Going through the links at Bob's great round-up of Doug Hoffman posts over at The Camp of the Saints, I clicked through to read the following from Jonah Goldberg.
William F. Buckley's policy was always that he was for the most conservative candidate electable. This has always struck me as the most pithy and most sensible statement on these kinds of questions. Protest votes on ideal candidates are ultimately ill-advised and self-indulgent.
Here's one more quote about "wasting" your vote on third-party candidates by James Joyner.
Regardless, however, only McCain and Obama are plausible winners in November. Barring tragic circumstances, one of them will be our next president. It’s therefore irrelevant if one would actually prefer some third alternative.
The only way it makes sense, then, to vote for a Bob Barr or Alan Keyes or Ralph Nader or some other person who will not be our next president is if you honestly have no preference whatsoever as to whether McCain or Obama prevails. Otherwise, even if it’s a 1 percent, hold-your-nose difference, you should vote for that guy.
Busting the "Wasted" Vote Myth:
First of all, it's silly to label any vote for someone outside the 2 monopoly parties, a "protest vote." Because doing so only displays a lack of intellectual ability. It's basic herd-mentality. Nothing more.
Second, is voting for what you want really believe in, nothing more than "self-indulgence?" I ask, because that assumption reeks of progressive group-mentality!
Third, if you have no preference at all, then wouldn't you just stay home? Of course you would! Nobody goes to the polls and stands in line for no particular reason. That sure isn't a good cure for boredom.
Fourth, when you "hold-your-nose" and vote for the "lesser evil," you're still voting for evil. Right?
But all these theories are based on a faulty assumption: Your vote can affect the outcome.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news here, but no, your vote can't affect the outcome of an election.
Gasp! Why that's, uh ... Un-American!
Just think about a presidential election ... For your vote to affect the outcome, you would have to be the deciding vote in a "swing" state. So what are the odds that your state will be a "swing" state?
California has 55 electoral votes, so they have greater odds of being a "swing" state than say Alaska, who only has 3 electoral votes. But to keep this easy, let's just say each state has an equal chance. This means you have a 1/50 chance of living in the deciding "swing" state.
About 132 million people voted in the last (2008) election, but I'd like to increase your odds, so let's call it an even 100 million. OK?
Let's just keep it simple and divide the total number of people voting by the 50 states equally. This means your vote is 1 out of 2 million votes in your state.
Now, what are the odds that your state will be evenly split without your vote? To determine this, we'll use the following equation.
probability = 2.64/total number of votes
This means that the odds of you casting the deciding vote in your state, is only 1/300,000.
Since you only have a 1/50 chance of living in the "swing" state to begin with, the odds of you being the deciding vote then becomes only 1/15,000,000.
In other words, you have a better shot at getting struck by lightning, twice, in the same year!
Ain't gonna happen ... is it?
And that's looking on the bright side! If we were to calculate for the larger total number of votes, the electoral votes of each state, and the fact that most elections don't come down to a single "swing" state ... You might just stay home come November of 2012.
Then Why Vote At All?
It's true that your vote isn't going to change the outcome. But the reason you should vote, is so that you have a voice. It's your best shot at being heard!
What about "splitting" the vote?
Don't buy into that nonsense. Using Bailout McCain as an example, people who voted for Bob Barr didn't cause McCain to lose. Nor did people who voted for Ralph Nader, or others who stayed home.
McCain himself, is the sole reason he lost!
It's not your fault, my fault, Bob Barr's fault, or any other person's fault that McCain couldn't drum up enough votes to win. After all, if he was willing to represent those people, they most likely would have voted for him!
You might as well blame me for General Motors bankruptcy, because I drive a Ford. It's that ludicrous!
Don't let the Beltway-types blame anyone other than the product (politician) itself.
How to Waste Your Vote:
Vote for somebody you don't really like. Yes, wasting your vote is that simple.
Think about it ... What do you get when you "hold-your-nose" and vote for the "lesser evil"?
Well, obviously you get evil, but on top of that, your vote sends a market signal that says you support evil. How do you like that?
By your conscience however, you send a market signal in support of what you truly believe in, and you make it easier for that candidate's party to get on the ballot for the next election too.
So in truth, the only "wasted" vote is the one cast for anything other than what you really want. Voting your conscience on the other hand, can actually affect change.
What we need in this country is a voter's revolution! It's the only way we'll ever turn this thing around.
P.S. - What did your mom tell you when you were a kid, follow the herd, or follow your conscience? Just askin' ...
The following article also looks at whether protest votes are wasted or not in the context of the upcoming UK general election which all polls suggest the conservative party will win.
With small parties winning numerous seats lately at local election and european level there is a good chance to affect the policy of the winning party by proxy through showing support for a smaller party.
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2009/11/are-protest-votes-wasted-votes/
Not really … but that in itself is worthy of its own post, so I’ll respond (hopefully) later today. A bit too tired at the moment for something I have to think about.
That bit about “your one single vote can’t influence an election” is a misinterpretation of the Prisoner’s Dilemma problem that gave rise to the myth.