Until the current election process changes, or people start voting third-party candidates into local office, it's a waste of a vote for president. Just my opinion tho. And I'd never tell anyone that they shouldn't vote third party, because those who don't think it's a waste should be able to voice their dissent and send a message that they're not satisfied with the way things are at the moment. We really need election reform tbh :/

ETA: I mentioned local office btw, because what would even happen if a third-party candidate won? They wouldn't be able to get ANYTHING done, since Congress is nearly all Dem and Repub. We need to build from the ground up to get change to happen, not just do something radical that won't make a difference in the long-run. Start by electing third-party locally.

I actually completely get that and it is very true to some degree. But to me it then becomes one of those 'you need job experience to get a job', 'you need scissors to open the package binding the scissors' things. If no one votes for the third parties because they are told it's a wasted vote (not saying you said that, just in general) then how will they ever get traction? How does a third party vote become a not wasted vote of no one is willing to try to take down that system? How will the current election process even begin to change if people don't start vocalizing their dislike of it? Sure we can scream at the top of our lungs that we want a change. But let's be honest the big man in charge isn't gonna listen unless this person (or these people) see it in the way we vote. It's one of those cases where actions are gonna speak much louder than words. Because as it stands we are really kind of trapped. One day we'll have to put a dent in our box if we want to begin breaking out of it. Maybe not this election, but one election eventually.

I am undecided on this issue.

I don't believe it's a WASTED vote. But I do believe that the intentions behind such a vote can be misguided. "Protest voting" for example, is a bit conceited, in my opinion, but I DO understand "voting your values."

Of course... there's also link.

@sarabeara --

Independent/third party candidates do win local elections, actually. The one that comes immediately to mind is link on Seattle City Council (because Seattle is my local government). She's part of the Socialist Alternative Party, and is really popular here.

Then again, my city is infamous for being liberal to the point of extremist...

But Bernie Sanders won his senate seat as an independent.

For me personally I'm choosing to vote third party for a mix of reasons; yeah protest is a part of it but the other parts are, 1. I feel like Jill is the best candidate, and 2. I share most of her beliefs. But as you said there is the whole 'voting with your heart is more immoral' argument.

Awh, I'm glad third party people are starting to gain traction locally. It's all gotta start somewhere tbh. Progress is slow, but it's progress nonetheless. I'm from Baltimore where we live and breathe Dem, so I can't even remember if we've ever had an Independent in local office lol.

I know Bernie got his seat as Independent, but he's what? One of like five total currently? There needs to be more Independent representation.

It is really refreshing to see. Like you said gotta start somewhere, but yeah it's definitely so. Where I live it's more or less equal between dem and republican.

link has a way of convincing me... similar to John Oliver.

I'm leaning towards "agree" at this point, when I look at what happened in Maine. Not a wasted vote, but certainly one that can do damage to your own cause.

On the other hand, if Gary Johnson can court conservatives away from Drumpf, then I 100% approve of his message. I just don't want Hillary to lose the same way Gore did in 2000.

Like I've said elsewhere, I just can't reconcile a the impact of 'protest' vote or a 'vote against the system' with the enormity of consequences that would result from a Trump presidency. Third party votes may be appropriate in elections where the difference between the main candidates isn't so significant. They would certainly be appropriate if the US transitioned to a preferential voting system. But right now, this US election is the most consequential for world order since World War II, and the most consequential for the US since the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, link. Also link linked by Cinders was fantastic.

link

"What would even happen if a third-party candidate won? They wouldn't be able to get ANYTHING done, since Congress is nearly all Dem and Repub."
The Green Party may have some trouble with the right, but I think a Libertarian president would be just fine. The party pulls from the best parts of both sides - fiscally conservative like the Rs, and socially liberal like the Ds. (In the Rs, Trebek! #sorrycouldnthelpmyself) So the Republicans won't freak out about wasting money, and Democrats won't have to worry about things like marriage equality and abortion. A Libertarian is the closest thing we're gonna get to a compromise.

"How will the current election process even begin to change if people don't start vocalizing their dislike of it? Sure we can scream at the top of our lungs that we want a change. But let's be honest the big man in charge isn't gonna listen unless this person (or these people) see it in the way we vote."
Preach it, my precious. Americans *have* been screaming at the top of their lungs for change, but you think the people who run the system give a rat's ass what we want? link of Americans believe a third major political party is needed. link of Americans wanted to see third parties in the debates this year. And yet, just two in the debates, and the only time you ever hear anything about a third party in the news is when they screw up. The only way to show that we've had enough is to VOTE.

"Third party votes may be appropriate in elections where the difference between the main candidates isn't so significant."
They say that every year. In 2008, you had to vote Obama to keep Crazy Palin out. In 2012, you had to vote Obama to keep Super Religious Romney out. There is never going to be an "appropriate" time. I'm not going to vote out of fear anymore. I'm going to vote for a decent, respectable person with good ideas, and I don't care what party they're from.

FURTHERMORE, if a third party candidate receives more than 5% of the vote in this election, the party qualifies for public funding (close to $10 mil) and will be on the ballot in all 50 states in the next election. link.

@Dasm --

Why can't the appropriate time be right after a major election? What we really need is a reform of our voting system from the inside out. I'll give you this -- this election has really seen a rise in interest in third party voting, and I think that's an amazing first step. But at this point, I think the best next step is to begin to dismantle our first-past-the-post system, which would make other candidates more viable.

Candidates like Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Ralph Nader always disappear after an election when their voices could be the most powerful. If they can keep their momentum, they can use it to force a change in our system -- even if they only get a small percentage of the national vote. The important thing is to keep this issue on everyone's mind in the off season, so that they can push legislation that will help other parties in the meanwhile and be ready for the next election. Johnson especially, with his political history, should definitely be capable of pushing legislation.

TBH, we don't need an independent president, so much as we need independents in the House and Senate, if you really want voting reform. We need congressmen and senators who would write and push bills that would change our laws, which is beyond the purview of the executive branch.

I'll concede that getting 5% of the vote could be huge for the Libertarians or the Greens, though.

However, I'm beginning to suspect that the lack of media attention that Johnson and Stein have received have benefited them more than hurt them. After all, when you see how the two major party candidates have been picked apart, it's easy to look at the less-examined third party candidates and see preferable choices. But link they're just as flawed as the major party.

Perhaps this goes to the link philosophical dilemma? The concept that we think we're making these choices independently, when we're really not?

Johnson & Stein only get media attention when they screw up. I don't follow Stein all that closely, but Johnson has a lot of decent ideas, and I have never seen any of them mentioned anywhere but in articles written by off-the-wall news sites and in interviews. Those things in the Oliver video, they are carefully selected things to laugh at. Can't have anyone outside the system look like a viable candidate by showing a clip of them doing well. Those exist, by the way.

Third parties are on the rise, and I don't think Gary & Jill will go away quietly this time. People are flocking to third parties and realizing; oh, hey, I actually like these guys better than the party I'm supposed to vote for. Bernie started a movement of people getting pissed off at the way the system works and getting involved on the local level, and I think we're going to see a lot of change in the next few years. Shame it can't happen sooner.

I vote Libertarian whenever it's an option. Robert Sarvis, who has run for senator and governor of VA, is the first politician I've ever liked. (Accused of being a plant by both Republicans and Democrats, btw.) My mother, a lifelong Republican, cast her first vote for a different party with him. That was the first time our votes didn't cancel each other out. Bothering to show up together and vote for opposite candidates in every election since I turned 18, *those* were wasted votes. (And wasted time.)

Your first paragraph sounds a lot like rationalization. We capitalize on it whenever Trump or Clinton is caught in a gaffe, especially if you support the opposite candidate. But when it's ours, "Oh, the media is being unfair." Because you're right, clips of them being inspiring or talking well of their campaign do exist. I saw a hilarious one of Johnson calling Trump a pussy that went viral (in a good way, as opposed to when Trump said "pussy" in a bad way...) I've seen the memes and read the articles. I even shared two articles with my students from Newsela.Com about Stein and Johnson that made me like them more. But those articles, and the viral videos I've seen, only give surface impressions of the candidates. Seeing all of them is important, the good AND the bad, and I've seen both.

For the record, I STILL think both Johnson and Stein are extremely more qualified to run than Trump, and probably know more about their policies, too. Trump repeats the same bullshit and never goes into detail. At least Stein and Johnson both TRY to explain their ill-advised economics plans. Trump doesn't even do that.

I HOPE Jill and Gary (or for some reason as I just typed, Gil and Jerry) don't go away this time!!! But just because they provide another choice doesn't automatically make it a BETTER choice, and if we're going to seriously consider them, they deserve the same scrutiny we give the main candidates, do they not? Again, the good AND the bad. And I hope that it leads to other candidates, better ones, who know their plans, who listen to economists, and who don't want to eliminate entire departments of government when they don't even know what those departments do.

IMO, no vote is wasted. I haven't picked a side in this debate yet. I should. I don't think a vote is wasted, even for a third party candidate. But the spoiler vote argument is as compelling as the vote your heart argument, as Oliver stated. To me, they are equally compelling arguments. And I think both need to be considered.

But if you're going to vote your values, it's important to own the candidate you choose -- the good things they stand for AND the bad.

That's why people don't trust the news anymore. There's no such thing as unbiased reporting. I don't recall ever seeing any clips with Politician Trump speaking calmly and rationally. I'm sure it has to have happened at some point. But I've looked at his policies, and I'm not a fan, so I'm not interested in watching what else he (or Hillary) has to say.

People know that the media is biased, and they flip to a channel that best represents them. Republicans go to Fox, Democrats go... everywhere else? Who's on the side of the third parties? Where are we supposed to go, when the only time our candidates make the news is when there's a discussion about Aleppo or vaccinating? The internet, I guess. How are the people without the access or the know-how supposed to know that there are more to other candidates than just the LOLworthy stuff?

The country, and the networks, are run by people who benefit from the two-party system. Having citizens think that there is another option isn't in their best interest, so third parties are written off as protest votes, and wasted votes, and morons not to be taken seriously. My point, through this long and unexpected rant, is that you can find positive coverage on both Clinton and Trump in the mainstream news, if you have the desire for it. Yes, third party candidates deserve scrutiny just like the big two, but not only scrutiny. That's just all they ever seem to get.

I know Gary & Jill aren't perfect. But I much prefer their ideas to Clintrump's, even if they're just ideas at this point. A president has a lot of resources to help make informed decisions, and a lot of channels to go through to make them happen. They wouldn't just be set loose to do whatever they wanted. Somebody might want to mention that to a certain other candidate...

That's why people don't trust the news anymore. There's no such thing as unbiased reporting. I don't recall ever seeing any clips with Politician Trump speaking calmly and rationally. I'm sure it has to have happened at some point.

You know, I was just talking to a conservative friend about this on FB, how the media is skewed far to both the left and right depending on the outlet. And how there are no truly neutral sources anymore.

However... Sam Bee did air a segment entitled link and it's pretty good. She starts with Trump defending Planned Parenthood, then shows a montage of him making sense.

You're right, though. We don't show that a lot... but Trump makes it so damn easy!

"People know that the media is biased, and they flip to a channel that best represents them. Republicans go to Fox, Democrats go... everywhere else?"

MSNBC is probably the number one destination, and millenial liberals probably get a lot of their original sources from Samantha Bee and John Oliver... take that as you will. Also, is this a good time to say how much I miss Jon Stewart?

I hear you, though. Our media has become more like a circus of clowns and bullies, picking on the people they don't like and capitalizing on their massive failure. Trump may make this easy for them, but the others are just normal politicians trying to get by. And even when there ARE gaffes, our psychology allows us to ignore the ones coming from our already preferred candidate. I can't even name a single gaffe Bernie Sanders committed for example, because I was so blinded by my support of him. I KNOW he committed some. I just never remembered them.

If you really support Gary and Jill and can defend or at least rationalize their policies (I can't defend all of Clinton's, but I can rationalize them -- yay cognitive dissonance!), then more power to you. I just think it's important to know exactly which candidate you're getting in bed with, whether that's a major party candidate, or a third party candidate. And yes, I am very aware of Clinton's flaws as well.

Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't end my response with this call to action: VOTE DOWN BALLOT! It's the most effective way of cleaning out congress, and there are SEVERAL independents running in those elections as well. #KshamaSawantIsABoss ;)

Also, finally picked a damn side. :)

I just think it's important to know exactly which candidate you're getting in bed with

Do not make the pick. Do not make the pick. Do not make the pick. XD

I 110% disagree with this one. And I know I'm late on this poll, but SO many people have been blaming the 3rd party, that I feel the need to voice my opinion nearly every time it comes up, so:
-Voting for someone you believe in is NEVER a wasted vote. It's much better than voting for a candidate because people pressure you or use fear to intimidate you. My conscience would not be clear if I voted for Clinton or Trump.
-3rd Party may not have had a chance to win the presidency, but that's not ALL 3rd is aiming for. Polling at 5% gives benefits for the next election, not to mention the recognition. Johnson has earned that in 14 states. I'll have to check on the other 3rd party candidates.
-Most people did not vote just to protest, though I do find this reason acceptable. Not necessarily to say "Eff Hillary!" or "Eff Trump!", but to tell the establishment that you are not okay with the options they are pushing. That you want other choices and other candidates to have a chance and not be blocked by the media.
-I, as well as many other people, do not like Trump or Clinton AT ALL. If I didn't vote 3rd, my vote would not have gone to either of them. I probably just wouldn't have voted. And considering everywhere you look, people are telling you, "vote, vote your conscience, vote for who you believe in, just VOTE", do not try telling me you would have preferred I didn't vote than vote 3rd. Just don't do it.
-You consider my vote "wasted", but I could say your vote for Trump is for a racist, sexist, rapist; or your vote for Clinton is a vote for a lying, cheating, murderer.
-All these Hillary supporters are saying 3rd party voters are to blame for Trump's win. Everyone who says this appears to me as a sore loser who is looking for anyone to blame. Well, here's who you can blame:
1. The DNC, for rigging the election for Clinton. I do believe Sanders would have won if it weren't for this interference. Yet all his supporters wanna blame 3rd party and vote for the person who STOLE THE ELECTION FROM HIM! Some support.
2. Electoral College, for giving Trump the win, despite Clinton's win in the popular vote.
3. People who ACTUALLY voted for Trump. Not the people who, you know, VOTED FOR SOMEONE ELSE.
-I'm sure some others can take the blame as well, but I will not accept it. I did not vote for Trump.
-Not to mention, I voted in California, where Clinton won 62% of the popular votes. Johnson may have only received 5%, but I did my part and voted for who I believed in, and unfortunately he didn't make his 5%. I could do the same as Clinton supporters and blame people for voting for someone else, but that's the choice they made. I'm not going try to control or intimidate them.
-I hate Trump. I hate his policies. And I will fight when the time calls for it. But I will NEVER fight in favor of Clinton. Ever. She's a monster just like Trump.

In conclusion, I do not regret my vote. You will not make me regret my vote. When you tell me my vote was for Trump, you only appear whiny and selfish to me. I would never vote Trump OR Clinton. I've made my choice, and my conscience is clear. No matter what you say or think.

Sorry for the length, I'm just tired of the is BS.

link =D