The most common argument against voting for a third party candidate has been that one’s vote is “wasted” in that one’s vote for a losing candidate won’t count for anything, whereas the same vote cast instead for a candidate who is the “lesser of two evils” and who has a chance of winning might help that candidate win the election. In 2000 and 2004, Democratic supporters commonly told potential voters for Ralph Nader that a vote for Ralph Nader was a vote for Republican George W. Bush.

There is a great deal of debate whether voters who didn’t vote for a third party candidate would have then voted for a major party candidate. It might be just as likely that the voter would not have voted at all if there had not been a third party candidate to vote for. Saying it is true, in this instance, such a vote could be viewed as wasted.

Typically, the more votes a third party receives, the more attention incumbent parties pay to the campaign issues being advocated by that third party. In 1992, Ross Perot’s main “gripe” (as he said) was the growing national debt and the budget deficit. After 1992, many political analysts say both incumbent parties paid special attention to this issue and the result was the temporary reduction in and then elimination of deficit spending and actual reductions in the national debt for a brief period. Such a vote for a third party is then viewed as an indictment of both incumbent parties that neither is doing a good job on certain issue(s) to the point where voters reject both and vote for a third party candidate. Given this, a vote for a third party can be viewed as a delayed vote for change, not affecting the immediate outcome of the current election but affecting the incumbent parties after that election as they try to address the reason why voters voted for a third party in the last election, attempting to garner the supporters of third party voters who see this issues being addressed in an attempt to influence these voters to return to or join the major party that did address those issues in the next election. A prominent historical example is the presidential election of 1892, during which the Populist Party (otherwise known as the People’s Party) achieved massive success by U.S. third party standards, picking up 22 electoral votes and 8.6 percent of the popular vote. After the 1892 election the Democratic Party adopted many of the Populist Party’s positions, so many in fact, that the Populist Party nominated the same candidate as the Democrats in the 1896 presidential election (essentially marking the end of the Populists as a separate party). The Populist Party was able to do this using the process of electoral fusion. In 1992, Ross Perot campaigned telling his supporters to “send a message” to the incumbent parties about the national debt and budget deficit, which apparently was heeded, at least temporarily. If the case for the “delayed vote” can be made to the public by third parties, third parties might be able to change their “spoiler of elections” image to a “force for change” image.
Finally, voters in a “safe state” for either major party are unlikely to influence that state’s electoral vote. These voters, if they choose to vote for a third party, will be drawing attention to that party, while if they vote for the major party they most closely agree with, they will not change the national contest. A preferential voting or instant run-off voting system could allow for more people to vote for a third party.