What we need is instant runoff voting in elections, so you could vote for your first party of choice, and then a second party if your first one doesn't get enough votes. My state rep, who is a Democrat, actually favors an IRV system, but he can't get many people to agree with him.
I have two counter-arguments to your post that I usually propose, although only one of them directly hits your discussion (and maybe even not that directly).
1. While it is true that voting for a party that has a chance of winning rather than for the party whose platform you most agree with hurts your party, there are times I would rather know that some of my platform is going to be implemented. Going into example-land, let's say you prefer the Green platform, but the Democratic platform is the next closest, and you reject the Republican and Libertarian platform. Voting for a Green candidate who has no chance of winning could yield a Republican winner, and then you'd see even less of what you want on the short term. In truth, all political parties are compromises for everyone in them; party members will flock with others who are mostly going their way in order to get some of what they want accomplished done.
2. There's a piece of advice I always give to people inclined to vote for a third party on the big ticket offices (such as president or governor). While doing so might make some sort of statement, it doesn't really create effective change in the long run (from what I can see). On the other hand, if a third party began by placing candidates in lower-level offices, the electorate can get to know and like them without considering party affiliation. If Selectman Bob goes to his constituents one day and says he's running for state rep, but by the way I'm a Green, they might say, well, we don't know the Greens very well, but we know Bob and we like him. And thus, though grassroots movements, a third party starts to take local stage...and eventually, the national stage.
no subject
What we need is instant runoff voting in elections, so you could vote for your first party of choice, and then a second party if your first one doesn't get enough votes. My state rep, who is a Democrat, actually favors an IRV system, but he can't get many people to agree with him.
I have two counter-arguments to your post that I usually propose, although only one of them directly hits your discussion (and maybe even not that directly).
1. While it is true that voting for a party that has a chance of winning rather than for the party whose platform you most agree with hurts your party, there are times I would rather know that some of my platform is going to be implemented. Going into example-land, let's say you prefer the Green platform, but the Democratic platform is the next closest, and you reject the Republican and Libertarian platform. Voting for a Green candidate who has no chance of winning could yield a Republican winner, and then you'd see even less of what you want on the short term. In truth, all political parties are compromises for everyone in them; party members will flock with others who are mostly going their way in order to get some of what they want accomplished done.
2. There's a piece of advice I always give to people inclined to vote for a third party on the big ticket offices (such as president or governor). While doing so might make some sort of statement, it doesn't really create effective change in the long run (from what I can see). On the other hand, if a third party began by placing candidates in lower-level offices, the electorate can get to know and like them without considering party affiliation. If Selectman Bob goes to his constituents one day and says he's running for state rep, but by the way I'm a Green, they might say, well, we don't know the Greens very well, but we know Bob and we like him. And thus, though grassroots movements, a third party starts to take local stage...and eventually, the national stage.