Why dont we vote 3rd party?

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

Let's Be Practical

Every time we vote for a 3rd Party, the Democrats win.
That's how we got Bill Clinton in the FIRST place !!

 

[Biker]

Every time we vote for a 3rd Party, the Democrats win.
That's how we got Bill Clinton in the FIRST place !!

Well, the cold hard facts are, thanks to Bush 43, that's how we might get Hillary in 2008.
Just the way it is...
Biker

 

[Herself]

Every time we vote for a 3rd Party, the Democrats win.
That's how we got Bill Clinton in the FIRST place !!

And perhaps after a few more Democrats win, the Republicans will figure it out and try to regain my vote and the votes of people who have reached conclusions similar to mine. Or they can keep losing. I'm all right with either outcome. Clinton was an embarrassment but he was not a disaster.

The Republicans turned their back on Barry Goldwater and his take on what the party should stand for a long time ago. The Republicans have been taking gun-people for granted for decades, and fobbing them off with lip service and weak measures. It is time they learned better, or redefined themselves.

A third-party vote does not help the Democrats; it doesn't help any of the parties not receiving the vote. It does help keep that third party on the ballot.

--Herself

 

[GoRon]

Clinton was an embarrassment but he was not a disaster.

I consider his judicial appointments mostly disasters.

 

[JohnKSa]

And perhaps after a few more Democrats win, the Republicans will figure it out and try to regain my vote.

This is terribly flawed reasoning. For the fourth or fifth time--they CAN'T. If they were to change their platform enough to get third party votes, they would alienate too many of their main base of voters.

They get far more moderate votes than extreme votes. They CAN'T change to pick up the fringe votes without losing too many moderate votes.

HOW can anyone argue that the two parties are so close and at the same time pretend that the Republicans can significantly alter their platform without losing a large number of moderate Republican voters? It's totally contradictory.

Third party voters can HURT the Republicans (and the rest of the country) if there are enough of them, but they can't CHANGE the Republican party. The party platform is designed to attract a large base of voters--they CAN'T embrace the fringe groups and remain viable. That SHOULD be obvious. The change has to come BETWEEN elections and it has to start with educating the people.

Third parties have only assumed power during periods of terrible dissent and widespread violence. HOW can ANYONE believe that this is a time of terrible dissent and unrest while arguing that the two main parties' views are TOO SIMILAR. Again, TOTALLY contradictory!

The kind of change we want will come slowly--short of a civil war or revolution--because it's going to require that the VOTERS' VIEWS change. That's not going to happen overnight.

 

[LAK]

LAK: give my regards to Benny the Moose! I'm sure you'll be very happy together.

--Herself

The closest I might get to saying hi to any moose is with a knife and fork in my hand.

If anyone from any Central American country is permitted to work and live here - you can say goodbye to middle class income in America, and join the big plantation workforce.

That is a certainty.
-------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[xd9fan]

Every time we vote for a 3rd Party, the Democrats win.
That's how we got Bill Clinton in the FIRST place !!

If fear is the only reason to vote FOR the GOP then the GOP is really in bad shape

"we" got clinton because the GOP pissed off voters which went to Perot.

Please dont vote in fear

 

[Chris Rhines]

This is terribly flawed reasoning. For the fourth or fifth time--they CAN'T. If they were to change their platform enough to get third party votes, they would alienate too many of their main base of voters.

This may well be true. It would certainly be an acid test of the theory that most Americans are libertarian in outlook (a theory I do not share - most Americans are enthusiastic stateophiles. But I could be pleasantly surprised.)

That said, it's not an argument that bears any moral weight. I'm a libertarian because it's the right thing to be, not because it's popular with the mob.

HOW can anyone argue that the two parties are so close and at the same time pretend that the Republicans can significantly alter their platform without losing a large number of moderate Republican voters? It's totally contradictory.

The two things don't really have anything to do with one another. There's nothing that says that the Democrats couldn't pull the same trick - kick out the welfare statists and hard-green types and start learning about economics. In fact, it might be easier for the Democrats to do given the tenor of the times.

The kind of change we want will come slowly--short of a civil war or revolution--because it's going to require that the VOTERS' VIEWS change.

Ye gads. Didn't I say that not too many posts ago?

- Chris

 

[JohnKSa]

it's not an argument that bears any moral weight

It wasn't meant to be. It's merely an accurate reponse pointing out the fallacy of the claim that third party voters causing the Republicans to lose an election will make them change.

If you say the world is flat and I point out that it's round, that is not an argument that bears any moral weight either. But it IS accurate and pertinent.

The two things don't really have anything to do with one another.

If the two main (viable) parties are similar (as has been repeatedly claimed on this thread) it is because voters views don't differ much (lots of moderates) and both parties are trying to draw as many moderate voters as possible.

If both parties are trying to draw moderate voters it is because there are a large number of moderate voters to be drawn. That also follows directly from the initial assertion that the parties are similar.

Clearly, tailoring the party platform to draw in a small number of third party voters will cause moderate voters to abandon the party.

Just as clearly, making changes to gain a small number of voters at the expense of losing a large number of voters is a bankrupt strategy for winning elections.

Therefore neither main party can woo "fringe voters" without risking the loss of large number of moderates.

Therefore even the loss of an election or two (due to third party voters) can not change the party platform in any significant manner if the two parties have very similar platforms.

Didn't I say that not too many posts ago?

Well, if you did, I must say that what you said makes perfect sense to me!

 

[Herself]

We're done, John. You have your opinion and I have mine; we have both stated them at great length and any further "debate" is merely an effort to get in the last word.

Do, please, feel free to have the last word. I don't mind. It won't change how I vote.

--Herself

 

[JohnKSa]

Do, please, feel free to have the last word. I don't mind. It won't change how I vote.

Why THANK you!

And I never thought it would.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. JohnKSa, you have changed my outlook.

I think I am voting for Hillary.

Thanks.

 

[JohnKSa]

I think I am voting for Hillary.

If I take your word for it, I am forced to believe that who you vote for doesn't matter to anyone--not even you.

Remember posting this?

The managed media controls who wins.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I can remember that Rush and Katie both fought tooth and nail to keep Perot from having gription. The only time in my limited experience when they were on the same side of an issue.

Did you forget Pat Buchanan's run? Both the Republican establishment (including "conservative" talk radio) and the mainstream media went all out to destroy his reputation with outrageous lies and calumnies. That didn't start, however, until he won important early Republican primaries, including New Hampshire in 1996, defeating Bob Dole. Four years previously, he was just barely defeated in the New Hampshire primary by sitting president George H. W. Bush. When it looked clear that he was going to soundly defeat Dole in the '96 primary race (i.e., after Buchanan won in New Hampshire), that's when the Republican establishment united with the mainstream media to pull out all the stops in an effort to literally destroy him. Soon, no one wanted any longer to vote for him because he was a "Nazi," and we got Dole vs Clinton, which predictably gave us Bill Clinton for eight years.

The Republican establishment will do whatever it takes to guarantee that no authentically conservative presidential candidate will have a chance to get his message across to the American people. We are only allowed to hear "approved" "conservatism" from establishment Republican candidates. Anything else will be drowned out by the combined establishment-Republican and mainstream-media cacophony of slander.

 

[The Drew]

Did you forget Pat Buchanan's run? Both the Republican establishment (including "conservative" talk radio) and the mainstream media went all out to destroy his reputation with outrageous lies and calumnies. That didn't start, however, until he won important early Republican primaries, including New Hampshire in 1996, defeating Bob Dole. Four years previously, he was just barely defeated in the New Hampshire primary by sitting president George H. W. Bush. When it looked clear that he was going to soundly defeat Dole in the '96 primary race (i.e., after Buchanan won in New Hampshire), that's when the Republican establishment united with the mainstream media to pull out all the stops in an effort to literally destroy him. Soon, no one wanted any longer to vote for him because he was a "Nazi," and we got Dole vs Clinton, which predictably gave us Bill Clinton for eight years.

The Republican establishment will do whatever it takes to guarantee that no authentically conservative presidential candidate will have a chance to get his message across to the American people. We are only allowed to hear "approved" "conservatism" from establishment Republican candidates. Anything else will be drowned out by the combined establishment-Republican and mainstream-media cacophony of slander.

These are reasons Why I am no longer a Republican. The same thing happened here in PA, with Pat Toomey (a real conservative) Vs. Arlen Specter in the primaries, the party threw all it's weight behind Specter, and while the grassroots were behind Toomey, Specter won by a few thousand votes (out of about 1 million cast) This happened much more recently, and was the final straw, I saw how the party works, and have lost faith that it CAN be changed from within. Too many people just vote how the party and the media tell them too. I decided NOT to waste my votes on a party that has left me.

Edited to add, Those who believe that the party would lose more votes than it gains if it went really conservative can take my example. 49.5% of republican primary voters voted for a true conservative. The rest just followed the party line. The makeup of the party is FAR more conservative than is actually bared out by the elected officials.

BTW PA is a blue state.

 

[RealGun]

Did you forget Pat Buchanan's run?

Do you think the internet can change how that scenario plays out?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Do you think the internet can change how that scenario plays out?

Somewhat, yes.

 

[LAK]

Do you think the internet can change how that scenario plays out?

I don't. Except that the internet has allowed more people access to unfiltered modern history, news and other info they might otherwise not had ready access to.

But it is not going to stop the cherade at "election" time, when only the two fronted "contestants" are permitted into the ring on national tv to "battle it out" in a joke for "debates" and a "winner" is selected.
---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[RealGun]

Well, it was Swift Boaters that went after Kerry effectively, and it was bloggers that debunked the phony documents re Bush's military record, all in contrast to what the MSM was presenting. I think a lot of people make it there business to ensure that propaganda can withstand the light of day.

Speaking for myself, I would have little awareness of politics and government without concern for a specific right, in my case RKBA. If the current flap about the Patriot Act doesn't make people in general more aware of their rights, Congress' power to regulate (or not) those rights, and the constitutional basis of the debate, I would be surprised.

I think libertarians should be careful that the Democrats, in opposition to the administration, don't steal their thunder. This is also another opportunity for ACLU to look like everyone's guardian angel. Libertarians might better serve as a conservative version of ACLU than try to be a viable political party.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I think libertarians should be careful that the Democrats, in opposition to the administration, don't steal their thunder. This is also another opportunity for ACLU to look like everyone's guardian angel. Libertarians might better serve as a conservative version of ACLU than try to be a viable political party.

why can't they do both?

 

[RealGun]

why can't they do both?

Because the political party notion has proved to be a waste of time, money, effort, and false hopes. It has not attracted much interest in the form of votes. In the process it is not taken seriously, yet the underlying philosophy has merit when applied in real world, patient ways. Think about it. What if ACLU was really libertarian instead of a liberal front?