Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jbw97361
when have those second ring parties ever achieved a significant number of votes? They don't get votes because people know that they do not have a chance and it is a waste of a vote. Doesn't it seem that many people vote not for a candidate but against the other?
|
They're not second ring parties, they're parties that are less active in media because they have both use their collective power to make people think there are only two choices. Perot won almost 20% of the vote in 1992, which is almost as high as the current president's approval rating. I'd call that significant. The fact of the matter is that Obama could switch his candidacy to Green right now (he is almost progressive enough to be considered green), and I'll bet he could take 15-25% of the votes come election day. He won't because people have erroneously decided that a third party vote is a 'waste'. I'm wondering how voting for someone who best represents your views is a waste...sounds like people are playing right into the broken two-party system.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by doubleaught
As a voter if I ever consider voting for a candidate because of a "better chance of winning," I would say our vaunted democratic process is failing. Voting for someone should indicate similar thoughts and views rather than an attempt to put the lesser of two evils in office.
|
Well put.