A Quandary

[Flying Trotsky]

Comrades, suppose there are three candidates from three political parties running for office, a Conservative, a Liberal, and a Marxist. Now suppose the Marxist has no chance of winning, and that the Liberal is only a watered down version of the Conservative.

Do you vote for the Marxist (who's right, even though he doesn't have a chance of winning) or the Liberal (who endorses a slightly softer Capitalism than the Conservative)?

[Nox]

If the Marxist has 0% chance of getting into power, and if the liberal will definitely get into power if you vote for him/her, then I would say vote for the liberal.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Comrades, suppose there are three candidates from three political parties running for office, a Conservative, a Liberal, and a Marxist. Now suppose the Marxist has no chance of winning, and that the Liberal is only a watered down version of the Conservative.

Do you vote for the Marxist (who's right, even though he doesn't have a chance of winning) or the Liberal (who endorses a slightly softer Capitalism than the Conservative)?

It all depends on the conditions of the election. All else being equal in the above situation, not voting and voting for the Marxist is about the same. If the Marxist were running as a protest against the bankrupt mainstream politics, then maybe it would be worth voting because even a 5% total would show the main parties that people who oppose them are not willing to settle and won't just be demoralized. This would be more the case in places like the US where the Democrats and Republicans have a monopoly on official politics... a 5% vote for a marxist would be a clear message both to other workers who may be sympathetic to marxist ideas but feel isolated as well as to the ruling class that people won't be bamboozled and vote for the lesser evil out of desperation and fear. If the country always has several secondary parties winning a few percentage points, then it's less clear to me what to do in that situation.

By my opinion is based on a belief that meaningful change has to come from organizing from below not by legislating or gaining elected office above.

[Libertador]

By my opinion is based on a belief that meaningful change has to come from organizing from below not by legislating or gaining elected office above. Exactly! Petitioning the French aristocracy did nothing until the people seized power for themselves.

[Zav]

The more votes the Marxist got, in a Capitalist society, the more funding he would be able to spend on advertising in the next campaign. The irony is painful. I'd vote Marxist, though I'm not one, because honestly modern society could use progress of any kind.

[Desperado]

This is why any meaningful multiple choice voting process should use an instant-runoff voting system (of course, I envisage this for any disputes in a directly democratic worker's organisation - dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is ultimately the same whatever the electoral system).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The Marxist, seeing as he/she would probably not be running with the viable intention of winning, but raising their movement's public profile and educating/agitating during the campaign. The more votes = the more publicity and hopefully class/political awareness of the working class.

The express aim of Marxists running in bourgeois elections isn't necessarily (realistically) to win.

[Sensible Socialist]

If we continue to give our votes to anyone who isn't a conservative, people will never realize that Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. The more votes someone other than a major party candidate gets, the more chance there is for others to realize that voting 3rd party can be a viable alternative.