OT: Is Voting For A Third Party Wasting Your Vote?

[duckman]

I thought this would be a good discussion since now Kerry is looking like the Democratic nomination.

From looking at the past few elections (1992 and 2000 in particular) and seeing people vote for a third party. Does it really do justice for any person who doesn't want to see a Democrat or Republican make it to the oval office to vote for a third party candidate?

For example, I believe that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election due to running against both Bush and Gore. Although I am glad that Bush did won, I'm also know that Bush could have been sitting at his ranch in Texas. Imagine the ramifications if Gore was president today in our post 9-11 present.

I also believe that Ross Perot (and the "no new taxes" statement) cost Bush Sr. the election in 1992. Clinton could had been another governor much like Howard Dean that tried but fail at reaching the ultimate political prize. If that would had happen then the sex scandals and obstruction charges would had never really surfaced.

After looking at this information, I will go with a major candidate even though I may question each candidate's true agenda.

[Easy Mac]

Depends on what state you live in. Same holds true when voting for a Repub. in a Dem. state or vice versa.

[Airhog]

no, because if people continue to have that attitude, we will continue to have a 2 party system.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Airhog

no, because if people continue to have that attitude, we will continue to have a 2 party system.

It's really not an attitude as it is a reality. I just don't see a third choice developing in the near the future. I'm definitely not voting for an ultraliberal in Ralph Nader and wouldn't even touch the libertarian candiate though it has cross my mind.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Depends on what state you live in. Same holds true when voting for a Repub. in a Dem. state or vice versa.

AGreed.

[corbes]

I voted for Ralph Nader in North Carolina in 2002. The vote in NC was not in doubt -- Bush was a winner by a wide margin.

Had I been voting in Pennsylvania, where I live now, I would have voted for Al Gore, because the vote in PA was important and close.

In 2002, I wasn't wasting my vote because I voted in an attempt to get a third party the 5% (or whatever it was) they needed.

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by duckman

It's really not an attitude as it is a reality. I just don't see a third choice developing in the near the future. I'm definitely not voting for an ultraliberal in Ralph Nader and wouldn't even touch the libertarian candiate though it has cross my mind.

But doesn't the attitude create the reality??? What if those people that dont vote, because they are disenfranchised with the system, were to vote for a 3rd party? That could literally change the landscape in a heartbeat.


I do agree that its a very slim chance that a 3rd party would even get enough votes to get funded. However, you have to start somewhere, and changing peoples minds is a good start.

[duckman]

But doesn't the attitude create the reality??? What if those people that dont vote, because they are disenfranchised with the system, were to vote for a 3rd party? That could literally change the landscape in a heartbeat.

I agree. I just want my vote to feel like it counts. Voting for a third party doesn't give me that feeling.

I do agree that its a very slim chance that a 3rd party would even get enough votes to get funded. However, you have to start somewhere, and changing peoples minds is a good start.

I also agree. If there was a way to make an impact now then I would vote for a third party that fits my beliefs. What I mean by impact is that we actually could win a state or more and just knock someone who is close to your belief system out of the presidency.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Airhog

That could literally change the landscape in a heartbeat.

Really? Like, it will turn mountains into valleys, and lakes into forests?

[Huckleberry]

Kodos thinks it is.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Really? Like, it will turn mountains into valleys, and lakes into forests?

*snicker*

[wig]

I would vote for Edwards, but if Kerry wins the nomination I'll be forced to vote Bush.

[gstelmack]

Wait, the topic of the forum does not match the poll question. Who I'd vote for in 2004 is a different question than is voting for a third party candidate throwing your vote away. While I intend to vote for one of the two major candidates in 2k4, I've voted for third-party in the past, as recently as the last North Carolina Governor's election (I voted Libertarian because I didn't want either of the two major party morons running this state). It makes for a good protest vote (remember how Perot got the parties to change their messages?), and it helps pave the way for third-party candidates to get in on debates and the like in the future.

And every now and then the third-party candidate wins (see Jesse Ventura).

[duckman]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Wait, the topic of the forum does not match the poll question. Who I'd vote for in 2004 is a different question than is voting for a third party candidate throwing your vote away.

Actually, I believe it is relevant. Are you going to vote for a major party's candidate or is it going to a Ralph Nader or any other smaller party? Do you think it's just wasting a vote if you use your vote for a third party?

Of course you've already answered these question. I'm just stirring up some conversation with the poll.

[Young Drachma]

I'm no fan of 'protest' candidates, but think that there really needs to be some groundswell candidate that the 'establishment' doesn't support and uses 'normal' folks as its main support base. In other words, if there was a mainstream candidate who was not particularly well known, but could get the kind of groundswell support that people like Ross Perot and Howard Dean got in their campaigns, it would be awesome.

So, someone not cartoonish. But those are the two candidates - Nader to a lesser extent- that got huge amounts of support not because of themselves exactly, but because of the message of "I'm different, let's get together and kick their asses."

Their support in recent years, has shown people WANT more options. The system is fixed against more choices. Plain and simple. The two-party system is the biggest duopoly in the country. And why would folks interested in the outcome fix it against themselves?

Because they're looking out for themselves.

[QuikSand]

While I don't think it's particularly likely that he would pursue something like this, I think the person out there who best represents the ideal of third-party thinkers is probably John McCain.

[AgPete]

In Texas and other parts of the South, just voting for a second party is wasting your vote. LOL If you want to have a realistic shot at winning or making any change in government, you can only be a Republican.

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Really? Like, it will turn mountains into valleys, and lakes into forests?

sorry, I forgot a word in there. I actually meant the political landscape. But the point is now moot :P

[Dutch]

I don't agree with the need for a 3rd party based on my experiences in Turkey (which is probably an extreme version of a republic.

Let's pretend the big issues are broken up like this.

Republicans

Big Business
Traditional Values
Foreign Policy
Individual Rights

Democrats

Big Labor
Seperation of Church and State
Enviroment
Group Rights

A 3rd party can really only hurt one of the other parties in this case if it were a Labor Party or an Individual Rights Party.

What if it's a 4 party system? It would be a nice balance. Perhaps a Labor Party and a Libertarian Party?

Then you have

Republican Party who pushes Big Business and Foreign Policy
Democratic Party who pushes Enviroment and Religious Left
Labor Party who pushes Big Labor and Group Rights
Libertarian Party who pushes Individual Rights and Traditional Values

And you only get one party going all out in what they promise the voters 4 out of every 16 years as opposes to the more normal 4 out of 8 years. The beauty of our 2 party system is that we maintain strong direction with a strong check/balance, but we arent' reinventing government every 4 or 8 years. Let's not forget that we are still the country where 9 out of 10 refugees would like to land their floating Chevy Caprice.

In Turkey, for instance, where there are between 4 and 10 main parties each year, there is wheeling and dealing on temporary mergers and alliances (like Survivor). They accomplish nothing because once in power, their Parliament is very fragmented and can agree on nothing that gives the upper hand to the PM. The PM, once in office along with his party, have a sense of urgency to do everything they can until they are voted out (because they may not see office again in decades). That panic usually leads to massive corruption to pay off their "friends" that helped them get into office before they can't hook them up anymore.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by AgPete

In Texas and other parts of the South, just voting for a second party is wasting your vote. LOL If you want to have a realistic shot at winning or making any change in government, you can only be a Republican.

I don't feel so bad, then. My vote will probably be wasted in California.

[Kodos]

Go ahead. Throw your vote away! HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAA!

[finkenst]

in illinois, it's useless to vote for a republican presidential candidate (or so it seems).

however, you have to get so many votes in the elections to be eligible for the matching funds from the fed governemnt.

[tucker342]

hmmmmmm I wonder who my choice would be..................................................







I think I'm going to vote for Kerry

[tucker342]

dola-

If I lived in a state like California or New York where the Democrats are really strong, than I would probably vote for a third party candiate... things need to change in the two main parties and the only way they're going to change is if people vote for a 3rd party.... If this upcoming election wasn't so important I would probably "throw" my vote away voting for a third party.

[mckerney]

If you want the canidate to be president and not any of the Republican or Democrat choices, then no, it's not wasted.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Airhog

But doesn't the attitude create the reality??? What if those people that dont vote, because they are disenfranchised with the system, were to vote for a 3rd party? That could literally change the landscape in a heartbeat.
I do agree that its a very slim chance that a 3rd party would even get enough votes to get funded. However, you have to start somewhere, and changing peoples minds is a good start.

Apparently you all slept through the Reform party, which was a 3rd party that was funded by matching funds.

That is until Buchanan got the nom......

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by duckman

It's really not an attitude as it is a reality. I just don't see a third choice developing in the near the future. I'm definitely not voting for an ultraliberal in Ralph Nader and wouldn't even touch the libertarian candiate though it has cross my mind.

Not voting for 3rd parties, despite not believing in either major candidate, because they have no realistic shot ensures your view to be true. The major parties want lemmings like you to allow them to keep robbing us.

[Buccaneer]

Libertarian Party who pushes Individual Rights and Traditional Values

Raises hand.

[Dutch]

Wow Samdari, call us all lemmings will ya! The problem I see with a 3rd party is they just want the same thing the first two parties want.

The lemmings part isn't unjustifid however, because we are basically lemmings for the most part. The 2 parties are always end up going after swing voters. If the voters were not so partisan, we would hold a lot more power. Obviously we are not.

Take African-American's, for example. They are so helplessly partisan to one party. It's really to the point that nobody even tries to get their vote anymore.

But if that group were less partisan and more interested in getting the two parties to get into conflict over who gets the black vote, I'd think a lot of things would start to change in this country.

Our job as citizens is to do a better job of not voting for one party or the other.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Raises hand.

I believe in a lot of what the libertarians want, but with a flair for big business and big guns to keep our enemies at bay.

[Buccaneer]

Dutch, I agree. That's why I will stay Independent like I have been for 26 years.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

While I don't think it's particularly likely that he would pursue something like this, I think the person out there who best represents the ideal of third-party thinkers is probably John McCain.

Agreed. I would vote and campaign for him in a heartbeat. Powell is second on that list. Niether could ever win a Republican (or Democrat for that matter) nod, yet would have a real shot at winning a national election.

[Buccaneer]

GD, I don't think so, not with the powerful political machines already in place.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Agreed. I would vote and campaign for him in a heartbeat. Powell is second on that list. Niether could ever win a Republican (or Democrat for that matter) nod, yet would have a real shot at winning a national election.

I would never vote for someone like Colin Powell. He is just too cautious when it comes to international policy. He is just too much of a pussy foot.

[Dutch]

That was proven in his rather indecisive gameplan for the first Gulf War. Is inability to pull the trigger is well documented.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Voting is never a waste. More people should do it.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

GD, I don't think so, not with the powerful political machines already in place.

I think your wrong. The political machines couldn't keep third party candidates out of the Governors house in several states (most notably Minnesota and California) and I can see the exact same circumstance happening nationally. It would take a highly popular figure that has a moderate platform.

Political machines can control who gets nominated, but I think someone outside the system could throw a monkey wrench in things (just look at what a flaky Ross Perot did in 1992. Imagine if hadn't looked like Yoda and started that paranoid "I'm in/I'm out/I'm in" crap).

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by duckman

I would never vote for someone like Colin Powell. He is just too cautious when it comes to international policy. He is just too much of a pussy foot.

What you call "pussy foot" I would call wisdom.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Our job as citizens is to do a better job of not voting for one party or the other.

If I'm reading you right here (which ain't guaranteed), you mean "not voting based upon party identification".

But doesn't that become difficult, perhaps nigh to impossible when the parties themselves are often polar opposites, particularly on key issues that influence your voter / voters in general?

What I'm getting at is this --
If you stripped the party identifiers (D) and (R) off the upcoming ballot entirely, but handed me a list of their positions on the issues that most influence my vote, I'd end up voting for the same people.

So while your suggestion is valid, it's also something that I believe is an extremely uphill goal to accomplish barring major changes in the goals/positions of the current parties.

I mean, if I agree (at least in principal if not fully in practice) with one party 90% of the time & the other party 10% or less, it's kind of difficult not to be a one-party voter. (Or, as it happens more frequently with me, it you agree with one party 50%+ of the time & the other nearly less than 5% of the time)

{maybe I'm just re-stating the obvious -- I'm not sure if you were saying the same thing in your post or if I'm hitting on an undiscussed element here}

And on another point -- more often than not today, US parties outside of the "Big Two" are more extreme than the first two. And when they do try to "run to the middle" on something, they usually end up alienating me by doing it on a topic where I'm dead-set to a harder position. In short, I'd love to see one that's a viable option for me, but I've seen little to no sign of one even starting, much less become a viable choice.

[Dutch]

Yes, it's easier said than done. Here's a snapshot of my voting record.

1980 - Ronald Reagan (age restricted, couldn't vote)
1984 - Ronald Reagan (age restricted, couldn't vote)
1988 - George Bush Sr (age restricted, couldn't vote)
1992 - Ross Perot (I make fun of him now, but his vision was clear)
1996 - Abstained (Didn't like Dole "no personality" or Clinton "no activity")
2000 - George W. Bush

and of course this year will be....
2004 - George W. Bush

[duckman]

I think this is the most responses to a thread I have ever created.

GrantDawg-

Wisdom is in the eye of the beholder. Slow to react is not always wisdom but the lack of courage to make the tough decision for the sake of the people. Powell lacks the will to make tough decisions when they are absolutely necessary. Too cautious would had been detrimental in the case of 9-11.

[sabotai]

Libertarian Party who pushes Individual Rights and Traditional Values

How does the libertarian party push "Traditional Values"? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I think your wrong.

Now you're just trying to piss off QS, aren't you Grant? (Hint, this has nothing to do with what you said...)

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Now you're just trying to piss off QS, aren't you Grant? (Hint, this has nothing to do with what you said...)

No, just living up to my name.

[Dutch]

How does the libertarian party push "Traditional Values"? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I personally was just splitting things up for the sake of showing the traditional philosophy of "United we stand, divided we fall", but I think Libertarians generally are for the family structure to be strong enough to guide their own in the right directions in life with regard to educating, religion, entertainment, etc. instead of allowing these basic "traditional" fundamental "values" to vanish (such as it has in many aspects within the inner cities of America) .

If the inner city were a case study, I would think the choice is clear that societies that posses a majority of families that are strongly knit and have role models at home and in their communities (for guidance) are better off to succeed than the inner city which is basically ruled by cops and laws, lawsuits, edicts, trials and verdicts. It cost more money to administer a society based on federal law (especially when the feds are quickly viewed as the enemy) vs. one based on local traditional values.

[Leonidas]

I find it fairly amusing the way democratic leaders have been whining about Nader. They should have taken it for the wake up call it really was. The point of Nader's candidacy was and is his way of making a protest to the Democratic party that he feels they have lost their way. His intent was to make an impact upon them, and by God he achieved that in a huge way in 2000. As far as he was concerned it was a big victory for him. He had as big an impact on the election as he could ever have hoped for. Now he's probably twice as fired up because he made that statement and the party totally missed the meaning of it. Rather than getting his statement, all they did was whine about it.

[oykib]

I don't get this 'wasting your vote' business.

"One man, one vote" doesn't just mean that the more influential of us shouldn't have a bigger say in government than the rest, it also means that each person is free to determine where his/her own support goes.

Vote for whomever you want to. I dont remeber any thing in the Constitution about the two party system. What party was Washington again?

When any of my liberal friends give me sh*t for not voting for supporting Nader in 2000, I tell them to go f*ck themselves. I had no responsibility to him to give him my vote. He had a responsility to me to get it if he wanted to be elected.

[33sherman]

I don't understand why I see so many people saying they just want a traditional sort of American 'freedom'--big government out of our faces--NOT checking the Libertarian Party. That's what it's all about, man.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by 33sherman

I don't understand why I see so many people saying they just want a traditional sort of American 'freedom'--big government out of our faces--NOT checking the Libertarian Party. That's what it's all about, man.

Amen to that.

[QuikSand]

re: "wasting your vote"

Since we decide to vote by entire states, winner-takes-all... when was the last time that any single vote, by any individuial voter, actually made a difference? There's a cynical view in here that says that on the national stage, you're throwing away your vote anyway. Especially following the last presidential election, where it was revealed for all to see just how imperfect and error-lade the vot-counting processes tend to be -- under what circumstances can you really sit down and feel confident that had you not voted, your candidate would be shown on the TV screen with one less vote in your state than he has now?

After the 2000 debacle, I was very worried that this woudl be the outcome -- more and more people just deciding not to bother, since it seemed so clear that the process had gotten away from the people anyway. I'm glad to see (anecdotally, from primaries and the last midterm) that this doesn't seem to have happened.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

re: "wasting your vote"

Since we decide to vote by entire states, winner-takes-all... when was the last time that any single vote, by any individuial voter, actually made a difference? There's a cynical view in here that says that on the national stage, you're throwing away your vote anyway. Especially following the last presidential election, where it was revealed for all to see just how imperfect and error-lade the vot-counting processes tend to be -- under what circumstances can you really sit down and feel confident that had you not voted, your candidate would be shown on the TV screen with one less vote in your state than he has now?

After the 2000 debacle, I was very worried that this woudl be the outcome -- more and more people just deciding not to bother, since it seemed so clear that the process had gotten away from the people anyway. I'm glad to see (anecdotally, from primaries and the last midterm) that this doesn't seem to have happened.

Here is my strange and convoluted reasoning behind voting. I'm not so idealistic to think that my single vote is going to make a difference (even though recent elections have been razor wire close). I look at things this way. My opinion is shared by many other people, though I don't know them or ever talked to them. If I decide it is not worth voting, then I'm not staying home alone but with the hundred/thousands/millions or whatever that agree with me. If I decide to vote, then those who agree with me will most likely vote also.

So, in a strange way, my vote is not a single vote but instead a block of votes, and if I become so disillusioned that I no longer vote so will that block. Does that make any sense?