A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the party you dissagree with most.

[Meister]

Ross Perot was the last viable candidate to run as a third party candidate. Prior to temporarily dropping out of the race he held a lead over Bush and Clinton. Some speculate that had he not dropped out for those 4 months he could have maintained his lead and he may have won the presidency. He finished with 19% of the vote.

The point is he had a lead nationally. The last person to command that kind of following was Roosevelt in 1912. No current candidate is even close to those kinds of numbers.

While your passion for your 3rd party candidate may be admirable, admiration does not elect a president nor does it have an effect on policy. I have heard many of you state that Ron Paul has had an impact on the national debate about our economic situation by being in the race. I beg to differ........... The debate is focused where it is because the last two presidents spent us into oblivion and we are now reaping the rewards of such foolish spending. In other words when your broke you dont need your banker to point out the obvious. Did Ron Paul predict it? Sure, but so did every other sane person that was informed economically. Including Perot in 1992.

Now to our current situation....
We have two parties with two different ideas about our current situation. Then we have what will innevitably be, several 3rd party entries that will try to maximize their chances by playing on the Americans general displeasure with the current crop of choices.

Voting 3rd party used to be considered the protest vote. Well now the stakes are so high that, that idea is more idiotic than what either party is proposing to do. THE 3RD PARTY CAN NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY. Therefore you are simply throwing your vote to whichever party happens to have the least in common with the 3rd party candidate. So lets say Paul gets in, your essentially voting for Obama. Or if someone close to democratic principles gets in, your voting for the GOP. All you accomplish is a devided vote for the party who has the most in common with your beliefs. Its counter productive to your desires and needs as a politically involved individual.

All change in our system starts at the bottom and grows. It doesnt suddenly appear in the form of a 3rd party candidicy. If you want change you have to get involved. Goto town halls, email leaders, volunteer for the party that has the closest values to yours. Change actually starts on the congressional level not the presidential. As proven by Obama and his promises for change. Nothing has changed, we are still deadlocked over ideals, full of partisanship and our economy is as bad or worse off now than it was. The people voted for change with Obama and when he didnt deliver they voted for change in the midterms.

Political leaders want to keep their jobs. If you hold them to account then you can make a difference. If everyone that WASTED their vote on a candidate that couldnt win actually got involved with their elected leaders who currently represent them, they would have a much better chance at having their voice heard and acted upon. The Tea Party is proof of this, regardless if you agree or not, they are the voices of the people they represent. Your voice cant be heard if the one your voting for holds no office with the power to effect change.

No one party can hold all of your beliefs. You all cry for and demand comprimise yet you dont display that very ability when you vote saying, "well they stand for this one or two ideals so I cant support them". Where is the comprimise in that?

LEFT OR RIGHT LEANING, DONT BE A FOOL AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEALS WITH ACTUAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT BECAUSE THEY CANT WIN........

Your a fool if you believe that only 2 choices is enough. It is scientifically unstable.

With only 2 choices -- you are constantly rewarding the clowns that fucked up less. THAT -- is a wasted vote...

To win -- you don't need to govern well. Just make less glaring errors than your opposition. What that gets America is PERPETUAL mediocrity, corruption and incompetence.

Keep PROTECTING that 2 party monopoly.. Without it -- We wouldn't be seeing 99 posted threads that devolve to which party screwed up worse..

I don't think that grampa said 2 choice were enough. He is stating that there are only 2 viable choices that can win.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ross Perot was the last viable candidate to run as a third party candidate. Prior to temporarily dropping out of the race he held a lead over Bush and Clinton. Some speculate that had he not dropped out for those 4 months he could have maintained his lead and he may have won the presidency. He finished with 19% of the vote.

The point is he had a lead nationally. The last person to command that kind of following was Roosevelt in 1912. No current candidate is even close to those kinds of numbers.

While your passion for your 3rd party candidate may be admirable, admiration does not elect a president nor does it have an effect on policy. I have heard many of you state that Ron Paul has had an impact on the national debate about our economic situation by being in the race. I beg to differ........... The debate is focused where it is because the last two presidents spent us into oblivion and we are now reaping the rewards of such foolish spending. In other words when your broke you dont need your banker to point out the obvious. Did Ron Paul predict it? Sure, but so did every other sane person that was informed economically. Including Perot in 1992.

Now to our current situation....
We have two parties with two different ideas about our current situation. Then we have what will innevitably be, several 3rd party entries that will try to maximize their chances by playing on the Americans general displeasure with the current crop of choices.

Voting 3rd party used to be considered the protest vote. Well now the stakes are so high that, that idea is more idiotic than what either party is proposing to do. THE 3RD PARTY CAN NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY. Therefore you are simply throwing your vote to whichever party happens to have the least in common with the 3rd party candidate. So lets say Paul gets in, your essentially voting for Obama. Or if someone close to democratic principles gets in, your voting for the GOP. All you accomplish is a devided vote for the party who has the most in common with your beliefs. Its counter productive to your desires and needs as a politically involved individual.

All change in our system starts at the bottom and grows. It doesnt suddenly appear in the form of a 3rd party candidicy. If you want change you have to get involved. Goto town halls, email leaders, volunteer for the party that has the closest values to yours. Change actually starts on the congressional level not the presidential. As proven by Obama and his promises for change. Nothing has changed, we are still deadlocked over ideals, full of partisanship and our economy is as bad or worse off now than it was. The people voted for change with Obama and when he didnt deliver they voted for change in the midterms.

Political leaders want to keep their jobs. If you hold them to account then you can make a difference. If everyone that WASTED their vote on a candidate that couldnt win actually got involved with their elected leaders who currently represent them, they would have a much better chance at having their voice heard and acted upon. The Tea Party is proof of this, regardless if you agree or not, they are the voices of the people they represent. Your voice cant be heard if the one your voting for holds no office with the power to effect change.

No one party can hold all of your beliefs. You all cry for and demand comprimise yet you dont display that very ability when you vote saying, "well they stand for this one or two ideals so I cant support them". Where is the comprimise in that?

LEFT OR RIGHT LEANING, DONT BE A FOOL AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEALS WITH ACTUAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT BECAUSE THEY CANT WIN........

Your a fool if you believe that only 2 choices is enough. It is scientifically unstable.

With only 2 choices -- you are constantly rewarding the clowns that fucked up less. THAT -- is a wasted vote...

To win -- you don't need to govern well. Just make less glaring errors than your opposition. What that gets America is PERPETUAL mediocrity, corruption and incompetence.

Keep PROTECTING that 2 party monopoly.. Without it -- We wouldn't be seeing 99 posted threads that devolve to which party screwed up worse..

I don't think that grampa said 2 choice were enough. He is stating that there are only 2 viable choices that can win.

No, the two party system is broken without a doubt. In my world we could put term limits on all elected leaders. All but remove campaign donations and require public broadcasting to cover debates and give a set amount of free airtime to each candidate. Remove the stupid labels and force candidates to stand on their own merits and not some party platform that is bought off.

But you see what I think is best and what reality has to offer are two different things. So I can choose to work within the parimiters of the broken system and hope for better outcomes or I can toss my vote away on some unrealistic expectations.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Your a fool if you believe that only 2 choices is enough. It is scientifically unstable.

With only 2 choices -- you are constantly rewarding the clowns that fucked up less. THAT -- is a wasted vote...

To win -- you don't need to govern well. Just make less glaring errors than your opposition. What that gets America is PERPETUAL mediocrity, corruption and incompetence.

Keep PROTECTING that 2 party monopoly.. Without it -- We wouldn't be seeing 99 posted threads that devolve to which party screwed up worse..

I don't think that grampa said 2 choice were enough. He is stating that there are only 2 viable choices that can win.

No, the two party system is broken without a doubt. In my world we could put term limits on all elected leaders. All but remove campaign donations and require public broadcasting to cover debates and give a set amount of free airtime to each candidate. Remove the stupid labels and force candidates to stand on their own merits and not some party platform that is bought off.

But you see what I think is best and what reality has to offer are two different things. So I can choose to work within the parimiters of the broken system and hope for better outcomes or I can toss my vote away on some unrealistic expectations.

last Century people used to vote for the best person for the job......this Century it has become the lesser of two evils.....im tired of voting for evil and incompetent assholes.....if one of them get in it wont be with my help......ill continue voting for Rufas T.Firefly.....a man with true vision.....Firefly/Chicolini 2012.....

 

[flacaltenn]

Your a fool if you believe that only 2 choices is enough. It is scientifically unstable.

With only 2 choices -- you are constantly rewarding the clowns that fucked up less. THAT -- is a wasted vote...

To win -- you don't need to govern well. Just make less glaring errors than your opposition. What that gets America is PERPETUAL mediocrity, corruption and incompetence.

Keep PROTECTING that 2 party monopoly.. Without it -- We wouldn't be seeing 99 posted threads that devolve to which party screwed up worse..

I don't think that grampa said 2 choice were enough. He is stating that there are only 2 viable choices that can win.

No, the two party system is broken without a doubt. In my world we could put term limits on all elected leaders. All but remove campaign donations and require public broadcasting to cover debates and give a set amount of free airtime to each candidate. Remove the stupid labels and force candidates to stand on their own merits and not some party platform that is bought off.

But you see what I think is best and what reality has to offer are two different things. So I can choose to work within the parimiters of the broken system and hope for better outcomes or I can toss my vote away on some unrealistic expectations.

THis country won't survive where the only choice is to reward mediocrity with power because there are only 2 viable choices on the ballot. Votes wouldn't have to be tossed if ballot access wasn't a cartel protection invented by the Dem/Reps.

You could split the Dem party or the Rep Party into VERY viable "teams". Maybe even force coalitions to be built in order to win. That's the REAL bipartisianship that the muddled middle is looking for. What we have now is like a 2 team AFC/NFC. I see no reason NOT to allow for league expansion.

There was an effort to define a platform by popular consent on the Internet, field a candidate and guarantee 50 state ballot access for that "popular consent" candidate. Takes 1000s of volunteers and millions of dollars in petition drives, court challenges and filing fees just to get 50 state ballot access. And then when you do -- there are strange state rules that don't allow you to print Party names on the ballots. It's all rigged.

You have to ask yourself at this point -- after all the whining and bitching about "lesser of the evils" -- WHY are we not outraged that the ballot access process is severely rigged?

 

[Inthemiddle]

I don't think that grampa said 2 choice were enough. He is stating that there are only 2 viable choices that can win.

And such an argument is illogical because it begs its own question. If there are only 2 "viable" candidates that can win, it's only because people have first assumed that they are the only ones who can win, and thus grow apathetic to any other option.

 

[Meister]

I don't think that grampa said 2 choice were enough. He is stating that there are only 2 viable choices that can win.

And such an argument is illogical because it begs its own question. If there are only 2 "viable" candidates that can win, it's only because people have first assumed that they are the only ones who can win, and thus grow apathetic to any other option.

160 years of history is very compelling with the 2 party system. What is, is.

You call it illogical, and I call it reality.
I live in the real world and you want to make a statement.

 

[Inthemiddle]

160 years of history is very compelling with the 2 party system. What is, is.

It really does not matter if it's been 1,000 years. That does not give merit to the argument. If the only two candidates that are viable are the Dem and GOP candidate, that is ONLY because people insist it must be true in the first place. His, and your, arguments are without merit.

You call it illogical, and I call it reality.

That says alot. You submit yourself and your existence to that which does not make sense, instead of affirming what is rational. Guess that shows us how much to value what you have to say.

I live in the real world and you want to make a statement.

Since when was a vote not a statement? You just aren't willing to use your vote. You've allowed it to be stolen away from you upon demand.

 

[Meister]

160 years of history is very compelling with the 2 party system. What is, is.

It really does not matter if it's been 1,000 years. That does not give merit to the argument. If the only two candidates that are viable are the Dem and GOP candidate, that is ONLY because people insist it must be true in the first place. His, and your, arguments are without merit.

You call it illogical, and I call it reality.

That says alot. You submit yourself and your existence to that which does not make sense, instead of affirming what is rational. Guess that shows us how much to value what you have to say.

I live in the real world and you want to make a statement.

Since when was a vote not a statement? You just aren't willing to use your vote. You've allowed it to be stolen away from you upon demand.

Let me know when you vote for a winner in the presidential race, Okay.
Your opinion has no value to me whatsoever.
You want to keep voting for a loser....feel free. I'm trying to vote one of the worst presidents in our history out of office, and it ain't going to be with a third party.

illogical.....

 

[jgarden]

The Tea Party is already a 3rd Party that "marches to its own drum beat" - look what happened to Boehner during the debt-ceiling debate!

 

[Full-Auto]

160 years of history is very compelling with the 2 party system. What is, is.

It really does not matter if it's been 1,000 years. That does not give merit to the argument. If the only two candidates that are viable are the Dem and GOP candidate, that is ONLY because people insist it must be true in the first place. His, and your, arguments are without merit.



That says alot. You submit yourself and your existence to that which does not make sense, instead of affirming what is rational. Guess that shows us how much to value what you have to say.

I live in the real world and you want to make a statement.

Since when was a vote not a statement? You just aren't willing to use your vote. You've allowed it to be stolen away from you upon demand.

Let me know when you vote for a winner in the presidential race, Okay.
Your opinion has no value to me whatsoever.
You want to keep voting for a loser....feel free. I'm trying to vote one of the worst presidents in our history out of office, and it ain't going to be with a third party.

illogical.....

Lets hope we get a decent guy out of the primaries. I will pass on mediocre.

 

[The T]

The Tea Party is already a 3rd Party that "marches to its own drum beat" - look what happened to Boehner during the debt-ceiling debate!

Albiet the TEA party isn't a party. It's thinking citizens voting to take thier country back from the elitists that have screwed it.

 

[Againsheila]

I don't think that grampa said 2 choice were enough. He is stating that there are only 2 viable choices that can win.

And such an argument is illogical because it begs its own question. If there are only 2 "viable" candidates that can win, it's only because people have first assumed that they are the only ones who can win, and thus grow apathetic to any other option.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy that has worked for decades. I can only hope the American people have gotten smarter over the years. A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for evil. Do you really want that on your conscience? I voted for Clinton the first time and I seriously regret it. I will never do that again. A vote for either the dems or the reps is a vote to the detriment of this country. In then end, at least I'll be able to say, I didn't participate in the downfall of America, I tried to save her. If we could all say that, she'd be saved.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Your opinion has no value to me whatsoever.

Then stop discussing things on a public internet message board.

I'm trying to vote one of the worst presidents in our history out of office, and it ain't going to be with a third party.

Are you one of those idiot Bush haters who is still butthurt that Nader, allegedly, stole too many votes away? Or are you one of those idiot Obama haters who's so obsessed with hating him that you simply HAVE to get everyone to get him out? Either way you're going off on irrational emotional tirades.

 

[Full-Auto]

Your opinion has no value to me whatsoever.

Then stop discussing things on a public internet message board.

I'm trying to vote one of the worst presidents in our history out of office, and it ain't going to be with a third party.

Are you one of those idiot Bush haters who is still butthurt that Nader, allegedly, stole too many votes away? Or are you one of those idiot Obama haters who's so obsessed with hating him that you simply HAVE to get everyone to get him out? Either way you're going off on irrational emotional tirades.

You missed on both counts............ But you can continue to guess........ Its a message board.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't think that grampa said 2 choice were enough. He is stating that there are only 2 viable choices that can win.

And such an argument is illogical because it begs its own question. If there are only 2 "viable" candidates that can win, it's only because people have first assumed that they are the only ones who can win, and thus grow apathetic to any other option.

160 years of history is very compelling with the 2 party system. What is, is.

You call it illogical, and I call it reality.
I live in the real world and you want to make a statement.

Now I know that "the T" and Meister and most of my buds consider themselves engaged in politics and accept the current party monopoly.. But I wonder if you realize what the consequences are of not having TRULY competitive elections. For instance. From the 2000 National Elections...

Non-Competitive Elections

From 2000 election....

Out of 435 House seats, 64 members this year have no major-party opponent, according to the Center for Voting and Democracy. About 300 or so face only token opposition , according to experts and House members.

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the national Republican Congressional Committee, recently boasted to reporters about GOP incumbents: 185 guys are back without worrying about it.

Democrats put their number of untouchable incumbents at 190, said John Del Cecato, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

That adds up to more than 85 percent of House members who are considered shoo-ins.

The struggle for control of the House centers on 20 to 30 competitive districts such as Lansing, Mich.; Montgomery County, Pa.; suburban Chicago; and a district around Muskogee, Okla.

The 200 million Americans who live outside the battleground districts are just spectators.

The House is in play. Yes, so exciting but only for about one in 10 people, said Robert Ritchie, Director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, whose report on the 1998 elections, Dubious Democracy, chronicled the decline of competitive districts. The average House incumbent, for example, won by an average of 43 percentage points in 1998.

It's not that most supporters of a major party are completely sold on that party. But when their only other choice is the other major party, most consider that shift goes too far in the opposite direction. Independent or third party candidacies could give those voters more meaningful options.

Two lessons learned here. In addition to the rewards going to the party who screwed up the least. The side effects of just 2 choices are:

1) Parties ALLOW losing seats to run largely unopposed. Meaning that at LEAST 40% of the voters (minority party faithful) are casting "wasted ballots" in your parlance because the PARTY CHOSE to cut their losses and spend money elsewhere.. Sometimes they don't even have a 3rd party choice. Don't talk to me about "wasted votes" for 3rd parties -- I lived in Cali where any NON-DEM vote was a wasted vote. And the National Rep Party didn't care.

64 HOUSE SEATS ran largely unopposed in 2000.. When the margin for control of the House depended on less than 30

Still don't see a need for "league expansion"????? What if an alternate nominally Conservative team pledged NEVER to allow the DEMS to reach office UNCONTESTED!!!

2) The ability to have 85% "safe seats" comes from gerrymandering and party dickering with voting boundaries.. A SECOND neccessary reform to the voting system after ballot access changes. So that this lack of competition and mediocre level of political service is EVEN WORSE at the state level.

So don't talk to me about WASTED VOTES.. I voted in 2008 for a COMPLETELY qualified candidate for Prez by the name of Bob Barr --- and I don't regret that choice for a microsecond since... I also got OFF my ass and worked to get his name on ALL 50 state ballots. So that folks would have a REAL choice on election day..

 

[Ragnar]

 

[Ragnar]

Calling any outlier a "Third Party" implies that we currently have at least two. We don't.

We either vote in Democrats who drag the country ever Leftward or we vote in the Republicans who let them. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'm trying to vote one of the worst presidents in our history out of office, and it ain't going to be with a third party.

we went from one of the worst Presidents in our history to another worst President in our history.....the ones lined up by the GOP just look like a bunch of people to keep that streak going......

Firefly/Chicolini 2012

 

[Wacky Quacky]

I just dont understand the logic of a protest or principal vote when so much is at stake. I mean what the hell good are political principals if the party that wins stands for EVERYTHING you dont?

My business cant take another 4 years of Obamas policies. Fuck principals, I gotta survive. It almost seems to me that many live in a bubble that really isnt affected by any outcome so the dont care if their vote is a throw away.

If someone like Romney is the Republican candidate then nothing is at stake. If Obama wins the country will continue to decline into nothingness, and it will be the same thing if Romney or another douche of a rino wins.

Your problem is that you believe simply getting Obama out of office is the most important thing in the world. But getting him out means nothing if he's replaced with yet another empty suit that's paid off.

 

[Meister]

I'm trying to vote one of the worst presidents in our history out of office, and it ain't going to be with a third party.

we went from one of the worst Presidents in our history to another worst President in our history.....the ones lined up by the GOP just look like a bunch of people to keep that streak going......

Firefly/Chicolini 2012

Bush isn't one of the worst presidents, he isn't one of the best either.
Your Obamacare in retirement will be kind of like payback to you.