4 responses to “More Thoughts on Third-Party Voting and Game Theory”

  1. Weston Markham

    I reject your analysis. Any single voter’s choice has essentially no effect on who wins the election. The greater value, in this case, is in the message that the vote sends. It seems to me that a vote for Jill Stein, or a write-in vote for Bernie sends a clear message to the DNC of “I would have voted for Bernie, but you didn’t give me that option.” A vote for Clinton has the risk of being understood as, “as long as you put up someone slightly better than the other side, I’ll go ahead and ratify your choice.”

    In addition, making this situation clear to the Democratic leadership in advance gives Sanders a bit of leverage against the party: “Hi, it looks like you’re not 100% confident that you can win the general election, and here I might have some influence over a voting bloc that could put you over the top. Here are the platform changes that would be needed in order to solicit my endorsement.”

  2. Kyle J

    Re: Weston Markham, “essentially no effect” is not the same as “no effect,” since the election outcome in aggregate is directly a result of each individual vote. It’s not magic.

    This is like someone saying, “whether or not I exercise on this particular day has essentially no effect on whether I have am fit in the long run.” Sure, but that same logic will hold every day, and you’ll “essentially” never exercise, nor be fit.

    People on the left-wing if anything should be inherently more mindful of the impact of many small activities on the whole (climate change/carbon footprint being a good example).

  3. Langston

    I think this analysis is very interesting, and I think our election process would benefit from the reforms recommended.

    Those that don’t agree with the analysis, but don’t actually address the math or theory behind it, and then go on to use the same excuses for voting third-party, are not putting their objective thinking caps on.

Leave a Reply