I've been giving some thought to the arguments surrounding "wasting your vote". It has been and will be a hot topic of debate around here... I've tried to come up with a logical and rational way of looking at this.
I don't believe that it is fair nor smart to say that I won't vote for a "third party" candidate. I would, under the right circumstance. Specifically, they have to have a CREDIBLE shot at winning. So what, exactly is the dividing line?
After thinking about it, here's what I see as the minimum requirements.
1) they must have better than 75% name recognition
2) they must have a track record that gives me an idea of how they will behave under pressure
Consider: How the heck can %50 of the people vote for them if 75% of the electorate don't know who they are? Regardless of party - it's a simple, logical statement. If not enough people have even heard of them, then voting for them is effectively, intellectual masturbation. You might feel good for a minute, but it isn't going to get anything done.
As for the second item - sure, Justin Bieber has the name recognition thing - but there's no way of knowing how he'd react under pressure. Lots of people can get publicity, but that alone doesn't make them even remotely qualified.
So those minimum criteria determine exactly who is AVAILABLE for me to vote for. I may SUPPORT others , and agree with their views. But until they elevate their game to the above minimums VOTING for them has not realistic chance of making anything happen. They simply are not viable until they've crossed that threshold.
Right now that leaves two candidates.
Romney check.
Obama check.
Paul not running
Johnson name recognition issue I like the guy, he has a track record, but America can't find it's Johnson with both hands... (I apologize but the double entendre jokes are just too easy. I can't resist.)
In '92 three candidates met those criteria (Perot joined the game)
Thoughts? Can anyone tell me why I should consider voting for a person without enough name recognition to have a hope of winning. And Big L's in the crowd - there's your target.
I don't believe that it is fair nor smart to say that I won't vote for a "third party" candidate. I would, under the right circumstance. Specifically, they have to have a CREDIBLE shot at winning. So what, exactly is the dividing line?
After thinking about it, here's what I see as the minimum requirements.
1) they must have better than 75% name recognition
2) they must have a track record that gives me an idea of how they will behave under pressure
Consider: How the heck can %50 of the people vote for them if 75% of the electorate don't know who they are? Regardless of party - it's a simple, logical statement. If not enough people have even heard of them, then voting for them is effectively, intellectual masturbation. You might feel good for a minute, but it isn't going to get anything done.
As for the second item - sure, Justin Bieber has the name recognition thing - but there's no way of knowing how he'd react under pressure. Lots of people can get publicity, but that alone doesn't make them even remotely qualified.
So those minimum criteria determine exactly who is AVAILABLE for me to vote for. I may SUPPORT others , and agree with their views. But until they elevate their game to the above minimums VOTING for them has not realistic chance of making anything happen. They simply are not viable until they've crossed that threshold.
Right now that leaves two candidates.
Romney check.
Obama check.
Paul not running
Johnson name recognition issue I like the guy, he has a track record, but America can't find it's Johnson with both hands... (I apologize but the double entendre jokes are just too easy. I can't resist.)
In '92 three candidates met those criteria (Perot joined the game)
Thoughts? Can anyone tell me why I should consider voting for a person without enough name recognition to have a hope of winning. And Big L's in the crowd - there's your target.