Sorry for the dumb question...

[bluemtn]

I'm seriously considering voting 3rd party this year, for a number of reasons. The problem I'm coming up with, I hear that a lot (or all) votes of the party (if they lose) will automatically go towards the republicans standing. The question is, how true is this? Is this just a myth?

 

[grydth]

Your question is not as silly as you give yourself (dis)credit for...

While Republicans - or Democrats - do not have any provision I know of for automatically getting the votes given to other parties, look very carefully before you vote.

Co-opting third parties has become a popular pastime among the major parties. You may see one candidate on multiple lines on the ballot - Republican, Conservative, Veteran, Right to Life, etc.... and I believe that the candidate does get the total of all votes from all lines their name is on. So be careful - you may be getting the same rotting fish in four different wrappers! Read your ballot for names, not just party lines!

 

[Sukerkin]

My gabber has never been so flasted! What kind of set-up is that ?

 

[bluemtn]

Well, I understand your meaning grydth. Thanks for clearing it up.

My gabber has never been so flasted! What kind of set-up is that ?

A messed- up set- up, I believe... I don't even want to try to understand the reasoning on that one!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Where I am, you can have 1 candidate running under several parties banner. While you can only vote for 1 person per slot, you can vote for them under various party lines. I tend to select all 3rd parties where possible so that the parties get the credit.

 

[MBuzzy]

I'm not quite sure what the above explanation is referring to, since in PA, under the "President" category, there are candidates names (party below)....same with every other categories. We don't vote by line items, we vote by candidate, except in the case of specific issues where a vote is separate.

My understanding was the in general when someone says that third party votes go to another party is simply that they are "taking away" votes from one of the major parties. I hate to be blunt, but it is fairly obvious that a 3rd party candidate isn't going to win. So by voting for them, you are effectively voting against both of the major parties, by not giving them your vote. You are reducing the number of total votes that either candidate can get. In some cases, when a third party candidates platforms are very close to one of the major parties....in the absence of that party, the voter in question would have voted for the other similar major party candidate.

 

[Mark L]

... I hate to be blunt, but it is fairly obvious that a 3rd party candidate isn't going to win. So by voting for them, you are effectively voting against both of the major parties, by not giving them your vote. You are reducing the number of total votes that either candidate can get. ...

I've always cast my vote with (or against) a major party, so as to have it "count". This time, as in all others (I think), my state will absolutely vote Democratic on Nov. 4. Voting for a third party in Mass. will have zero effect on the outcome, so it isn't a wasted vote, it's a message. My vote will be, as you've indicated, a vote against the major parties. I'll continue this new behavior until such time as the majors offer a candidate who doesn't induce nausea.

 

[Phoenix44]

in general when someone says that third party votes go to another party is simply that they are "taking away" votes from one of the major parties.

That was my interpretation of tkdgirl's question, too. We have no instant runoff election. So basically, if you're voting for Cynthia McKinney (Green), then it may be considered that you "took away" a vote for the Democrat. If you're voting for Bob Barr (Libertarian), you might be "taking the vote away" from the Republican. But if you were planning on staying home instead of voting third party, then you really wouldn't be "stealing" from either of the two parties.

In general, I'd say, vote your conscience. But remember that this is a very important election with two candidates with very different ideologies, and it could be a close race. So consider that, too. You might want to vote for whichever major party candidate, Obama or McCain, is closest to your own world view, and then work hard after the election to make your wishes known.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm not quite sure what the above explanation is referring to, since in PA, under the "President" category, there are candidates names (party below)....same with every other categories. We don't vote by line items, we vote by candidate, except in the case of specific issues where a vote is separate.

My understanding was the in general when someone says that third party votes go to another party is simply that they are "taking away" votes from one of the major parties. I hate to be blunt, but it is fairly obvious that a 3rd party candidate isn't going to win. So by voting for them, you are effectively voting against both of the major parties, by not giving them your vote. You are reducing the number of total votes that either candidate can get. In some cases, when a third party candidates platforms are very close to one of the major parties....in the absence of that party, the voter in question would have voted for the other similar major party candidate.

To clarify my response prior, heres a link to the 2008 NY Presidential Ballot.

http://www.elections.state.ny.us:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=candidate_gen_pres

You'll notice you can vote for McCain/Palin under several parties headers. In these cases, if you vote for John McCain under the INDEPENDENCE party line, it's the IP and not the RP that gets the voter point. Either way John McCain gets the vote however. They do this to decide which parties get the automatic inclusion, and which ones need to spend tons of time going door to door collecting signatures to gain ballot access.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I've always cast my vote with (or against) a major party, so as to have it "count". This time, as in all others (I think), my state will absolutely vote Democratic on Nov. 4. Voting for a third party in Mass. will have zero effect on the outcome, so it isn't a wasted vote, it's a message. My vote will be, as you've indicated, a vote against the major parties. I'll continue this new behavior until such time as the majors offer a candidate who doesn't induce nausea.

If enough people send that "message" it will affect the outcome.

The major parties would have you believe that voting 3rd party only gives their adversay an advantage. That is simply a scare tactic to encourage you to vote for one of the 2 major parties.....just more rhetoric and lies from the status quo.