Here Is The Deal On November 2nd

[R.H. Lee]

So in a state such as New York that WILL go to Kerry, a vote for Bush is wasted?

Tyranny of the majority? No, because either Bush or Kerry WILL win. The 3rd party guy will not, and we know that in advance. The "popular vote" has also recently become an issue lending to the influence of a President.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Besides, a Kerry win will only turn the country farther LEFT and make you Libertarians look even more extreme and radical. You will be more marginalized than you already are, and your chances of ever prevailing will lessen.

Chew on that.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

No, because either Bush or Kerry WILL win. The 3rd party guy will not, and we know that in advance. The "popular vote" has also recently become an issue lending to the influence of a President.

So there's no sense in voting for a third-party candidate because there's no chance of winning, but many THR'ers claim they would vote third-party if a third-party was viable.

Well, if nobody VOTES for third-party candidates, they must be agreeing with the Dem or Repub party, 'cause they're SURELY not dissenting at the ballot box.

I have a choice of (D)Obama, (R)Keyes, (LP)Kohn), and(independent)Frantzen for Senate.
Obama has all the endorsements and polls show him in the 65-70% range. Do I vote for him because "he's the winner?"
Keyes was brought in late because IL-GOP dropped the ball. Do I vote for him to show GOP solidarity?
Kohn and Frantzen have no chance of winning, so I shouldn't vote for either by your logic.

If Keyes loses 60-38, then the IL-GOP idiots who caused this mess in the first place will still be in charge ("could have done better if we started sooner"). If he loses 77-20, or better still comes in BEHIND Kohn or Frantzen (or both, combined), then the IL-GOP will have to change or die. Therefore, I'm choosing to sacrifice Keyes to get rid of the IL-GOP dummies, even though I'd vote for him otherwise.

Kerry, like Obama, is a lock in IL. Therefore, I'm gonna sacrifice my GOP vote with a clean conscience. If Bush loses by 1 vote in IL, you can blame me. If Bush wins big in the electorate but loses big in the popular vote, perhaps then the national GOP will get the message.

Clinton or McCain in 2008? I don't wanna go there...

 

[griz]

That's the part that seems contridictary to me. The only way to gain power is to vote for a party that has a chance of winning and influence the party from within. The only exception to that is in a state that will go Dem for sure, then it's OK to vote Rep. Admittedly the Reps have a chance overall, but not the state. So it seems more a defence of the two party system than an argument against voting principles.

 

[2nd Amendment]

No, the point is that come election day it is too late. When we know that no 3rd party has made any serious effort to field a presidential candidate that can win, voting for one on election day "on principle" is a waste. The time to protest is the four years in between. Now is the time to get Bush in and keep Kerry out, then spend the next four years building up a viable alternative to either "main" party.

 

[RealGun]

So there's no sense in voting for a third-party candidate because there's no chance of winning, but many THR'ers claim they would vote third-party if a third-party was viable.

I might easily vote for a Libertarian if it wasn't for President. I am not ready for Senator either, given a solid alternative. The Senate needs partisan strength. But there are libertarians in the GOP.

I believe the LP, or any third party, needs to build its base first, seeding Congress with several more people. Those candidates will not come from nowhere either. The LP also needs to downplay platform planks that make people's eyes roll. It is way too specific...pretty scary stuff without the background. The Republican Liberty Caucus will be taken seriously when and if they do the same. As it is, the movement is too vulnerable to ridicule.

LP is requiring people to have read all the right books first. I don't see that as populist at all. It's a hard sell, if you ask me. It will not suddenly appeal to conservatives, because they don't like overnight changes and will not buy into an LP President with virtually no allies in Washington. You will only get secular conservatives in any case. The Constitution Party is claiming the church/state "conservatives". The rest are quickly dominating the GOP. If they do literally take over, becoming a Christian party, it would be a good chance for newer parties to annex large chunks of the GOP electorate who want to just stick to essential government, fairly strict about abiding by the Constitution or more interested in representing all ethnic groups and forms of religion in this country's government.

 

[griz]

LP is requiring people to have read all the right books first.

Your'e right about that. The Constitutuion is a good place to start.

And it's hard to start small and work up if your platform is a smaller government. Hard sell too.

 

[RealGun]

And it's hard to start small and work up if your platform is a smaller government. Hard sell too.

Perhaps a soup that needs some more water in the form of pragmatism. An all or nothing choice might invoke too many "nothing" reactions, leaving too small a group of purists to really get anywhere. I find it very telling that even the Republican Liberty Caucus as an alternate strategy has not made a single compromise in their platform, a carbon copy of the LP platform. Until there is some attempt to be compatible with the GOP, they are wasting their time. What might change that is if all libertarians used the same strategy and joined the GOP wing, making it imposing in numbers and possibly then in influence. They could certainly have a better chance of winning office by simply riding the wave of GOP partisan voting, once becoming a candidate. The primaries would be the tough part, but the message would get a better hearing.

 

[VaughnT]

To all of you folks living in Kali and similar states, and declaring that your one vote won't do Bush any good, think again.

Unfortunately, there are countless others that are, right now, saying the exact same thing. Their one vote won't count, so they're gonna vote for some third/fourth/fifth-party candidate that doesn't stand a chance of getting more than five percent of the vote.

Yes, Bush isn't that much better than Kerry. But, he is better.

Remember, you are not alone in your sentiments. You are one voter amongst thousands.

Look at the polls after the election and you'll see that a considerable percentage of votes went to third-party candidates. This percentage will be drastically smaller than that of Bush or Kerry, but imagine if that total percentage was added to either of the two main parties.


Your one vote does matter. Don't give up the fight just because it seems hopeless.

Will voting for the green party really make a powerful statement? Will a resounding win for Bush make an even more powerful declaration of our nation's desires?

Is it better for this country to appear divided, with Bush only winning by a hair? Or, is it better for the incumbent, flawed as he might be, to be seen as strongly supported by the overwhelming majority of Citizens of this great Nation?

 

[RealGun]

This percentage will be drastically smaller than that of Bush or Kerry, but imagine if that total percentage was added to either of the two main parties.

While firmly in favor of voting for Bush, I have no quarrel with some form of feedback that neither party deserves a total mandate. I would rather see that as some form of sincere dissention within wings of those parties. Rubber stamped solidarity is crap.