Is voting for a political party that cannot form a government a "throw away vote"? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Is voting for a political party that cannot form a government a "throw away vote"?

Debate Information

1. I vote for the Green party in my country ( Canada )
2. They cannot form a government any time soon.. the last election had them at 6.55% of the votes.
3. A lot of people tell me to vote for a party that has and can form a government.
  1. Live Poll

    Is voting Green in a federal election in Canada a waste of a vote?

    3 votes
    1. Yep.
        0.00%
    2. Nope.
      100.00%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • exconexcon 228 Pts   -  

    Hello B:

    No..  Every vote counts and every vote is important.

    excon
    BlastcatpiloteerPlaffelvohfen
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    excon said:

    Hello B:

    No..  Every vote counts and every vote is important.

    excon

    #yeahbutwhy
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    I say no because the support has to start somewhere.  As more support is shown, people will be less likely to view the third party as a throw away.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 14
    @Blastcat

    I say no because the support has to start somewhere.  As more support is shown, people will be less likely to view the third party as a throw away.

    Yeah, their first election in 1984 got them 0.2% of the votes.
    Last election up to 6.5%

    Creeping up like a socialist ivy.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 556 Pts   -   edited September 14
    @Blastcat
    It's better to give a little bit of a boost to a candidate you do like so that they might gain popularity, than to contribute to the rule of a candidate you don't like.
    Too many people today for a candidate that they see as the lesser of two evils rather than voting for who they agree with, if people didn't think that way I doubt we'd have the two party system we have now, if a party like the greens where to get maybe 20% these lesser of two evil sorts are more likely to vote for them because they don't see them as this little fringe party that nobody cares about.
    I'm also a Canadian, I know who I'm voting for (if I vote at all), they don't have much chances of forming any sort of government. But I Dislike all of the candidates that do.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 14

    I don't vote for the candidate. I vote for the party.
    Im more of an ideas person.

    Having said that, of course, there are politicians that make me gag.
    Mostly in the States. In Canada... hmmm. My local PC candidate is a conspiracy theorist and is quite popular in this blue part of the country.

    Gag. If I were voting PC, I would not vote for him, and I would be sure to tell his party's leader why. So.. yeah, the candidate does matter. But I've been voting green most of my life. I like the idea of green. Global warming is getting hotter. It's a thing.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    "Creeping up like a socialist ivy."

    Well in that case, sorry
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Not a general enough question

    Voting for anyone or anything in a democratic election is a waste of time and effort. Statistically, you are more likely to be struck by a lightning twice, than change the outcome of the election with your vote, let alone change the number of votes in favor of your choice noticeably.

    From the practical standpoint, voting makes sense in a small pool of voters (no more than several dozen), and only on contentuous issues where you know or suspect the numbers are going to be close. Otherwise, the price you pay by spending a lot of time studying the issue in detail is going to far exceed the expectation of the reward.

    To make an informed vote in a parliamentary election, you need to know somewhat well economics, the law, history... Most people do not, and those who do are too busy applying their knowledge at their jobs to make the time it takes to cast a vote worth their while.

    I personally think that democratic elections are a sham. The real power of a functional modern democracy is not the ability of people to "vote" (throwing a straw into a haystack), but the durable institutions, separation of powers, the constitution, and - most of all - (relatively) independent private enterprise. People never rule; they are ruled. But if the rulers are pitted against each other, then they cannot consolidate their efforts well enough to take everything under control, and some remainder of freedom keeps the train going.
    BlastcatPlaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -   edited September 15
    @Blastcat

    Being from the US, I'm not to familiar with the process of forming governments based on multiple parties. We have a two party system in the US. But it is no way set in stone which two parties the government must be formed by. 

    That being said, if we all continually just vote for parties that we all hate (which we do), then it is only us who is to blame for all that happens to us because how we voted. Our system was made for the purpose of influencing the major parties. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were huge in forcing the major parties to have to cater to the wants of unregistered voters, and even fringe party affiliates. When people like Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul become major political influences, it is specifically because of the popularity of minority parties. When the major parties see minor party candidates getting up beyond 5% of the vote, they know those candidates are taking away voters. If you just capitulate to the masses, then you deserve mainstream party policies to be implemented on you!!!          
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:
    @Blastcat

    Being from the US, I'm not to familiar with the process of forming governments based on multiple parties. We have a two party system in the US. But it is no way set in stone which two parties the government must be formed by. 

    That being said, if we all continually just vote for parties that we all hate (which we do), then it is only us who is to blame for all that happens to us because how we voted. Our system was made for the purpose of influencing the major parties. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were huge in forcing the major parties to have to cater to the wants of unregistered voters, and even fringe party affiliates. When people like Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul become major political influences, it is specifically because of the popularity of minority parties. When the major parties see minor party candidates getting up beyond 5% of the vote, they know those candidates are taking away voters. If you just capitulate to the masses, then you deserve mainstream party policies to be implemented on you!!!          

    I count about 6 federal political parties in the USA.. and of course, there are many independents


  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 15

    Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were huge in forcing the major parties to have to cater to the wants of unregistered voters, and even fringe party affiliates.
    Interesting claim.
    Do you have sources for that stunning bit of information?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:
    @Blastcat

    Being from the US, I'm not to familiar with the process of forming governments based on multiple parties. We have a two party system in the US. But it is no way set in stone which two parties the government must be formed by. 

    That being said, if we all continually just vote for parties that we all hate (which we do), then it is only us who is to blame for all that happens to us because how we voted. Our system was made for the purpose of influencing the major parties. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were huge in forcing the major parties to have to cater to the wants of unregistered voters, and even fringe party affiliates. When people like Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul become major political influences, it is specifically because of the popularity of minority parties. When the major parties see minor party candidates getting up beyond 5% of the vote, they know those candidates are taking away voters. If you just capitulate to the masses, then you deserve mainstream party policies to be implemented on you!!!          
    The only practical difference between having multiple viable parties and just two parties is the short period of coalition formation in the former immediately following the election. As in all parliamentary systems at present the majority-vote overrides almost all other considerations, every election is followed by multiple parties uniting into a coalition that approximates the conglomerate of median views among the constituents - and, naturally, there are only two major coalitions of this kind that are always formed, one being the ruling one, and another one being the opposition. There is no room for the third one: if the opposition is split into two sizable camps, then it cannot reasonably oppose the ruling party.

    There are certain advantages to multi-party systems, as even in a united coalition individual parties have some say. Say, Libertarians in the US are virtually useless - but, say, the Liberal Alliance in Denmark has *some* power, and its rhetoric is, arguably, one of the reasons why Denmark keeps a decently free market running, despite the immense influence of the socialist narrative in that country.
    But there are also disadvantages, as the party you voted for is necessarily going to compromise on its platform with other parties. You may be voting for a party because it promised to lower real estate taxes - but it is forced to form a coalition with those who do not want to do it, and ends up acting against its promises.

    Ultimately, no matter what system is implemented, you cannot go over the fact that one person's vote is fairly irrelevant. No matter who you vote for, you are going to lose. On the free market, you vote with your wallet and get exactly what you paid for. But on the political market, your wallet is in the hands of the mob, and the mob decides what you pay for and what you get.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 15

    But on the political market, your wallet is in the hands of the mob, and the mob decides what you pay for and what you get.

    Some countries pretend to have a democracy, so you are, at best, only partly right. North Korea is said to run sham elections. Russia also comes to mind.

    However, to say that all elections in every country that has elections are fraudulent is an over-generalization that I will demand evidence for, or have to dismiss your case the same way that courts dismissed Trump's 60 cases about voter fraud during the 2020 election.

    The technical term for your mistake is "hasty-generalization".


    One of Trump's anti-democratic tactics is to cast aspersion on people in authority. From the DOJ, to the elections, to the scientists fighting Covid, to the media that doesn't agree with his lies. He has convinced about 35% of his country, and that affect might last decades, if not more. It worked on you, it's based on faith, and I say that religious people are set up to believe things for no good reason.. and call it faith.

    Trump has yet to provide any objective evidence for the massive voter fraud that he still claims. I predict that he will keep claiming victory in the 2020 election till the day that he dies. Same with his followers.

    His followers are as likely to give up allegiance to Trump as they are to Jesus. I'm not hopeful for these people. And unfortunately, the same people are the people who are mostly dying of Covid because they have the strange notion that vaccines are more harmful than the disease they are used to prevent.

    There is a high correlation between red states, and covid deaths. Biden is starting to mandate vaccines and masks, but that might be too late. The Republican party, might quite literally, die out. I'm going to guess that you refuse to take the vaccines, based on your use of conspiracy theory in your thinking.

    Let me know if I'm wrong.
    I hate to be wrong, but I love to make guesses.


    CYDdharta
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -   edited September 15
    @Blastcat

    https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1992

    In 1992, Ross Perot got the highest percentage of votes (19%) that any independent candidate had ever gotten since 1912. 

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_2000_presidential_campaign

    Although Ralph Nader did not reach the magic number of 5% of the vote to get federal funds for campaigns in the next presidential election, he did manage to get the green party on the ballot in many US states. After his unsuccessful bid to become president, he wrote a book in which he endorsed Rand Paul in 2016. He argued that the new libertarian political movement on the left and the right should come together to defeat the establishment parties. 

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_2012_presidential_campaign

    In 2012, Ron Paul brought his election bid all the way to the Republican convention. Although he was running as a Republican, he had been a libertarian party candidate in the past, and he was considered a libertarian voice in the Republican party. Mitt Romney and the Republican party had to throw an entire celebratory event for the legacy of Ron Paul to keep his supporters at bay and not burn down the entire convention. True to form, Ron Paul refused to endorse the candidacy of Mitt Romney because he said it would go against his entire body of work. So the Republican party needed to dedicate an entire day of the convention to a candidate who refused to endorse the frontrunner who went on to lose.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

    It is widely considered that the Democratic party stole the candidacy of Bernie Sanders twice, and he is actually the philosophical center of the Democratic party. 
        

       
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 15

    " In 1992, Ross Perot got the highest percentage of votes (19%) that an independent candidate had ever gotten since 1912..."

    You present that as evidence that " Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were huge in forcing the major parties to have to cater to the wants of unregistered voters, and even fringe party affiliates."

    These people got votes, but not enough to form a government. If they would have had more votes, they might have formed the government. Ok. They represented a fringe of political thinking in the USA.

    I think I misunderstand what you mean by "unregistered voters" ... I am thinking of the Trumpian claim that people who should not vote ( because they aren't registered to vote in a federal election ) got to vote against him. Maybe you don't mean that.

    Could you clarify?

  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -  
    Blastcat said:
    piloteer said:
    @Blastcat

    Being from the US, I'm not to familiar with the process of forming governments based on multiple parties. We have a two party system in the US. But it is no way set in stone which two parties the government must be formed by. 

    That being said, if we all continually just vote for parties that we all hate (which we do), then it is only us who is to blame for all that happens to us because how we voted. Our system was made for the purpose of influencing the major parties. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were huge in forcing the major parties to have to cater to the wants of unregistered voters, and even fringe party affiliates. When people like Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul become major political influences, it is specifically because of the popularity of minority parties. When the major parties see minor party candidates getting up beyond 5% of the vote, they know those candidates are taking away voters. If you just capitulate to the masses, then you deserve mainstream party policies to be implemented on you!!!          

    I count about 6 federal political parties in the USA.. and of course, there are many independents


    There is an endless number of political parties in the US like there are all over Europe and Canada, but governments in the US are only ever formed by two parties. Usually they are formed by the democrats and republicans, but that wasn't always the rule, and there is no rule that says it needs to be that way.    
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  

    "Only ever" in the past.
    Are you claiming pre-cognition?
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -   edited September 15
    @Blastcat

    In 1992, George Bush senior lost his bid to become a second term president. Most of the votes that Ross Perot got would have probably gone to president Bush and gave him a better chance to win his reelection. This didn't go unnoticed by the Republican party who has since then tried to paint their candidates as anti-establithment candidates. Now the Republican party is hugely influenced by the tea-party caucus, not the neo-conservatism of the eighties and nineties. Donald Trump purposely designed his campaign to appeal to people who would have never voted for a Republican party run by Mitt Romney or any of the Bush's. Trump was trying to appeal to Ron Paul voters. Ron Paul is considered the godfather of the tea-party. 

    We all know Hillary Clinton was supposed to win the 2016 election, but she had to stave off a tough battle against the fringe party candidacy of Bernie Sanders, only for her to go on and lose against a fringe party candidate on the Republican side. In 2020, all the Democratic candidates were campaigning against Bernie Sanders instead of each other. The Democratic party is also struggling with a massive fringe party movement within it ranks. This all comes from the popularity of non-affiliated candidates.    

         
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 15

    Ok, you explained that very well, and I have to agree.
    The fringe has a lot of power these days.

    The fringe is quickly becoming mainstream.. 35% of the electorate believe in Trumpian conspiracy theories, which I consider fringe ideology to the extreme.

    One example is that anti-vaccine sentiment is strongly associated with conspiracy thinking and protection of individual freedoms, traits that are finding a home among far-right groups.

    I don't hear much about far left groups.. Antifa, I believe was unjustly maligned by those who promote fascism, or the far-right. The insurrectionists were far right, and the FBI and Homeland Security calls these far right extremists groups "terrorists".

    I have yet to hear about far left, homegrown terrorist groups from the police, DOJ, Homeland Security, FBI and so on.

    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -   edited September 15
    Blastcat said:

    Ok, you explained that very well, and I have to agree.
    The fringe has a lot of power these days.

    The fringe is quickly becoming mainstream.. 35% of the electorate believe in Trumpian conspiracy theories, which I consider fringe ideology to the extreme.

    One example is that anti-vaccine sentiment is strongly associated with conspiracy thinking and protection of individual freedoms, traits that are finding a home among far-right groups.

    I don't hear much about far left groups.. Antifa, I believe was unjustly maligned by those who promote fascism, or the far-right.

    Very true. In reference to the Republican party, it is no longer considered a grass roots movement to vote for tea-party candidates. It's pretty much business as usual for the republicans now. So now that the movement isn't a fresh new grassroots movement, it's just normal party politics, when it was a radical new influence in politics five years ago. 

    If our current Democratic president only serves one term and loses to a Republican, guess who else will need to rebrand their image? It won't be surprising to see the democrats be overcome by the new grassroots movement that's been smoldering within them for the past 20 years.    
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 15
    piloteer said:
    Blastcat said:

    Ok, you explained that very well, and I have to agree.
    The fringe has a lot of power these days.

    The fringe is quickly becoming mainstream.. 35% of the electorate believe in Trumpian conspiracy theories, which I consider fringe ideology to the extreme.

    One example is that anti-vaccine sentiment is strongly associated with conspiracy thinking and protection of individual freedoms, traits that are finding a home among far-right groups.

    I don't hear much about far left groups.. Antifa, I believe was unjustly maligned by those who promote fascism, or the far-right.

    Very true. In reference to the Republican party, it is no longer considered a grass roots movement to vote for tea-party candidates. It's pretty much business as usual for the republicans now. So now that the movement isn't a fresh new grassroots movement, it's just normal party politics, when it was a radical new influence in politics five years ago. 

    If our current Democratic president only serves one term and loses to a Republican, guess who else will need to rebrand their image? It won't be surprising to see the democrats be overcome by the new grassroots movement that's been smoldering within them for the past 20 years.    

    If Sleepy Joe loses in 2024, I fear for your democracy. The vote rigging would be out of control, and only Republicans could win any further elections. They even have the supreme court on their side. Trump almost did it.

    The next Republican POTUS might not be so incompetent.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -   edited September 15
    @Blastcat

    In my view, both major parties in the US are representatives of a communist scourge that has ruled American politics since the great depression, so you fear for a democracy that has long been dead here. I'm the last of the classical liberals. Nobody here likes liberty anymore. But that's just my rhetorical ramblings.   

    Whenever a party has a candidate from the opposing party take their candidate out of the office of the President, and whenever a party loses the majority in office, they are always treated like they will never be a viable political power. But they always lick their wounds and end up becoming the darling underdogs and win the hearts of the masses. And then they become an unstoppable political force, while the other party waits in the shadows. There's no proof that the democrats won't stuff the supreme court with their own judges.   
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 15

    From my perspective, the Republicans are extreme right wing these days. Proud boy level right wing. Democrats, to me seem more centrist. If Bernie Sanders was the POTUS, then maybe, socialist.

    But neither are communist.
    There's an actual communist party in the states, ironically called The Communist Party USA. Remember, Google can be your friend.



    Plaffelvohfen
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 15

    There's no proof that the democrats won't stuff the supreme court with their own judges.   
    Yeah, maybe. Trump appointed 3 supreme court judges.
    We now have 3 liberal leaning judges to 6 conservative leaning judges.

    Not really representative of your country. It should be 50/50 to be fair, with a neutral person to break ties. But I don't think there's a rule about packing the court. That's why the Trump admin could do that.

    Nothing prevents Biden from doing the same.
    Eventually, there might be a HUGE number of judges..  I say that they should not be appointed for life but voted in. Their effect on the laws of the USA is ENORMOUS, and people should have a say.

    If people don't have a say..where is the democracy?
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -   edited September 15
    @Blastcat

    Both major parties in the US are fiercely conservative on social issues, as is the majority of the American public. Both major parties, and the majority of the American public believe there should be laws governing social policy even though our constitution was written for the purpose of allowing a social anarchy. So, I would definitely agree with you that both major parties have radical right wing agendas.

    But neither major US party supports the rights of consumers, or private companies. American consumers must pay higher prices for everything for the sake of employers needing to compensate all of their employees at a minimum wage. We all must pay into social security even though it can be demonstrated that we would all have more money for our retirement if we did not have to pay into that system. More than half of housing in the US is subsidized in some manner, which drastically raises the cost of houses and apartments. So as far as your claim that both major US parties are too right wing, I'll have to say you couldn't be more wrong in an economic sense. The US has constituted all of the ideals of the Soviet Union. Our constitution was written for us to be a fiscally conservative, socially liberal nation. We've somehow become the exact opposite of that, and everyone says we need to do more to trample on the rights of their political enemies. The US is the fourth Reich.                       
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 15
    piloteer said:
    @Blastcat

     our constitution was written for the purpose of allowing a social anarchy.

    how do you define the term social anarchy?

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch