voting for a canidate without a chance of winning

[whodaman]

even if this person is the perfect canidate, is it best to vote for them if they have no shot at winning?

I feel like my vote will be wasted if i vote for the third most popular canidate in my senate district, but i feel like if i dont vote with for the best canidate in my eyes than their could be bad repercussions, ie that person not running again next year or his/her views not being considered as supported as they should be?

Would you guys vote for a canidate with no shot at winning if you thought he was teh best canidate for the job?

[hmkpoker]

Consider your alternative: would you rather support someone that you don't actually want to get elected?

Either way, your vote is not going to matter one iota.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]

Would you guys vote for a canidate with no shot at winning if you thought he was teh best canidate for the job?

[/ QUOTE ]

Always. It's the only way you can even imagine getting additional viewpoints talked about. If no third party candidate show poll numbers, why would anyone take their views seriously?

[MidGe]

What voting for a candidate that can't possibly win, is also, is weakening the mandate claim by the elected one.

[cdutilb]

I am voting for Greg Creswell for governor of Michigan. He is the libertarian candidate. DeVos the republican challenger is the lesser of two evils but I refuse to vote that way anymore.

[AlexM]

No, the only way your vote is wasted is if you vote for an opinion different from your own. When you vote for one of the two parties instead of your favored third party, no one says "oh, another third party supporter voting the lesser of two evils". What they see is "oh, another supporter for us Democrats or Republicans, see how right we are?!?!"

If your vote actually had any kind of chance of being the deciding vote, like say a 1% chance, it might be worth it to support the lesser of two evils, but since it definitely does not, you're much better off voicing your support for the policies you'd actually like to see enacted, and maybe, just maybe that candidate/view will garner enough support for their policies to get noticed, if not to get them elected.

More importantly, even if you see it as the lesser of three or four evils instead of actually supporting the third party candidate, for most people it's still +EV to vote third party as that gets more opinions into the political arena and opens up the possibility of your voice being heard in the future. (especially since all third parties support election reform)

Voting the lesser of two evils is like folding when you can check.

[mmbt0ne]

I'm voting for Garrett Hayes in the GA governors race. When Purdue doesn't get 50% I'll vote for Taylor in the runoff.

[JaredL]

Your vote matters with effectively probability zero so you should certainly vote for someone in whom you believe.

[illeagle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Would you guys vote for a canidate with no shot at winning if you thought he was teh best canidate for the job?

[/ QUOTE ]

Always. It's the only way you can even imagine getting additional viewpoints talked about. If no third party candidate show poll numbers, why would anyone take their views seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]