Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
TL;DR: Yes, except when acting as a spoiler for one candidate or the other. Nothing newsworthy here.
Yes
Agreed, but I imagine the reason USA Today published it is because of all the noise happening with third parties in this election. And this sort of explainer can be a good thing, especially for new voters who may not yet know about spoiler candidates and the like.
Yes. The system set up by the US Constitution was a reasonably good attempt for a country of several million people with different practical needs, entirely along the eastern seaboard, and with 1790s technology, knowledge, and attitudes.
The problem is that it has evolved pretty much the bare minimum amount to allow it to (mostly) continue to function. We are limping along on "Constitutional Republic version 2.27," after version 1.0 was an immediate bust, but we need to be running 2.30 at least, and maybe even 3.0. We're no longer feature competitive with many other Human Governance suites. :-)
There are many issues, but an "upgrade" to install Ranked Choice Voting, rebalance Congressional Representation, and maybe remove the Electoral College (depending on how the congressional representation thing goes) would go a long way towards keeping it viable.
What a very ironic post by this poster. It says everything we've been saying. So either the poster doesn't read the articles it posts, or it agrees with me about wasted votes, and is just posting and commenting to piss people off. Really, not great form here.
Yes. A vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote in the US Presidential election. It's a wasted vote in everywhere but Alaska and Maine, honestly, and is a wasted vote there if you don't vote the major party as a second or third or whatever vote. Sure, you might vote a third party in order to express dissatisfaction for both major party candidates or a preference for a minor party candidate, but it won't move the needle. Voting isn't a single person thing, because you have an infinitesimal influence in the election: 1/150,000,000 for the Presidential election, made even worse if you factor in the Electoral College. The key to getting what you want is convincing others to join you, and voting tactically so that you get the guy or gal you can have a conversation with in office.
USA Today - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for USA Today:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/2024/10/09/is-voting-for-a-third-party-presidential-candidate-a-wasted-vote/75242420007/