Wasted Vote Theory

[D22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasted_vote

The key quote in this link I believe is "A majority of votes are always wasted (in the wider sense) in a single-seat election, unless there are exactly 2 candidates and the margin of victory is exactly 1 vote."

Why do so many people here, and throughout the country, believe in this wasted vote nonsense? Is it the mentality that you have to be on the "winning team", is it your desire to achieve some sort of moral victory?

Did you personally assemble a block of voters, or participate in an organized block of voters, that determined the outcome of ANY election? If not, how can you say your vote meant a damned thing? In all reality, it would have not made any difference whether you sat your happy ass at home, or went out and cast your futile vote. My main target in all of this, and purpose of this post, is to try to question the logic of the large number of Libertarian minded voters we have on these forums. Do you not realize that if you vote for a Republican or a Democrat that you are rubber-stamping approval for ALL of their views? Last time I checked they do not give you a checklist asking you if you truly lean Libertarian but are just voting Republican so you do not throw your vote away. Since, technically, we are all wasting all of our votes every election, why not at least tell the government what you really believe in voting your conscious?

 

[Stunt]

Even though I agree with you, people should be involved in the political and should vote no matter the potential outcome of the election; there is still such a thing as a wasted vote.

In a first past the post system, the person with the most votes in a given district wins the seat or electoral votes; all those votes for the other candidates at that point are lost. Some states (Maine and Nebraska) have a proportional representation method of assigning electoral votes. So if a candidate gets 60% of the vote, he gets 60% of the state's electoral votes.

That is all the Wiki article is drawing the distinction between. There are ways to structure your election process to count all votes and not just the winning side. That decision is for the people to make...both have their flaws and benefits.

 

[D22]

Stunt: The proportional representation may serve it's purpose in a presidential election where electoral votes are assigned, but what about all the other elections such as senate, house, and local elections?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: D22
Stunt: The proportional representation may serve it's purpose in a presidential election where electoral votes are assigned, but what about all the other elections such as senate, house, and local elections?

I'm not a big fan of proportional representation, but there are methods to do what you request. You should look up proportional representation, there's lots of information out there; positives and negatives.

 

[yllus]

Proportional representation has its serious downsides, and a great illustration of this is Israel's Knesset. Proportional representation also leads to minority government after minority government, with the parties getting the largest percentage of the vote needing the cater to the whims and demands of smaller, often more extremist parties to form a ruling coalition. If you think the system you have now leads to the religious right or socialist left running things, just you wait and see...

First past the post at the parliamentary level is IMO the best choice out of a whole lot of imperfect choices.

 

[Bitek]

I was thinking about the 2000 election again, and all those who blamed people for "wasting" thier votes on Nader and let GWB win, when really far more people didn't vote at all. Those were the only wasted votes IMO.

 

[D22]

Outside of the debate over the best voting system, what about my premise of voting your conscious as opposed to rubber-stamping a "lesser of two evils" platform?

 

[3chordcharlie]

'Strategic voting' can have a place in areas where a majority of voters would prefer one of two candidates over a third, but the third is likely to win if everyone votes for their first choice. However, situations where this is really the case are fairly rare, and it's very hard to make strategic voting work in any case.

In general, voting for your first choice is the best long-run strategy, and is even more effective in a two-party system with independents. Over the long term, the political landscape can be changed - Canadian provinces (though not the edera government) have been able to put three or even four different parties in power, because voters are willing to vote for a losing candidate if they support them. Losing today does not mean you will lose tomorrow, and there is such a thing as political momentum.

For example, the quickest way for Americans to create a viable Libertarian party tomorrow is to vote for them today, even though they will lose. A party with 20-25 support at the polls will gain the legitimacy needed to move forward. As a side benefit, the current 'main' parties are always paying attention; threaten their dominance, and you will see them adopt the policies that people want.

 

[Tom]

The Wiki article is wrong, probably for lots of reasons, but here is one.

Politics isn't mathematics, the margin of victory matters. In terms of defining exactly what power the winner actually can wield, and in determining how strong the losing team could be, the next time.

The only wasted vote, is to not vote.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Tom
The Wiki article is wrong, probably for lots of reasons, but here is one.

Politics isn't mathematics, the margin of victory matters. In terms of defining exactly what power the winner actually can wield, and in determining how strong the losing team could be, the next time.

The only wasted vote, is to not vote.

I disagree.
Many who don't vote are not informed and seem to be passive on the issues put forward.
I am perfectly fine with people not voting for this reason.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Tom
The Wiki article is wrong, probably for lots of reasons, but here is one.

Politics isn't mathematics, the margin of victory matters. In terms of defining exactly what power the winner actually can wield, and in determining how strong the losing team could be, the next time.

The only wasted vote, is to not vote.

I disagree.
Many who don't vote are not informed and seem to be passive on the issues put forward.
I am perfectly fine with people not voting for this reason.

I personally think that if you don't vote then you have no right to b*tch about the state of affairs. You chose to not exercise one of the greatest rights available to us and have to live with the consequences.

And while your vote may be futile in your eyes, if everyone in the US felt their vote was futile and didn't vote, what would we have then?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Tom
The Wiki article is wrong, probably for lots of reasons, but here is one.

Politics isn't mathematics, the margin of victory matters. In terms of defining exactly what power the winner actually can wield, and in determining how strong the losing team could be, the next time.

The only wasted vote, is to not vote.

I disagree.
Many who don't vote are not informed and seem to be passive on the issues put forward.
I am perfectly fine with people not voting for this reason.

So am I, but all your point means is their wasted non-vote is just part of their wasted pathetic existence. :laugh:

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Tom
The Wiki article is wrong, probably for lots of reasons, but here is one.

Politics isn't mathematics, the margin of victory matters. In terms of defining exactly what power the winner actually can wield, and in determining how strong the losing team could be, the next time.

The only wasted vote, is to not vote.

I disagree.
Many who don't vote are not informed and seem to be passive on the issues put forward.
I am perfectly fine with people not voting for this reason.

I personally think that if you don't vote then you have no right to b*tch about the state of affairs. You chose to not exercise one of the greatest rights available to us and have to live with the consequences.

And while your vote may be futile in your eyes, if everyone in the US felt their vote was futile and didn't vote, what would we have then?

I agree. People who care about the issues and don't vote are not reasonable people.
Politicians work hard to get votes; that's the business they are in...nobody voting wouldn't happen.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Tom
The Wiki article is wrong, probably for lots of reasons, but here is one.

Politics isn't mathematics, the margin of victory matters. In terms of defining exactly what power the winner actually can wield, and in determining how strong the losing team could be, the next time.

The only wasted vote, is to not vote.

I disagree.
Many who don't vote are not informed and seem to be passive on the issues put forward.
I am perfectly fine with people not voting for this reason.

So am I, but all your point means is their wasted non-vote is just part of their wasted pathetic existence. :laugh:

Basically

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: yllus
Proportional representation has its serious downsides, and a great illustration of this is Israel's Knesset. Proportional representation also leads to minority government after minority government, with the parties getting the largest percentage of the vote needing the cater to the whims and demands of smaller, often more extremist parties to form a ruling coalition. If you think the system you have now leads to the religious right or socialist left running things, just you wait and see...

First past the post at the parliamentary level is IMO the best choice out of a whole lot of imperfect choices.

The difference though is there are only 2 major parties in the US.
The rest are virtually nonexistant.

Not much of a downside for it here in the US.

I don't see the Dems or Reps giving up their "majority" party status anytime soon.
There are 538 members of congress...1 is an "Independent", 537 are Democrats or Republicans.
I don't see how that can lead to "minority government after minority government" with those numbers.

 

[imported_Lothar]

BTW...Is writing your own name or doing a "write-in" for a candidate not listed on the ballot considered a wasted vote?

 

[ProfJohn]

This article seems to try and make a mathematical argument and apply it to voting. In a strict sense it is right, all the votes cast for the losing candidate have gone to waste, as have all the votes above the number needed for the winning candidate to win a majority.

But that is just a mathematical explanation. As someone said margin of victory does mean something, especially if it is a large one. Also a closer vote tally will effect how someone rules. James Webb (Va.) will be very aware of the fact that he only won by a few thousand votes as he decides which way to vote for the next 6 years. Webb knows that if he leans too far to the left the Republicans can take the seat back from him. A candidate in a ?safe? seat does not have this worry and can vote however they want though.

Since this is a big Football day I?ll end with a Football analogy, Indi won last week 15-6, according to this analogy every point they scored about 7 was a wasted point because it was not needed. In the end the extra 8 points were not needed to ensure victory, but while the game (campaign) was going on having those extra points made a huge difference in how the game is played.

 

[TheRyuu]

What if I voted for a Democratic President in Texas.

I think my vote would be wasted then (because hell will freeze over before a Democratic candidate gets the Electoral College votes from Texas )

Why does the Electoral College even exist anymore?
I want to directly vote for the president :|

I'm sure it'll never happen though.
Thats why I live in NY so my vote always counts

 

[XZeroII]

I didn't vote in the last presidential election because I don't believe in the candidates. A wasted vote (to me) is when you vote because you are supposed to even though you don't know who you are voting for. Not voting is better than blindly voting.

 

[piasabird]

If you do vote when you dont think your candidate can win, then at least you are focing the opposition to count your vote and you are affecting the total number of votes and the percentages. If you dont vote then your vote is wasted.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: D22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasted_vote

The key quote in this link I believe is "A majority of votes are always wasted (in the wider sense) in a single-seat election, unless there are exactly 2 candidates and the margin of victory is exactly 1 vote."

Why do so many people here, and throughout the country, believe in this wasted vote nonsense? Is it the mentality that you have to be on the "winning team", is it your desire to achieve some sort of moral victory?

... Do you not realize that if you vote for a Republican or a Democrat that you are rubber-stamping approval for ALL of their views?

No, I don't think they do. Votes are only wasted when there's no chance of victory. In that case, why not vote the guy that at least isn't a corporate whore (Badnarik(sp) is crazy, sure, but I was actually surprised my county gave Bush a win with only 80%)?

I personally think that if you don't vote then you have no right to b*tch about the state of affairs. You chose to not exercise one of the greatest rights available to us and have to live with the consequences.

Everyone has the right to complain about it regardless of whether they vote or not. Your argument only begins to become valid if that person believes a candidate that person would have voted for, had they voted, would have done things better than who was voted in.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Even though I agree with you, people should be involved in the political and should vote no matter the potential outcome of the election; there is still such a thing as a wasted vote.

In a first past the post system, the person with the most votes in a given district wins the seat or electoral votes; all those votes for the other candidates at that point are lost. Some states (Maine and Nebraska) have a proportional representation method of assigning electoral votes. So if a candidate gets 60% of the vote, he gets 60% of the state's electoral votes.

That is all the Wiki article is drawing the distinction between. There are ways to structure your election process to count all votes and not just the winning side. That decision is for the people to make...both have their flaws and benefits.

Nebraska and Maine do not have proportional assignment of electoral votes. It is a winner takes all system just like every other state except that the winner receives one vote for each house district they win and the 2 remaining ones for winning the state as a whole.