Would you vote for a third party or independent if they could win?

[CelloX]

Throwing the lesser evil dilemma and lack of winning independent/third party candidates out the window for a second, would you even want to vote for someone outside of the reigning parties if they matched your views more?

 

[JoeB131]

The problem is a third party can't win unless they get 50% of the vote.

Anything less than that, no one would get a majority in Electoral College, and when the contest was tossed into Congress, it would be back to the two main parties.

Now, here's where I'm at. Not that I agree with the Libertarian Nonsense- I don't. But I find Gary Johnson to be a more sensible guy than Clinton or Trump.

 

[Indeependent]

I'm voting 3rd Party Candidate...Trump.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Throwing the lesser evil dilemma and lack of winning independent/third party candidates out the window for a second, would you even want to vote for someone outside of the reigning parties if they matched your views more?

I'm planning to vote third party even without a chance of winning, just as soon as I decide on a candidate I feel would actually make a decent President. Political parties have never been the point of the activity for me.

 

[HenryBHough]

The only way a third party could win would be for one of the conventional parties to disband.

Closest to that happening these days is the Republican Party. The "establishment" is old and tired but still bitterly clinging to the name. As they die off - none are immortal - the new talent should just walk away and start something new and different. It would, however, take 8-12 years and were The Democrat Party to continue to exist it would be illegal to even speak of another party.

You're screwed - we old people are going to laugh at you as it all ceases to be of any importance to us. Unless, of course, we live in Chicago for reasons you probably should understand.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Back in my day, saying you were voting 3rd party was code for going to get high.

 

[my2¢]

I'm usually more in line with the Democrats' foreign policy and the Republicans' domestic policy. Thus in 6 of 11 presidential elections I've gone against both major parties in voting for what I term, "None of the above". I would have settle for just about anybody over the choice between Obama and McCain in 2008.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

At the federal level, I would be very happy to see Libertarians in control, and would happily vote Libertarian for all federal offices, if I thought I was voting for a candidate that had a realistic chance of winning. Though I do have some significant disagreements with certain Libertarian positions, I expect that any Libertarian would agree completely with me regarding those issues that they are issues where the federal government has no legitimate business being involved anyway, per the Tenth Amendment, and that those issues should be left to the states.

Realistically, I know, however, that it will be either a Republican or a Democrat that will be elected to each office, that the Republican positions are much closer to mine than the Democrats', and that supporting a Libertarian candidate only takes votes away from the Republican, giving the advantage to the Democrat.

 

[Kat]

If this is the IF game..not reality, then my answer would be yes.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't vote for people based on whether they can win, so I've voted third party a few times.

No such thing as a wasted vote, despite what the partisans say.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Throwing the lesser evil dilemma and lack of winning independent/third party candidates out the window for a second, would you even want to vote for someone outside of the reigning parties if they matched your views more?

Basically the system is rubbish, so a third party can't win, and the two main parties have no interest in changing this.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't vote for people based on whether they can win, so I've voted third party a few times.

No such thing as a wasted vote, despite what the partisans say.

Well, then you are doing it wrong.

The only reason I am considering casting a protest vote for Johnson is because Illinois will go for Hillary no matter what else happens short of her showing up to the Debates with Monica Lewinsky's severed head in her hands.

But at the end of the day, either Hillary or Trump will be President. Yes, "the lesser of two evils" is a cliche, but it's an important one. Which one of these two are more likely to get us into a war or mess up the economy?

 

[Mac1958]

I don't vote for people based on whether they can win, so I've voted third party a few times.

No such thing as a wasted vote, despite what the partisans say.

Well, then you are doing it wrong.

The only reason I am considering casting a protest vote for Johnson is because Illinois will go for Hillary no matter what else happens short of her showing up to the Debates with Monica Lewinsky's severed head in her hands.

But at the end of the day, either Hillary or Trump will be President. Yes, "the lesser of two evils" is a cliche, but it's an important one. Which one of these two are more likely to get us into a war or mess up the economy?

Yes, if I don't do it your way, I'm "doing it wrong".



A nice little microcosm of the binary thinking that is so damaging this country right now.
.

 

[Snouter]

Who has gotten us into war and caused us to receive Muslim Terrorists. Crooked Hillary. Obviously a 3rd party is not rational since The Donald as the republican is causing such an uproar.

 

[Tehon]

I'm voting my conscience, which in this case is 3rd party. Knowing full well they can't win.

 

[there4eyeM]

What is one to do when he/she wants to vote, but can't for one of the two party's toadies?
'Other'; i.e., 'third' party (or fourth, fifth...).

 

[georgephillip]

Throwing the lesser evil dilemma and lack of winning independent/third party candidates out the window for a second, would you even want to vote for someone outside of the reigning parties if they matched your views more?

Many voters in both major parties will be casting ballots AGAINST the candidate they perceive as the greater evil next November. In fact, both Trump and Clinton are two sides of the same golden, corporate coin. If millions of voters choose between Green or Libertarian instead of Wall Street or Real Estate, the results could change US politics forever.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I vote for them even when I know they can't win.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, if I don't do it your way, I'm "doing it wrong".



A nice little microcosm of the binary thinking that is so damaging this country right now.

You mean 'working with the system we hvae, not the one we'd like."

Yeah, it's called, "Dealing with Reality". You should try it some time.

Reality- our current system locks us into the two major parties. A third party could only serve to throw the election into Congress (something that hasn't happened since 1824), which brings us back where we started.

Now, if we had a system like France, that would be different. We don't. We hvae the system we have.

So end of the day, we have to make a decision- one of these two people is going to be President. Which one is going to be worse for the country.

Right now,t hat really looks like Trump. .

 

[JoeB131]

Who has gotten us into war and caused us to receive Muslim Terrorists. Crooked Hillary. Obviously a 3rd party is not rational since The Donald as the republican is causing such an uproar.

Yes, Donald is causing an uproar. He's offended 70% of the population who aren't Angry White Males.

But, um, since all the "Muslim Terrorists" who attacked in this country were BORN HERE, I'm not seeing how that is Hillary's fault.