Why dont we vote 3rd party?

[yucaipa]

That is complete and utter BS...

You clearly have NO concept of reality...

After the 08 elections one of two candidates will be President, either the Democratic,or the Republican candidate.

You like others here (myself included) may not like the truth,may not accept the truth but it is still the truth.

That's the reality, I unlike some people am unwilling the join the "denial" party and help put Hilliary Clinton in the White House.

 

[Biker]

If Hillary becomes POTUS, it'll be because the GOP ran off its base, in which case the GOP has itself to blame. The party doesn't represent me anymore. Hence, my vote will go elsewhere.
Truth in a teacup...
Biker

 

[ArmedBear]

Please tell me how this bears a different meaning from Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, viz.The Bill of rights is not a list of general privileges and immunities, but a list of things the Federal Government cannot do.

Very simple, and the reason I quoted it.

It is an amendment, made nearly a century after the Constitution, and of course the Federalist Papers.

The Founders did, in fact, envision that the Constitution would be amended, and, indeed, so it has.

The 14th Amendment shifts the role of the Bill of Rights and the Federal Government in protecting civil liberties.

Your argument is not one of Strict Constructionism, but one of Originalism, which doesn't, by itself, invalidate it. However, I know of no Originalist or Strict Constructionist interpretation that says that amendments, properly ratified, are invalid. This is what you are claiming. Doesn't fly.

The fact that some States are trying to use your argument in order to take away some liberties they don't like (e.g. 2nd Amendment), while applying XIV strictly in others, doesn't lend it much credence in the real world (outside of academic debate) either.

 

[ArmedBear]

Addendum:

Regardless of how interesting an academic debate about State's Rights might be, here's my opinion from the political end of things.

The notion that one of the greatest problems facing America today is that the Federal Government has been overzealous in defending our individual liberties just won't resonate with many people in the real world! It would make most people, right, left and center, laugh their asses off right now.

Sure, you'll get your small cadre of extreme anti-abortion absolutists who are frustrated that they can't pass state initiatives, and you'll get support from Confederate sympathizers, but otherwise, who?

Serious Federalists are a lot more concerned with the abuse of the Commerce Clause -- a LOT more -- than with a nationwide guarantee of freedom of speech or due process. Okay, I've never read a serious Federalist who has a problem with a nationwide application of the Bill of Rights!

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Yo, Mr. ArmedBear, I hope you don't mind, but I am with you on this.

Your argument is not one of Strict Constructionism, but one of Originalism, which doesn't, by itself, invalidate it. However, I know of no Originalist or Strict Constructionist interpretation that says that amendments, properly ratified, are invalid.

My reading on the 14th tells me that it was not properly ratified.

A state resigns from its voluntary union with other states. Gets beaten into submission (otherwise being told that it may not resign) and then is prohibited from being in this now laughable voluntary union unless they ratify an amendment.

I call that coercion.

Article [X.]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

(my emboldiment) Amendment 10 (long ignored or forgotten) provides all the law the people need to keep their rights safe from the states.

The first 9 amendments define rights which belong to the people. The states ratified them. Any other word smithery or semantic gymnastics cannot remove those rights.

Yes, the 14th (among others) is a black mark in our history and yet today bears the mark of our first dictator, Lincoln.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

How so? Parties do nothing but trample a mans freedom "for the good of the many" I'm not advocating getting rid of parties as something that a dictator like Castro might do.

Yes, Mr. zerosignal, that is exactly what you are advocating.

PolPot, Mao, Stalin, Fidel, the Saddomite.....they all outlawed political parties......well, except for their own.

Both George Washington and John Adams thought political parties would be bad for the country.

I agree with them, Yes, I agree.

Trouble is, we got that pesky 1st amendment. Right to assemble? Free speech?

Political parties suck. But I will defend to the death their right to party.

 

[Herself]

My third-party vote takes nothing away from Republicans or Democrats. After Gerald Ford failed of election to the Presidency, I stopped voting until the 2004 election. There wasn't anyone I felt I could vote for. (I didn't realize there were other options).

Neither of the main parties represented my philosophy. It turns out the Libertarian Pary does come pretty close, so generally their candidates get my vote.
If there was no LP, nor any candidates who expressed a philosophy similar to my own, I would not vote.

As for "Stupid Party" vs. "Evil Party," don't make me laugh; choosing between them is merely choosing which rights you will lose first. You'll lose them all in the end either way.
The Left takes away our guns and the Right pulls warrentless wiretaps and "sneak and peek" searches. Find either one of those in the Constitution or the dirty bit of PR known as the Federalist Papers!

The Anti-Federalist writers were correct: a powerful Federal government only becomes more so over time and as it becomes more powerful, it has less and less regard for the governed.

The LP is not the dope-and-whores party, it merely says these stupid and/or immoral acts ought not be illegal. No one is required to approve of them or support them. It worked very much that way in the States in the 19th Century and that was a time of unparalled progress and invention. Not because dope and whores were legal but, perhaps, because we didn't waste so much of our resources trying to eradicate the behaviors of a small segment of the population who will not change no matter how great the punishment! Addicts, pimps, pushers, prostitutes and johns were looked down on...and left to their own devices.
But "minding one's own business" has fallen very much out of favor. The Left wants to redeem the sinners and the Right wants to scourge them, and both want to use your tax dollars to do it!
Why let them?

I'll be voting Klingon, as Mr. duToit puts it. And I am happy to do so.

--Herself

 

[zerosignal]

Yes, Mr. zerosignal, that is exactly what you are advocating.

PolPot, Mao, Stalin, Fidel, the Saddomite.....they all outlawed political parties......well, except for their own.

Both George Washington and John Adams thought political parties would be bad for the country.

I agree with them, Yes, I agree.

Trouble is, we got that pesky 1st amendment. Right to assemble? Free speech?

Political parties suck. But I will defend to the death their right to party.

Believe me, I'm in the military and will defend anyones constitutional right to assemble. I think you are simply misunderstanding me. I'm not advocating the denial of a citizens right to assemble with others of like mind.

My idea is to simply get rid of political party labels when it comes to elections.
Let a man run for office without forcing the name of his party down peoples throats. I would prefer it that a voter could walk up to a ballot box and not see "Democrat" or "republican" or any other label beside a candidates name. On a personal level, that candidate could assemble and relate with any people he so chooses, but by displaying a deceiving label, he is in effect forcing a certain image into the voters mind.

I don't remember the exact quote, but Thomas Jefferson once said something to the effect of "liberty is the ability of the individual to do whatever he wishes, up until the point that it denies another man the ability to do the same". From my point of view, deceiving a voter as to your real intentions is the same as denying them the right to vote.

 

[LAK]

The Libertarian party supports the idea of a defacto pan-American state - no borders. Insanity; and just where the current "republican" and "democratic" parties have been steering us one step at a time.

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

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

 

[xd9fan]

Yup. A Republican party that was at odds with the President, and thus motivated to demonstrate their commitment to conservative principles.

Bush wins two elections, and you get what you have: a Republican party that doesn't seem to know squat about fiscal responsibility or small government.

And voting for them is just rewarding this crap

 

[Herself]

The Libertarian party supports the idea of a defacto pan-American state - no borders. Insanity; and just where the current "republican" and "democratic" parties have been steering us one step at a time.

What, the individual states themselves have no borders? The LP would greatly restrict the powers of the Federal government; the individual states would have to make up their own minds about their borders.

I don't see AZ, NM, TX or even CA (the latter even has checkpoints at their borders with adjacent states of the Union!) in too great a hurry to open their borders. As for the North, there's not near the urgency to cross that border by the folks on the other side...at least, not yet.

It is also useful to bear in mind that, unlike other political parties, the LP does not compel adherence to their party line by politicians who are members. Even if the LP were to win a majority in Congress, there's no certainty that a majority of those LP members wouid favor open borders.

On the other hand, the LP membership is quite strongly opposed to all forms of Welfare. Getting rid of that would serve to greatly reduce the kind of "deadbeat immigration" that most folks picture when they fret over open borders.

--Herself

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

What, the individual states themselves have no borders? The LP would greatly restrict the powers of the Federal government; the individual states would have to make up their own minds about their borders.

I don't see AZ, NM, TX or even CA (the latter even has checkpoints at their borders with adjacent states of the Union!) in too great a hurry to open their borders. As for the North, there's not near the urgency to cross that border by the folks on the other side...at least, not yet.

It is also useful to bear in mind that, unlike other political parties, the LP does not compel adherence to their party line by politicians who are members. Even if the LP were to win a majority in Congress, there's no certainty that a majority of those LP members wouid favor open borders.

On the other hand, the LP membership is quite strongly opposed to all forms of Welfare. Getting rid of that would serve to greatly reduce the kind of "deadbeat immigration" that most folks picture when they fret over open borders.

--Herself

You make some excellent points there, my friend. Very persuasive.

 

[swampsniper]

BEST REASON I CAN THINK OF

I don't want Diane Feinstein for Attorney General!
The Democrats cannot be trusted to respect RKBA, no matter what they say.
If you want to gamble, go for it, but count me out.

 

[JohnKSa]

Why don't we vote third party?

Why doesn't the combined membership of GOA & NRA come anywhere near to the total number of gun owners in the U.S?

What are the voting turnout numbers for the combined membership of the GOA & NRA?

Why hasn't there been a third party president elected in our lifetimes?

What is the likely outcome of a large base of primarily conservative voters NOT voting for one of the TWO candidates who WILL win?

 

[LAK]

Herself

What, the individual states themselves have no borders?

No; national borders. And like the EU, any citizen from any member state permitted to travel, work, live within any of the member states.

The LP may well be a Trojan horse in this regard; as such a Pan American state is part of the ongoing agenda under the current regime.
--------------------------------

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

 

[pax]

The only thing a politician listens to is votes. You write, call, petition, contribute $$$, volunteer to do precinct work, march, or complain to these people, but the only thing they really care about is getting elected or re-elected and the only thing they really listen to is where the votes go.

The only leverage that will change the way your politicians or political party do things is through their fear of losing votes.

All the rhetoric about "changing the party from within" boils down to one, simple fact:

If there's no chance at all that the Republicans can lose your vote, there's no reason at all why the Republican party should change in any way.

pax

 

[Biker]

Very well said, Pax.
Biker

 

[Herself]

Herself
No; national borders. And like the EU, any citizen from any member state permitted to travel, work, live within any of the member states.

The LP may well be a Trojan horse in this regard; as such a Pan American state is part of the ongoing agenda under the current regime.

It's not much of a "Trojan Horse," when one looks at how unwilling the Trojans are to pull it within their city walls!

And you are accusing the LP of lacking patriotism (just as you accuse the "current regime" of the same thing, even though it was previous Administrations who saddled the U. S. with various "panamerican" treaties and such). The LP stands foursquare for the Bill of Rights and for enforcing it, for smaller, less-obtrusive government. If Canada or Mexico adopted and enforced the same principles, I would not mind ignoring those borders. "The United States of America" is not some particular patch of dirt -- it's an idea and a set of ideals. That's what sets it apart.

Or at least that's what used to set it apart. Any more, it's just West France or New Germany, "the Homeland," one blindly-loved patch of mud no matter who rules it or how. Pretty scary stuff. I'd choose the LP's platform over that, any day, and I'm happy knowing even the LP's party hacks are an undisciplined rabble, as likely to follow their own consciences and reasoning as they are to toe the party line.

--Herself

 

[xd9fan]

If Hillary becomes POTUS, it'll be because the GOP ran off its base, in which case the GOP has itself to blame. The party doesn't represent me anymore. Hence, my vote will go elsewhere.
Truth in a teacup...
Biker

Thank you finally someone "gets" it
Great post bravo sir!!!!

 

[JohnKSa]

If there's no chance at all that the Republicans can lose your vote, there's no reason at all why the Republican party should change in any way.

While that is true as far as it goes, it misses one very important point.

There aren't enough people who believe like you and I do to make either of the major parties significantly change their platforms. If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Both parties choose their platforms to garner the largest amount of support. If either party becomes too "extreme" in the eyes of the general public, it will lose.

Don't believe it? That's what happens to the other parties (Greens/Libs/etc.) every election.

Wanna know why the Republicans don't adequately represent you? Because you don't represent a large enough voting block to make them change their platform signficantly. That's the bottom line.

If you don't want to vote for one of the candidates who will win, that's your prerogative. But don't pretend that you're doing something constructive by voting for someone whom you know won't win.

 

[Herself]

If you don't want to vote for one of the candidates who will win, that's your prerogative. But don't pretend that you're doing something constructive by voting for someone whom you know won't win.

...If nobody ever votes for the other parties, it is certain they won't win.

Playing the system as if only the Parties of Treason, er, The Evil Party and The Stupid Party, er, well, only the usual two can ever, ever win is playing to lose!

If your ancestors had done that, the Whigs would still be around. Remember them? The Republicans are Johnny-come-latelies! It's no sin to be a new party with different ideas.

It's not a betting pool; if your guy wins, you're not going to "win" anything. The IRS and Social Secuity are still going to eat up a significant percentage of what you earn, while taking yet more from your employer. And your civil rights -- things like gun ownership and the right to privacy and your own choice of reading matter and religion -- will continue to be eroded. Voting for either of the existing parties is voting for politics as usual. Are you sure that's what you want?

No one ever wonders what tilted the Democrats so far to the Left in the 20th century. One of the major factors was the Presidential election in 1928, I think it was, when various Socialist parties picked up 10% of the vote. That's the kind of margin that can tip a close election. It got attention.

--Herself

 

[RealGun]

If there's no chance at all that the Republicans can lose your vote, there's no reason at all why the Republican party should change in any way.

Put another way, if the Democrats express no interest in supporting the Second Amendment, there's no reason at all why the Republican party should change in any way.

If you want other than those two choices, you might as well stay home until some new party has a platform that isn't wacko or so confined to the cognoscenti that they couldn't possibly attract enough votes to ever get a candidate elected. Populist party candidates will get elected. I believe that means moderation in platform positions and great patience in achieving fundamental objectives. That patience would include a party with strength from low levels of government, not a quick strike at the Presidency, becoming a perennial loser.

Third parties seem to exist only to attack the federal government establishment. That would be okay if they had a chance of getting elected. Actually I think getting elected would be their worst nightmare. How does an anti-establishmentarian become the establishment?

 

[pax]

There aren't enough people who believe like you and I do to make either of the major parties significantly change their platforms. If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If there aren't enough of "us" to make any difference, then it won't matter if we vote for someone else on election day. And all the Republican apologists on this thread can safely go back to sleep.

On the other hand, if "our" lost votes are enough to change the election, they are also enough to change the party for the better.

Which is it?

pax

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -- Samuel Adams

 

[JohnKSa]

If there aren't enough of "us" to make any difference, then it won't matter if we vote for someone else on election day. And all the Republican apologists on this thread can safely go back to sleep.

On the other hand, if "our" lost votes are enough to change the election, they are also enough to change the party for the better.

There are enough of us to make a difference. There just aren't enough to change the party significantly or elect a third party candidate.

It will matter who we vote for. We can put a Democrat in office by voting third party.

And they won't change for us just because they lose an election. Changing in the direction we want them to change would cost them more moderate votes than they could gain by changing.

 

[R.H. Lee]

We can put a Democrat in office by voting third party.

A Democrat in the Whitehouse next election is almost fait accompli, don't you think? GWB just scraped by last time, and he was the incumbent.