NationStates Jolt Archive

I was looking at Wisconsin hoping Bush would pull it out to make Kerry see reality sooner, but it appears Kerry will probably win that state.

In looking at the vote data I have a question. Why do people waste there votes?

Look at this data from Wisconsin:
John F. Kerry Democrat 1,480,256 (50%) 0
George W. Bush (i) Republican 1,466,963 (49%) 0
Ralph Nader Independent 16,193 (1%)
Michael Badnarik Independent 6,420
David Cobb Green 2,650
Walter Brown Socialist 463
James Harris Socialist Workers Party 409

26,135 votes in my opinion were wasted on Canidates with no chance of winning. That could have made a difference in this state, if voters made there vote count. I am really curious why some voters will do that instead of picking one of the realistic Presidential canidates.

maybe they didn't like either Kerry or Bush. and by voting for a third person is their way of saying so.

After all, the really 'wasted' votes are the ones not cast.

How do you know that if they hadn;t votede for someone else they would have voted at all? Maybe voting for these canditates with no chance of winning was their way of saying "I care about democracy, I want to register my vote, but neither of the tow main parties is doing what I want". Is that any more of a wasted vote than all the people who didn't even bother to trun out?

I am not trying to be an a$$ but any vote not given to a realistic canidate might as well not have been cast in my opinion. You arn't casting a vote to help you if you pick a non factor. Might as well have wrote in Mickey Mouse. So it would be wasted. Its just my perception, I guess I could be wrong.

I am not trying to be an a$$ but any vote not given to a realistic canidate might as well not have been cast in my opinion. You arn't casting a vote to help you if you pick a non factor. Might as well have wrote in Mickey Mouse. So it would be wasted. Its just my perception, I guess I could be wrong.

No, you're not wrong, and definitly not an @$$. but all elections are not about one thing. Granted they may not like either one for President, but perhaps they wanted to vote on other things. other offices, senetors or laws that their state is voting on. Some probably just left the President portion blank. but they made their voices heard on other issues.

I agree R E Lee. With a laughable democracy like ours (2 parties?? only 2 parties that have a shot?!) a vote for an idepenant is a wasted vote. And you know the only reason Bush and Co. wants anybody else on ballots is to take away from Kerry and Co.


Who wants to start their own REAL country? I say we get a bunch of land or an island some where and start a REAL democracy.

If you don't vote the main parties assume that you are lazy, stupid or don't care.

If you vote for someone other than the two main parties you are demonstrating that you care about their policies, and would rather have anyone (even Mickey Mouse) than the two main rivals.

As a member of the 51st state, I want to know why I'm not eligible to vote.

maybe they didn't like either Kerry or Bush. and by voting for a third person is their way of saying so.

After all, the really 'wasted' votes are the ones not cast.

Exactly! At last ... someone who uses their head for something other than a hatrack for backward-facing baseball caps! :D

The only wasted votes were those not cast for me. When I take over in a few years all of the other votes will be rendered meaningless.

I agree R E Lee. With a laughable democracy like ours (2 parties?? only 2 parties that have a shot?!) a vote for an idepenant is a wasted vote. And you know the only reason Bush and Co. wants anybody else on ballots is to take away from Kerry and Co.


Who wants to start their own REAL country? I say we get a bunch of land or an island some where and start a REAL democracy.

yeah, Ive been ranting for ages. The big parties get all the votes because no one thinks say, nader could win. Then they get more advertising, and get more votes. The get more money from corporations, better advertising, weaker policies, serve the business not the people's wishes. Lie. Get more money, get more advertising, get more votes.

Advertsising should be limited to every party sending every voter its manifesto on paper. No smears, no media. Thats it.

No voters? probably, but everyone has a choice and tghen only the educated and passionate would vote. On policies not ads.

Democracy is a joke accross the western world. Big parties maintain their staus quo through big ad campaigns.

I am not trying to be an a$$ but any vote not given to a realistic canidate might as well not have been cast in my opinion. You arn't casting a vote to help you if you pick a non factor. Might as well have wrote in Mickey Mouse. So it would be wasted. Its just my perception, I guess I could be wrong.


Actually, they are not wasted votes at all. By voting for an independant candidate this time, it makes it easier for an independant to get on the ballot next time. Although these candidates have no hope of winning this election, in the long run, it may be worth it to attempt to break the two party system.

I agree R E Lee. With a laughable democracy like ours (2 parties?? only 2 parties that have a shot?!) a vote for an idepenant is a wasted vote. And you know the only reason Bush and Co. wants anybody else on ballots is to take away from Kerry and Co..
Concur with Notquiteaplace

Why do only two parties have a shot? The winning party is voted in by the colleges. The colleges are directly(?) controlled by the American public. The American public (for the most part) has the capability to find out about the policies of the 'minority' parties and should make a decision with all parties in perspective, not just the big two. Are the American public so swayed by the 'advertising' (mudslinging) of the reps and dems?

As for the UK, we vote New Labour or nothing. Not because of advertising but because we know New Labour better than the other parties now. We know they're lying out of every orifice on everything, whereas some other parties might be telling the truth sometimes. It's a good system.

The Democrates AND the Republicans only use America as a money making machine for THEM! They could care less about us. The only diffrence between the 2 is that Repubs are a bit more ruthless than Dems. 2 sides of the same coin. I AM DISGUSTED!

I wouldnt go that far. But they would rather win than do what is best for the nation. (which would be to let an educated voter decide on the best candidate)

I am not trying to be an a$$ but any vote not given to a realistic canidate might as well not have been cast in my opinion. You arn't casting a vote to help you if you pick a non factor. Might as well have wrote in Mickey Mouse. So it would be wasted. Its just my perception, I guess I could be wrong.
But if you always think like that, you'll be stuck with the same two parties absolutely forever.

Concur with Notquiteaplace

Why do only two parties have a shot? The winning party is voted in by the colleges. The colleges are directly(?) controlled by the American public. The American public (for the most part) has the capability to find out about the policies of the 'minority' parties and should make a decision with all parties in perspective, not just the big two. Are the American public so swayed by the 'advertising' (mudslinging) of the reps and dems?

As for the UK, we vote New Labour or nothing. Not because of advertising but because we know New Labour better than the other parties now. We know they're lying out of every orifice on everything, whereas some other parties might be telling the truth sometimes. It's a good system.

I'll be voting LibDem next election if it doesn't mean a bastard tory getting the seat

yeah, Tony blair... moderately conservative, Howard, Strongly conservative..... :rolleyes: Im voting MRL, as they are the progressive party (plus I dont want to vote for the others) afterall they were the first to suggest women's voting and I think school dinners or something simular.

Right now they want to paint all the roads the colour they appear on the maps. Which would make it a lot harder to get lost.

If they arent an option in Guildford, I shall vote Libdem too. At least our third party has some power.

Right now they want to paint all the roads the colour they appear on the maps. Which would make it a lot harder to get lost.

Um... right... and that's a serious political issue? I mean, don't they have better uses for their time and money which are, after all, limited?

Oh, Im joking. Im really on voting for them to show dissatisfaction with the other parties.

That might actually be quite good, if they just changed the road colours during maintenance it wouldnt cost too much more.

I cant trust any othe other parties on serious issues (I dont beleive them and so have no idea what they will do for real) so why should those decide my votes?

Seriously, I'll probably go Lib Dem.

The people who voted for these other candidates didn’t waste their vote. Maybe that candidate represented their political views. If they get enough votes, the 2 parties may take notice of them and change their platform.

So voting for the person you want to be president is wasting your vote? Excuse me for thinking that this was an election and not a horse race. :headbang:

Some people can't stand and vote for the lesser of two evils. They need to vote their heart.

Some people can't stand and vote for the lesser of two evils. They need to vote their heart.

More like vote their brain.

Voting for a candidate, even if they're not likely to win, means you're ready to stick to your guns and fight for what you want.
Voting for a candidate you don't believe in is a waste of a vote.

I agree R E Lee. With a laughable democracy like ours (2 parties?? only 2 parties that have a shot?!) a vote for an idepenant is a wasted vote. And you know the only reason Bush and Co. wants anybody else on ballots is to take away from Kerry and Co.


Who wants to start their own REAL country? I say we get a bunch of land or an island some where and start a REAL democracy.


But if you think of it , it is all self propagating

We don’t vote for 3rd partys because they couldn’t possibly win
But they cant possibly win because no one votes for them!

How are we going to get out of this rut?

I was looking at Wisconsin hoping Bush would pull it out to make Kerry see reality sooner, but it appears Kerry will probably win that state.

In looking at the vote data I have a question. Why do people waste there votes?

Look at this data from Wisconsin:
John F. Kerry Democrat 1,480,256 (50%) 0
George W. Bush (i) Republican 1,466,963 (49%) 0
Ralph Nader Independent 16,193 (1%)
Michael Badnarik Independent 6,420
David Cobb Green 2,650
Walter Brown Socialist 463
James Harris Socialist Workers Party 409

26,135 votes in my opinion were wasted on Canidates with no chance of winning. That could have made a difference in this state, if voters made there vote count. I am really curious why some voters will do that instead of picking one of the realistic Presidential canidates.

Odd. I can't help but wonder why 2,947,219 people wasted their votes on Bush and Kerry.

The Two-party system is the reason this country is so screwed up. People are voting to keep thigs as they are now. Are there really that many people who think things are FINE as is?!?