Third party candidates

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I recently saw a THR member with this in his dig line

If you have two mainstream politicians who are both legitimately harmful to your cause, but one is simply less harmful, why would you not support a third-party candidate? It's like having a choice between Cyanide, arsenic, and coffee. - Lucky

I assume the quote is from the THR member Lucky.

I can't agree with it though. I think it's more like having a choice between cyanide, arsenic, and a picture of coffee. And if you choose the picture of coffee, you are force-fed the cyanide. In real life, a third party candidate will never win. You will have either the cyanide or the arsenic, whether you like it or not. Choosing something you can never have won't make the real life outcome any better.


A third party candidate will never win. Maybe voting for one will make you "feel better" about yourself. It might make you think "well at least I tried to do something", but in the end it's a pointless gesture.

It's wagering everything you have for the hope of something better, but you will inevitably lose everything you have even faster.

In 2008, and in 2012, and 2016, and 2020, etc, the President of the United States of America will be a member of either the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party. All empirical mathematical evidence supports this. Candidates of any other party never gain more than a few fractions of the votes, while those 2 main parties gather the rest. In 2004 for instance, President Bush got 50.7% of the votes. Senator Kerry got 48.3%. And all of the third party candidates combined make up that last 1%.

It's a pointless gesture to vote for anyone but the 2 main parties in the general election. In the Primaries, it's a great idea. Try to get someone good to get the nomination. This is why it's great Ron Paul is trying to get the Republican nomination, instead of running as a Libertarian.

But once the primaries are over, one has to face reality. A Democrats are going to get virtually half of the votes, and the Republicans are going to get the other half.

Be careful not to split your vote. It's a lot like gambling with the money you have, and winding up in debt. You start out with a little, you risk it all, and end up owing more than you started. Look what happened in 06. We had a Republican Congress. Some people choose to "send a message". And what happened? We got a Congress that's even worse.

When you vote third party in a general election, you are gambling with all of our futures. Don't end up owing more than you have.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

But using that mentality, aren't you continuing to support the 2-party system? If everyone thought the same and refused to change because there is "no chance at all", then nothing changes and it's business as usual. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy and pushing a logical fallacy that only two choices are available. I feel its this same mentality that is used by people who are willing to compromise rather than taking a 100% yes or no stance.

I vote for the best candidate that reflects my views. This time around, it's Ron Paul, and he is running in the GOP so there is a much greater chance for winning over mainstream folks...not to mention he has good political experience compared to a lot of 3rd party candidates (and doesn't look freaky, for those unfortunate folk that vote based on the appearance of candidates). However, if everyone played the "either, or" game, then we will never break out of the situation where only one of two parties stands a chance of winning.

Conservative libertarians usually have a great stance on most things that do appeal to Republicans and its general political ignorance from decades (if not centuries) of apathy and misinformation that gets these guys tossed out as fringe lunatics to the general public. Both left and righters in today's current state of disarray continuously state their ideals would be supported by the Founding Fathers but it couldn't be further from the truth.

I will say from a strategic standpoint, that libertarians should evaluate the current situation of things and run as conservatives in the GOP to maximize their chances for public office. Maybe through this process, they can slowly return the conservative party to their roots, or split off after establishing mainstream popularity that they are more aligned to libertarian ideals. There are plenty of forces that want to keep it a 2 party system. I'm surprised Dr. No was granted a pass to the first Presidential debates despite his libertarian roots in the past

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I disagree that a third-party candidate will never win. I would agree that no third-party candidate is likely to win the 2008 Presidential election.

The one successful third party to date (the Republican Party) didn't try to advance with an all-or-nothing win at the Presidential election. They first established a base of local support, politicians and party apparatus to support their bid for Presidency (and they still lost their first election).

 

[Smellvin]

I'd just like to point out that Lincoln was a "3rd party" candidate. The Republican party was only six years old when he was elected.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Ah, the cries of the wounded Republican Party...

"A vote for a third party is a vote for the Democrat"

"This election is just too important to vote for a third party"

I believed this for many years, but now I realize its a load of bull. I voted for Bush twice. He has been a disgrace. I won't do that again.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

It will be interesting to here what you'll say when Comrade Chairman Obama takes power.

 

[cbsbyte]

Its still somewhat of a free country; vote for who you believe will do the best job.

 

[MikePGS]

The mentality that a third party candidate is a wasted vote is the reason that we have a two party system. I for one have always voted and will always vote for the candidate that i think will be best for my personal interests. I'm a libertarian, but if Ron Paul were the republican candidate I would vote for him in a second. Of course the fact that he ran for president under the libertarian banner in the past, and politically pretty much is a libertarian (Libertarians being essentially what the republican party used to be, but moreso) probably helps quite a bit.

 

[Scanr]

a protest vote

Here in Nevada 8 years ago we had a choice between a RINO or a big time lib dem. I chose to vote for the 3rd party candidate because I could not bring my self to vote for the Rep. The Rep was a shoe-in, so it was loose-loose either way. It was my way of protesting. If you listen to Rusty Humphry's he pimped Kenny Guinn big time, then moved from the state after he helped get him re-elected. Rusty is a real jerk in my opinion.

BTW. Guinn wanted to and did raise taxes by $1 billion after he won re-election. The biggest tax increase in Nevada histore.

 

[Autolycus]

What if I am not a Republican or a Democrat?

I myself am a Libertarian. So I will vote Libertarian when the 2008 election comes. However if Ron Paul is running I will be voting for him as he is a Libertarian with an (R) next to his name.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The mentality that a third party candidate is a wasted vote is the reason that we have a two party system.

No, we have a two-party system because the winner-take-all nature of our election system means that when you gain enough support to succeed, some other party has lost enough support that it is no longer viable.

Historically, you will have a period of 2-10 years where there is a viable thrid party and it either succeeds, dies, or becomes a sideshow of no political importance. When it does succeed (Republicans), some other major party (Whigs) dies off from lack of support.

The Libertarian Party, for example, peaked in percentage of votes received in 1980 - eight years after it first challenged Nixon in 1972. They have never received more votes than that.

 

[poor_richard]

I see it as telling that so many people campaigning for other people not to vote third party, or even for someone like Ron Paul in the primaries. If people had voted third party (instead of sitting at home) in the last election, then the two main parties would have to have taken notice that they can't just conduct "business as usual". "Sitting at home" is a wasted vote, voteing third party isn't because the politicians see that there is a committed part of the voting public who aren't afraid to place their vote behind someone who does represent their ideals. The only reason the two parties feel threatened by third parties is because they take their bases for granted and are out of touch with America. So far it works because they've got the majority of Americans convinced that it's best to vote for "the lesser of two evils", and those parties will do whatever they can to keep it that way. Third parties threaten this power hold.

 

[davhina]

Ideally, most of us here, would like to see Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, or some other candidate that has our views, elected in 2008. . In reality, all that will happen, if we send our votes to a "horse not even in the race" is that someone we truly can't stand, will end up president.(Hillary, Edwards, Obama???) Perot, by running in '92 allowed slick willy to get elected. Same thing will, IMHO happen in '08.

Go ahead, vote for the guy you like, that has no chance, and watch 2A go away.. Be proud, that you voted, and vote for the best guy, in your opinion.
And then be ready, when Hillary moves into the White House, for her third term.:banghead:

 

[Titan6]

There you go again.....

These 'don't split the vote' people just kill me. How can you split a vote when you don't support either candidate?

Run RG and BO AND SEE WHO I VOTE FOR! Won't be either one of them and a lot of other people are going that way as well.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

And that's exactly what happened this past Congressional election.

So many people were thinking "I'll show those darn Republicans. Let's fire them. Send them a message". But they didn't think farther than that. They didn't realize that by kicking the Republicans out, they were putting the Democrats IN.

And then came AWB II. Thanks for voting third party.

 

[Titan6]

You keep missing the point

Republicans got themselves voted out of office because they were not doing what the people wanted. That is how this country works.

I am willing to bet that they taught you in school that there has never been a successful third party. Since this is blatantly untrue why do you persist?

Do you really think Libertarians and Republicans agree on that many issues? Take a good look and you will soon see the error of your ways....

 

[Prince Yamato]

They didn't realize that by kicking the Republicans out, they were putting the Democrats IN.

Well, at least ONE other person sees it how I see it. Sadly Taurusowner, all you'll get in response from half these people is that same crap about the republicans not doing anything while in office. Well, here's a thought... what the hell good is ONE libertarian congressman going to do... NOTHING. You damn idealists are going to screw it all up. "Oh I CAN'T vote republican... they didn't do anything for the 2A..." except let the AWB fall, oh yeah, the also instituted national reciprocity for policemen, which would probably have been extended to us eventually had you folks not "shown the republicans a thing or two" in 2006. Now we're looking at AWB II. Think about it before you cast yoru ballot. I'd rather vote for and have a half-ass in office who'll keep things as they are, versus a jack-ass who'll take everything away. That's what your choices are in 2008 (no! I'm voting libertarian ).

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Would you prefer I vote Democrat in 2008 instead of for a third party?

If the Dems run Bill Richardson, I certainly will.

 

[Titan6]

Great, let the near meaningless AWB expire.

Then tried to repeal most of the rest of the bill of rights with that garbage called the Patriot Act.

I believe that the 2A is to insure liberty and freedom but I would prefer that my government not force me to act on it by suspending the Constitution and triggering a civil war.....

I don't like many of the Democrats but the repubs earned my mistrust the day they let fly with that one.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The mentality that a third party candidate is a wasted vote is the reason that we have a two party system.

No, the Constitution of the United States is the reason we have a two-party system.

Unlike most other nations, we have a Constitution which establishes Separation of Powers. Our legislative branch (Congress) is elected separately from the executive (the President.)

In nations with Parliamentary systems, there is no election for the equivallent of our President, the Prime Minister -- he is chosen by the majority party in Parliament -- an action called "forming a government." This means small, independent parties can have clout -- they can ally with larger parties to put together a majority coalition. So third (and fourth and fifth . . . ) parties can exist and thrive.

In our system, we have no need to "form a government" -- we elect the President separately from Congress. So third parties have no leverage. When a Third Party candidate is elected, he must join one of the two major parties to have any effect at all -- entering their caucus, even if he keeps his party title. And he must pay a price to the party he joins.

So you can vote for a Green, or a Libertarian, or a Fuzzy-Nosed Wombat. But you're going to get a Republican or a Democrat, no matter what he calls himself.

 

[xd9fan]

Ah, the cries of the wounded Republican Party...

"A vote for a third party is a vote for the Democrat"

"This election is just too important to vote for a third party"

I believed this for many years, but now I realize its a load of bull. I voted for Bush twice. He has been a disgrace. I won't do that again.

yeah this does get old and tiring.

If dems and GOP voters NEVER change regardless of what their party does.......then yes taurusowner you are right....third parties will never win.............maybe.

taurusowner......are you happy with your party? If not do you really believe you can change them(from within)?

If your ok with the Titannic...fine....have a smoke on the deck and enjoy the icebergs passing by....but please dont question why others leave and go for better alternatives. Yes we wont win in 2008. But the 3rd party movement is not about the quick short term so-you-can-vent-vote. It about not furthering American socialism. Its about getting back to concepts like Liberty versus Security. 20th Century Socialism is alive and well within the mindset of the two major parties.
I only speak for me on this.....but I can no longer contribute to american socialism by continuing to reward the GOP with another of my votes...or my money.

I'm not into horse races.....I default on the Bill of Rights. If I dont see quality in the person running.......I will look elsewhere.

quite frankly.....Americans continuing to feed the two party beast is our own fault. We as Americans demand quality and choices in every aspect of our lives......but when it comes to our "leaders" (using the term WAAAAY loose) most seem happy with the two party slavery and get pissed when someone else looks away wondering if there is better out there...........This attittude amazes me.

Vern the Constitution IS NOT the reason why we have 2 parties. show me how the govt structure cant handle 3 parties............come on people....think...out side the box......:banghead: prisoners in your own minds

 

[Standing Wolf]

A third party candidate will never win.

We'll never have a viable second party as long as people keep voting for Republicrats and Democans.

A pox on their shared statist house!

 

[Gifted]

Be proud, that you voted, and vote for the best guy, in your opinion.
And then be ready, when Hillary moves into the White House, for her third term.

And someone's going to blow her head off, especially if she tries to grab guns. Which will lead to more grabbing, which will lead...well, it's not quite the high road to think about all that yet.

And then came AWB II. Thanks for voting third party.

Last I knew, people switched to the dems. No third parties involved. If they were, I'm sure we'd have some more independent critters in Washington, and less dems. Likely, the repubs would still have that majority, and they'd be catering to the conservative independentst that just came along to try to get their votes on things.

The Repubs are self destructing. The conservatives will need somewhere to go, and it'll probably be the libertarians. Likely we'll see some classic liberals come from the dems too. The "moderates" and socialists will continue along, and people will abandon them as they see what they truly are. A new demotratic party would form as well, trying to abandon the moonbats for a "moderate" position, and we'll basically rewind a few decades for a while.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I don't understand why you think I'd be voting Republican if I weren't voting third party.

I might be the guy that runs this board, but that doesn't mean I'm more concerned with gun rights than I am with rights in general. Why, exactly, do you think I'd vote Republican?

What has the Republican party done to earn my vote? They had majorities in the legislature and "their guy" in the president's seat -- what did they do in that time that should impress me as a gun owner? Repeal GCA 68? Eliminate the stupidity of the machine gun registry? Maybe make some rational decision about the use of silencers in an attempt to minimize the environmental impact of shooting ranges? Maybe we've got guns in the cockpits of planes now, or reasonable policies regarding CCW while traveling across state lines? Maybe national concealed carry legislation?

Nope. They simply failed to renew the AWB which Bush promised to sign if it hit his desk. Real friends of gun owners there -- now it looks like they'll get behind Rudy Guliani -- someone who would probably support banning all handguns, autoloaders, and any ammunition that will penetrate a level 2 vest.

And in the same time we got some huge assaults on liberties I never honestly believed would be threatened in the United States of America. Things like "you've got the right to face your accuser and see all of the evidence against you," and "we don't torture suspects," and "we never 'disappear' people in the middle of the night, but always provide access to lawyers and make people aware of the charges against them." Scary stuff. Stuff worthy of Stalin.

No, the Republicans don't represent me. I don't believe the Democrats do either, though I believe if they were in power they'd get less accomplished because they don't really believe in anything and would have problems maintaining focus.

If I didn't vote third party, I wouldn't vote. I'm not the only one that feels this way - my vote is earned, and if the Republican Party isn't willing to earn it, then they can't have it. No matter how they try to scare me into voting for them (likely by dressing Clinton or Obama in various clown suits, after their widespread wiretapping informs them of my fear of clowns.....)

 

[Cesiumsponge]

I bet all the Democrats on the Democratic forums are crying at those members considering a 3rd party vote too.

"oh no, don't vote 3rd party, you'll give Republicans the edge and we'll get another religious zealot Bush wannabe!!!!1111oneone".

BOTH Republicans AND Democrats seem to be afraid of loosing votes to a third party, period.