CoachAlan

This forum is one of the few places where the third party candidates get any credit at all. Sure, some votes for Nader might have otherwise gone to Kerry, and some votes for Bednarik might otherwise have gone to Bush; but NO vote is wasted.

A vote for a person or issue that does not win still gets counted. Over time, more and more people may vote that way, and before you know it you have real change. Consider the following list:

Republican
Democratic
Progressive (Bull-Moose)
American (Know-Nothing)
Whig
Democratic-Republican
Federalist
Anti-Federalist

These are some of the parties that have risen to power in the history of the United States. Not all have had presidents, but all have had some measure of success. At the country's outset, the Republicans and Democrats didn't even exist. Why do people seem so sure that other parties won't rise up and take their place?

The only way we're going to progress is by voting what we really feel is right. In Washington state right now, the Libertarian Party is officially labeled a major party. Who knows, in ten years it might be Libertarians vs Greens, and a vote for a Democrat is a waste of a vote.

Vote for what you want. Don't be railroaded in to choosing the lesser of two evils. As a prominent TFPer says (whose name escapes me), "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

__________________
"If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go!"
- Mark Twain

ObieX

Exactly! I'm tired of hearing the "I'd vote for someone who's not (D) or (R) but i dont think cadidate XXXX will win" arguement! THEY WONT WIN UNLESS YOU FUCKING VOTE FOR THEM. So make your VOICE HEARD. Vote for joe schmoe if you want joe schmoe to win. Vote for jim schmickle if you want jim schmickle to win and stop complaining that you dont have choices. YOU DO HAVE CHOICES. There are more than 2 people running for president! In fact there are more than 4 people running for president! If you think george bush doesnt have what it takes to run the country then VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE! If you don't thing kerry has what it takes to run the country then VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Hite Reporter

I can't say I agree with you. I live in Kansas, a "red" state. It really does not matter who I vote for, Kansas wil go for Bush.

With that being said, I will vote, and I have discussed my thoughts with friends and family, even though they are not popular....

I really think we should either toss the electoral college completely or at least split a state's electoral college votes amoung the candates based on the number of votes it gets.

I think the way we count votes today realy discourages 3rd party voters...and even 2nd party voters, in states that have a strong republican or demorcatic history.

John

maypo

aaaahhh. , your naivete charms both me and the republican party. Thats why many republicans have been making donations to Nader. They are ruthless and amoral enough to understand that splitting the vote between conservatives gives them a good chance of losing so they split the vote of the left. You can have all the alternative canidates you want but if they never get elected, they change little. The miserable leadership of the last four years has put a lie to Naders' (and my ignorant hippie friends) "theres no difference(between gore + bush)" Politics is inevitably about compromise, listen to senators and congressmen complain about making deals to pass bills, they like it little more than you, but it is how things get done. It is a dirty truth that makes politics quite unpalatable but it is the truth. I wonder if the dead in Iraq would prefer your bold uncompromising stance or would they rather have had Al Gore in the Whitehouse?

kutulu

This election is way too important to wast a vote on some loser 3rd party guy who at best will get 1% of the vote. Aside from that, the third partys out there are very extreme.

Want a Liberatarian? Say goodbye to free public education and be prepared for huge tax cuts on the ultra wealthy.

This President could appoint 3 Supreme Court justices. Control of the Supreme Court is too important to lose because you want to "make a statement"

ObieX

Yea its much better to continue with extreme waste and over-bloated government. Just because certain parties' ideas are different doesnt make them dangerous. Over the past 50-75 years our government has done nothing but grow out of control and continue to absorb parts of it's citizen's lives that it should have abslutely no say in whatsoever. The dangerous thing is to allow this to continue. To allow government to continue to balloon out of control and cause things like: burdening future generations with huge deficits from social security and war, and complete corporate control over government.

You know what though? That 1% says a lot. And if everyone who said thy would vote or a 3rd party candidate if they would win would actually go out and do it that number could grow to 7%.. maybe 8% and that would encourage the next wave of people to vote for their real choice and soon that number would raise to 10%.. 15%.. at which point the (D) and (R) communities would be flipping out. As of right now they cant comprehend anyone thinking outside the box and voting for someone that isnt produced by their huge political machines.

Lose control over the Supreme Court? What control is there now? The president himself claims that the court is out of control and imposing itself on things that it should not be. There are checks and balances in every part of our government, the supreme court only has so much power. The house has only so much power. THe president has only so much power. If you think that the whole country will suddenly start to spin out of control because a libertarian or green is elected then you are extremely misguided.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

ObieX

And Hite i agree with you, the electoral college has to go. It does not acurately represent the citizens the way it should. Instant run-off voting is probably the best alternative. With the way the electoral college has been producing so much controvercy in the last few elections it seems that it may not have long to live. Unfortunately people are afraid of change. They think the world will come to an end if something is changed with the way government works. Even if the current problem(s) are blatantly obvious and screaming out for change.

It's like trying to convince a child to eat something for the first time. "Here try a shrimp" .. "I don't like shrimp" .. "But you've never had shrimp before, how do you not like it?" .. "I just dont like it! I dont like it! i dont want it!" .. yet the second they try it they're crying out for more.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

kutulu

The supreme court issue is that Bush is elected the people he would try to put in there would be people who lean more pro-life. That is a very important issue to me.

Except when they are dangerous. The Liberatarian Party has some dangerous ideas. Look at their fix on education:

Complete privatization of education would really fuck things up. There are many people who would not be able to send their kids to school if the cost solely their burden. The entire country benefits from the education of our children, not just the kids going to school. Lower education means lower paying jobs which result in lower tax revenues, increased poverty, and higher crime. YOu might as well bring in a caste system.

They'd also like to get rid of the EPA. That's great. I'm sure industry would be willing to spend millions of dollars on pollution control equipment out of the goodness of their hearts. (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/pl....html#pollutio)

They also want to get rid of safety regulations and "let the markey dictate safety standards" (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/pl....html#consprot)

OSHA? Don't need 'em. Forget about all the deaths and injures prevented because of them

HISTORY shows us that private industry won't spend a dime on protecting the environment or their workers until they are forced to do so. To say they are dangerous is a bit too nice. To say they have their heads completely up their asses is more correct.

Orpheus

PLEASE VOTE- unless you're stupid, uninformed and like 5% of America, will choose their candidate on election day. At that point, you're ruining it for the rest of us who do care.

As for a hypothetical, should demented people be allowed to vote? I read an article the other day where a senior citizen with Alzheimer's wanted to vote for FDR; his wife voted for him (she picked GWB).

Orpheus

PLEASE VOTE- unless you're stupid, uninformed and like 5% of America, will choose their candidate on election day. At that point, you're ruining it for the rest of us who do care.

As for a hypothetical, should demented people be allowed to vote? I read an article the other day where a senior citizen with Alzheimer's wanted to vote for FDR; his wife voted for him (she picked GWB).

ObieX

Libertarians arent the only third party out there. (and for the record i dispise the phrase "third party") Check out the greens or example. Many people are actually suprised when they check out the green party and find that it better suits their needs.

Also dont forget, just because a party wants something to happen, doesnt mean that it will happen.

As a side note i went to a catholic highschool and elementary school. They are not public and i believe the quality of their education far exceeds that of any public school. So just because something isnt publicly funded doesnt mean it has to suck, in fact publicly funded anything usually gets short-changed and underfunded. What the Libertarians disagree with is the fact that even though someone may not have children they are forced to pay for the education of everyone elses. This is taking of money, by force. Government is force, and the libertarians wants to shrink the overwhelming mass that government has become.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

kutulu

I understand that logic. Maybe it's the socialist in me but I totally deny that arguement. I see it as a contribution to the future of America. Every person is obligated to make a contribution to the future. Some do it by having kids.

Besides, unless all these people who are bitching about it now were raised in 100% private schools and never took a dime to help them with their education (direct or indirect) it's a bit hypocritical and selfish for them to make that arguement. You didn't see them complain about getting their free school but now they want to keep future generations from doing the same.

kutulu

I'm picking on them because they are the "3rd party" getting the most attention right now. The Libertarians just have so many issues bass-ackwards. The policies that they suggest regarding environmental health, safety regulations, and such are retroactive instead of being proactive.

Letting the "market decide" what is right for pollution control suggests that instead of making sure that pollution doesn't get out of control you let it go until it harms enough people to get a class action lawsuit going. This gets stuck in the court system for years and in the end, the big business might win and nothing gets accomplished.

With a federal organization like the EPA the problem never arises because that company has had to demonstrate that they are doing everything possible to keep pollution minimized on an annual basis. If they are out of compliance, penalties can range from fines to a complete shutdown of the plant. Even if the courts had that authority to shut a plant down, it would take years for it to happen.

Sippy

"This gets stuck in the court system for years and in the end, the big business might win and nothing gets accomplished. "

Oh, because this never happens now and the current bureaucracy is so damn efficent.

CoachAlan

Your sarcasm sounds like as good a reason as any to start voting third party, voting for change.

There are things I don't like about the various parties. I don't like that Nader wants to repeal NAFTA. I don't like that the Republicans want to deny civil rights to gays. I don't like that Democrats want to ban certain guns. I don't like that Libertarians want to privatize education. The list goes on.

I'm registered independent, and I vote like it. I'll be voting for Kerry because, out of all the candidates (of the many parties), he supports my core issues best. If it were Nader or Bednarik or whoever, I'd vote for that candidate.

__________________
"If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go!"
- Mark Twain

Halx

I rather like how in Canada, votes for a lesser party will still earn them seats in the House of Commons. That's how their socialized healthcare came to be... the little guys brought it up.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

HugAPug

Not necessarily though. I mean, The Green Party got around 4.3 percent of the vote last federal election (not too shabby considering there are four major federal parties) but since it didn't come in first in any ridings, it failed to get a single seat. They came in pretty strong in BC and Alberta, but until we have a proportional system, where parties get seats based on the percentage of votes they receive, the small parties will have a harder time getting into the House.