"You know you can't win, right? Don't you think you're wasting your vote?"
I'm sure we've all heard this before, and of course it gets annoying sometimes. However, this situation can be a great opportunity to get others to think seriously about their role in American politics.
David Bergland, a former LP presidential candidate, wrote this great article about "The Wasted Vote Syndrome." Here's some great advice from the article:
Questions are effective tools for dealing with the "wasted vote" syndrome. By posing questions one subtly transfers the burden of proof. Rather than having to persuade someone with traditional, formal argument that his vote will not be wasted, his answers to well-crafted questions will contain the arguments that lead to the desired conclusion. Here are some questions that might help. Try to imagine how people you know might answer them.
What would you say is the purpose of voting?
When you cast your vote, what is your objective, what are you trying to achieve?
How likely is it that your one vote, among millions, will determine the outcome of the election? (Hmm. So is every vote "wasted?")
If you like a particular candidate, such as Ron Paul, why isn’t it wasting your vote to give it to a different candidate?
Do you think it’s important to understand what the different candidates stand for on the important issues, like the war in Iraq, taxes, foreign policy, etc., before deciding which candidate to support?
If you know the different candidates’ positions on the issues, which one do you agree with most?
If you were to vote for the candidate you agree with most, would that be wasting your vote?
When posing such questions (and you can no doubt come up with many more) it should be done with respectful attention. Ask the question and shut up. Don’t argue with the answers. You actually might learn something by listening to what your partner in the discussion has to say. I know I have. Assuredly, your partner will be much more likely to accept the conclusions he reaches if he works his way to them in response to your questions rather than by reacting to argumentative challenges.
Read the full article here.
I'm sure we've all heard this before, and of course it gets annoying sometimes. However, this situation can be a great opportunity to get others to think seriously about their role in American politics.
David Bergland, a former LP presidential candidate, wrote this great article about "The Wasted Vote Syndrome." Here's some great advice from the article:
Questions are effective tools for dealing with the "wasted vote" syndrome. By posing questions one subtly transfers the burden of proof. Rather than having to persuade someone with traditional, formal argument that his vote will not be wasted, his answers to well-crafted questions will contain the arguments that lead to the desired conclusion. Here are some questions that might help. Try to imagine how people you know might answer them.
What would you say is the purpose of voting?
When you cast your vote, what is your objective, what are you trying to achieve?
How likely is it that your one vote, among millions, will determine the outcome of the election? (Hmm. So is every vote "wasted?")
If you like a particular candidate, such as Ron Paul, why isn’t it wasting your vote to give it to a different candidate?
Do you think it’s important to understand what the different candidates stand for on the important issues, like the war in Iraq, taxes, foreign policy, etc., before deciding which candidate to support?
If you know the different candidates’ positions on the issues, which one do you agree with most?
If you were to vote for the candidate you agree with most, would that be wasting your vote?
When posing such questions (and you can no doubt come up with many more) it should be done with respectful attention. Ask the question and shut up. Don’t argue with the answers. You actually might learn something by listening to what your partner in the discussion has to say. I know I have. Assuredly, your partner will be much more likely to accept the conclusions he reaches if he works his way to them in response to your questions rather than by reacting to argumentative challenges.
Read the full article here.
