Good News, Third Party Candidates
Wisconsin State Journal :: OPINION :: A8
Tuesday, July 4, 2006
ROLF LINDGREN
All third party candidates have been told: "I'd like to vote for you, but you have no chance to win." This is known as Wasted Vote Syndrome.
But polling data from the Libertarian presidential campaign of Michael Badnarik in 2004 suggests Wasted Vote Syndrome is a curable disease.
A July 2004 national poll by Rasmussen Public Opinion indicated that Badnarik lost 57 percent of his votes to Wasted Vote Syndrome. About 7 percent liked Badnarik the best, but only 3 percent were willing to vote for him. The amount of media coverage a candidate polling at 7 percent gets, compared to a candidate polling at 3 percent, is immense.
That proves Wasted Vote Syndrome is pretty bad.
Now here's the good news. Polling data indicates that when voters are exposed to the concept that a
vote for someone they like is an investment for the future, they are less likely to vote for the "lesser of two evils."
Here's a poll question of likely voters in New Mexico during October 2004: "Suppose there was a presidential candidate who you agreed with but had no chance to win. Would you consider a vote for that candidate to be an investment for the future?"
The results:
65 percent said "yes."
23 percent said "no."
12 percent weren't sure.
That's promising! We can apparently cure two-thirds of the people suffering from Wasted Vote Syndrome simply by suggesting that their votes are an investment for the future.
Here's another question from the same poll: "Which best describes your definition of a wasted vote for president?"
11 percent picked: "You vote for someone you don't like."
16 percent agreed with: "You vote for
someone who has no chance to win."
4 percent picked: "You vote for someone who wins, but the candidate wins by so much that your vote didn't matter, they would have won anyway."
66 percent chose "No vote is wasted if it is counted."
3 percent weren't sure.
So when exposed to alternatives, only 16 percent thought voting for someone with no chance to win was a wasted vote. Though these questions were from surveys in New Mexico, I can think of no reason why voters in other states would think differently.
One final poll question, asked in 2004, about the nation's largest third party asked: "Do you think the Libertarian candidate has a chance to win in the presidential election scheduled for the year 2016?"
19 percent said "yes."
53 percent said "no."
28 percent weren't sure.
There you have it, a Libertarian vote is an investment for the
future. Most voters from the 2004 election will still be alive in 2016.http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/wsj/2006/07/04/0607030634.php
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1ยข/min. __._,_.___
SPONSORED LINKS
| American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "badnarik2008" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
