Why vote if you don't vote for who you want to be President?

Question

This is something that's puzzled me about the election. We have a ton of candidates with Hilary, Obama, and Giuliani getting the most media attention. Believe it or not, there are people out there that don't agree with any of them and instead agree with someone like Mike Gravel or Ron Paul. However, some supporters of these two say "Yeah, I'd like to vote for them but they'll never win".

Don't you realize that they'll never win because people like you say they'll never win, or believe that your vote doesn't count in the long run? Isn't staying true to yourself and voting honestly a good thing?

They won't win because of people like you who cause them not to.

example: I'm realistic and know that Ron Paul very likely won't win. He doesn't have enough money or celebrity endorsements, and as Bill Maher said, "If this country were smart, wouldn't you be voted into office?" But I'm not going to vote for someone I don't like because of it.

Answer 1

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

That's why you vote your conscience, even if you know your guy isn't going to win.

Answer 2

There are a lot of people who go to the polls to vote against, rather than for Presidential candidates. So, they pick the person most likely to beat the guy they don't like.

But, we definately need a viable third party in the US. Too many polls show voters disenchanted with both major parties and too many people are staying home because they don't like the choices.

Ross Perot was the most successful third party candidate in recent memory. He drew nearly 20% of the vote in 1992. What scared the Major Parties most was that exit polls showed that slightly more than half of his vote came from people who would not otherwise have voted.

If you don't like either of the major candidates, vote for the minor party candidate that most closely represents your views. At least that way you can send a message about which positions you support.

Answer 3

Unfortunately, elections have become more popularity contests than anything else. If even a small portion of the electorate chose according to who they really want to win the nomination there would be much closer races and more political parties involvedin the process. The media focuses on the frontrunners according to polls. People don't take the time to study issues and candidates' views on each of them, then vote accordingly. Many people are more concerned with choosing the side of who they think the winner will be than choosing wisely.
I agree with you completely. That is why I am now leaning toward Dennis Kucinich although he has a low chance of winning. More people should study his views and platforms.
I believe him to be the only candidate with workable and viable solutions to our many issues.

Answer 4

If you don't vote then the system continues like it has. We need to open our elections to more than the two party system but until more people get involved it will remain decided by those who go vote.

Answer 5

Sometimes we have to vote to block the opposite, like choose the lesser of two evils.

I think Ron Paul would get lots of votes if he ran as Independent. Especially if the Republican candidate is running solely as a social conservative and continues the borrow and spend techniques of the current admin.

Answer 6

The choice is always a problem especially when you get down to what's left.
Its better to vote for one then not vote at all even if it is a write in. I would rather vote for my choice then what is presented even if they won't win.

Answer 7

The electoral college is not going to put an independent into office, and since the majority of Americans are either democrat or republican, if you want your vote to count you should vote for one of them.

Answer 8

that makes 2 of us

Answer 9

I wouldn't know. I am still to young to vote.