Quote:
Originally posted by Stompy
Hm, I dunno, it really is a wasted vote. Maybe if the other parties had more influence in this country the vote for someone other than republican/democrat would hold water, but until then.. it really is wasted.
Yes, the choice is there and that's good, but really now.. do you honestly think a good portion of people who vote would even REMOTELY consider the other party? *You* might, but most others.. nah.
Just look at Nader in the 2000 elections. Didn't even remotely come close.. not by a long shot.
As it stands now, anyone voting for something other than dem/rep is just tossing a vote away on someone who won't win. That, to me, is a wasted vote.
Bush is in office.. so if you don't like Bush, do NOT vote for a third party because if it's a close election like 2000's, those votes could actually be used to help determine the outcome.
[edit]
Take, for example, the 2000 election results (found here: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm). NY had mainly 6.5 million voters between Bush and Gore vs. the 310,000 between the others.. that's 4%. The ratios really don't stray far from that number for the other states.
The other parties need to work on gaining much much more influence in the political world before even remotely deciding to run for pres, IMO.
|
There are two factors that go against this assessment. The first, and foremost, is that even in this election the majority of people who care enough to wish to acn vote 3rd party with no expectation of ill side-effects. As an example, I live in Illinois. If I preferred Bush out of the two major candidates, it wouldn't matter if I voted for him or not - Illinois has a fairly strong recent history of leaning toward the Democrats. If I preferred Kerry over Bush, voting 3rd party would not put his chances at risk. The majority of states are in such a position, one way or the other, that the grassroots people that care enough to look at 3rd parties risk nothing by voting for them other than helping their preferred party get the spotlight it deserves in future elections.
The second factor is precisely what was mentioned earlier. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Republicans and Democrats as we know them today were not always the major parties, but each election has almost always had a decidedly two-party bent. What does that mean? It has worked in the past that grassroots movements help launch parties into the national spotlight, and it can work again. You're right - most people don't care enough to elect a 3rd party candidate as a winner yet. The fact is, this is no different than it has always been. Politics has always been a select group of people fighting for what they believe, looknig closely at the issues, and a larger group of people who vote based on a few issues and based on what they hear from their friends and family. This large group will not take a 3rd party seriously until enough of the smaller group cares enough to make them take notice - by speaking with their votes.
There's one thing the RepubliCrats agree on and that is that they like to stay in power. Neither does anything to help 3rd parties in any significant matter, and, in fact, they do their best to hurt them. For example, changing the rules for national presidential debates to make it harder for 3rd parties to participate.
Quote:
Originally posted by Stompy
I'm unaware of the differences between t he other parties.
I'm used to the "line" test... democrats = left, republicans = right. Based on what you believe in, you fall between those two points.
What do the other parties believe in that would make them say "We're not democratic OR republican"?
|
Real politics is not 2 dimensional. It is 3 dimensional like real life. Many people now understand that there is the economic spectrum and the social spectrum and they are not one in the same. Libertarians, for example, can be somewhat accurately defined as fiscally conservative yet socially liberal. In the modern political spectrum, there is room for at least 4 parties. But, again, it is up to those who genuinely care about politics to push the evolution forward - the general public will not do it themselves. It is up to the handful of us who are capable of moving beyond "Mass Media Mind Control" as Art likes to call it, and puting our votes where our real thought are, not where we're told is our only viable option.
Quote:
Originally posted by hammer4all
Somehow I don't think the framers of the constitution had AK-47's and nuclear weapons in mind when they spoke of the "right to bear arms."
|
Actually, while they may not have foreseen those weapons, I think they did have that general idea in mind. A "well regulated militia" (part of the reason citizens have the right to bear arms but not all of it) must be capable of taking on the governmental army, or else it is pointless and ineffective against a possible dictator.