No, it's not.Silverware wrote:Let's say you hate candidate A, and dislike candidate B, so want to vote for third party candidate C.
A gets 10 votes,
B gets 9 votes,
C gets 1 vote.
That one vote of yours is worse than wasted, it's the equivalent of voting FOR candidate A.
This is the First Past the Post system that America uses, and is horrible.
Let's imagine if you don't vote, the results look like this:
A - 5
B - 3
C - 1
If you vote A, the results look like this:
A - 6
B - 3
C - 1
If you vote B, the results look like this:
A - 5
B - 4
C -1
If you vote C, the results look like this:
A - 5
B - 3
C - 2
Notice how all those sets of the numbers are different?
Voting for a third-party is NOT the same as voting for someone you dislike. The gap between A and B is smaller if you vote for B than if you vote for neither, but if you vote for neither it is still smaller than if you vote for A.
Furthermore:
This myth of "a vote for C is a vote for A" needs to die. It's simply not true, and it's the primary reason you have crap candidates.DigitalDuck wrote:When both candidates that have any chance are both as terrible as they are this time around, this is the best time to think about how you are voting. Rather than be concerned about which flavour of faeces you get to eat for the next four years, maybe vote so you don't have to keep eating faeces four years from now?
Don't vote for a candidate that's the lesser of evils, because that will invite more candidates of that breed of evil next time. Vote for a candidate you actually want, and if you don't want any of them, null voting is very much an option. Sure, it might make the worse option happen this time around; but your options next time will be better for it.
A good example of this is the UK. In the last couple of elections, third-party turnout has soared - in 2015, UKIP gathered 12.7% of all votes. Despite the voting system meaning they only took 1 of the 650 seats available, the fact that even early polls showed a high number of people voting UKIP forced David Cameron to offer an EU referendum, in order to recapture those who were changing their minds.
Those voting UKIP changed Conservative policies. In the same way, those voting SNP changed Labour policies. You don't have to vote for the lesser of evils; you can vote to make the next election's offerings better.
Yes, the voting system can be improved. It's unlikely when you keep voting to keep two parties in power, because neither of those parties will want to change the voting system while it stifles competition.
