In a democracy, are minority party candidates "bad"? Is Stein-Baraka "bad"? Is Johnson-Weld "bad"?

[rjsquirrel]

85. Semantic games

No one says anyone "owns" votes, so "take" is obviously a common shorthand or euphemism for "win voters who would otherwise have voted for a major party option."

Simple. Obvious. Not complicated.

And yes all those third party candidates affected the outcome of their elections while leaving no lasting legacy of a strengthened third party. With the exception of libertarians, third parties are almost always a) committed to marginal and minority ideologies and b) vanity projects for charismatic would be leaders.

Your questions invoke a distinction without a difference. No one says third parties don't have a "right" to run or exist. Many of us see them as a stupid way to waste your vote or elect the worse of the two major party candidates.

Your OP is a semantic game and so is the comment to which I am replying. You create a straw man argument and then dare anyone to knock it down.

A vote for a third party candidate is always a vote against one of the major party candidates, or both of them in some cases. Since the early 20th century it has never been a vote FOR a plausible let alone possible winner as a third party. You are free to be a spoiler of course. But you're wasting your vote unless that's your goal.

As I always say, vote your conscience but not until you check your privilege.