In the short term, i.e. for this election, yes. In the longer term, it is a signal to the parties that they are leaving votes on the table, that maybe they could pick up by altering which policies they support.
It really depends how you weight this election vs others coming up. But if you're in, say, California, your vote for President will not swing the state at all -- it's locked in for Hillary. If (and it's a big if) some other party is closer to your preferred policies, feel free to vote for them without a trace of guilt about making your side weaker for this election.
True. The major party partisans will try to tell us that each election might as well be the last election in human history and that we should all hold the major party to a very low standard.
Most voters live in states that are essentially a lock-up for one of the two candidates. Arguably about 10 states might swing, but third party candidates could easily get 10+ percent of the popular vote nationally and largely influence the direction of the major parties if the voting public understood the electoral college and the multi-election game theory of it.
Does your link discuss that if a third party candidate gets 5% of the vote they will receive federal funding next election? If so how can they claim a vote for a third party diminishes voter power?
Tell me where the reform party is today? The major parties don't even take federal funding because it's a joke.
In a First Past the Post voting system like the one in America, a vote for a third-party is, and always will be a vote against your preferences. Rank-choice is a far superior system (though it has its own downsides as well), but that isn't what we have in America. The lesser of two evils is still the better of two options. You want "better" candidates, get involved in party politics and vote in the primaries.
>The major parties don't even take federal funding because it's a joke.
And I don't collect welfare because it's such a small paycheck compared to my salary. But for people who could really use that money, it's a huge help.
Right, if you want to shift power to alternatives, fund them, volunteer for them, and advocate for them (and for electoral changes that negate the incentive to tactical voting) between general elections so that they can be a reasonable choice (either by displacing a major party or by competing under rules which no longer make voting for the least-bad major party the clearly best choice in a general election.)
Given that sooner or later US voters will recognize that only one candidate is electable, Jill Stein, her percentages will rise. Maybe even to Ross Perot levels.
Another crook, Clinton, for the next years is survivable, but long term a strong third party has to invade this broken system, sooner or later.
Initially I hoped Trump will tear the GOP apart, but he made it impossible with his latest stupidities.
