Still think voting 3rd party or not...

[Derek Zeanah]

1. How would you vote in the classroom scenario I laid out?

With 60 mostly "average" people? I'm running for office, and winning classroom president.

2. How would you vote if Hillary is the D candidate knowing a 3rd party vote or simple non vote COULD lead to her winning?

If it's between Hillary and a Republican who claims to hold Bush's views, and I've been told I'm the deciding vote, I'm voting Libertarian. I won't accept any culpability in what happens to this country under either of those folks. I don't want to look back in 20 years and say "I was part of the problem, because the best I could figure out was to keep voting for more of the same failed policies that had gotten us to that point."

3. The problem with your "death" sceanario is that death is going to happen either way---in this decision you have to live/suffer with your vote.

And the Republic still dies, regardless of whether a (R) or a (D) is at the helm. There's no debating that, or at least I've seen none here.

However it is irresponsible and intellectually wrong---knowing that only D or R is going to win in other situations to stand by and be a bystander.

I'm not a "bystander" -- I voted, and I voted for the only moral choice. Hell, 5% of my state did as well -- up from 3% last time IIRC -- my hope is that we'll continue to grow -- if we get to 10% then someone is gonna want that block and act accordingly. It's not impossible to be a "republican" and a "conservative" at the same time. hell, if Newt Gengrich ran this time on a "Contact with America" platform, that might have been enough to win my vote -- I can live with that, and knowing I helped support it.

Keep doing it as they keep winning.

All they have to do to get my vote is earn it. I won't vote based on fear -- mine will be a vote based on reason, and principles.

 

[Mayo]

With 60 mostly "average" people? I'm running for office, and winning classroom president.

With all due respect, you are avoiding an answer. I plainly laid out that the other students save you and 1 other were voting for A or B---thus you have the deciding votes---what do you do?

To put it in a different light-----if after the elections there was a re-election between just the 2 candidates left in Montana or Virginia, you would most likely see a different outcome just as would have happened in Florida in 2000. If people had to re-vote either Gore or Bush----the 97,000 Naders plus non voters WOULD have changed the outcome.:banghead:---thus I'm GLAD they did vote 3rd party or not vote and have been happy since.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Read the whole post - if it were between Clinton (Ms.) and Bush Reborm, and I had the deciding vote and was informed of such, I'd vote third party. I don't want to reread your earlier post to see exactly how you phrased it -- is this not clear enough for you?

 

[Mayo]

I'll lay out the scanario for you and please don't skirt: 61 students in the class, Student A you hate and student B you really don't care for but don't hate and better then A. After speaking to the other students in the class you are aware that

30 will be voting for A
29 will be voting for B
2--you and 1 other student would like to vote for yourself

At this point you are fully aware that you have 0 chance of winning and the deciding votes are indeed in your hands. Do you vote yourself and let A win and deal with it or go B?

 

[jlbraun]

www.rangevoting.org

If you're interested in a "range voting" scenario for the 2008 presidency, go to:

http://zohopolls.com/brokenladder/2008-u-s-presidential-election-poll-using

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Mayo:

Your analogy is failed: I "hate" one, but only "dislike" another. Either way, they'll have no say on anything of relevence, really -- can't change lunch hours, can't create more school holidays, can't change homework policies, or move from essay questions to scantrons. Is this in elementary school, and should I vote as I did then?

basically, you're asking "how would you vote in a popularity contest if you're the deciding vote, knowing there are no real consequences." There's no future here, no past, no option other than A or B, with no real guidance on what A or B stand for.

I know you're trying to make a point, but you're going way the hell out of your way to try and make it. So, if you don't want me to "skirt," fill in some details:

• what grade is it?
• Why can't I run?
• Why do I hate one, and why do I dislike the other? Did one steal Suzy's kiss (she promised to marry me in Kindergarden!), and the other refuse my kiss? Is one a cheater? Is one a narc? Did one accuse me of cheating when I didn't?
• How old am I?

I'll play along, but it's a total thread drift. And humor me here -- how is this scenario more relevent to this converstation than what I've already stated?

 

[Cellar Dweller]

Butting in...bad analogy

30 will be voting for A
29 will be voting for B
2--you and 1 other student would like to vote for yourself

Derek's vote doesn't matter to the outcome, unless he convinces the other voter to vote B as well (and B might be the "greater evil" to the other voter).

30 for A, 30 for B(+Derek), 1 for Derek (other guy) = two-person runoff, unless the tiebreaker is gold stars on the report card or something. A wins 40-21 this time, Mayo blames "third party Derek" for the loss. One loss of conscience.

31 for A (+ other guy), 30 for B (+Derek), doesn't change outcome but 2 people voted against their conscience (which is the GREATEST of evil). Mayo blames Derek for "not turning out the vote."

30 for A, 31 for B (+both votes)...still voting against their conscience and hoping that B doesn't stump to kick them out of the chess club out of spite. Mayo is happy, until B suggests cutting the chess club in favor of third-world studies. Mayo tells everyone to vote B in the next election, maybe B will try to restore the chess club someday (and blames Derek anyway).

27/61 students are members (including Mayo, Derek and the other guy) of the chess club. A is for cutting all clubs in favor of third world studies, B is a windsock. A is the potential class valedictorian, B is the star quarterback. Chess members argue amongst themselves who to vote for (A or B), instead of backing Derek and appealing to the other 32 students.

 

[.41Dave]

Relax everybody. As someone once said, If voting actually made a difference, it would be illegal. The system is broken, and it doesn't really matter if Stalin or Hitler wins. BOTH parties result in corrupt authoritarian regimes that only differ in the order in which they plan to strip you of your rights.

The people who keep voting for one of the two parties of the current regime are like a battered woman who keeps going back to her abuser because he promises to protect her from her previous abuser. Their learned helplessness, like that of the battered woman, prevents them from seeing that the only real alternative to leave the abusers altogether.

 

[Trainman]

All they have to do to get my vote is earn it. I won't vote based on fear -- mine will be a vote based on reason, and principles.

And your vote goes to someone who has absolutley no chance to win and the group that can inflict the most damage on our country wins.

But by golly you voted your principles and reason!

Good for you! I hope it provides you with a huge payoff!

 

[Biker]

Trainman...

If you consistantly reward bad behavior, you'll get more of the same.

Biker

 

[GoRon]

If you consistantly reward bad behavior, you'll get more of the same.

And if you throw a temper tantrum and vote for a bunch of losers you get this:

The situation in the Senate may be worse (pending the outcome of the
Virginia senate race). Should Democrat Jim Webb hang on to win, the
expected new Senate Majority will be F-rated Harry Reid (NV) and the
probable incoming Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee would be
GOA F-rated Pat Leahy of Vermont

From there it really goes downhill.

The rest of the Democrats currently on the committee make up the
Who's Who of the anti-gun movement:

* Ted Kennedy (MA), the mouthpiece for Sarah Brady in the Senate;

* Joe Biden (DE), who chaired the Judiciary Committee when the Brady
bill passed in 1993, and who said at that time, famously, "The public
and the Congress have spoken unequivocally, and I don't care what a
minority wants;"

* Herb Kohl (WI), author of the "Gun Free Zones Ban;"

* Dianne Feinstein (CA), author of the so-called "Assault Weapons"
ban;

* Russ Feingold (WI), Democrat lead sponsor of so-called campaign
finance reform;

* Charlie Schumer (NY), lead sponsor of the 1993 Brady law; and,

* Dick Durbin (IL), one of the most outspoken gun control zealots in
the senate.

Gun owners should look twice at the above list. Most or all of these
members will remain on the Judiciary Committee when the new Congress
convenes in January, and will help shape American gun laws for at
least the next two years.

 

[Biker]

Well then, I guess the Pubs better start acting like conservatives if they want their jobs back. Yes?

Biker

 

[Trainman]

If you consistantly reward bad behavior, you'll get more of the same.

And if you only throw your vote away for a few moments of perceived feelgood revenge, and not for the strategic (that's long range) effect that it has on this country then you are doomed to wake up to Nancy Pelosi's face every morning.

Yeah, that'll show em!
Teach them to mess with me!

 

[Biker]

Yeah, I know what strategic means, Trainman, bag the personal BS. Hmmm?
And yeah, I figure we taught a lesson or three. There are more to be taught if required.

Biker

 

[tyme]

And your vote goes to someone who has absolutley no chance to win and the group that can inflict the most damage on our country wins.

Say the final vote in a large election is 60% Democrat to 40% Republican. Would you agree that the Republican candidate has no chance of winning, and that Republicans should vote for the Democrat?

There's a lot of complaining about libertarian and other 3rd party voters, but very little complaining about Democratic voters.

Where did all you Republicans get the idea that we Libertarians can be so easily convinced (manipulated) to vote Republican, yet Democrats are impossible to convince to vote Republican? Are we weak-willed and Democrats are strong-willed? Or are you just picking on us because Democrats are too numerous?

And, as several people have already suggested, how about blaming your own party?

 

[No_Brakes23]

US SENATOR
711/711 100.00%
Vote Count Percent
D - Maria Cantwell 66,136 60.08%
R - Mike McGavick 40,803 37.06%
L - Bruce Guthrie 1,474 1.34%

Hmmm, seems to me that McGavick wouldn't have won even with the other 1473 people that voted like me.

Then again, McGavick won't open his mouth on 2a issues or fill-in GOA/NRA questionaires, so it wouldn't have helped anyway.

 

[chaim]

I didn't read all four pages so I apologize if this point has already been made.

The idea that the election was close so Libertarians REALLY should have voted Republican is false. In fact, in close elections it is even more important to vote Libertarian (or Green, Independent, or what have you) if that is your inclination.

Those who support third parties generally aren't very happy with either major party. Why vote for someone you don't like? He's better than the other guy? Maybe, maybe not.

Yes, it is true that the third party will probably never have a major win. However, the history in our country is that the two party system has been protected by the major parties absorbing the platforms of the most popular third parties when they started to really threaten the larger parties.

So, a third party vote is MORE effective in a close election than in a blow out. If there is a series of close elections where the idependent vote may have thrown the election to the other party (as in the Presidental elections of 92, 96, 2000, and possibly several governors and senate elections this time) it just might awaken the parties that it is time to address the grievances of the dissaffected voters.

It is far from the same as a non-vote. If you don't vote, nothing is recorded. If you vote third party your vote is recorded as opposing both major parties, and further, your leanings are also recorded based on which third party you vote for (you probably are pro-freedom and want less intrusion if you vote Libertarian, you probably would love the Republicans to become more right-wing if you vote Constitution Party, and you'd probably love the Dems to go more left-wing if you vote Green- though these are obviously over-generalizations).

 

[Shweboner]

I am so sick of people bad mouthing third party votes.

Can you stop for a second and think about what would happen if a third party actually won?

When I talked to people before and after the election, I would mention that I had voted 3rd party on a lot of races. Even people who completely agreed with the views of the 3rd party guy had the same ignorant response. "Why would I vote for them?, they aren't going to win" Like this is some kind of bet? Dont want to vote for a loser? But you will vote for a D just because you dont like the R, or vice versa? How retarded is that?

Vote for someone just because they have at least a 50/50 chance of winning? Vote for someone who you dont like, but just not as much as the other guy. Or voting for a person because of what they aren't? :banghead:
Talk about wasting a vote.

Its the same mentality you see right after the super bowl... The team that won instantly becomes everyones "team", Or like after 9.11 E V E R Y O N E was instantly sooo patriotic, flying their flags that they didn't own on 9.10... No one wants to be the odd one out, or the guy who supports a loser. In the end we all lose.

3rd parties arent even allowed to debate, in Oregon at least, or in the Pres race either. Doesnt anyone see something wrong with that...



What the hell is wrong with people? We couldn't even pass a bill that created term limits for sen, reps, etc. Who thinks its a good idea to stay in office your whole life? Well besides the guy who is always in office...

 

[Igloodude]

And if you only throw your vote away for a few moments of perceived feelgood revenge, and not for the strategic (that's long range) effect that it has on this country then you are doomed to wake up to Nancy Pelosi's face every morning.

Yeah, that'll show em!
Teach them to mess with me!

Don't blame the libertarians that voted their conscience, blame the Republicans that stayed home.

Better yet, blame the RNC policymakers that left both of those groups feeling unrepresented/unmotivated by the Republican party.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

GoRon

And if you throw a temper tantrum and vote for a bunch of losers you get this:

I blindly did up to 2002, and got Anti-gun Democrats holding all statewide offices, and an antigun majority in the Legislature for my trouble, and a few good progun/antitax people lost due to Republican Party ineptitude.

Did the Green Party candidate (Whitney) steal votes from Blago or JBT? The overwhelming majority of traditional Greenie voters are dissatisfied Dems, so that says he "stole" from Blago. Since proper card-carrying Republicans would NEVER vote Dem or Greenie, why did so many apparently stay home?

 

[petrel800]

So let me get this straight, I should be voting for the winner, not for who I agree with politically. Either I pick R or D, or I should just stay home.

My question to you is, who do you think you are to be telling people how to vote? You voted, you exercised your priviledge. So did I. If you believe your vote should be worth more than mine, take it up with your elected representitive and see how far you get.

So by your rational,

Lieberman(I) 562,850 50%

Lamont (D) 448,077 40%

Schlesinger (R) 109,329 10%

Voting for the republican in this scenario is a wasted vote, because he had little to no chance to win. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't vote for Lieberman if you forced me too. I'm sure he is a nice guy, and he seems principled, but once a dem, always a dem. The guy was on Al Gore's ticket for gods sake, and Lamont, that guy is a socialist appeaser.

However, by your arguement, I should have just chosen the lesser of two evils and voted Lieberman or Lamont.

Sorry your argument holds no water.

 

[EttenBoom]

.

The right to vote is a right more sacred than all others, including the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm getting the impression that "the independent vote is a wasted vote" crowdwould simply prefer that we have a one party system
Without the right to vote in a society with more than one party (the Soviet people had the "right to vote", as long as it was for a communist party member), you have tyranny.

I will never let anyone bully me into voting a certain way, because that's the way they think I should vote.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

Voting for the republican in this scenario is a wasted vote, because he had little to no chance to win.

No such thing can possibly exist! [koolaid] The Republican only lost because the third-party candidate who had no chance of winning "stole" a bunch of "wasted third-party" votes to give the victory to the Democrat. [/koolaid]

I'm getting the impression that "the independent vote is a wasted vote" crowd would simply prefer that we have a one party system

Getting closer when the Party actively supports an "Independent" over the winner of their primary...

A third-party vote is ALWAYS wasted unless you get a permission slip from the RNC first, I guess.

 

[GEM]

My candidate is a big jerk! He should have won given his party affliation.

However, he screwed the pooch. Thus, some people decided not to vote for the big jerk to reward his big jerkiness or send a message that maybe the party shouldn't have big jerks for candidates.

Now he lost, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Stop whining. The GOP lost because democracy was in action and they did a bad job. Criticizing folks for not supporting people who did a bad job is silly.

Have candidates of intelligence and honesty. Have candidate who act on their announced principles when in office. Then you win if enough folks believe in their set of ideas. Whining over the ethical votes of some or honesty disagreement by other voters, just because your guy lost (due to his own fault) is not why we vote.

 

[yhtomit]

Best thread all week

I started chuckling about 10% down the last page here

I'll echo Derek Z when he says "Your analogy is failed: I "hate" one, but only "dislike" another. Either way, they'll have no say on anything of relevence, really -- can't change lunch hours, can't create more school holidays, can't change homework policies, or move from essay questions to scantrons. Is this in elementary school, and should I vote as I did then?"

I've caught some flak (from good-humored ribbing to near shock) from some friends because I didn't vote this week; I didn't vote because my indifference to the available candidates who would *likely* win was thick like glue, and the enjoyable feeling I would certainly have gotten from voting in the won't-win-but-not-meaningless libertarian candidates wasn't worth the car trip (tolls, gas, time) it would have taken me to get to my county of residence (while I'm going to school in Philly) just wasn't worth it this time. For a presidential election year, easy, but this time, No.

In two years, I'll vote for whoever seems to support liberty most -- and that will almost certainly not be a major party candidate, at least not in PA. (Elsewhere, YMMV; Ron Paul's a Republican, right?)

timothy