Do you think it's a waste of a vote if you vote for an unpopular candidate?

Question

For example: Do you think I would be wasting my vote if I voted for Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson?

Answer 1

I think you should vote for whoever you want. I find it stupid that people say about a particular candidate, "Oh I really like their ideas but... I don't see them as being electable."

They're less electable if you throw your vote to the popular candidate, when you don't believe in them. Just because the media focuses on someone doesn't mean the entire political party throws their support to that person.

I personally don't believe in polls, so it doesn't bother my conscience if I don't vote for the candidate up on the poll pedestal.

Answer 2

It is not a waste to vote for people like that IN THE PRIMARY. It would possibly make a difference.

In the presidential election... no. First of all, they probably won't be on the ballot and therefore you would have to write them in... you might as well as not show up to the polls and do something constructive with your time. The same could be said for a 3rd party candidate. People will tell you that that would be "making a statement" but either party won't even hiccup over "your statement." With the process of a electoral college it will take a lot to make the parties tremble.

Answer 3

Not at all. When a lower tier candidate gets more votes than expected, it sends a message, even if there's no chance of that candidate being elected. Most recently, for instance, Nader's showing in 2000 forced the Democrats to service thier far left/environmentalist base.

Answer 4

Dodd might be the only responsible choice for Democrats.
He should tone it down though, there really is no reason for him to be so damned depressing.
He actually has a good understanding of some key domestic issues such as education and immigration and has not seen the need to change himself for the sake of getting elected like all the rest have. I can deal with that even though I don't agree with him on Iraq or Iran.

Answer 5

I think it's inspiring. The front runners are usually the ones with the most name recognition (star quality). Not necessarily the one with the best public policy ideas. I'm not interested in voting for a candidate because he has high powered friends or he gets the most air time in the news.

I want a president that plans on addressing the issues that concerns a majority of the american public.If it's John Edwards - here's my vote. If it's Ron Paul - here's my vote. If it's John McCain - wait a minute, let me get back to you on that one :P

Answer 6

I don't really buy into the argument that your vote is wasted if you don't vote for the popular candidates. By that train of logic every person who didn't vote for the eventual presidential winner has wasted their vote. Vote for the person that best represents your ideology.

Answer 7

As long as you vote - it's never a waste... voting for an unpopular candidate is not. You are making your voice heard.

Answer 8

No. If you just follow so-called 'polls', then you are buying into who is presented as the most popular. Then you are wasting your vote on someone who other want you to vote for, not who you want to vote for.

Answer 9

Absolutely not. Vote for a candidate that you feel will do the best job, instead of voting for someone that you will regret later.

Answer 10

No. Why would anyone vote for someone who they believe will not do a good job for all Americans while in office? I will not listen to the talking heads on television.

I voted for Eugene McCarthy and Ross Perot. I don't regret those votes.