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

[flacaltenn]

There's a few realities of increasing ballot that most folks are not aware of..

First off, to my knowledge, NO party other than the Libertarians have ever acheived 50 state ballot access. That includes the Greens. In the 90's we allied with the Green Party to pool resources to mount legal challenges to the states that had ridiculous monopoly imposed restrictions. So having fought this ballot access thing for 15 years, I'm aware of their problems as well. Both Nader and Perot ran as "independents" which tells you how ridiculous it is to be a "registered Independent. Officially means you'd vote for anybody.

Which brings me to the 2nd point. ONE THING that would help was if folks DROPPED their registration as Dem or Rep and chose a 3rd party. Yup -- aren't a lot of good choices right now.. But if enough folks dissaffiliated from the monopoly -- and registered with 3rd parties -- ballot access becomes easier in most states because "registered party members" equals ballot access. Seeing this trend happen would ENCOURAGE better choices to be bold enough to declare a national campaign.

Thirdly, I believe there's a huge demand in BOTH parties to fine tune the message. This means natural splits WITHIN both the REP and DEM parties. Clearly you saw the schism between the Clinton wing and the Progressive wing of the DEM party in 2008 primaries. Same for the current RINO - T.P split in the GOP. Many important distinctions could be made between 2 DNC teams and 2 GOP teams. You could solve the Norquist Tax Pledge split for instance by having a team declare war on Corporate Welfare, insistence on permanently killing earmarks and pork, and changing the tax code. On the DNC side, you could have Green/Progressive coalition and the more traditional DEMS. PLENTY of room for choices, coalitions, and real differences.

Finally - you need to look carefully at the "wasted vote" canard. I already posted the fact that the monopoly ROUTINELY abandon their constituents in "no-win" races by refusing to back candidates in those races. ALL those votes are "wasted".. 64 HOUSE SEATS IN 2008 ran largely uncontested.

But in a case where a Libertarian might keep a Rep from winning -- there are 2 sides to that story. It's bad for Republicans --- but it offers a choice to DEMs who can't support their candidate. The CHOICE if it exists --- always says something POSITIVE for someone.

Hell look at the difference that just having Ron Paul and his son in Congress has made. As soon as you break up the monotony of the collusion between the 2 parties with a few non-compliants, you start to see issues and debates framed quite differently...

 

[Bern80]

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........

What an absolute load of horsehit. I am so fucking tired of this idiotic notion that your vote is wasted if you don't vote for the candidate of one of the two established parties. I would much rather live with myself knowing I adhered to my principles rather than voted for what only amounts to voting for the candidate I dislike the least. Voting for someone because he isn't the other guy is about as stupid a vote as someone can make. Maybe you ought to consider whether the fact that that is what most people do anyway is really part of the problem.

I see validity in your argument. I dont however see any validity in a 3rd party candidate winning. I voted 3rd party once

You have no base with which you can mount an effective challenge to the other two parties. Until then I BELIEVE its a waste

Other than the fact that your are reinforcing the 'popularity' of the other two parties. What you are saying is that since a third party can't realistically win, everyone should at least vote for one of the two. That simply tells the two main parties that everyone is content with them. Voting for a third party may not put that person in office, but it does send a message and for a group of people that will do anything for a vote, it does make a difference in their stances.

 

[The T]

What an absolute load of horsehit. I am so fucking tired of this idiotic notion that your vote is wasted if you don't vote for the candidate of one of the two established parties. I would much rather live with myself knowing I adhered to my principles rather than voted for what only amounts to voting for the candidate I dislike the least. Voting for someone because he isn't the other guy is about as stupid a vote as someone can make. Maybe you ought to consider whether the fact that that is what most people do anyway is really part of the problem.

I see validity in your argument. I dont however see any validity in a 3rd party candidate winning. I voted 3rd party once

You have no base with which you can mount an effective challenge to the other two parties. Until then I BELIEVE its a waste

Other than the fact that your are reinforcing the 'popularity' of the other two parties. What you are saying is that since a third party can't realistically win, everyone should at least vote for one of the two. That simply tells the two main parties that everyone is content with them. Voting for a third party may not put that person in office, but it does send a message and for a group of people that will do anything for a vote, it does make a difference in their stances.

Just what the TEA Party is designed to do regarding the Republicans...take it over and steer it back toward it's namesake...to the disgust and resistance of the Republican elites.

 

[georgephillip]

Then why are Republican elites like the Koch brothers funding the tea party?

 

[Oddball]

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........

What an absolute load of horsehit. I am so fucking tired of this idiotic notion that your vote is wasted if you don't vote for the candidate of one of the two established parties. I would much rather live with myself knowing I adhered to my principles rather than voted for what only amounts to voting for the candidate I dislike the least. Voting for someone because he isn't the other guy is about as stupid a vote as someone can make. Maybe you ought to consider whether the fact that that is what most people do anyway is really part of the problem.

I see validity in your argument. I dont however see any validity in a 3rd party candidate winning. I voted 3rd party once

You have no base with which you can mount an effective challenge to the other two parties. Until then I BELIEVE its a waste

So you want everyone else to do the heavy lifting before you hop onto the bandwagon.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Interesting the OP mocks the left in his sig line, but then advocates for us true conservatives to vote for fiscal liberals in elections.



Sadly, this hypocrisy is par for the course in the loony world of american partisan politics.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Interesting the OP mocks the left in his sig line, but then advocates for us true conservatives to vote for fiscal liberals in elections.



Sadly, this hypocrisy is par for the course in the loony world of american partisan politics.

FAIL

I didn't endorse any candidate. Nice projection tho

 

[Dr.Drock]

Interesting the OP mocks the left in his sig line, but then advocates for us true conservatives to vote for fiscal liberals in elections.



Sadly, this hypocrisy is par for the course in the loony world of american partisan politics.

FAIL

I didn't endorse any candidate. Nice projection tho

Name a presidential candidate we've had in my lifetime (26 years) that we've had that was a fiscal conservative who was on the final presidential ballot and was a D or R.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Interesting the OP mocks the left in his sig line, but then advocates for us true conservatives to vote for fiscal liberals in elections.



Sadly, this hypocrisy is par for the course in the loony world of american partisan politics.

FAIL

I didn't endorse any candidate. Nice projection tho

Name a presidential candidate we've had in my lifetime (26 years) that we've had that was a fiscal conservative who was on the final presidential ballot and was a D or R.

Like I said, nice projection. I'm not talking about the past. We have yet to pick a nominee so let's wait and see rather than jumping to conclusions.

 

[The T]

FAIL

I didn't endorse any candidate. Nice projection tho

Name a presidential candidate we've had in my lifetime (26 years) that we've had that was a fiscal conservative who was on the final presidential ballot and was a D or R.

Like I said, nice projection. I'm not talking about the past. We have yet to pick a nominee so let's wait and see rather than jumping to conclusions.

Let us not forget the other side of the coin in the government that includes fiscally responsible members of both houses...

 

[flacaltenn]

You don't EVER get fiscal conservatism with a 2 Party system. The budget has never gone down since -- probably Eisenhower. And neither has the debt. ((Yes that include the Clinton "surplus" that counted stolen Soc Sec Trust funds)).

Think about the reason for that. Spending is an asset for BOTH parties. They use it to protect their monopoly. They're BOTH guilty. And we have leftists who (rightfully claim) that EVERYONE spends too much. So we punish the Repubs for spending it on defense and wars and building schools in Afghan, and we punish the Demos for spending it on Cash for Clunkers, union kickbacks, Solyndra and Green shit. But we never get a clear opportunity to vote for a Party that holds to a fundamental view of basic Govt services and powers.

What do you expect?

 

[Dr.Drock]

FAIL

I didn't endorse any candidate. Nice projection tho

Name a presidential candidate we've had in my lifetime (26 years) that we've had that was a fiscal conservative who was on the final presidential ballot and was a D or R.

Like I said, nice projection. I'm not talking about the past. We have yet to pick a nominee so let's wait and see rather than jumping to conclusions.

You can ignore history of the 2 parties and who they prop up, I can't.

The answer, which you already know but didn't want to say, is there have been ZERO fiscal conservatives on the final presidential ballot in my lifetime and long before I was born.

Which goes back to my original point, you mock liberals, but want me to vote for fiscal liberals.

No thanks, I'll ONLY vote for fiscal conservatives who will decrease the size of gov't. I can't flush my principles down the toilet. If there are no fiscal conservatives in the smaller parties, i'll either write it or I won't vote.