zenmaster10665

...as good as a vote for Bush?

I keep hearing this all over the place (mainly in connection with the Green Party), but I am unsure if it is actually true. I personally am leaning towards voting Libertarian in this election, however, if there is some good reason why this would actually tend to skew the numbers in favor of Bush, I might think otherwise.

So my question is: Is this fear-mongering by Democratic supporters or are there demographics to back this up?

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

onetime2

No, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for a third party candidate.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

MSD

If you're undecided, live in Texas, and really like a third party candidate, are you wasting a vote by supporting them? What about Republicans who are disgusted with Bush and vote libertarian instead? That sure isn't a vote for Bush.

iccky

A vote for a third party candidate is only a vote for Bush if it denies a vote from Kerry. So if you'd otherwise vote for Kerry, consider whether it is worth contributing to the reelection of George W to make a statement. If, on the other hand, you'd never vote for Kerry and the choice is between a third party candidate and staying home, by all means vote for the third party candidate.

People underestimate the impact voting for a third party candidate. Even if they don't win, a strong showing b a third party candidate can have a major impact on policy. Ross Perot, afterall, didn't win a single electoral vote, but his canidacy made balancing the budget the major issue of the Clinton Presidency.

On the other hand, the idea that there is no difference between the major parties is a load of crap, in my humble opinion. Need proof? Look at the war in Iraq. Whether you think it was right or wrong, I think we can all agree that it would have never happened under Al Gore.

And, as Mr. Self Destruct points out, it works both ways. A vote for the libertarian candidate is a vote for Kerry if you would otherwise support Bush.

Bill O'Rights

Absolutely not! And the more people that get that kind of propoganda out of their head, the better. Your vote is, of course, your vote. If you vote Libertarian, then you are voting Libertarian...not "anti-Republican", or "anti-Democrat". I grow weary of hearing that tired old mantra "You're throwing your vote away.". Wrong! My vote is my voice, and by using it I am not wasting it. As it stands today...I will be voting for Badnarik. He is the candidate that most closely matches my values and beliefs.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

cthulu23

The only reason that third parties can't win is because everyone thinks that third parties can't win. Both major parties have a vested interest in maintaining this self-fulfilling prophecy. Vote for whomever you want to, but be prepared to deal with fallout from your Bush supporting friends if Badnarik pulls a "Nader" in a battle ground state. I lost a few acquaintances due to my campaigning for Nader in 2000. Ultimately, if they don't like it, fuck 'em.

Willravel

This reminds me of the Treehouse of Terror episode of the Simpsons in which the Republican and Democratic canticdates are both hostile (hilareous) aliens. Upon asking the aliens how they will succede if the third party wins, they reply, "Go ahead! Throw your vote away!" This always struck me as a good satire of the general view of third parties. If you believe that neither the Republican nor the Democratic representatives are worthy of your vote, it's okay to vote for a member of another party. For whatever reason (probably because of the D and the R parties slander), voting third party is almost a politicasl taboo. It's silly to see that Nader, a good leader and just as qualified as Bush or Kerry, is more of a joke to the average voter than a presidential cantidate.
A vote independant is just another vote. It doesn't take away from anything. The longer people think there are only 2 serious partys, the longer we may have to be letting the lesser of two evils lead us.

Stompy

I have a very hard time thinking that it's not a wasted vote.

The outcome of this election *will* be 100% Bush or Kerry. There is no possible way that a third party candidate can win.

How is that not a wasted vote? I mean.. I understand the whole "how can they win if no one votes for them?" thing, but... they simply don't have enough influence at this point in history to make them a wise choice.

If you don't like Bush, then vote him out - plain and simple. It IS a "lesser of two evils" choice if you hate em both... because even if you vote a third party, the winner will still be Bush or Kerry. Who would you rather have president? Bush, or Kerry? You can't say neither, because that's not a likely option. You have the CHOICE, yes, but it won't happen.

If you hate Bush, but dislike Kerry, you voting for Nader won't help Bush get out of office and it certainly won't help Nader get INTO office - he didn't even qualify for the debates.

__________________
I love lamp.

cthulu23

Now, Stompy, to be fair, no one but Democrats or Republicans qualify for the debates under the CPD system...probably one of the reasons that the parties dumped the League of Women Voters.

guy44

A vote for a third party candidate with no hope of election is wasted in the same sense that a vote for Bush in Illinois or Kerry in Alabama is wasted - in a plurality vote (the candidate with the most votes wins, everyone else goes home) in a very uncompetetive area will be next to useless.

On a different level, it can be argued that a vote for a third party candidate or whomever will be, in fact, useful at that candidate's support can then be guaged more accurately amongst the greater populace.

So it depends how you look at it. Me, I think a vote for Nader is important, because it will help Bush get elected for the first time. So, if you are in a swing state, as a Bush-despising American, I ask you to vote for Kerry. Or engage in vote swapping with someone from a non-swing state, which is also legal.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

zenmaster10665

What is the CPD system?

I was wondering why Badnarik or Nader were not invited to the debates...shouldn't all viable parties have a chance to discuss their views??

Why did Perot get to go on national TV? Because he had millions of his own cash to spend?

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

mattevil

If your choice is between kerry and a third party and bush is not even a choice I'd vote for Kerry. Third party is just not going to win(this election). I think third party's are just more libel to siphon democrat votes than republican ones. I've seen republicans so wrapped up in voting republican they didn't even know john kerry's name. I'm not against third parties but they simply need to gain more ground in the lower levels of government before they'll win a presidential election. History repeats itself just look at how bull moose party split up the republican vote way back when.
I guess it depends on what state your in too based on whether it's battleground,red or blue. If you don't know elctoral-vote.com usually has up to date listings of the status in the state.

cthulu23

The Commision on Presidential Debates sets the criteria and selects the candidates for each debate. This was formerly the domain of the League of Women Voters, but they were dumped for reasons that I am not sure of, although it probably comes down to direct control of the debates. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats have any interest in sharing the stage with alternate parties, and the CPD obliges them. The only way this will change is if people make MASSIVE amounts of noise.

Note: Nader does not have the endorsement of any party this time around....David Cobb is the Green Party candidate. He and Badnarik will be debating in parallel with the "real" debates.

SecretMethod70

I'm going to try to sum this up nice and sweet zenmaster. CPD is the Commission on Presidential Debates. They took over the debates - after being jointly formed by the two parties - in 1988 because the League of Women Voters (who used to run the debates) wouldn't bow to the demands of the two major parties. They had invited a third party candidate a couple times - one publicized time one of the major party candidates (I think it was Carter?) flat out REFUSED to debate the third party candidate. The CPD was jointly created by the two parties to run the debates, thus giving the two parties control over how they are run and the ability to lock out third parties. Ross Perot broke through the barrier they set and made it into the debates in 1992 (I believe the limit at the time was 5% in a certain number of national polls) and it was devastating to the election. It turned everything upside-down (Ross Perot got a whopping 18% of the popular vote - something I attribute almost entirely to the fact he was allowed into the debates and support for why I think it's so extremely popular to get 3rd parties into the debates).So, before the 1996 election, the CPD changed the rules and made it 15% required in sepereate polls. Well, if you're a fledgling party it's pretty difficult to get 15% of seperate national polls without being given a forum to express your views.

For more information about the sad status of debates in this country, see
http://www.opendebates.org
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/tr...pt_debate.html
http://www.citizensdebate.org/

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

SecretMethod70

Forgot to respond to the original thread topic .....

I couldn't have said it much better tan this. This is EXACTLY how I feel.

I *REALLY* hope this happens. The Green party, no offense to its supporters, was too new to handling the instant attention it got from Nader's success in 2000. But, I think the Libertarian party is grounded enough already where, if Badnarik were able to get the media attention of "spoiling the election" it would really help them out.

Now, onto the whole wasted vote thing. There are two ways to look at it. The honest way, and the pragmatic way. I look at it through what I like to call the honest way. It is the way BOR outlined aboev. However, when evangelizing to friends of mine, I debate the pragmatic way. That is, I know many of my friends hate Bush and dislike Kerry les. Much like Stompy points out, you DO have a choice over whether or not the one you hate or the one you just dislike gets into office. This is where the wasted vote mentality comes from. In fact, the mentality is so rooted in our culture it is very difficult to overcome it. So, when speaking with my friends about this I first ask what state they are voting in. Most times it is not a swing state - almost all are voting in Illinois, some in California, others in Indiana - almost none are voting in a state where their vote realistically matters. At this point, I simply point out the fact that their vote WON'T make a difference in the eection no matter how "close" it is because of the state they are living in, so I encourage them to find a third party candidate to vote for instead. Now, if they are voting in Ohio, I don't fight it. It's a tought battle - especially this election - so I simply say, alright, then vote for Kerry, but if you know anyone voting in a "solid" state, please encourage them to vote third party. I've actually gotten many people to plan on voting third party this election through this method, without any of them worying that if they do so the person they dislike most will win.

Nonetheless, I think the REAL argument for voting 3rd party lies in the honest approach - the one BOR mentioned above. Part of the reason I think this can be summed up through a quote by Michael Badnarik:

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

zenmaster10665

Thanks for explaining the CPD. I find it repulsive that the 3rd parties are not invited to the debates. These are not parties like the British National Party or Monster Raving Looney Party. These are parties who represent people like you and I, who are fed up with the selection between two "evils."

My only concern with the Libertarian candidate is his pledge to take all troops out of Iraq immediately. I think this is the wrong approach...but for the most part, Libertarians sync with my views...and as of right now, they are getting my votes.

How many states are the Lib's on the ballot right now?

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

SecretMethod70

48 states, hopefully 49. They missed the dealine for NH. Normally they are on all 50.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

gcbrowni

You can't invite everyone to the debates; there has to be some threshold. It just so happens that neither the Libs or Greens meet it right now. Now then ,if you vote Lib or Green then maybe that will change ...

One of the most effective things a third party can do is collect votes. This forces the two parties to examine the third parties issues and incorporate some of them in to their own platforms. Thus third party votes end up dragging the two major parties towards their positions.

Greens get a lot of votes? Both parties start supporting more environmental causes. libs get a lot of vote? Both parties start talking about smaller and more efficient government.

__________________
From the day of his birth Gilgamesh was called by name.

SecretMethod70

Actually, gcbrowni, you're a bit wrong. You're right in that you can't invite everyone to the debates. And you're right in that no one else meets the threshhold that the Commission on Presidential Debates currently has set. Of course, the Commission on Presidential Debates was set up jointly by the two major parties, so why would they make the threshhold reasonable? In fact, it was a more reasonable threshhold in 1992, and Perot turned the election upside-down. So, for the next debate they raised the threshhold 10%. You can't tell me that that was in the interest of democracy.

Currently, a party can qualify for federal funding and still not be allowed into the debates. What does that mean? That means that even though YOUR tax dollars are helping to fund a party, you may not be ALLOWED to hear what your tax dollars are going to because the two major parties won't LET you hear.

Also, no one is debating that there should be no limits on who can debate. That would be absurd. However, the current rules are recognized by pretty much anyone with half a brain to be unfair. In Illinois it takes 25,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Let's assume every state has a similar number and that means to be on the ballot in all 50 states it requires a minimum of support from 1.25 million people. If a candidate has the support of over 1.25 million Americans, why shouldn't other Americans hear what this candidate has to say? Keep in mind that MOST people don't care about politics enough to go out and FIND new ideas, so it's unreasonable to assume that a new party would or could start with a significantly large amount of support. However, once a candidate is allowed to debate and reach a larger audience that can change significantly. Ross Perot did it in 1992 - and would have continued to do so had he not been locked out in 1996 - and Jesse Ventura did it in Minnesota. He was an insignificant contendor until he got into the debates.

Another thing to keep in mind is the current nature of the debates. People argue that with more than 2 people in the debates no one would get to say anything in 90 minutes, and they're right. I say, why the Hell are the so-called "debates" only 90 minutes? Even with TWO candidates no one says anything of any substance beyond nice little sound bites. All that needs to be asked is this: why are the two major parties afraid of real debates and debates with third parties? And that's what they are - you can see by the agreement that was made public this election that they are afraid of actual debates, where they get to ask each other questions, etc, and you can see by the very existence of the CPD that they are afraid of debating 3rd parties. The League of Women Voters insisted on doing what was right for democracy in the 80s by allowing third parties in the debates, and that's precisely why the CPD was created.

The people who would like more open debates are not asking for debates with no rules for qualification. They are asking for debates with fair rules. For example, if the rules was that only candidates on enough ballots to win the election could debate, there would be only 4 candidates debating this year: Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, and Cobb. Four people in a REAL debate is not an unreasonable amount, especially if the debates were a more reasonable length.

At the very least, the threshhold ought not be set at 15% to enter the debates - not when 5% gets a party federal funding.

There is literally absolutely no logical argument against the current proposals to open the debates.

EDIT: And the overall point is that the third parties CAN'T get votes or money, because they are being shut out from media and all public coverage by the two major parties. Even Bill O'Reilly is in on it - he has gone to great lengths to make sure that Michael Badnarik and the Libertarians aren't even mentioned on his show.

EDIT2: And, just to demonstrate that I was being very conservative in the number of supporters it would take to be on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win, it takes 135,000 signatures to get on the CA ballot - 6 times as many as Illinois. So, it's likely more than 1.25 million.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Stompy

You make the debates sound like a crowded event.

A threshold... at 2? Hm... why does it have to be 2? It could be 4.

But I guess no matter how ya look at it, there will always be a 2 party system since 3 party systems eventually converge back into 2 (or so they say).

Right now, the democratic and republican parties have simply way too much money and influence to be just disappearing or welcoming any new additions in the near future. I'd like to see a 3rd party just as much as most other hardcore 3rd party supporters (I"m always up for some change), but I simply don't see it happening in my lifetime unless something drastic happens.

__________________
I love lamp.

cthulu23

Stompy,

The only change that is required is for people like you to begin accepting, supporting and voting for a third party. Now, those are bold words for me to speak considering that I'm voting Kerry this time around. Like many people, I feel like removing Bush is the priority this year, but there are other elections that aren't quite so high stakes as this one. We should all work to build up the local parties as that is where real acceptance and support will ultimately grow from.

SecretMethod70

Actually I think there are two necessary changes. The first is a change away from plurality voting and the second is open debates. That's in the order of what I think is most important.

Democracies don't always converge into a two party system, it's just that OUR democracy always does because of the way it's organized. Most democracies have 3+ parties.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Stompy

Eh, people like me? I support 3rd party candidates like I had previously mentioned, but, like you, I feel the stakes are too high for this election and will be voting Kerry. Otherwise.. I'd probably consider voting for em.

For that reason, I feel that it could be a wasted vote. I think there's a certain priority when it comes to beliefs.

First and foremost, get the current troubles OUT of office. Right now, Bush is trouble. I think the focus should be on getting him out. Once you have someone STABLE enough to the point where if they were elected again we would no longer be in grave danger, then yes, put your beliefs as #1 and try to make change.

There's definitely a time and place for a 3rd party vote, but... is now one of them?

If you're, say, Libertarian, you have a certain belief about rights, the constitution, and the govt, which will all be in utter chaos if you don't help get Bush out of office regardless, so..

__________________
I love lamp.

pan6467

Until a third party is strong and can pull in truly respectable numbers, neither party will truly listen to them.

The closest we've had in my lifetime was Perot and had there been a good leader to take control of the party and get the message out, we may well have a true third party now, there were enough votes to affect an election. Strong leadership and a tweaking would have kept that party relevant and growing especially now.

A vote for a third party is not a throw away, but realistically the 2 parties and politicians don't really listen. They look at third party votes as either radical or protest votes and until there is enough to matter they will keep looking at it that way.

It's like asking if Nader really did any damage to Gore in '00. No, he didn't. Like here in Ohio, Nader had like 3.4% of the vote and Bush won by 5% so even if all the Nader votes had gone to Gore Bush still won Ohio, I am pretty sure that was the case in all the close states gore lost, Nader didn't make as much of a difference as the press led people to believe.

Perot, on the other hand did.

Just find a third party, get it truly organized, find a platform that people can associate with and spread the message by getting STRONG leadership. Otherwise a third party will never happen.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

SecretMethod70

You're right, but, you need to also take into account that in the majority of states it doesn't matter who you vote for. Even if the people that want to vote third party did so it would not effect the outcome of the election. There are only about 15 states where it really matters.

pan, there are third parties with strong leadership out there. The Libertarian party has been around for 30 years and is larger than all the other third parties combined holding over 600 public offices. They have a bottom up mentality, while other parties, like the Reform party, had a top down mentality.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

mo42

Illinois = Vote Libertarian. Smaller government is a big issue; we're being destroyed by our national debt, and in the next 20 or 30 years Medicare and Social Security will collapse. Since that will be right around middle age for me, and I'd rather not have my retirement fund destroyed halfway to retirement, I'd like to see some Libertarians gain office at some point.

Of course, it's not going to happen this year, but if the Libs carry like 5% of the vote people might think twice about them being non-contenders and actually vote the way they want to, rather than being stuck in 2-party mode.

If I lived in Florida or Ohio, though, I'd vote Kerry.

__________________
It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

SecretMethod70

hello to another Illinoisan

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Sippy

Voting Badnarik in battleground state of Oregon. Looks like Kerry is going to win Oregon anyway but since I can't stomache voting for Kerry and don't like Bush, the LP is the only vote left for me. LP candidates get quite a bit of support here in Oregon and have been spoiler for statewide Republicans in favor of Democrats. If Republicans get pissed at this than they should moderate thier views when it comes to personal liberty on social issues.

madsenj37

I am voting third party like I have since I registered to vote at age 18. I voted for Nader (for whom I dont personally care for) because he had a good chance of getting government funding the next year. I got the wasted vote comment from people I know, as well as the I voted for Bush comments, thinking that since I voted for Nader, I should have supported Gore. Fact is I had no preference over Gore and Bush, they both were not for me. Being from California, my vote did not change anything since Gore won here anyways. Nader did not get his government funding. My lesson learned? Vote for what you truly believe in. Make your voice heard. I am Libertarian and will be voting so. People who want to vote third party but do not, are just making the two party system more powerful because they do not truly speak their mind and accept the two party playing field. Anyone who votes Kerry instead of the third party they want is thinking short term and not long term.
What about all future elections and how they will be conducted? Nothing will ever change if we do not try to change it.

__________________
"Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

spoofus

I am a voter but most of the time I just don't know why. While I am the first to call a dyed-in-the-wool abstainer an ass, in many ways I see their point. I vote every time and I feel I get screwed everytime. Politicians are generally classic talking-head types in the same class as vacuum cleaner salesman and news anchors. Pretty faces with small ugly minds. Taxes are always higher, the intellectual environment is always bleaker, prospects for success for the non-ruling class are ever so predictably dismal. Why vote, the fix is in and has been for centuries. We all flap are gums and watch the debates and participate in the polls and read the results and prognosticate on the virtues of the current presented flock of idiots and everything, as usual, is totally out of our control. It is not that I am bitter, just let-down repeatedly by our elected officials. I don't truly think we elect anyone. Possibly the winners are being decided by the people on the inside. I don't really know what is going on but I can honestly say that I really don't care anymore. I suspect after voting in the USA for almost thirty years that the problem is a word called democracy. I have worked in highly skilled technical professions for most of my life and recall the standard printed cartoons of products designed by commitee. This is what democracy is. Just imagine every idiot that you have ever had the misfortune to come across in your lives, with every possible bizarre notion about all aspects of life, with no self-respect , no intelligence, no knowledge of anything of substance, no appreciation for the arts and sciences, no sense of how to treat people, or what is actually worthwhile as a field of endeavor or an interest or even a passing fancy, just imagine that these are the people that are COLLECTIVELY electing the next petty despot.
Now you get the idea. The problem is not with any of the details but the system. I really don't think that most of the people voting are qualified to do so. They can barely utter coherent sentences and only God knows but I suspect that they are not possesed of rationality in any form. Allowing the un-washed masses a say in things is ludicrous. That being said, I'm going for Kerry primarily as payback to Bush for being the small worm that he is. We should all spend the next four years after the election concentrating on having fun and learning some new stuff, how about?

Ramega

I'd love to see us move to a system of instant runoffs, but I doubt it will happen. That would set the two-party system on its ass. Here's how it works:

Instead of selecting candidate A, B, or C for president, you rank them in order of preference. So, if you ranked them thusly:

C
A
B

Then C gets your first vote. All of the votes are counted, and if candidate C doesn't have enough votes to win he's tossed out and all of those votes swing to the second candidate on the ballot, in this case candidate A.

This way third party candidates could vote their conscience without worrying that they are putting their least favorite candidate in office.

I'd really like to see this happen.

d_p_w_k

While i commend those of you on here who are choosing to vote for a candidate most closely aligned with your individual belief system (be it left, right, green, libertarian, anarchist, etc.), I caution those of you who are choosing to vote a particular way because your State is not up for grabs. Perhaps your state is not up for grabs (for either party) because people vote thinking their vote doesn't matter.

That is why election day polls are not permitted until after the polls close. Perception would too greatly impact turnout.

Each voter has to determine their own priorities. If your priority is the defeat of Bush, vote accordingly. If your priority is support of Bush, do so as well. Just don't vote one way because you believe your vote doesn't count. The surest way to make your vote meaningless is to use your vote as though it is meaningless.

mml

I have said on several occations that I am a supporter of the two party system. As multiple parties develop, the need for coalitions arises, weakening the system and often allowing a very small minority a much larger share of influence than they deserve. (This is only my opinion, and it has been discussed ad naseum - I just wanted to preface my statement)

All that being said, I do not feel that a vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote. I believe stongly in voting, and everyone should vote as they see fit, just be sure to vote. If you truely believe in a party, be it one of the majors or a third party, you should get involved and support it in any way you can. Give time or money and certainly your vote to the party and candiates you believe in.

I do think that over time the LP has a real chance of becoming a player. They are doing it the right way, by building in each state, developing a base. As third parties become more a part of local politics, they have a greater chance of becoming a part of statewide and national politics. I have a LP friend who wants to run for office, and I am encouraging him to run for City Council, which is non-partisan in my city. If he is successful, he could build from there, perhaps Mayor (also non-partisan in my city) and if still successful perhaps a move to a higher statewide office, perhaps strengthening and growing his party as he does so.

So, vote your conscience. I do ask that all of you who are either undecided or voting third party, to truly reflect on your vote and the candidates. Consider the results of who will be in the White House. If you truly don't think it matters (and I fervently disagree with that notion) then vote for the 3rd party canditate. If you have certain concerns (i.e. the environment for the Green Party) think about what Kerry or Bush will do in that arena and make the best choice you can. No vote is a waste, but I truly think that the only way to build a party is from the bottom up.

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

Bill O'Rights

THANK YOU That's eggzaktlee what I'm talkin' about.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

jb2000

I am not a third party member, but I agree that you should vote for the best candidate by your view. The only wasted vote is one which is not submitted for the candidate you truly believe in.

When third party votes increase and cause more ruckus, then they may be taken seriously by the big two and one of the big two will see more fit to reform the system to encompass the third parties into government.

I have submitted a way to give third parties some representation within the system here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=69962

SecretMethod70

The core reason for voting third party should always be that you believe in what that third party candidate represents, yes. However, this does not mean that one cannot recognize that although Kerry is bad, Bush is worse, and thus be equally concerned. Following that, it *IS* possible to know which way your state will be going. Living in Wisconson, as I see you do, you may not realize how LITTLE competition there is over some other states. In Illinois, both the democratic and republican parties have given up advertising their candidates - in fact, they haven't done so to any sort of significant degree in any presidential election since I've been alive. Similar situations exist in states across America. Only about half the states are like this, but I assure you there are certainly states in which you KNOW exactly which way it will be going.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Bill O'Rights

SecretMethod70 knows of what he speaks. My own state of Nebraska will fall to George Bush. This is a given, and I have accepted it. (like I have a choice, right?) My own vote will be for Badnarik in an effort to run up his numbers. I hold no illusion that he stands a snowballs chance on a hot griddle, but it has to start somewhere. I have decided that it will start with me. That is my voice, and I will speak...with my vote.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

thefictionweliv

I've met few people that when presented with another choice can actually say that Bush or Kerry would be their first choice. If everyone voted their true views the landscape of this country would be vastly different. I may feel that Bush is better than Kerry, especially scince I'm going to be in the military for the next 4-6 years and I firmly do not want Kerry as a leader however I believe in Badnarik and my support for him is 100% not wasted. If Kerry wins then he wins, however I know that I supported who I truely believe in so I can say that I put my support to making this country a better place and didn't settle for its current state. Vote for who you believe in. Live it. Preach it. Only then will this country will be a better place.

dbc

I have read that the Republican party tries to get 3rd party candidates on the ballot through petitioning.

thefictionweliv

At least they are allowing people to choose in the process if so.