|
What in the world makes you think a third party vote only adversely affects Clinton? A third party vote is a third party vote, nothing more or less. In the unlikely event that a third party candidate wins a state (most likely scenario would be Bernie winning VT as a write in, since he got 85% of the primary votes and has an 84% approval rating in his state--which allows write in votes with no restrictions) and denies 270 electoral votes to any candidate, then the presidency is decided by the incoming House between January 3rd and January 20th, and they have to decide between the three candidates with the most electoral votes. Outside of a third party candidate winning a state and forcing the House selection process, a third party vote increases the likelihood of third or fourth parties getting federal matching funds in future elections.
Millenials are staying away from Clinton in droves and aren't all that jazzed about Trump either--if they, and the independents (which comprise THE largest voting bloc in the country) decide to go for Johnson or Stein and split the vote three or four ways there's an actual chance to break this artificially imposed duopoly and get at least a little closer to a democracy that actually represents its constituents--something we absolutely do not have at this time.
If nothing else, a third party vote withholds any possible claim of a popular mandate from whichever person ends up in the Oval Office. Their claim to power will be tenuous at best and likely contentious, especially if the downballot races are also predominantly decided by the independents. All this crap about "wasted" votes is pure propaganda put in place by those who have a vested interest in maintaining their carefully crafted status quo.
|