[quote name='BCullis' timestamp='1352313829' post='4998525']
I'm sure my statistics/math/politics is lacking something, but why isn't a third-party vote instead a -1 to both primary candidates? Is it naive to consider the vote of each registered voter as a potential gain for each candidate that is removed in the case for each name not chosen? We might as well say that everyone who voted outside the bipartisan menu as good as skipped the polls entirely.

I'm basing this on the idea that each candidate wants my vote, and by giving it to the one I support (in this case a third party), I've made the total for both primaries one vote smaller.

If you vote for one of the leading candidates, sure, your vote has delta 3 (but the -1 to the trailing candidate is basically irrelevant, because he can't win anyway).

If you vote for the trailing candidate, then from the perspective of the leading candidates, you have effectively zeroed your vote (you haven't given +1 or -1 to either candidate who can potentially be elected).
[/quote]

isn't thinking like this, the reason why we will always only have two party's. if everyone thought, "well voting for them means my vote is the same as not voting, then i guess i should vote for the lesser of two evils instead" then of course a third party is never going to get elected, or even have a chance of being a potential threat, regardless of the support that might actually exist for them.

[quote name='slayemin' timestamp='1352304521' post='4998452']
OP: eh, who cares?

Given the frustration with the two party system in the US, it's fairly upsetting to have a significant member of the main stream media explicitely shunning third party voters. There's always been a bias against it, but there's never really been an active movement against third parties in general.

I tend to think the main stream media is a large part of the problem, and I think it's important to call it out when major mis-steps are made. The, "who cares," attitude doesn't benefit anybody. I appreciate that you aren't from the US, so you may rightfully not care, but, in short, I do.
[/quote]
But is it really worth our time and energy to be concerned about the opinion of a particular media personality on a topic which has zero impact on today or the future? The next election is four years from now. There will be third party candidates and people will vote for them. The criticism of Chis Mathews will be long forgotten by then. Not to mention, media personalities love ratings and attention, so if they can spark some controversy and outrage to boost those ratings, all the better for them. Looks like he got to you. So, the "who cares?" attitude recognizes the irrelevance and pointlessness of whatever Chris Mathews is saying and dismisses it appropriately. It is beneficial because it stops us from wasting time and energy on things that don't matter. Everything a TV pundit says depends entirely upon the fact that whatever they have to say is important. If they can't convince you that they have something important to say, then they've failed at their job. They've developed methods and techniques to build up their importance and relevance (word choice, lead ins, attire, delivery method, acting styles, etc) in order to make the sales pitch. The best sales pitches are the ones you don't recognize as being a sales pitch, so your defenses are down. So, the best habit you can have with media is constantly asking the questions "Why is this important? Why should I care? How do I know that's true? What makes you reliable?". If they fail to answer those questions, you can dismiss them. Personally, I take a rather extreme approach and say that 95% of whatever a TV pundit says, really does not matter (they like to think otherwise, of course, but that's a bit of a necessary delusion anyways).

I'd like to opine that the only vote that's really wasted is one you don't really believe in. Vote your conscience, talking heads and statisticians be damned.