Who are you planning to vote for?

[mattrose]

My vote is 'wasted' (in that sense) anyways b/c I live in NY and Obama is guaranteed to win those electoral votes. To me, I find it remarkable that so many people consider it a 'waste' to vote for the candidate you most agree with simply b/c they won't win! In my opinion, Christians in states like mine should enthusiastically vote 3rd party (since most will admit the 2 major parties both stink). Indeed, I could make a good case that a vote for McCain in NY is much more of a waste than a vote for Baldwin in NY.

[Paidion]

If you consider both candidates "evil", Matt, I think it furthers the cause of a better life for all to vote for "the least of two evils".

In my local riding here in Ontario ( basically a 3-Party system), I believed that Party C would be most effective. But I also knew that a lot of people would vote for the candidate representing Party A, the party with which I most disagreed. I knew from past elections few would vote for the candidate representing Party C, but that many would vote for the candidate representing Party B. So I voted B to try to keep A from winning. (Unfortunately, the candidate for A won anyway).

[mattrose]

But in the electoral college my vote for Mccain in NY would be useless. He can't get a single electoral vote from NY. If NY were a battleground state, in other words, I would consider voting for McCain as the lesser of 2 evils (so to speak). But since NY is decidedly voting for Obama, I feel it makes all the sense in the world to vote my conscience of who is actually the best candidate!

I have a plan that will never happen, but would work (in my opinion). ALL the political conservatives in certain blue (democrat controlled) states should vote 3rd party (Baldwin or Barr). What's more, all the liberals in the certain red (republican controlled) states should vote 3rd party (Barr or Nader). In this way, both corrupt parties will realize the extent of the dissatisfaction of the citizens. Battleground states are, in my plan, encouraged to vote as per usual. Let's look at a map:

The gray states (NV, CO, MO, IN, OH, VA, NC, FL) are toss-ups at this point. They can fight it out. The light blue (WA, NM, MN, WI, MI, NJ) are leaning toward Obama, but it's still close enough to fight it out. Likewise, the light red states (WV, GA) are leaning McCain and are free to fight it out, under my plan, as well. But this leaves 34 states that aren't up for grabs. McCain is going to win the bulk of the mid-west. Obama is going to win the north-east and west-coast.

One thing Americans agree about is that our leaders are doing a poor job all around. So why would people in these 34 states support candidates that they know won't win their states? All this does is encourage the two party system that we all agree stinks! Americans in these 34 states should unite in our rejection of the 2 party system. While this would, by definition, not impact the electoral process 1 iota, it would significantly impact the popular vote. And even though the popular vote doesn't count, it does get noticed.

In 2004, only just over 1 million people voted for candidates OTHER THAN Bush & Kerry! With my plan, at least 31 MILLION votes would be cast for 3rd party candidates. If you took 15 million votes away from each party in 2004, the results would have looked like this:

47 Million for Bush
44 Million for Kerry
31 Million for Other

Will the Republicans and Democrats take note of America's dislike for the 2 party system if 3rd party's only get just over 1 million votes? I certainly don't think so! But with numbers like those shown above, they will take notice. And, even more importantly, a good third party candidate would actually be in the media mix.

[TK]

how about a "none of the above option?" if this gets the majority, the parties have to come up with new candidates.

TK

[Theophilus]

Another important consideration between the candidates is who they will nominate for the Supreme Court. McCain appears to favor more conservative, traditional justices whereas Obama will be more liberal. This has a huge implication for the long term definition and interpretation of our laws.

If this is a close race, voting for a third candidate will draw votes away from the main race and could decide the election. So if you don't vote or if you do vote for a third candidate, you have still indirectly participated in the outcome of the main race.

[mattrose]

If this is a close race, voting for a third candidate will draw votes away from the main race and could decide the election. So if you don't vote or if you do vote for a third candidate, you have still indirectly participated in the outcome of the main race.

This is more true in a straight up popular election, but not very true with the electoral college system. As I suggested, people in the 16 'swing states' should consider such things as you mentioned. But people in the other 34 states should definitely vote for the candidate that is closest to them in overall political philosophy.

In other words, anyone who lives in New York, California, Texas (etc) shouldn't have your strategy in mind at all. Your vote will not make any difference and will only lend support to the 2 party system. But if you were to agree, mostly, with some 3rd party candidate, you're vote still wouldn't make a difference, but, at least, it would show a lack of support for the 2 party system.

[Theophilus]

I understand what you are saying about the electoral college. However, the assumption that certain states will always vote a certain way may not always be true. We won't know for certain until the voting has been completed.

My common sense tells me that there are really 2 candidates in this race, so I am only considering them.

I also recognize there are problems with the electoral college system and that it should probably be reformed.

[mattrose]

I think that is the best critique of my idea (that we can't know for sure what states are 'in play'). I would agree that we can't be sure that certain states will ALWAYS vote a certain way. I would take it on a election by election basis. But when you have 10 different polling agencies reporting a more than 10% gap between first and second place, I think it's fairly safe to say the race is over.

If 85% of Americans are mad at congress, it doesn't make sense that 98% vote for the same people over and over.

[SteveF]

While this would, by definition, not impact the electoral process 1 iota, it would significantly impact the popular vote. And even though the popular vote doesn't count, it does get noticed.

Matt, I've actually voted for an alternate party as a form of protest before. It seems that many others here in Canada have done the same. We now have a 4th national party that's grown in popularity every election. The leader was included in the national debates a couple of weeks ago. (We have a national election next week)

[mattrose]

Yeah, I used to know a little bit about Canadian politics b/c I went to school in Canada (New Brunswick)

What do you think of Harper?