Why dont we vote 3rd party?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the absence of leadership and representation, gridlock is the desired goal. More infighting and backbiting=less legislation=fewer loss of liberties. That's the best we can do given the current apathy of the American people.

Democrats are completely devoid of ideas and principles; Republicans are in power but impotent; split them both with third party votes and keep the circus rolling.
 
I have a dream- a dream of one day creating an 'american patriots' party. *edit* thats already taken. Ill have to think of something else! Darn.

I think you answered your own question.

I have three answers:

1. Ross Perot split the vote and made The Clintons more than just a footnote in history.
2. The conviction behind a 3rd Party I would support tends to attract people who are unwilling to compromise - which does not work too well in politics.
3. Show me a path toward a Libertarian Party that doesn't hand Democrats power and I'll follow.

Meanwhile, I personally will continue the fight to move the Republican Party closer to the Constitution.
 
I'd vote 3rd party again if I thought it had a chance. I tried it once and wound up with slick willie.
Once I was a delegate to the Republican Convention. I didn't like most of those people either. It gave me an idea though that if all of us pro-gun and 3rd party people joined the Republican Party at every level, swamp them with us, then we might have a chance in turning things around.
A contest where there's only one winner is better off not being split by 1/3.
 
The Real Hawkeye said:
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.

The Founders who wrote extensively were Deists, but that doesn't matter. They were not pro-Christian; they were pro-religious-freedom. The ACLU's anti-Christian stance would have offended even the most outspoken non-Christians among them, but not because they had a religious agenda.

There certainly are Christian Libertarians.

However, Libertarians believe in getting the government completely out of religion, whereas Constitutionalists believe in getting religion into government. These are not particularly compatible goals.

Example: Pro-life Libertarians generally believe that the government is the wrong place to work towards this agenda, and so would oppose government intrusion into personal moral choices like abortion or suicide. Constitutionalists, however, believe that government force is vital in this area.
 
ArmedBear said:
The Founders who wrote extensively were Deists, but that doesn't matter. They were not pro-Christian; they were pro-religious-freedom. The ACLU's anti-Christian stance would have offended even the most outspoken non-Christians among them, but not because they had a religious agenda.

There certainly are Christian Libertarians.

However, Libertarians believe in getting the government completely out of religion, whereas Constitutionalists believe in getting religion into government. These are not particularly compatible goals.
This is false. Although they are personally, by and large, Christian, they do not propose getting religion into the government business, but rather they favor getting the Federal Government out of the religion business. As it stands now, the Federal Government has been involved in an assault on religious traditions within the States. This is what the Constitution Party seeks to stop. In no way do they wish to use the power of the Federal Government to promote any particular religion, or religion at all, which is prohibited by the Constitution they wish to restore.
Example: Pro-life Libertarians generally believe that the government is the wrong place to work towards this agenda, and so would oppose government intrusion into personal moral choices like abortion or suicide. Constitutionalists, however, believe that government force is vital in this area.
Yes, they believe that abortion ought to be against the law, just like other forms of homicide, but they do not seek to do this at the Federal level. That would go against their very purpose, which is to restore Constitutional federalism, i.e., these are matters that need to be resolved at the State level. It is at that level that they would fight the battle for making abortion illegal. I expect that in certain States they would succeed, while in others they would not. This is as the Founders intended. Laws against the killing of fellow human beings are outgrowths of police powers, which are State matters, not Federal. What proabortion libertarians would like to do, however, is to unconstitutionally use the power of a monolithic central government to impose their value system on all the States uniformly. The Constitution Party opposes this.
 
Last edited:
OSG, IMHO you have hit the nail on the head - folks, regardless of your non-major party desires, he is a realist and what he said, is what it is.
 
Why did Perot run in the first place?

Ross Perot didn't enable a Clinton presidency, GHWB and the Republican Party did by dropping the ball with at least 19% of the voters.

If the Repubs were doing such a fine job according to their constituency, Perot wouldn't have run, or would've received 1-2% like other "fringe" candidates.

When (not if) Democrats win seats in '06 and likely win the Presidency in '08, it won't be because of third-party voters...it'll be because the Elephant Party dropped the ball again, driving their constituency TO third parties.
 
Cellar Dweller said:
Ross Perot didn't enable a Clinton presidency, GHWB and the Republican Party did by dropping the ball with at least 19% of the voters.

If the Repubs were doing such a fine job according to their constituency, Perot wouldn't have run, or would've received 1-2% like other "fringe" candidates.

When (not if) Democrats win seats in '06 and likely win the Presidency in '08, it won't be because of third-party voters...it'll be because the Elephant Party dropped the ball again, driving their constituency TO third parties.
Well said.
Biker
 
Cellar Dweller said:
Ross Perot didn't enable a Clinton presidency, GHWB and the Republican Party did by dropping the ball with at least 19% of the voters.

If the Repubs were doing such a fine job according to their constituency, Perot wouldn't have run, or would've received 1-2% like other "fringe" candidates.

When (not if) Democrats win seats in '06 and likely win the Presidency in '08, it won't be because of third-party voters...it'll be because the Elephant Party dropped the ball again, driving their constituency TO third parties.
+1
 
Cellar Dweller said:
Ross Perot didn't enable a Clinton presidency, GHWB and the Republican Party did by dropping the ball with at least 19% of the voters.

If the Repubs were doing such a fine job according to their constituency, Perot wouldn't have run, or would've received 1-2% like other "fringe" candidates.

When (not if) Democrats win seats in '06 and likely win the Presidency in '08, it won't be because of third-party voters...it'll be because the Elephant Party dropped the ball again, driving their constituency TO third parties.

+1 Too..
 
Even though I agree that we need a third party, I am not gonna vote for them till they get elected.

I will not allow my children into the water till they prove to me that they can swim.

I cannot elect anyone to the office of president unless they prove to me that they can be president. Previous experience is a must.

:scrutiny:

Thus, we need to keep our current corrupt and incompetant rulers. Even though they do a bad job of it.

Don't try to tell me who I woulda voted for if I hadn't voted for Perot.

Hint, hint, It would NOT have been Bush.
 
rock jock said:
99.99% of the time, voting 3rd Party is simply an exercise to stroke one's own ego.


Bollocks! If I wanted to stroke my ego, I would be a write in and vote for myself.
How about-
"Voting for the 2 major political parties is simply an exercise to stroke":D
CT
 
cropcirclewalker said:
Even though I agree that we need a third party, I am not gonna vote for them till they get elected.

Weren't you just arguing earlier that the system was corrupt and rigged? Are you now saying that the solution to a corrupt and rigged system is to vote for a third party that cannot win?
 
the "I" by the candidate's name stands not for independent, unfortunately, but for irrelevant. Sometimes the only reason to vote republican is Democrats.
 
The only currency that counts in electorial politics is getting elected.

If you want to nudge the republicans towards a pro-freedom platform, they need to see that statist candidates are costing them elections. If you're serious about making over the republican party, the best thing that republicans can do is vote for pro-freedom third-party candidates, even if it results in the Democrat taking office. Then tell the GOP why.

Painful in the short term, yes, but it's the only thing that'll work in the long term.

The repubs are better spoilers, anyway.

- Chris
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Weren't you just arguing earlier that the system was corrupt and rigged? Are you now saying that the solution to a corrupt and rigged system is to vote for a third party that cannot win?
You left off the part about not letting the kids in the water till they can prove that they know how to swim.

Fallacious Logic. I was trying to point out the fallacious logic of waiting for a third party to be a force before voting for them.

Fallacious Logic. :p
 
I vote Libertarian not because I have written the country off, but the Dems & Repubs don't represent me. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

Why don't I vote for the Libertarians?

They're crazier than Mayor Daley.

Any group that advocates legalizing heroin, prostitution, and the destruction of society as we know it is at best, a folly against sense in real terms. Economic reality is that taxes are going to have to be levied to provide some level of social services - and that means that the core of the LP's suggestions are, well, more pie in the sky.

What gets me is the near by the numbers use of Marx's suggestions for destroying capitalist civilization by the LP folks - destroy faith and religion. Destroy tradition. Destroy government. Somehow trust in the grand new religion that says everything's OK.

Like Marx, the LP folk expect me to accept their statements as absolute dogma - on faith that somehow the world will be better once heroin is legal and whores are dancing in the street. We are to accept on faith that the LP's suggestions will result in a better tomorrow - there is no track record, even on the smallest of scale, that can be extrapolated to a macro level.

Marx himself pretty much sums up the benefit that the same LP reactionary folk have in being in common with the socialist workers parties of the world in opposing the war in Iraq and similar things: "In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things."

The more I've looked into the LP over the years, the more I've wondered how much of it's simply a front for more destructive things.
 
cropcirclewalker said:
You left off the part about not letting the kids in the water till they can prove that they know how to swim.

Fallacious Logic. I was trying to point out the fallacious logic of waiting for a third party to be a force before voting for them.

Fallacious Logic. :p


the alternative to democracy is i believe chaos... don't ask me how i know this...vote your conscience, wait for the results...you just might get what you asked for...YMMV:scrutiny:
 
cz75bdneos22 said:
the alternative to democracy is i believe chaos... don't ask me how i know this...vote your conscience, wait for the results...you just might get what you asked for...YMMV:scrutiny:

Feudalism, communism, fascism, and various other dictatorships arent what i would describe as chaos...

At least, until the US armys takes them over :p
 
We keep doin' what we done, we'll keep gettin' what we got.
the alternative to democracy is i believe chaos... don't ask me how i know this...vote your conscience, wait for the results...you just might get what you asked for...YMMV
I gotta disagree.

1) We do not have a democracy now. If we did, democracy would be bad.

2) If we did have a democracy a better description of the alternative (among many) would be Fascism, which is closer to our form of .gov at present.

3) The founders gave us a Republic. The libertarians would try to return us to a republic.

It worked up until Lincoln or thereabouts. I believe that it still could.
 
KriegHund said:
Feudalism, communism, fascism, and various other dictatorships arent what i would describe as chaos...
KriegHund said:
At least, until the US armys takes them over :p


yeah, nice thinking...unless you happent to live/born into such a mess of a country's current ideological stance, ie..Sandinista, Marxist, Communist, you name it...I love the United States of America...BTW, ever notice how citizens of the world keep coming to our shores against all odds-even if that means death...it's cause they heard what a bunch of good people we've got over here in THR land...Y'all.!
 

Attachments

  • dblthumb2.gif
    dblthumb2.gif
    177 bytes · Views: 89
  • joke.gif
    joke.gif
    572 bytes · Views: 86
Last edited:
cropcirclewalker said:
We keep doin' what we done, we'll keep gettin' what we got.
I gotta disagree.

1) We do not have a democracy now. If we did, democracy would be bad.

2) If we did have a democracy a better description of the alternative (among many) would be Fascism, which is closer to our form of .gov at present.

3) The founders gave us a Republic. The libertarians would try to return us to a republic.

It worked up until Lincoln or thereabouts. I believe that it still could.


O.K...livin la vida loca...i got ya!;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top