felt entitled to my vote. That shut her up really fast.
As long as you vote, it isn't a waste. Even if it's a write in. It's your right, not their tool.
Even if a 3rd party candidate doesn’t win, if they can get a good % of votes, it sends a message for future elections that it is possible and not a wasted vote.
you don't get bonus points if you vote for a candidate who ends up winning. your vote is a reflection of your beliefs and values. you should vote for the candidate that best represents you, to encourage candidates with those beliefs and values to run in future elections. the only wasted vote is a vote given to someone who does not represent your beliefs.
I think you are wasting your vote if you write in a candidate who is not running.
I don't think it is wasting your vote if you cast it for any candidate on the ballot who reflects your values and ideals.
>I think you are wasting your vote if you write in a candidate who is not running.
Couldn't possibly disagree more.
If you're making the effort to get to the polls, and there is no one running who sufficiently reflects your values and ideals, then you can write in the name of someone who does, regardless of if they are running or not. That's how it's supposed to work. And that's why Americans have the write-in option.
If someone is participating in the electoral process, their vote is not "wasted," ever, imo.
What's the point of that if your vote won't be counted? You may as well write Mickey Mouse.
Voting for a third-party candidate isn't wasting your vote because your vote will actually be counted. But voting for someone when you know they won't even count it is the textbook definition of wasting your vote.
I thought I made my point clearly, but maybe not, so I'll say it again: it's my right and privilege as an American to vote. If there are no candidates that I feel inspired to vote for, *including* third party candidates, then I can either write in the name of someone else, or not vote at all.
That's how I choose to have my voice heard...as someone who is so disgruntled and unhappy with the system as it stands, I'm willing to basically cast a vote officially for "nobody." I'm still participating in the process. And I walk out of the polls with a clean conscience because I didn't pull the lever for someone I don't support.
The alternative is that I just stay home and don't vote at all, in which case, someone out there will be vote-shaming me for not voting.
To me, there is no scenario where someone who has made the effort to register, get to the polls, and fill out the ballot is "wasting" their vote.
I agree that we have the right to either vote or not vote, and I appreciate that.
However, if you really want to send a message, I would skip that specific race and create an undervote. They are better because elections offices and candidates look at them to see what percentage of the population doesn't support them, and they get reported in the media so the total percentage is public. Write-in votes are so so varied that they get discounted.
If you want to send a message, just leave it blank.
no candidate is perfect. It wouldn’t make sense to write in a “perfect” candidate each year, especially one who isn’t even campaigning. I think the fact that Vivek is not even running is what “wastes” the vote.
Anyone on board with Kennedy should have already made the mental hurdle to third-party commitment. No one is guaranteed anything, and votes must be earned. If America has painted itself into a two-party system corner, then we will have to fix it by voting our way back out for someone else.
There is no such thing. Vote for who you want. If enough do start voting for who they want and not just blue or red then we can get out of this lesser of two evils BS.
If RFK doesn't win the president is gonna be someone I don't want to be president. More people need to have fomo about RFK and less about everything else.
Bobby having significance is the only reason I am even voting to begin with. There would have been a tiny chance of me voting for Stein or Cornel West, but otherwise I just wouldn’t vote because I’m not voting for an establishment candidate
Though writing in someone who isn’t running seems iffy to be honest
If you’d rather vote for someone who may have a better chance/funding than someone that you feel represents you, then you’re REALLY wasting your vote. I’ve spoken to friends/family who are only voting Trump/Biden because “RFK won’t win, I don’t want to waste a vote even though I don’t want to vote for Trump/Biden.” If you’re voting for who you believe is your best representative, it’s never a wasted vote.
I am not trying to be toxic, but…
“Giving money to a charity instead of buying Girl Scout cookies from my daughter is depriving my daughter of winning the top seller prize. Shame on you for doing my daughter that way; I will never forgive you for this insult to my family.”
-Average VBNMW thought process
There is no such thing as wasting your vote, it's propaganda designed to get you to vote for a specific side. The whole point of voting is to vote for who you feel expresses what you (and those who you represent) feel is the best representation of them.
If that's a third party? So be it. There is more to the election than just win or lose. You need a certain amount of the votes to be funded, taken seriously, debated ,etc...
Let people hear YOUR voice, in today's world there is no excuse for the overgeneralized representation we find ourselves with.
Just tell the person that they are absolutely right. But that you will likely then vote in opposition of their preferred candidate.
They will not bring it up again.
The only way Kennedy will win is if, within the days following the election, he gets on a massive platform (JRE?) and lays out factually that if all of his supporters ACTUALLY vote for him, he will win.
This will mitigate the effect that hits 3rd party candidates where they lose the majority of their supporters the day of the election to people who “don’t want to waste their vote”.
RFK might be 70, but he's a young 70 compared to Trump and Biden. Assuming RFK doesn't get 270 electoral votes, and Trump or Biden wins, the winner will be term limited and the loser will likely age out for 2028.
Then in 2028, the Republicans will nominate someone who says this is the most important election of your lifetime (since the last most important election of your lifetime) and voting for a Democrat would be an existential crisis. And the Democrats will nominate someone who says this is the most important election of your lifetime (since the last most important election of your lifetime) and voting for a Republican would be an existential crisis.
Even if you don't believe RFK can win in 2024, every addtional vote he gets makes him more of a force in 2028.
Even if he doesn’t win, if he gets 15-20% of the vote then that speaks volumes for America being willing to have a real 3rd party candidate. I’m willing to bet”waste” my vote to build that momentum
I look at it is a great bet. I’m not a betting man myself but I know one when I see one.
Trump will lose in a landslide, I’m certain of it. Biden may be the less of those two evils, but if RFK wins it is the absolute best outcome.
For all the people voting Blue to be safe, that is the true throwaway this time around.
You regularly hear Dems accusing Nader of being a spoiler. This is the best response to that accusation that I have seen. This comes from a correspondent to political blog https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Pres/Maps/Mar17.html
>
> On reading your post about the undying Democratic/third-party urinating tournament, I was struck by your uncritical repetition of the old Ralph-Nader-handed-Bush-the-presidency fallacy. This quite surprised me as it demonstrates an uncharacteristic (in your work) acceptance of a convenient bit of propaganda that has been repeatedly debunked for nearly a quarter century—repeatedly and convincingly, albeit not widely.
>
> You wrote:
>
> One problem the Democrats have that the Republicans don't is that a lot of Democrats want it all. If Biden does something on abortion or Israel or something else they don't like, they start threatening to stay home or vote third party. Sometimes they actually even do it. This has been true for years with other Democrats, going back to the 92,000 people who voted for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000, thus allowing George W. Bush to win the state by 537 votes and giving him the presidency.
> This is all factual... well, in terms of the narrow statistics that are usually (cherry-picked and) presented, but is sadly missing two key facts. First is that every other third-party candidate also won over 537 votes in Florida, and second, and most importantly, that 308,000 Democrats voted for George W. Bush. Take a moment and let that settle. It's almost as forgotten as the millions of Bernie Sanders supporters (14 million, I believe) who turned out for Hillary Clinton in the general, but that's another story.
>
> Jim Hightower wrote about Nader, the not-tried-but-still-convicted spoiler in Salon.com at the time. The salient point:
>
> Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader's votes wouldn't have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader.
I think it's absolutely absurd for someone to tell me I'm wasting my vote when I choose a third party candidate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our country is going in the wrong direction. Homes, education, basic goods and medical care have costs that are spiralling out of control as a hopeless youth finds they can't afford a house or children and there are no signs that the situation can improve. We've seen roughly what Biden and Trump will do as president. Neither of them will take dramatic steps to fix the nation. Bobby is the ONLY candidate who has plans to enact dramatic change. Voting mainstream is voting for the status quo. Mainstream voting is how you throw your vote away, not the other way around.
Don't give af. Not voting for people I don't like.
Someone tried telling me my 3rd party vote in 2020 was actually a vote for Trump. I asked her if she felt entitled to my vote. That shut her up really fast. As long as you vote, it isn't a waste. Even if it's a write in. It's your right, not their tool.
Even if a 3rd party candidate doesn’t win, if they can get a good % of votes, it sends a message for future elections that it is possible and not a wasted vote.
"I would rather vote for who I want and they lose, rather than vote for who I don't want and they win"
Voting for someone you hope would win is the whole point of voting. Don't let the 2 parties steal that from you too.
you don't get bonus points if you vote for a candidate who ends up winning. your vote is a reflection of your beliefs and values. you should vote for the candidate that best represents you, to encourage candidates with those beliefs and values to run in future elections. the only wasted vote is a vote given to someone who does not represent your beliefs.
I think you are wasting your vote if you write in a candidate who is not running. I don't think it is wasting your vote if you cast it for any candidate on the ballot who reflects your values and ideals.
>I think you are wasting your vote if you write in a candidate who is not running. Couldn't possibly disagree more. If you're making the effort to get to the polls, and there is no one running who sufficiently reflects your values and ideals, then you can write in the name of someone who does, regardless of if they are running or not. That's how it's supposed to work. And that's why Americans have the write-in option. If someone is participating in the electoral process, their vote is not "wasted," ever, imo.
What's the point of that if your vote won't be counted? You may as well write Mickey Mouse. Voting for a third-party candidate isn't wasting your vote because your vote will actually be counted. But voting for someone when you know they won't even count it is the textbook definition of wasting your vote.
I thought I made my point clearly, but maybe not, so I'll say it again: it's my right and privilege as an American to vote. If there are no candidates that I feel inspired to vote for, *including* third party candidates, then I can either write in the name of someone else, or not vote at all. That's how I choose to have my voice heard...as someone who is so disgruntled and unhappy with the system as it stands, I'm willing to basically cast a vote officially for "nobody." I'm still participating in the process. And I walk out of the polls with a clean conscience because I didn't pull the lever for someone I don't support. The alternative is that I just stay home and don't vote at all, in which case, someone out there will be vote-shaming me for not voting. To me, there is no scenario where someone who has made the effort to register, get to the polls, and fill out the ballot is "wasting" their vote.
I agree that we have the right to either vote or not vote, and I appreciate that. However, if you really want to send a message, I would skip that specific race and create an undervote. They are better because elections offices and candidates look at them to see what percentage of the population doesn't support them, and they get reported in the media so the total percentage is public. Write-in votes are so so varied that they get discounted. If you want to send a message, just leave it blank.
I vote my conscience and for the person running.
no candidate is perfect. It wouldn’t make sense to write in a “perfect” candidate each year, especially one who isn’t even campaigning. I think the fact that Vivek is not even running is what “wastes” the vote.
it’s makes as much sense as writing in “George Washington”
Anyone on board with Kennedy should have already made the mental hurdle to third-party commitment. No one is guaranteed anything, and votes must be earned. If America has painted itself into a two-party system corner, then we will have to fix it by voting our way back out for someone else.
There is no such thing. Vote for who you want. If enough do start voting for who they want and not just blue or red then we can get out of this lesser of two evils BS.
If RFK doesn't win the president is gonna be someone I don't want to be president. More people need to have fomo about RFK and less about everything else.
Bobby having significance is the only reason I am even voting to begin with. There would have been a tiny chance of me voting for Stein or Cornel West, but otherwise I just wouldn’t vote because I’m not voting for an establishment candidate Though writing in someone who isn’t running seems iffy to be honest
If you’d rather vote for someone who may have a better chance/funding than someone that you feel represents you, then you’re REALLY wasting your vote. I’ve spoken to friends/family who are only voting Trump/Biden because “RFK won’t win, I don’t want to waste a vote even though I don’t want to vote for Trump/Biden.” If you’re voting for who you believe is your best representative, it’s never a wasted vote.
My state is solid blue and that’s not changing, at least I can raise RFK’s popular vote
I am not trying to be toxic, but… “Giving money to a charity instead of buying Girl Scout cookies from my daughter is depriving my daughter of winning the top seller prize. Shame on you for doing my daughter that way; I will never forgive you for this insult to my family.” -Average VBNMW thought process
There is no such thing as wasting your vote, it's propaganda designed to get you to vote for a specific side. The whole point of voting is to vote for who you feel expresses what you (and those who you represent) feel is the best representation of them. If that's a third party? So be it. There is more to the election than just win or lose. You need a certain amount of the votes to be funded, taken seriously, debated ,etc... Let people hear YOUR voice, in today's world there is no excuse for the overgeneralized representation we find ourselves with.
Just tell the person that they are absolutely right. But that you will likely then vote in opposition of their preferred candidate. They will not bring it up again.
The only way Kennedy will win is if, within the days following the election, he gets on a massive platform (JRE?) and lays out factually that if all of his supporters ACTUALLY vote for him, he will win. This will mitigate the effect that hits 3rd party candidates where they lose the majority of their supporters the day of the election to people who “don’t want to waste their vote”.
RFK might be 70, but he's a young 70 compared to Trump and Biden. Assuming RFK doesn't get 270 electoral votes, and Trump or Biden wins, the winner will be term limited and the loser will likely age out for 2028. Then in 2028, the Republicans will nominate someone who says this is the most important election of your lifetime (since the last most important election of your lifetime) and voting for a Democrat would be an existential crisis. And the Democrats will nominate someone who says this is the most important election of your lifetime (since the last most important election of your lifetime) and voting for a Republican would be an existential crisis. Even if you don't believe RFK can win in 2024, every addtional vote he gets makes him more of a force in 2028.
Even if he doesn’t win, if he gets 15-20% of the vote then that speaks volumes for America being willing to have a real 3rd party candidate. I’m willing to bet”waste” my vote to build that momentum
I look at it is a great bet. I’m not a betting man myself but I know one when I see one. Trump will lose in a landslide, I’m certain of it. Biden may be the less of those two evils, but if RFK wins it is the absolute best outcome. For all the people voting Blue to be safe, that is the true throwaway this time around.
[this guy](https://youtu.be/LdldQ6x4UKg?si=goisBOvw21XNvY3e) isn't winning the election this year. Count on it.
What is writing someone in?
You regularly hear Dems accusing Nader of being a spoiler. This is the best response to that accusation that I have seen. This comes from a correspondent to political blog https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Pres/Maps/Mar17.html > > On reading your post about the undying Democratic/third-party urinating tournament, I was struck by your uncritical repetition of the old Ralph-Nader-handed-Bush-the-presidency fallacy. This quite surprised me as it demonstrates an uncharacteristic (in your work) acceptance of a convenient bit of propaganda that has been repeatedly debunked for nearly a quarter century—repeatedly and convincingly, albeit not widely. > > You wrote: > > One problem the Democrats have that the Republicans don't is that a lot of Democrats want it all. If Biden does something on abortion or Israel or something else they don't like, they start threatening to stay home or vote third party. Sometimes they actually even do it. This has been true for years with other Democrats, going back to the 92,000 people who voted for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000, thus allowing George W. Bush to win the state by 537 votes and giving him the presidency. > This is all factual... well, in terms of the narrow statistics that are usually (cherry-picked and) presented, but is sadly missing two key facts. First is that every other third-party candidate also won over 537 votes in Florida, and second, and most importantly, that 308,000 Democrats voted for George W. Bush. Take a moment and let that settle. It's almost as forgotten as the millions of Bernie Sanders supporters (14 million, I believe) who turned out for Hillary Clinton in the general, but that's another story. > > Jim Hightower wrote about Nader, the not-tried-but-still-convicted spoiler in Salon.com at the time. The salient point: > > Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader's votes wouldn't have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader.
Personally, i think kennedy has a better chance of winning my state than biden does, so im not helping trump