Why dont we vote 3rd party?

[dasmi]

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!

 

[JohnKSa]

A Democrat in the Whitehouse next election is almost fait accompli

It certainly is if enough conservative voters think it is and either don't vote or vote third party.

 

[telomerase]

You can stop worrying about having a Democrat in office. If you look at the rise in government spending, Bush has outdone even LBJ. So you already have a Democrat in office, he just got there by taking your Republican vote under false pretenses. Unless you WANTED to expand the Department Of Public Education? Didn't think so.

As far as third parties go, you can only have third parties in places with proportional representation. Most democracies have proportional representation, which is yet another reason they consider Amurricans to be savage unreasoning beasts.

www.fairvote.org has some good info on "democracy"; one thing they do is correctly predict every Congressional election (hint for gambling types: Incumbents always win).

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Thank you, Ms. Pax. +1

Somehow I got the impression from some mods that the use of the term "republican apologist" was name calling. Once again, thank you.

Thinking back through my limited understandings of history and the birth of third parties I have come to the conclusion that we will never again have a successful third party born.....The republic will die. The republicans are the last.

The managed media has too much control.

I can remember the intensity with which Katie Couric attacked Perot. Even 13 years later I can remember how impolite she was. Like a terminator, she just wouldn't quit.

That's how I gave her the nickname, "The Little Bulldog". My wife hates it when I call her that. Lush Rimbaugh calls her, "Perky Katie" but I think that is from a different time.

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. The little bulldog and rush together. What a thought.

There you go. They have both been amply rewarded.

No more third parties till the republic either dies or is reborn.

 

[GoRon]

What about the liberarians taking over or at least influencing the Republican party through The Republican Liberty Caucus?

If you think voting for the various 3rd parties is ever going to influence anyone you are just kidding yourself. Like was said earlier you can stroke your ego and feel superior to all the republicans but all that acomplishes is putting even worse candidates in office.

 

[RealGun]

Somehow I got the impression from some mods that the use of the term "republican apologist" was name calling.

You're right.

 

[pax]

Dang, cropcirclewalker, you are right.

I'll leave it there as a monument to my own stupidity.

Apologies to all who may have been offended.

pax

 

[Flyboy]

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.

I'll have to pass that along to Ross Perot and the Gingrich Republicans.

 

[Herself]

...I will point out once more that, long ago, the Republicans were a third party.

How did they get in? In large part, by taking a strong stand on a very divisive issue, one many "moderates" among the Whigs felt would only serve to hand the election to the Democrats if addressed. The Whigs dithered and fell by the wayside.

Sound familiar?

If you vote for either of the main parties, you're simply voting for More Of The Same: more pork, more runaway Federal spending, lukewarm-at-best support for the gun rights of the ordinary citizen. Are you really sure that is what you want?

If so, vote for it! --And leave me be to vote for my starry-eyed idealists.

If my vote "helps" elect a Democrat, so what.* The last Democratic President did enormously more to make people aware of the Federal threat than his Republican predecessors; the next one doesn't scare me any.

--Herself
____________________
* Bearing in mind that alternative to me voting for a third-party or independent candidate is me not voting at all, just how am I supposed to be "helping" the Democrats?

 

[cbsbyte]

What is for sure next year the Democrats will at least take back the Senate from the Republicans. Maybe they will then try to impeach Bushmaster. We can only hope.

On the side, all the third parties from the libertarian to the green party are at best gadflys to the main parties, at worst they will make no difference to changing either party. Personally, they are all alien to most american voters, with crazy ideas ranging from open boaders, legal drugs and complete control of the government by green groups. No one in mainstream american is going to vote for these people. The best way is to try and change the current parties from within or by voting for the opposite party of the current adminstration.

 

[JohnKSa]

long ago, the Republicans were a third party.

How did they get in?

Both existing parties (not just the Whigs) were split by the slavery issue, making room for the third party.

Nothing remotely that universally divisive is going on at this juncture in our history. Unless we get near civil war again, we will not see a third party president in our lifetimes.

 

[Herself]

Both existing parties (not just the Whigs) were split by the slavery issue, making room for the third party.

Nothing remotely that universally divisive is going on at this juncture in our history.

Like, say, gun rights? Oh, give Geoge Soros some time! Or just wait for the next big hurricane gun-grab. Increasingly, citizens are aware of their right to keep and bear and aware that many among the Feds are not in favor of it.

Unless we get near civil war again, we will not see a third party president in our lifetimes.

I put the odds of large-scale civil unrest within the U.S. in the next 20 to 30 years at 50-50. I'm not looking forward to it.

But even if the third parties have no chance at all, which would you rather be: at peace with your ethical standards, or on the winning side? What profit it a man to gain the whole world and yet lose his soul?

--Herself

 

[JohnKSa]

Like, say, gun rights?...I put the odds of large-scale civil unrest within the U.S. in the next 20 to 30 years at 50-50.

Just because gun rights is a hotbutton issue for folks on this forum doesn't mean it carries the same emotional oomph for the rest of the population. It's NOTHING compared to what split the two parties and made room for a third in the 1850s. We're talking about an issue that ultimately led to over a million casualties and over half a million deaths. Your comment about "large scale civil unrest" is laughable in this context. While civil unrest is practically a given, another civil war in that same timeframe (20-30 years) is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible.

at peace with your ethical standards, or on the winning side?

I can buy guns I couldn't legally buy 8 years ago. I can legally made modifications to my firearms I couldn't make 8 years ago. I can legally buy and own certain gun accessories I couldn't buy 8 years ago.

During their last session my state legislature passed 8 separate pro-hunting/pro-gun laws. My state handgun license is good in more than twice as many states as it was 8 years ago.

The sad truth is that practical politics isn't about ethics--if it were, no one could vote with a clear conscience unless they were ignorant of the true situation. It's about compromise. Both from the perspective of the politicians and the voters.

People who want to pretend that it's reasonable to approach politics with an uncompromising attitude are generally trying to push the situation away from the point where it can be resolved with non-violent methods (whether they realize it or not). It's no coincidence that talk of civil unrest and revolution frequently gets tossed about on these threads.

 

[IndianaDean]

Whenever there is a compromise between good and evil, evil wins.

 

[RealGun]

So what single issue has the potential to create a real opening for a third party? Like slavery and the Republicans, it won't necessarily be directly about essential government. I believe it would need to be something neglected or evaded by other major parties. How about border control and treatment of illegal aliens? A ticking time bomb is the effect of free trade on manufacturing jobs. I believe it would need to be something with everyman appeal. Understanding it won't require reading some guru's book.

 

[LAK]

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

Mere speculation at this point; but if an LP candidate makes it as far as the nationally televised debates - is allowed into the ring with the two usual contenders wearing the red and blue trunks - I would go as far as to say that they certainly are.

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).

I would include the previous administrations - since they were put in office by the same people with the same agenda. Hence they all tend to do the same do the same things, and avoid upsetting their masters. John F Kennedy starting printing silver-backed currency (like Lincoln). And Ronald Reagan really upset them getting us out of UNESCO for example. A hail of bullets taught him to behave I suppose, and he walked the straight and narrow thereafter, or George H W Bush steered or did it for him.

The LP stands foursquare for the Bill of Rights and for enforcing it, for smaller, less-obtrusive government.

Without exclusive jurisdiction by our Congress in all legislative and legal matters - including how we trade, produce goods and services, what we produce, how much we sell it for, to who etc - our Bill of Rights, and Constitution as a whole, are doomed.

If Canada or Mexico adopted and enforced the same principles, I would not mind ignoring those borders.

This is like saying, "If the population of the nearest crack neigborhood agree to be moral, play by the rules, obey the laws and be productive educated and civilized folk - they can come and live in my house, share the fruits of my civilized life and work, come and go as you please, etc".

I am sure they would all agree to sign today.

"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..

No; the United States is a nation. Nations have borders; they also have a distinctive culture, and with some notable exceptions - a distinctive language.

Attempting to reduce this country to a set of ideals is classic globalism; as if we are going to spread our "ideals" around via entertainment, commerce, supranational political organizations, and force to change the world.

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.

No matter who rules it or how seems to be the current dominent rational - as long as they are waving the flag and fighting, or supporting, a "war on terror" - and a "war" everything else that afflicts the world. And a patently false and dangerous concept called "free trade".

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

Please yourself. It was not an undisciplined rabble that conquered, cultivated and built this land. It was an educated martial aristocracy that led a successful revolution, and educated, disciplined and suffciently unified number of people who held it together long enough to built one of the most civilized, productive and, for a time, wealthy nations on earth.

No undisciplined rabble is going to do anything constructive towards halting our steady decline.
------------------------------------------------

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

 

[yucaipa]

What is for sure next year the Democrats will at least take back the Senate

I'll take that bet, the Democrats picking up 6 seats in the Senate is not going to happen.

 

[BigG]

I've never read where two so-called librarians agreed on ANYTHING and this thread proves it. Third party? hah!

 

[Flyboy]

I've never read where two so-called librarians agreed on ANYTHING and this thread proves it. Third party? hah!

I dunno; the ones at my library seem pretty agreeable.

 

[antarti]

We're talking about an issue that ultimately led to over a million casualties and over half a million deaths. Your comment about "large scale civil unrest" is laughable in this context.

There is plenty of historical precedent that if this nation descends into tyranny, that the above number of lives lost (even taken as a percentage of the population at that time) will be minescule in comparison.

I used to consider my voting "R" ticket my best civic effort to ward that off. I no longer consider that to be the case, and current events (and the country's state of affairs in general at the federal level) are proving me more right than wrong, IMHO.

As always YMMV. Do what's right for you and yours, but leave me at peace to do the same without telling me that doing my civic duty is "a waste" (compared to you doing yours).

 

[BigG]

...leave me at peace to do the same without telling me that doing my civic duty is "a waste" (compared to you doing yours).

Fine, as long as you don't ask for a pat on the back and a medal, which seems to be the point of most of these threads; external approval. If you're so dang independent, do your worst.

 

[JohnKSa]

...external approval...seems to be the point of most of these threads

Agree 100%. It's pretty clear from what's been said that everyone really knows the score.

 

[Herself]

...And the score is: Vote for the candidates and polices you want to have in place.

For the chap who chortles about "no two so-called Librarians can agree on anything," it's "libertarian" and not agreeing on (nearly) anything is the whole point. Who needs uniformity of opinion? You will find that most self-identified (a much nicer term than "so-called") libertarians do agree that it is immoral to initiate force. Libs don't start fights, they finish them.

You can call me a librarian any day you like! I own several thousand books. I admit it: I'm an addict. Gun books, mystery books, radio books, science fiction books. A day without reading is like a day without air! And yes, they're sorted and alphabetized. Mostly.

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

JohnKSa: You counsel futility and aiming only to lose more slowly. Well, if you're happy with that, go for it. I'm working for more than that. I might not achieve all of my goals but I would rather strike out swinging than strike out looking.

We're all grown up, or near enough, and we have generally made our minds up. I'm sure you're all very nice folk who try to use the right fork and refrain from spitting in mixed company. Who you vote for is your own business. That's why voting booths have curtains or privacy shields.

--Herself

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Yo, Ms. Herself, thankyou, I yam touched.

I have a extremely relavant sig line at present which I love, but with your permission, some time in the future, I would like to use,

"I would rather strike out swinging than strike out looking."

With your permission.

 

[IndianaDean]

I too like that sig. I'd point out my White Sox did not strike out looking this past season, but that would digress from the thread.