As the field of presidential candidates narrows, many potential voters are contemplating voting third-party.

As Sean Brown pointed out Tuesday in “Resisting the ‘independent spoiler,'” some would rather not support either major party. After decades of false hope and broken promises, it’s hardly surprising that people are fed up with the system.

It seems, however, that every time discussion turns to third-party candidates, someone always says, “You’re just wasting your vote.” They seem to believe that voting on principle, rather than popularity, is a waste. So apparently we’re supposed to pick from among the media-elected frontrunners and forget what we want.

What is the point of voting anyway? Is it to make a statement about your values, or is it merely a tool to give the winner a larger majority? By that logic, voting for anybody but the winner is a wasted vote, because the loser wasn’t going to win anyway, even with your help. But then, isn’t voting for the winner a waste too, since they were going to win anyway?

A few hundred Florida voters could have made the difference in 2000, and Al Gore would have won the election. However, if they had wanted Gore to win, they would have voted for him. The fact that they voted for a candidate who “had no chance” over a frontrunner showed their distaste for the frontrunners.

In his column, Brown said we should “speak out relentlessly against the major centers of power in this country,” and that progress comes through “persistence on the part of radicals, not the cowardly submission to the powers that stand.” But in the end, after we have stood strong and protested injustice and corruption, he suggests that we bow in submission and vote for a major party anyway.

This strategy wastes a lot more than votes. It teaches politicians that there are no consequences for ignoring the demands of the citizenry. What incentive do they have to advocate changes in the political structure if they aren’t risking votes by behaving badly?

Third-party candidates don’t usually win elections, but their threat to siphon votes off the major parties is key to their success. Al Gore lost in 2000 because he did not appeal to a few hundred independent voters. His defeat serves as a warning to future candidates: no one can be ignored.

How do you determine who gets your vote if popularity is more important than values? The mainstream media is more than happy to tell you who can win and who should be ignored. If your first question at the polling booth is “Who can win?” then the politicians don’t have to convince you to vote for them — they only have to convince the media elite. They don’t have to care what you think. If they don’t risk losing votes, then you have lost your political voice.

The third-party threat encourages relative consistency in a platform. Whether it’s Constitutionalists within the Republican party or Socialists within the Democratic party, a disenfranchised group can split the vote away from their party’s candidate at the election and teach the “powers that stand” a lesson: ignore us at your peril.

This November, don’t waste your vote by considering only “who can win.” Send a signal to future candidates that they cannot ignore your opinion any longer.

Do you think voting for an independent candidate is a waste? E-mail Nash at [email protected]