Why dont we vote 3rd party?

[xd9fan]

I plan to vote 3rd party next time. And before you accuse me of 'throwing my vote away', remember, it's mine to throw away. If I give it to the Republicans as I've been doing for the last 37 years, they turn around and give it to the Democrats and that's not where I want it to go.

+1 big time

 

[rhubarb]

Who you talking about "we?"

I have only voted for Libertarians for President. So I'm in a miniscule minority. Don't mean I'm wrong.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

This is like, such hoot........

I too voted for Ross Perot...

As did at least 5-6 people I know. That lead directly to WJ Clinton's election, as each of us (and a huge majority of Perot voters overall) would have and should have voted for GHW Bush. Nader steals 1% from Gore, no problem. Perot steals 19% from GHWB, you get what you got.

I gotta say.........with one exception, everybody I know voted for Perot.

I yam 62 years old. Everybody that I have asked or everybody that has voluntarily indicated to me in the election of '92, voted for Perot.

I personally put more than 20 yard signs for Perot in local yards. My boss, a staunch republican, told me that he voted for Perot.

Search your memory banks.

Can't you see?

The election was fixed.

The managed media controls who wins.

You Republican Apologists out there, now is your chance.

Post how you voted for Bush. The first, (41)

 

[chas_martel]

I don't think the issue is one of finding a 3rd party that is credibile.

This issue, for me at least, is to stop rewarding the Republican
party. It does not desearve the support gun owners have given it
in recent years.

Yes, a vote for the lesser of two evils is indeed still a vote for
evil. Makes no difference how fast we are traveling as long as
we are on the road to destruction.

Repub's keep stabbing us in the back because they have
learned they can do so and still be re-elected. It is time
they learn otherwise.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

An addendum:

I have noted before...I knew people who stood in line after the polls closed in '92 so that they could vote for Perot. The Kansas polls close at 7 pm. They were in line to vote, so they were permitted to remain.

Time passes.

7:20 p The managed media announces that Bush wins Kansas.

My friends remain in line. They wish to make the statement that they were in favor of Perot's policies.

time passes.

These guys stood in line till like 11p so that they could state their dissapproval of the horsehockey that was going on at the time.

Pay Attention!

Bush the first had been the president. We wanted no more of him. We didn't want Clinton. We wanted a change.

The managed Media declared Clinton as the winner.

Sorry, the overwhelming, repeat, overwhelming majority of the voters that I talk to voted for Perot.

I know it's EARTH SHAKING. I know it rattles the foundations of "Truth, Justice and the American way",

but just for a casual experiment, just ask your friends, loved ones and aquaintenances, who they voted for in '92.

-disclaimer

Just because everybody you ask says Perot does not mean that he won

There may have been others that wanted Clinton.

 

[ajkurp]

"WE won't vote third party"

...'cause you can't herd cats. It just ain't possible.

 

[obmax1212]

Its nice to see people in support of Libertarianism. While Im not fond of parties at all, as I see them as being devisive and tools to label individual politicians negatively, I would most certainly vote for an LP candidate. Libertarians are the only people who understand how the federal government is SUPPOSED to be run according to the Constitution.

On a side note in defense of drug law repealing, even if it were healthy for society (it isn't, it creates more crime than it prevents, such as all black markets do), it still isn't Constitutional for the Federal government to be involved. Its a States rights issue.

 

[stevelyn]

Why don't we vote 3rd party?

Because the majority of sheep, no matter how disgusted with the status quo are afraid to take a chance and vote 3rd party.:banghead:
Somehow or another they believe that by doing the same thing, things will change.

 

[rick_reno]

The folks who vote for 3rd party candidates are those who have written the country off.

They have no hope.

To them quickening the inevitable take over of the country by euro style leftists through voting 3rd party is preferable to compromising their so dearly held convictions.

Truth be told I am not far from losing all hope and voting third party. To me it is an admission of failure and I am not ready to quit yet.

I am not so blinded by my idealogy that I can no longer see a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

I don't think any difference exists between the two major parties. One could easily replace "3rd party" with Democrats or Republicans in the above and it'd be an accurate assessment of the past 14 years of leadership by those two parties.

 

[oneslowgun]

Now lets think about this... As much as I would like to see a 3rd party win, where do you think the votes for the 3rd party come from? The number of Democrat voters swiching to 3rd. party is slim to non-existant at best. The votes come from PO'ed Republicans. Face it, many here like to accuse the Dems of being "stupid", but look at what they can do as a MINORITY! A "stupid" Dem party would be one that DIDN'T find a way to shuttle some "soft" funds to the 3rd. party! At this point in politics, a vote for a 3rd. party (Prez) is the same as voting for Mickey Mouse. Mickey WONT get elected, and any vote by a "former" Republican, that isn't FOR a Republican, just means a greater percentage FOR the Dems.

Look at it this way.. No 3rd party... (At best) 50% Repub., and 50% Dem..

Now add in a 3rd party, (The vast majority, from disillusioned Repub's) and you have 49% Dem, 40% Repub., and 11% 3rd. party. Just who do you think will win?

Vote as you please, but untill there is about a 25-35% third party elected Senate and House a vote for a 3rd. party Prez, is a vote FOR a DEM.

I don't like it, I hope you don't like it, but untill that point is reached, well, your vote for a 3rd. party CIC IS a vote for Mickey.

I want to vote 3rd. party, but in good conscience, I will do whatever I can to see that ALL OF US aren't subjected to SHRILLARY.

Lets just say, that if MY ONE VOTE decided the next CIC election, and the whole country depended on it, I wouldn't vote for Mickey. I would vote to keep us from Clinton II.

I don't like Rino's, most here don't like Rino's either, but untill a base is built in both in the Senate and the House, voting your heart is one thing, voting to at least slow the destruction of the Republic is another. We can get a 3rd. party elected, but it's going to take some time, and a lot of effort, we need that base built FIRST, then and only then can a change come.

 

[Can'thavenuthingood]

One thing needing to be done is breaking the "winner take all" of a states electoral vote. Any candidate that gets the most votes of a state gets them all.

Another biggy is the unions money. The AFL/CIO has a huge hog trough. Get your third party candidate backing from the unions and he/she might have a chance. For an idea, see what they did for/to the California governor.

Television, sound bytes and getting them to present your candidate in a positive way is tough. Look how they splashed on Ashcroft with the naked statue picture. With most households being 2 incomes, there is not much time for the adults to examine the candidates ideas and leanings, hence the reliance on sound bytes.

Also the NRA backing would be good but I don't think it will happen either as it doesn't seem to be the way they play their chips. Most people vote Democrat or Republican and thats where the NRA will go, donation money talks.

The Democrats are not going to play fair and be good losers, look at the last 2 elections that were stolen by the Republicans.

A third party candidate must have Charisma, Knowledge and an unshakeable belief in the United States and the Constitution.

Is there anybody out there from any party with those characteristics?

Vick

 

[obmax1212]

Probably one thing that would be helpful in seeing a 3rd party voted into office would be stopping the caps on campaing contributions. They really squash out real competition to the politicians in office and those with enough money to privately fund campaigns.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Voting for President is nice; but in the real world of politics power is located in Congress, not in the President. A third party that is serious about winning will concentrate on the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House in that order.

A third party who relies totally on gimmicky celebrity candidates to get a few high profile wins is a party that has no realistic plan to proceed anywhere.

To be fair to third parties though, the rules are stacked against them. Neither major party has any interest in competition and "campaign finance reform" is designed mostly to guarantee their place at the trough rather than reform anything.

However, no party or system will work unless YOU are willing to participate by donating time and money to assist whatever party best represents your views. Your vote is nice; but even the major parties need more than that to survive and third parties need everything you have just to get off the ground.

 

[chopinbloc]

yes, i used to think: "well, the republicans aren't as bad as the Democrats; at least they don't want to take my guns away," which was both completely untrue and exactly what they wanted me to think. just as the Democrats want people to think the republicans are racists. truth is both parties are amazingly bigoted and power hungry. politicians from both sides are hungry to take our weapons. politicians from both sides are rich, evil bastards who care nothing about me. how is that different from a politician from any third party? it's not but if i vote libertarian i:
1. express the depth of my disgust with american politics today
2. hopefully, i "throw away" my vote be getting the current rat bastard - whoever it happens to be, they're all worthless - out of office.
3. maybe, just maybe we'll eventually elect a libertarian and we'll finally be left alone.

see, i just assume that all politicians are evil. sure, i'm sure there might be one out there that DOESN'T eat live puppies for breakfast, but generally they all suck. now if we can slash and burn this terrifying jungle of useless, counterproductive, immoral and illogical of federal laws, it won't matter how evil a politician is 'cause he won't be able to affect me much - that is until we build up another bewildering array of useless legislation.

yes, i vote third party. yes, i vote for the pathetically underpowered libertarian party. the only thing i want from my government is the thing i'm least likely to get unless we all get together and TAKE it. i just want to be left alone.

 

[LAK]

The ringmasters are not about to allow any third party contender to get into the ring with the two WWF actors.

-----------------------------------

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

 

[jefnvk]

Voting for President is nice; but in the real world of politics power is located in Congress, not in the President. A third party that is serious about winning will concentrate on the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House in that order.

That is about how I look at it.

Think of the House races the LP could have ran, with the money they spent on the Presidential election. Races they might have actually had a chance to win. When you don't have any (or few enough that you can count on one hand, don't think there are any Libs in congress) congressmen elected, and only a few mayors, you are not going to win the Presidency. However, you have a chance at winning House, and maybe even Senate seats. You can win some of those with a few thousand votes, not the millions and millions required to win the Presidency. If a Libretarian House candidate popped up, there is a chance I'd vote for them (I kinda like the R that is representing me right now, though), Senate candidate, almost definitely I'd vote for them. President? Not yet.

 

[Lambo]

Rumor has it that the Constitution & Libertarian Parties are merging and will file a Presidental Ticket for 2008.

 

[bogie]

Scenario 1:

Pro-gun party 50%, Anti-gun party 50%

Scenario 2:

Pro-gun party 49%, Idealistic party 1%, Anti-gun party 50%

 

[R.H. Lee]

Who is the 'pro-gun party' and what have they done to roll back antigun legislation? I mean actively reverse antigun laws; not just passively let something sunset.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

I have before and I will do it again in the future.

 

[ArmedBear]

Rumor has it that the Constitution & Libertarian Parties are merging and will file a Presidental Ticket for 2008.

That's weird. I'll have to ask about that at the local LP convention next month.

The Constitution Party believes firmly that this country's government is based on born-again Christianity. The beginning of the party platform:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Libertarian Party, however, begins its platform thus:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

These first principles are quite different.

 

[rick_reno]

Who is the 'pro-gun party' and what have they done to roll back antigun legislation? I mean actively reverse antigun laws; not just passively let something sunset.

In May of 1986 the Republicans controlled Congress and passed the Firearms Owner Protection Act - which protected firearm owners from having to fill out BATF paperwork and registering a machine gun made after May/86. They might be pro-gun.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Exactly my point. Republicans have become complacent and need a wake up call.........like finding themselves out of power for awhile. They seem to represent us better as a minority party.

 

[ArmedBear]

Exactly my point. Republicans have become complacent and need a wake up call.........like finding themselves out of power for awhile. They seem to represent us better as a minority party.

And here in California, you haven't seen what damage a Democrat rubberstamping team can do?

While I agree with you in principle (and I'm an LP member, to boot), in practice, I don't think things are so simple.

It is damn near impossible to repeal a social program, cut back on a corrupt giveaway contract to a public employee union, lower taxes, repeal gun laws, etc.

I think that a mix probably works better. The more fighting there is in Washington, and the less legislating, the better.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

That's weird. I'll have to ask about that at the local LP convention next month.

The Constitution Party believes firmly that this country's government is based on born-again Christianity. The beginning of the party platform:



The Libertarian Party, however, begins its platform thus:



These first principles are quite different.

Although they are different, they are not incompatible in terms of the end result that they are both after, i.e., restoring the Constitution, and its restrictions on the Federal Government, back to original intent.

Being pro-Christian and being pro-liberty are not at all contradictory. Just ask the Founders.