2007-01-16 07:14:05 · 27 answers · asked by mince42 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
My answer is way down the list here, so There's a chance it won't get read, but here goes, anyway. I usually end up voting for a party that seldom if ever, "WINS". When I vote the way that best represents me, party or candidate, I am sending notice of the issues and platforms that attract my vote. This influences the platform of the big guys, and with any luck, to get the support of people like me, they will not overlook my concerns. When people brainlessly vote for "WINNERS", or by party tradition, they miss a chance to say," What about me?". a very fair Q that many neglect to voice.
2007-01-16 07:37:21 · answer #1 · answered by character 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If the winner or winners were decided by preferential voting, I would
vote for the best candidate. In a preferential voting system, voting
for an unpopular candidate is less likely to weaken the chance of your
popular favourite winning.
In a first-past-the-post system, I would certainly vote for the best
candidate if there was no clearly best candidate out of those who had a
reasonable chance of winning, or if only one candidate had a chance of
winning. Otherwise I might indulge in strategic voting.
Also voting for a party today gives it a better chance of winning in
future elections as it lifts the morale of its workers and the public
takes it more seriously.
2007-01-16 10:19:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I believe that even if a party doesn't win, the number of votes can get them funding for the following years, so I would vote for a party if I really believed in what they stood for, but if I agree with one of the major parties, I'd rather vote for them.
2007-01-16 07:18:09 · answer #3 · answered by Lowa 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes last time i voted bnp i know they have no chance of winning nor would i want them to.raciscm is caused by a feeling that one is getting more than the other in britain the normal man/woman in the street is treated poorly compared to a imagrant or asian or minority but a large turn out for a party like the bnp sends a warning to the major parties that the ppl are not happy and influences policy. i dont want to make any ones life unbearable just a even playing field for everyone
2007-01-16 07:28:00 · answer #4 · answered by phillip b 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. That's how Clinton got into office. People voted for Perot instead of George H. W. Bush. If Perot had not run, Bush would have won in a landslide. That's what you get for voting for a third party in our current system. Maybe if they change the system to allow a third party a realistic chance, but that is unlikely.
2007-01-16 07:24:54 · answer #5 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, we voted for the right wing because the other alternatives are useless. We knew that the vote was a throw away but just a protest vote
2007-01-16 07:18:32 · answer #6 · answered by Boscombe 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that if you are entitled to vote you should do so. No vote is wasted because the result are useful to establish a voting pattern. I certainly intend to either register a protest or write 'none of the above' on my ballot slip.
2007-01-16 09:14:18 · answer #7 · answered by Beau Brummell 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've been a Dem since 2000.
I ONLY vote for a party that has no hope of winning.
2007-01-16 07:17:55 · answer #8 · answered by The Teacher 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I always vote Liberal Democrats so yes.
Better that than just voting for the best of two evils(new labour and Tories) just because you know the party you believe in doesn't stand a chance
2007-01-16 07:18:05 · answer #9 · answered by cigaro19 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why not, these days, even if you vote for the winning party you are voting for losers.
2007-01-16 07:18:52 · answer #10 · answered by MtnManInMT 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋