@freemo Why even leave the house to vote then?

@LouisIngenthron

I would say the same about voting for a major party. In not a single election would your vote have changed the outcome, ever. So why do it?

Moreover, if we just look at the significance of your vote, you are a larger percentage of the vote when voting for a third party than when voting for a primary party. Something on the order of 50x **more** impactful when voting for a third party than a primary party in percentage of the vote you account for.

Moreover while not winning or winning for a primary has little effect from your vote, with a third party even loosing has a positive outcome. By swinging the % higher (which you do wtih 50x more effect) you are sending a message even when you loose by raising the % enabling third-party more likely access, exposure, and chance to win in the future.

@freemo The significance of a vote for a candidate that cannot win is zero.

So, a vote for one of the main parties is, by definition, more significant, even if it's literally one in a hundred million.

@LouisIngenthron

> The significance of a vote for a candidate that cannot win is zero.

That isnt the reality, and is a oversimplification to game the system.

You can argue it has a much LOWER chance of winning. but not 0... Based on historical data the chance of a third-party candidate winning an election or coming in second place (and thus becoming a primary party in the future) in any one year is ~7% , something like 3% for the chance of actually winning.

That isnt 0, it is low. But pushing for something with a low chance, that is far better for everyone, and having 50x the impact in doing so Is a very good trade IMO.

Also, what is the point of voting for a primary candidate when your chance of your vote having **any** meaning at all is 0.00000001%.. not voting would have no impact of any kind, so why bother, where voting third party has a 50x impact and even when loosing that impact has quantifiable gains (unlike with the major party).

@freemo That 3% is an average driven entirely by major outliers. The bottom line is, without the right combination of external conditions in place, the possibility of a third party finishing first in a FPTP system is effectively zero.

Primaries have different systems, but those that are FPTP do have the exact same dynamics I described above.

@LouisIngenthron

> That 3% is an average driven entirely by major outliers.

So? Its still the reality chance of it happening, 0 is not. Full stop.

> The bottom line is, without the right combination of external conditions in place, the possibility of a third party finishing first in a FPTP system is effectively zero.

Yup, and the chance of those conditions existing in any one year, and you personally making a significant impact to allow that to happen is statistically **hugely** more likely if you vote for a third party than a primary. Primary the chance of your vote making a difference is many orders of magnitude lower than when voting for a third party.

So again regardless of who wins, why would anyone bother to vote for a third party when their vote makes no difference at all? When with a third party it does, at many orders of magnitude higher. Isnt the point of voting to make a positive difference?

@freemo
> So? Its still the reality chance of it happening, 0 is not. Full stop.

In a vacuum, sure. But in the real world, we can look around and see that those external factors are not present this year.

> Isnt the point of voting to make a positive difference?

No, it's to reduce harm. And by throwing away your vote for an impossible candidate, you give up your opportunity to reduce harm.

@LouisIngenthron Incorrect.. in fact not only are the factors present (a great deal of dissasifaction with major parties, and each party acting acts its majorieis primary ideals and interests)... but more importantly as I've covered before third-party take overs always happen suddenly and unexpectedly. They were **always** <1% support before the election and switch to a majority support over the course of only a single election.

> No, it's to reduce harm. And by throwing away your vote for an impossible candidate, you give up your opportunity to reduce harm.

How can you reduce harm if your vote has absolutely no impact on the outcome of any kind? Cant reduce harm if your screaming into the wind doing nothing.

@freemo Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that every time a party has ascended in such a fashion, it had already established its viability by establishing a number of wins in downballot elections, right (or it was just a reformation of a previously proven-viable party).

I don't think that any have come out of nowhere to win, like they'd have to this year.

>How can you reduce harm if your vote has absolutely no impact on the outcome of any kind? Cant reduce harm if your screaming into the wind doing nothing.

But it does have impact. My vote is one of many that determine where the electoral votes go. Therefore, voting against the greater harm is a moral imperative, and the most effective way to do so is to vote for the only other viable candidate.

@LouisIngenthron Nope not at all. For example the bull moose party (also called progressive party but seperate from democrats) replaced republicans for one election as the second major party. They had no representation at the time in congress or presidential, yet in one election they took over majority from republicans and began winning congress with no prior support.

This is the one example of a third party that disapeared shortly after. Other parties hiwever with a similar pattern in the past took over and kept control pushi g out one of tbe two main parties.

What your missing is FPTP voting makes it haplen this way, take kvver happens abruptly with no warning and shoots to majority almost overnigght. This is due to coalition effects.

@freemo FWIW, my comments above apply *only* to electoral college votes.

When it comes to congressional seats or other downballot elections, a third party vote is *much* more viable and is not a throwaway.