Maybe it's worth it to first reform the political system from a first-past-the-post system to more proportional representation (otherwise, unless I'm mistaken, those votes go pretty much straight to the wastepaper basket (or trash can, in this case)).

This freakonomics episode treats the major parties as a duopoly and gives some insights how the voting system would need to change:

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/

Unfortunately to change the law you need voters who vote for a party that is willing to change it even though it came into power under the current law.

Even in our current system, after a third party reaches a certain threshold, they qualify for government funding.

It's something to think about if you don't like the candidates the major parties are running and thus assume your vote means nothing.

Search for "Minor party candidates" here for the specifics: https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understand...

Clinton and Trump have both been elected by roughly 26% of eligible voters in 2016.

https://mises.org/wire/26-percent-eligible-voters-voted-trum...

If you do not vote or vote for someone you do not want, your vote is worse than lost.

There is much potential for other parties. And while the presidential election is most important regarding war and the rest of the world, other elections for local politicians are important too and maybe even more important for US citizens.

Related talk: How To Eliminate The "Spoiler" Vote Phenomenon w/Jill Stein pt. 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgYEFxjJaUg

Truth. I like how the young dems are doing in terms of anti-war and pro-privacy stance.

The green party has terrible candidates and often I disagree with their policies.

I'm not going to vote for someone just because they're different from the establishment if they have positions I find ridiculous.

Its pretty well known among environmentalists that the American green party isn't "green" enough. Its not a truly environmentalist party that puts environmental issues above human issues. A environmental party must be anti-consumerism and anti-materialism. It should be against growing the human economy but instead making it more efficient. That means doing hard things that hurt human appetites/sensibilities but are better for the planet (ie. limited human migration, decreasing imports).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology

And you agree with policies of other two parties?

Let take 2016 elections for example, your choices were; Hillary, responsible for a failed country right now and rigged primaries or Trump, the less said about him is better. If enough people voted for a different party, that would keep these two main parties in sort of a check as well, knowing they can't get away with whatever they want.

There's no evidence any primaries were 'rigged'.

Hillary got more votes, and some DNC people were catty about Bernie over private email.

I even voted Bernie, I just can't stand seeing claims repeated without evidence. Put up or shut up.

There are certainly things I don't agree with with the options available.

This idea that candidates need to perfectly represent everyone's opinions is just absurd. I don't agree with everything that Hillary did or that Trump is doing. That doesn't mean everything they did was bad or good.

But to suggest Jill Stein as a viable alternative when she has some dubious backing doesn't really empower choosing the 3rd party, does it?

So wouldn't a ranking vote system work better?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

Yeah, thats fair. I'm with you on that. You'll never find a candidate who you agree with completely, you just go with the one that agree the most with or disagree the least with.

I guess you talk about Russia as dubious backer.

You really believe that the POTUS (notably Jill Stein and the Green Party) could be paid by Russia to enforce Russian policies to the detriment of US citizens ?

This idea is as crazy as the idea that China invented global warming to harm the USA economy.

From https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/0111/93244...

Back in 2012, almost three years before he declared that he was going to run for the White House, Mr Trump tweeted: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

There is a legitimate investigation into Russia interference in the election. Many have already been charged, and probably many more.

You really believe that nothing happened and there wasn't a concerted effort by Russia to significantly impact the election?

Whether or not the POTUS or candidates were complicit is one thing, but it's very clear that a significant impact on this election was made.

Why would an agent of that concerted effort admit that it was ongoing or impactful?

The war in Iraq was a direct consequence of people voting for Nader over Gore.

Funny, I thought the war was a direct consequence of people voting for Bush.

Also thought the war was a direct consequence of more Democrats voting for Bush than the total number of votes Nader got.[0] Democrats favored Bush over Nader. The number of Democrats who voted for Bush exceeded those who voted for Nader five fold.

In the last state I lived in, Democrats were far more hostile to 3rd party candidates than Republicans were - putting in a lot more effort to ensure they wouldn't get on the ballet.

As someone who grew up in a country where people couldn't vote, I can't imagine acts more hostile to democracy than what I saw the Democrats do to limit choices on the ballot. I may vote Democrat often, but I don't see myself as ever supporting the party.

[0] https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2000

Bush voters got what they wanted. Nader and Stein voters did not.

As far as registered Dems voting habitually R.. yeah, that happens, you should see the south.

>Bush voters got what they wanted. Nader and Stein voters did not.

And had Nader voters voted for Gore, they would not have gotten what they wanted either had Gore won. They voted Nader because they did not want Gore.

The only thing I can take away from your comment is that if your candidate lost, you wanted the wrong thing.

>As far as registered Dems voting habitually R.. yeah, that happens, you should see the south.

I do - and I see more Dems responsible for Bush than Nader voters.

There are different schools of ethics, of course, but utility counts for something.

500k dead Iraqis on account of how that election swung. You sure showed us Democrats.

Playing Jeopardy: "What would a paid Russian troll say?"