Bruisedskin

I'm personally voting for Michael Badnarik, but at the same time I like knowing why other people are voting the way they are, and if anybody thinks that voting for a 3rd party is dumb, just lemme know why it's dumb, cuz i'd like to hear your personal opinion.

Dan

__________________
It was funny once, but not so anymore.
Brian Vander Ark

TheKak

Im voting for Badnarik because his views most accuratly represent what I believe. The Republicans and Democrats have not put forth anyone even close to deserving my vote, so instead of voting for the "lesser of evils" I'm going to vote for who I actually want to see in office.

And your vote is not wasted. If enough people vote 3rd party it will give them more publicity, which gives them a better chance of winning future elections. I believe the main reason Dems/Repubs stay in power is because of a lack of media coverage of the other candidates, and a refusal to let them participate in the debates.

__________________
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

thefictionweliv

Voting for who truly supports your views is never a waste. I believe that Michael Badnarik being involved in the debates would clear the way for a win or tight race. As support grows year by year the influence of the LP will increase, every vote counts towards showing America they have other choices.

Kadath

I've asked it before, and I really mean it: why is Badnarik a good candidate? He has no political or leadership experience whatsoever. I don't think voting for a third party is dumb, but I ask what Badnarik supporters think would happen if he somehow won. He would be shut out as far as Congress was concerned and be unable to build any sort of consensus.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Willravel

I completly agree on all points. It's shame that people can't simply follow their own political heart, so to speak.

Rdr4evr

Although people believe voting for an individual with their beliefs is not a waste; In this election I think it is nothing but a waste. If you want Bush out of office, you simply must vote Kerry, it is only logical. As ridiculous and over-said as it may be, the unfortunate truth is that a vote for 3rd party is a vote for Bush. Everyone knows independent does not stand a chance, it is a fact. Too much is on the line in this election and it is extremely close, voting independent simply does not make sense.

SecretMethod70

Perhaps you somehow got out of US History in high school, or perhaps you just didn't pay full attention in 2000, but the popular vote means nothing in the presidential election. If you can explain to me why it's important that I, in Illinois, a state where Kerry is going to win by 10%+, a state that, in terms of presidential elections, is about as liberal as California, should vote for Kerry even when he doesn't represent my views, then I'll do so. The truth is, the whole concept of the wasted vote, even if it *did* hold any water, only does in battleground states - and that's less than half the states in the country. In Illinois and many other states, there are essentially two options: everyone vote for Kerry even when he doesn't represent our views, so that Kerry wins the state by some relatively large percentage and thinks he has more support than he does and the party that DOES better represent our views gets no boost whatsoever in any way; or we can vote our conscience and Kerry will STILL win the state by a smaller margin, realize that while he may be president he doesn't accurately represent as many people as he might otherwise think, and the third party which does gets more support as well.

So, there are only about 18 states where one could logically point to a third party vote as being a wasted vote or a spoiler vote. Next comes the problem of WHO it spoils the election for. In my experience most Badnarik supporters are pretty evenly split on who they dislike most. Both are for bigger government and more spending, just in different ways. So, Badnarik supporters hail from both sides. One could then argue that it's not a spoiler at all. Or, if you want to go by the typical state of affairs, Libertarian voters, while they can come from both sides, many times are disenfranchised Republicans. If a vote for Badnarik is likely to be a spoiler for anyone, it's likely to be a spoiler for Bush. There's real concern in New Mexico right now that that's precisely what will happen.

And then there's the idea that it's a wasted vote. Why is voting for what I believe in a waste because my candidate won't win? If this is what you believe, will you admit to me, if Kerry doesn't win, that your vote was wasted? Why bother voting at all if your candidate doesn't win? If a vote for a loser is a wasted vote, since apparently voting is like betting on horses and not like telling the government who you would most prefer to run it, then will you promise to not vote in 2008 if you "waste" your vote in this election on Kerry? In fact, did you vote for Gore in 2000? He lost - you wasted your vote - you shouldn't vote in this election either since your vote is just going to be "wasted."

"Next election, next election, we can vote third parties next election"....and then the next election rolls around and, again, both major parties will tell us "this is the most important election in recent history!" and they'll tell us "don't vote for a third party, it's a wasted vote!" and the news media will help by not informing people about their options in the first place.....and so on and so on. Or there's "I'll vote for a third party once they get enough support that they have a shot at winning." Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. Imagine, there could be 45% of the country (enough to win an election since plurality voting sucks) all waiting for the OTHER people to go first. If they all voted their conscience, however, we could be talking about president Cobb in 2004, or president Badnarik. Of course, you're right, there's not 45% underground support. Why? Most of the people simply have no clue. It's pretty difficult to gain support when the two major parties are utilizing the media to reiterate "wasted vote. wasted vote. wasted vote." over and over again. We're told a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, and just to make sure that the effect is complete, we're ONLY told that - never who these people are that we could waste our vote on, just that it's a wasted vote.

So, tell me why it's so important that I vote for Kerry in Illinois and I'll do so. Oh, and then I'll tell one of the many Badnarik supporters I know about this enlightening information and he'll vote for Kerry in Texas too, as opposed to "wasting his vote" and showing government how he'd REALLY like it to be run - nevermind the fact there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that Kerry will win Texas. And then I'll inform a few other Badnarik supporters I know about my astonishing revelation and they can go vote for Bush as well since that may be their lesser of two evils....of couse, they may live in battleground states. Bush could win the election because of it but, hey! No one wasted their vote and now Bush gets to think he has more support than he really does! And to top it all of we'll have helped to keep the third parties delegitimized.

"Somehow, the term 'thinking for yourself' has become 'wasting your vote.' The definition of liberty is making your own choices." -- Michael Badnarik

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

Bill O'Rights

Thank you SM70. You've stated that very well, and saved me a whole lot of typing in the process. I appreciate that.
Substitute "Nebraska" for "Illinois", and "Bush" for "Kerry", in SM70's post, and you have my position, in a nutshell.

__________________
"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.

Willravel

Fantastic post, 'Method. A post that good has the potential to help a few people to vote for what they believe in.

aliali

Voting for who you believe in is never a waste. Other than because you have problems with Bush and/or Kerry, are there any good reasons to vote for Badnarik or Nader?

MSD

He's the only candidate who I feel represents me in any way. If you've ever seen the test that compares your answers to those of candidates (I forget the site at the moment,) he's the only candidate who is over the 50% mark ompared to me.

I'd rather see Kerry win than Bush (barely,) but I'd rather place a vote that leaves my conscience clear than settle for the slightly lesser of two evils.

Cimarron29414

'Method - With your permission, I would like to quote you some time. You have illustrated the point quite well.

Allow me to expand your response to include one point:

The trouble in the U.S. is not Bush and it is not Kerry. The trouble in the U.S. is the two party system. These two parties have become so entrenched in their competition, that it is no longer about representing people, but rather conquering real estate. Who has the most seats in the House/Senate/White House; who has the most Governors; how many states are red and how many are blue. It doesn't even matter whether the parties represent the people anymore. It's all about the illusion of being "right" because "we have the most seats". The two parties are so polarized to the extremes that they represent only a small portion of the population. In order to maintain their power, they attempt to scare us rather than listen to the people and change the party platforms to something palatable. It's easier to scare the masses into compliance than change a platform hundreds of years in the making.

Rdr4Evr, have you ever examined the hypocrisy of the two parties? If a new issue comes up, the party in question goes "Well, how do the other guys feel about it? Yeah? Well, I feel the exact opposite!" It doesn't even matter if that position violates 10 other principles in the party doctrine - as long is it is the exact opposite of the other guys. Logic no longer plays a role in their platforms. And so, we are stuck with black or white until people have the courage to vote for the grey that they are!

The two parties will never change until the voice of a third party is large enough to make the other parties examine their positions. My vote will facilitate this change and I am proud to contribute it. In a representative government, the person that wastes their vote is the person that votes for someone that does not represent them. I don't care how close the race is in your state: a vote for Kerry = a vote for Bush = a vote for business as usual for the corporate whores. So, if you "call yourself a Libertarian" and you vote for Kerry/Bush on November 2, you are no Libertarian - you are a COWARD!

mbaha

Bush wants you to vote Badnarik as well

pan6467

The problem with third parties is they do not have a message. It isn't the press won't cover them. I'm sorry the libertarians just don't have much of a platform that would work in our system, they are too right to attract disgruntled Dems. and considered to whatever to be GOP.

Perot got coverage in '92. John Anderson got coverage in '80. Nader got coverage in '00. They had messages but when it came down to it they lacked true essence and charisma to get the win (and I voted for Nader in '00 and I supported Perot until he got too goofy).

The press is there. To say it isn't is just trying to make excuses. You want a true third party to work in this country, it'd be extremely simple. Find a platform that attracts both left and right (centrist), find charismatic people that can carry the word, make some phone calls and either rent space or petition to use parks, get a press agent or 2, then work your way across the country.

Before getting into a city run out flyers, do interviews with the city's papers and it's radio/tv stations, have a strong website that explains the candidate's background, the party's beliefs and even have a weekly Q&A forum with the candidate, send in people that will enthuse crowds to come and see the candidates.

When they get into town kiss the babies, don't have big dollar fundraisers have small bake sales or whatever. Mingle with the people for a full day or even a week in some places, listen to them talk to them and show them that their concerns are your parties concerns and that your platform will not change with the polls.

Trust me you want coverage, you want people to take notice that would do it. Yes, whoever wants to start this would have to start next Wednesday, and would have to probably campaign EVERYDAY for 2 straight years all over the country (first 2 are to get the message out and start a ground swell but can be done p/t), BUT is it not worth it? Financially, you'll have throw fundraisers for the party and the candidate.

All I'm saying is a person can win (IMO) without spending millions upon millions campaigning. It just takes hard work, ingenuity, passion beyond belief, money but as the message gets out the donations will grow, drive a vision people can believe in, a group of hard core believers, charisma, hitting every city possible and the firm belief that you WILL NOT LOSE (second you doubt you can win you lose.)

You show me a candidate that will do that, and short of serious scandals, I'll show you the next President of the US.

Hell, you show me someone with that passion and belief and if I believe in his platform I'll campaign shoulder to shoulder with that person for the next 4 years.

BTW, many of you will say that isn't feasible and come up with every excuse possible why that won't work...... and to that I say that reason and ONLY that reason is why there is no viable 3rd party. It's not the press, the government, the whatever, it's the attitude and belief that it will fail. That shows lack of passion.

If you have the message, the drive and the passion, people will flock to you.

(Edited to take out a quote, this didn't need it)

__________________
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?"

Rdr4evr

No, I did not skip History class in high school and am fully aware that the popular vote does not determine the winner of Presidency. This is the very reason I laugh when we are considered a democracy. Perhaps I was not being specific enough, but I figured the poster would understand what I meant when I said it is too close to waste a vote on third party. The 18 states you mention are the states I refer too when I say do not throw away a vote on independent. You remember what happened in Florida; one state decided the fate of thousands in a baseless, idiotic war, one state has put this country in more danger, one state has lost this country jobs, one state has put this country into a record setting deficit, one state has f’d up healthcare, environment and education, etc. It is simply not worth it in this election to vote independent just because you think you are being heard, there is too much at stake.

It will not be wasted because Kerry actually stands a chance. Kerry is the deciding factor of whether or not the country will continue to go downhill. If he doesn’t win, it is a possibility it will be because of the several people who voted independent, and in my honest opinion, that would be very unfortunate.

You can insult me all you like, but it will not change the way I feel. The fact of the matter is that this country does not see past two parties.

Cimarron29414

Ummm, no we're not. We are a Democratic Republic.

George Bush is an idiot. In spite of that fact, he is neck and neck with the competition that was the pick of the litter for the Democrats. They could pick ANYONE they wanted and John Kerry was the best that they could come up with. If John Kerry can't beat an idiot handily, it's because he is an idiot as well.

SecretMethod70

gah, I was writing a response and it got deleted

Rdr4evr - sorry if you felt insulted, that wasn't my intention.

The thing to keep in mind is most third party supporters DON'T feel Kerry will stop the country from going downhill. From my perspective, both candidates will spend spend spend and allow the government to intrude on my life. Both candidates then, for me, are losers.

pan - I simply don't believe that the media coverage is representative of actual support. Perot got coverage because he as rich and famous, and both parties thought they could use him to their advantage. Nader got coverage, again, because he's fairly wealthy and famous. Most third party candidates do not have the fame or the wealth to compete on that same level however.

If media coverage were representative of support, as you imply, then explain to me why Nader has gotten so much coverage this election as compared to Badnarik? Explain to me why Nader is included in polls so often - even in states where he's not on the ballot - as opposed to Badnarik. Nader is FIFTH in terms of the number of ballots he is on. FIFTH. Badnarik is THIRD - on the ballot of all but two states, one of which due to the creation of EXTREMELY difficult ballot access laws. Badnarik has more <a href="http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=large&compare_sites=votenader.org&url=badnarik.org">internet interest</a> as well. He is polling higher than Nader in many states. Yet, Nader is the one mentioned in the polls, Nader is the "spoiler" that is discussed, and Nader is the one with all the media coverage.

Oh right, that was another thing I had been typing about (grr). Badnarik is THE most passionate presidential candidate I know of. The man gave up his job, put all his belongings in storage, and set out to campaign in a KIA. As far as I'm aware, he is currently without a place of residence. Furthermore, he's doing every interview he possibly can, but it's not like many media outlets are interested. And it's not for lack of support as the case above shows. Most of his interviews are radio and newspaper, which aren't able to reach an audience very well. When his campaign got enough money to run some national ads such as on Fox News Channel, they conveniently started to be a bit more interested in having him on the network. So, what did they do? They gave him 2 minutes. 2 minutes. Of course most people think he doesn't have a platform! He barely gets a chance to discuss it! Not to mention that it was 2 minutes with a terrible interviewer, but that much is expected from Fox News Channel. And, if money wasn't an issue, why is it so convenient that some media outlets are FINALLY starting to cover the third party candidate with the MOST support only AFTER he has been able to buy ad time?

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

thefictionweliv

Thats a matter of perspective, I feel the platform the Republicans and Democrats isn't working with our system rather against the constitution reperesents.

MSD

Most libertarian voters are disgruntled Republicans. Most would vote for Bush if they had to choose him or Kerry. If you want to know who bush would want you to vote for, Nader, maybe, but Badnarik, no

Coppertop

And Tehran wants you to vote Bush. Your point?

* in case some of you made need this - Tehran is the capital of Iran

Coppertop

As long as the third parties are silenced in America, things will not change substantially. My feelings are summed up quite nicely by the late Bill Hicks:

"I'll show you politics in America; here it is, right here: I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs! I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking! Hey wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets! Shut up! Go back to bed America, your government is in control.. here's Love Connection; watch this and get fat and stupid! By the way, keep drinking beer, you fucking morons!"

Coppertop

C'mon, you really believe this? Florida certainly did not vote for Bush alone. What about every other state that voted for Bush? Or every single person (though they were the minority) who voted for Bush? Way to pass the buck.

Try holding the real bearers of these actions responsible, you know: Bush's administration?

Bruisedskin

Actually i recieved an email from Badnarik saying something along the lines of if you live in a swing state you should vote for Kerry, I don't quite understand his reasoning, but meh whatever.

Dan

__________________
It was funny once, but not so anymore.
Brian Vander Ark

Sparhawk

Anyone who thinks there are no differences in the two candidates needs only to look over the last four years.

As an aside, my personal problem with the libertarian platform is its incredible selfishness. Where is the sacrifice asked? How do you pay for the care of sick, the elderly? How do you help create opportunity for the poor, so all can share in the American Dream? All these things are lacking in the libertarian community. Its lack of compassion and responsibility for and to others (in the community, city, state, and country) is the culmination of all that is wrong with the Baby Boomer generation, and the "Me Me Me" attitude that it spawned.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

cthulu23

That sounds like a bit of propaganda spam to me. I'm not a Bandarik supporter, but why would he run for president if he was just going to endorse another candidate where it mattered?

kutulu

Look, those tests that the LBT party put out there are cute and all but if you take a long look at the LBT platform you'll see that those people are off thier rockers.

This is directly stated in their platform. They seek to eliminate ALL of these govt agencies:

FAA (because the airline industry is totally safe)
Dept of Transportation (I guess roads will be built for free. Maybe local residents can pool together $100 to have 10 miles of freeway built without someone stealing millions of it.)
National Transportation Safety Board (who needs someone to watch out for your safety)
Coast Guard (we sure don't need anyone patrolling the coast)
DoE (because we can trust the power companies)
Nuclear Regulatroy Commission (why in hell would we need a govt agency to look after nuclear power or fuels. No national security interest there...)
EPA (pollution is GOOD!)
Consumer Product Safety Commission (I love it when a product kills my children)
Food and Drug Administration (because drugs are always safe and we can trust drug companies)
DoEd
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Forest Service
Department of Agriculture
OSHA (who needs safety in the workplace?)
US Postal Service

Are all of these govt agencies perfect? Not by a longshot, however, they all serve usefull purposes that either:

We cannot trust private industries to take care of on their own (pollution, worker safety, consumer safety, FAA, DoE, NRC, NTSB, Dept of Agricultre)

Are too difficult for individuals or organized groups of individuals to maintain (Dept of Transportation, US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Burean of Reclamation)

There may have been a time when we didn't need these things. Our population was small and the country was not industrialized, therefore pollution was not a factor and the destruction of resources and loss of endangered species was not as threatening. This time passed 100 years ago.

A mining company can come into town and in the span of a few years they can turn a mountain that people have enjoyed seeing for decades into crushed rock looking for minerals that make up less than 1% of the total mass of that mountain. They would have no obligation or desire to replace that mountain or even provide the workers with a safe working environment.

They are naive to think that individuals would be able to keep multi-billion dollar corporations from pumping as much pollution into the air as they want. People who live outside the affected area could give a fuck about it. We see that now. If everyone's drinking water had potentially dangerous levels of arsenic in it there would be no way Bush would have gotten away with lowering arsenic standards.

Liberatarians believe that they have to save us from the government. Although they may be correct in some cases, they also forgot that we have to be saved from our own greed.

kutulu

I saw a combination of selfishness, foolishness, and a great misunderstanding of the power of the indivudual against the might of corporate lawyers.

maximusveritas

I definitely understand why many Republicans and former Bush supporters would want to vote for Badnarik. He is definitely a clear and viable alternative to President Bush. A vote for him would send a message to the Republican leadership that they can't just do anything and expect you to vote for them no matter what.
It's a shame that more people don't know about Badnarik since he gets almost no coverage from the national media. Even so, I still think he'll get more votes than Nader. I seriously have yet to meet a single sane person who is voting for Nader this time around.

mbaha

No, votes for wacky write in people tend to take votes away from Kerry. It is a little late to start supporting someone with NO chance of even showing up on the board. If you want to support wacky person X from party Y that will never have support from more than 5% of the population do it BEFORE the primaries. Right now there is only TWO choices from president DEAL with it. Hope it goes better for you in 4 years.
mbaha

Sun Tzu

I think the LP's message is extremely clear. I don’t think the press does give them any coverage. The fact there were only 2 candidates standing on the debate floor says something too.

Even though I think it rests comfortably on popular complacency; it’s not in the Federal Reserve Bank's best interest to let this mindset expand.

I love my country, and appreciate the freedoms I have, but at this point I can’t shake the dream and vision of what it could be.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

SecretMethod70

um, did you read ANYTHING in this thread so far? Explain to me how, when the majority of Libertarians are former republicans or republican leaners who dislike the current republican party's social and economic agendas, they take away votes from Kerry by voting for Badnarik instead of Bush. Explain to me how my friend, who was not going to vote at all since he dislikes both candidates, voting for a third party candidate who he actually respects is hurting Kerry when he wasn't going to vote for him anyway. Lastly, these are not "wacky write in people" by any means. Badnarik is on the ballot in 48 states + DC. Do you have ANY idea how many signatures it takes to accomplish that? But, when it comes down to ACTUAL write-ins, I STILL don't understand how you can say they're taking away votes from Kerry. Most write in candidates are essentially protest votes, expressing distaste for the candidates presented, such as my roommate who will be writing in Marx/Engels as a statement.

As for supporting candidates before primaries, you are aware that the candidates running in third parties DON'T PARTICIPATE in those correct? Third parties have their own selection process, and people have been supporting Badnarik, for example, just as long as they have been supporting Bush or Kerry. Furthermore, many states require you to register with a party to vote in their primary. Well, there's a reason I'm voting third party - I DON'T LIKE EITHER PARTY. Why would I register with one of them so I could vote in their primary and get a candidate whom I still don't like?

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

Ustwo

Yea its a shame Kerry can't win in 92 Perot spoiler fashion.

Libertarians are not a viable party at this time. They can only act as spoilers. Half the libertarians I have spoken to over the years don't even understand what the Libertarian platform is (I've heard far lefties say they are libertarian at the same time saying we need to tax the rich), and Religious conservatives would not vote Libertarian. The Republicans without the relgious vote is like the Dems without the Union vote. Dead in the water.

So while I would not mind a libertarian president, until society is such that the population is ready for true libertarianism I would never vote for them as it would ensure that the worst of two evils wins, every time.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

kutulu

Yes it does say something. The LBT party's ideas would not work and everyone else other than the LBTs know that.

Their solution to every problem is the same: eliminate the govt agency that is meant to deal with that problem and privatize it. Sorry, but that doesn't work for everything.

aerozeppelin

You grossly oversimplify the Libertarian platform - I might just as easily say that the Republican/Democrat solution to every problem is the same: a new government agency with ______ bias that will enforce _______ ridiculous regulations so that ________ target demographic group will be happy. You are an exmaple of why libertarian candidates need to be in debates - so people understand what the LP platform actually is.

Back to the original topic, unless someone has a real preference for Bush or Kerry (enough of one that they would vote for Pres. without any third party candidates to vote for) and lives in a battleground state, I don't think it really matters, in terms of who wins the election, who they vote for. However, the more people who vote for a third party, the more media attention it gets. The more media attention it gets, the more the dominant parties are forced to accomodate/respond to its ideas, and the more powerful it (or its ideas, if they become assimilated into a major party) become. The third parties are the method of introducing radical new ideas into the real world of American politics, and their importance should not be discounted.

mbaha

It is called math. If you have two parties and people are not happy with one party they will have to vote for the other. In this case if people are not happy with the Bush camp they will have to vote for Kerry, wow that was hard. Or they could not vote or waste their vote by writing in Mickey Mouse or some such.
later

kutulu

I've read their platform several times. It's the most retarded thing I've ever read.

Bruisedskin

Basically what i've gotten out of what all of you have said, is that vote for who's popular and you agree with kind of, you can't be happy with whomever you vote for. wow, sounds like a great country we live in the U S of Fuckin A

Dan

__________________
It was funny once, but not so anymore.
Brian Vander Ark

Ustwo

No offense but no one will please every one, you need to figure that out and move on. If you are looking for someone who you agree with on all levels, you won't have any luck beyond a mirror. Compromises must be made in politics and that means some bad with the good.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

kutulu

For once, I agree with you.

Although this election's choices are between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, the fact is that there are big differences between the giant douche and the turd sandwich. It's going to be a really close election too. Although there may be some other candidate that represents more of your views than the turd sandwich does you're not helping yourself out by voting for the third party if the giant douche wins.

SecretMethod70

No need for sarcasm here, let's keep it civil. You bring up math, yet that's exactly what makes it so that voting for a third party is a reasonable option, even in such a close election. In all seriousness, are you from America? If not, perhaps that would explain why you don't seem to understand this. There are about 18 battleground states, leaving 32 states where the winner of that state is all but a certain outcome. I'm not going to bother going through each state's individual population, since it would take a lot of time, but to simplify it, 32 of 50 is about 65%. So, using extremely raw math, 182 million people's votes statistically have very little individual worth since a votes individual worth is directly proportional to how close the election is in that person's state. You failed to address my previous questions regarding why those people should vote for one of the two major parties when they have choices on their ballot for one of the minor party candidates.

As has been pointed out numorous times in this thread, voting is not about being behind the winner - this is not a day at the horse races. But, to use the horse race parallel, when one goes to the races there are various different odds for each horse available. Some people bet on the long shot then, because while the chances are that that person is "throwing away" their money, if that longshot were to win, the payout would be much more significant than if they were to bet on one of the horses that was likely to win. So, people who vote for third parties, despite them having a much smaller chance at winning, are voting for the candidate who has the most promise in their view if he or she does win.

Thankfully, there are other things at work in elections as well. We know that third party candidates rarely win (at least in presidential elections), so while those who vote for them are looking towards a bigger ideological payout, they understand that it will likely not come. So, why do they still vote for them? Besides adhering to the principle that it is important to vote one's conscience, third party voters understand the important role third parties can play in politics. While no third party has won the presidency in quite some time, various arties have had a profound effect on the politics surrounding them. The Prohibition party for example, however flawed we may generally think their ideas are, is responsible for helping to bring prohibition into the spotlight in America, which culminated in an amendment to our constitution. The Green party, while not winning presidential elections, helps to keep the other parties in check by pressuring them to discuss environmental issues. The independant candidacy of Perot, in 1992, brought attention to the national deficit, essentially shaping the entire Clinton presidency.

Let me give an actual third party voter perspective to this, again. I don't think either candidate is a better choice than the other. Other third party voters, while they may think one major party candidate is better than the other, live in states where it doesn't matter statistically whether or not they vote for one of the major candidates (this applies to me as well). So, I'm trying to see how voting for a third party candidate will hurt me. To put it in an extremely simplified manner, if Bush wins the government will keep spending tons of money it doesn't have. If Kerry wins, the government will STILL keep spending money it doesn't have, but on other stuff.

You point to it being a really close election, so I take this to mean that you think it's bad and potentially harming to me to vote for a third party candidate because of this. What if Kerry was up by 12%? That's more than what Clinton won by in both his elections, more than what Bush Sr. won by in 1988, more than what Reagan won by in 1980, and more than what Carter won by in 1976, just to use a few recent examples. Would it then be OK to vote third party, with a spread so large, larger than 5 out of the last 7 elections? Think about that.......

Well that's the spread in Illinois. So, I'm voting my conscience and voting for a third party, regardless of whether or not I feel either of the major candidates is better than the other. Because the only wasted vote in Illinois is a vote for a candidate whom you don't agree with when he's going to win/lose anyway.

Pan.... Another example regarding media coverage. This may be just a very odd mistake, but even the seemingly non-partisan site http://grayraven.com/ec/ lists only Nader and Cobb in their electoral college calculator. Perhaps it's an honest mistake, but I find it quite odd considering Badnarik is on significantly more ballots than both of them.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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