Why dont we vote 3rd party?

[JohnKSa]

It's just a matter of which flavor of poisoned kool-aid would you like to drink.

It's bad, but it's not that bad. It's a matter of picking the kool-aid that will kill you quickly, or picking the kool-aid that will kill you very slowly, thus giving you the chance to find an antidote before you die.

The longest journey begins with a single step

Effective long term solutions require effective long term strategies. But if you don't account for the short term, the long term will fail as well.

Going back to your journey analogy, if your "single step" takes you over a cliff, you have severely reduced your chances of reaching your destination.

Extremely damaging legislation can be passed very quickly and easily but undoing it is a long and arduous task. We can't simply abandon the reality of the moment in the name of the future.

 

[Herself]

I haven't told anyone to vote Republican, I've only said,and will say again that the next President will be either a Dem. or Rep., and that if the Democratic candidate is Hilliary Clinton,all 3rd party HELP her because her negatives are so high she can not defeat ANY Republican in a TWO way race.

Perhaps you should reread my posts to see what I said,not what you think I said.

Unfortunately, your logic is flawed on several counts:

1. Presidential elections are not a "TWO way race." Perhaps you missed Badnarik, Cobb and Peroutka on you ballot but they were on most ballots, often accompanied by canddates even less well-known.

2. Since there's no way I would vote for anyone the Republicans are going to run for president (Regan and Goldwater being dead and Ron Paul -- we'll come back to him in a moment --having not chance one), there is no way that my third-party vote helps any Democratic candidate win.

3. If voters would vote their actual beliefs instead of trying to pick a likely winner, we would see a lot more variety of opinion in the House and perhaps the Senate (I have my own issues with the Senate, direct election of Senators being the main one but it's supposed to more deliberative than the House). And we would see closer races for the Presidency, too.

4. As had been previously pointed out, if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you'll get evil, win or lose. Edited to add: And you will have supported evil by overt consent.The counter argument is that it will be less evil, and that is true: a smaller, harder-to-discern evil that convinces folks that evil might not be so bad after all; and then, next time, the lesser evil is a bit more evil. Next thing you know, the choice is between approval of torture and gun-bans; or between required national ID cards for security purposes and national ID cards for health insurance. Might as well have the big, obvous evil: it will be more clear to more folks that it is evil and next time 'round, they'll vote it all the way out.

--Herself

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I am so sick of seeing that tired old bit about "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil". It is a useless line for several different reasons:

1. If you define evil as "doesn't agree with my vision for America, then EVERY candidate is a lesser evil unless you vote for yourself or happen upon that magical candidate that believes exactly as you do.

2. It defines the two parties who consistently win more than 90% of the votes as "evil", How many debates do you see won by telling people "What you support is evil!"?

3. If your definition of evil IS the Republican or Democratic parties, then not only do you have a definition of evil that is unlikely to make you look less like a kook to the majority of voters you need to actually win an election, history suggests that you are still getting evil even if you do vote third party since no third party has won the Presidency (or established the more important foothold in the House) since the Republican party was born of the slavery issue.

4. It is a rhetorical device that does nothing to convince people to vote for third parties and is usually used when the person making the comment doesn't want to take the time to make an informed argument.

 

[R.H. Lee]

If voters would vote their actual beliefs instead of trying to pick a likely winner, we would see a lot more variety of opinion in the House and perhaps the Senate (I have my own issues with the Senate, direct election of Senators being the main one but it's supposed to more deliberative than the House). And we would see closer races for the Presidency, too.

The truth of that logic is inescapable. Look, I've been voting Republican for the last 37 years. Republicans have occupied the Whitehouse for 24 of those 37 years and we're no closer to smaller, less intrusive government than we were 37 years ago. It's going the other way, at an accelerated rate even, since Republicans have been in control of the Congress.

I'm going to re-register Independent, and vote for the candidate most likely to represent my principles. I'm not falling for 'it's the most important election of our lifetime' schpiel again. If Republicans want to be elected, they need to learn to represent their constituents.

 

[Herself]

Ooops, almost forgot about Ron Paul, Texas Republican. When the U. S. was fixing to head into Afganistan, he brought up the need to declare war. After all, that's the Constitutional procedure.

Dr. Paul was told -- by his Republican coleagues -- that he was being old-fashioned and there was no need for any of that foolishness. (My own opinion is that the legislators, R and D alike, were playing CYA: let the President be the fellow deciding who to make war with and he'd the one taking a fall if it went bad, while Congress could wash ther hands of him). The same thing played out again over Iraq: Paul suggesting a formal declarion would be in order and his peers -- or at least colleagues -- downplaying his "quaint notions." (And little Jimmy Madison's quaint notions as well, but who was he? Or those other long-haired old guys in funny clothing?)

So you can see why I am just a wee bit wary of counting on the GOP to be a bastion of support for the Constitution. They're not; I have to wonder how many of them in Federal office have even bothered to read it since High School.

At least the Democrats don't lie about their aims; they want to make sweeping, fundamental changes and they don't care how -- law, regulation, amendment or funky Supreme Court decisions. The Republicans want to talk about how they're ever so deeply in touch with the founding ideals of the nation, but when it comes down to specifics, they have no more respect for what the Framers wrote than do the Democrats.

I'll take the frontal assault over being cheated and lied to. Your mileage may vary.

--Herself

 

[JerryM]

I have not seen a 3rd party that I could vote for. In general the Libertarians do not have the moral standards that I require to vote for someone. No one who either supports, condones, or is tolerance of abortion and homosexual practices/lifestyles can ever get my vote.

I agree with those who say it is throwing away your vote to vote for a third party, and I also agree that one's vote is his to throw away if you want to.
Jerry

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Since I feel that our jails are clogged with small time drug offenders, a woman's right to decide what is right (legally) with her body and her spiritual life is between she and whomever she chooses, and I believe that people have a right to be with whatever consenting adult(s) they like, and I like my Second Amendment rights, I vote third party.
Get involved on the local level. You can make a difference.

 

[Herself]

I am so sick of seeing that tired old bit about "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil".

Which is why I went to some lengths to explain the reasoning behind the slogan.

It is a useless line for several different reasons:

In your opinion.

1. If you define evil as "doesn't agree with my vision for America, then EVERY candidate is a lesser evil unless you vote for yourself or happen upon that magical candidate that believes exactly as you do.

"Exactly?" No; but I will not vote for any candidate who holds beliefs opposed to my own on nearly every issue. If either of the two big parties could manage to avoid that, their candidate would get my vote. Republican Andrew Horning of Indianapolis, for example. Of course, his party only barely supported him in the most recent election.

2. It defines the two parties who consistently win more than 90% of the votes as "evil", How many debates do you see won by telling people "What you support is evil!"?

Gosh, how silly I have been. So it's not about choosing good over evil, only about winning?

I do not agree with your opinion. If all my friends chose evil, I am not obliged to choose it as well. If I lose debates beacuse I am unwilling to embrace the Charcoal-Grey Side as an alternative to utter darkness, too bad; those debates are just as well lost.

3. If your definition of evil IS the Republican or Democratic parties,

"Evil is as evil does." Both have included among their membership men who were good, or who could be good given the opportunity. sadly, the offical platforms of both parties are, in fact, evil. They embrace a powerful and growing Federal government while treating the citizens as no more than children.

then not only do you have a definition of evil that is unlikely to make you look less like a kook to the majority of voters you need to actually win an election,

Why are you so worried what people will think? Look at the Founders: a bunch of whackos with offbeat religious notions, new and strange ideas about government and a fascination with cutting-edge science; among them orphans, runaways, a would-be military adenturer so hungry for command that he wore his old uniform every time he came before the fledgeling government, a dilettante who went bankrupt several times and had trouble finishing projects and an old man who never bothered to marry his common-law wife: a bunch of kooks and weirdos. "Kooks" are what makes this country great.

history suggests that you are still getting evil even if you do vote third party since no third party has won the Presidency (or established the more important foothold in the House) since the Republican party was born of the slavery issue.

History? I don't have look history in the eye every morning when I do my hair, I must look at myself. And I won't support policies I believe to be wrong, men I believe to be stupid, evil or both, or political parties that encourage and enable such men and such policies. Why should I be obliged to support evil? To make you feel better? Sorry; your feelings are your own lookout.

4. It is a rhetorical device that does nothing to convince people to vote for third parties and is usually used when the person making the comment doesn't want to take the time to make an informed argument.

I'm here. I'm taking the time. Do you realize your point 4 is an Ad Hominem argument?

As I wrote earlier, we're all of us grown and our minds are pretty much made up already. Go with the candidates who appeal to you and I shall go with the ones who suit me. I shall not be hectored into condoning what I judge to be wickedness, any more than you and those who believe as you do can be cajoled away from comprising your ideals for short-term gains.

--Herself

 

[RealGun]

If voters would vote their actual beliefs instead of trying to pick a likely winner,

I think "voters" in the main decide based upon best debate performance, best looking tie, least number of eye blinks, and the one who seems most likely to effect their income to the positive side. Libertarian outrage is way over too many heads.

What "actual beliefs"? The belief that it's cool to be eccentric? How about let's pretend we're smarter than everyone else? Working from inside a major party is probably a better way to sneak up on them. Influencing a few percent of exceptional voters is going to accomplish what? Make a few folks feel superior (although irrelevant to what actually happens)? I suppose that does have its appeal.

With due respect to the principles involved, being anti-establishment is not going to make one into the establishment. I think one should be sure why they support this or that. If one simply enjoys being the contrarian, not really desiring massive responsibility for government and accountability for the results and the warts, then actually winning would be counterproductive. It becomes a game, but somehow valuing always being on the the losing side, the poor misunderstood, self appointed elite.

 

[JohnKSa]

If Republicans want to be elected, they need to learn to represent their constituents.

They do--they represent the majority of their constituents.

Here is the MAJOR flaw in the "I'm going to teach the Republicans a lesson by voting independent." argument.

We are only a tiny portion of their constituency.

If they completely espoused our views they would lose the majority of their constituency. Given the closeness of the elections lately, a small group, like us, has the power to affect the election, but NOT the power to rapidly make significant changes to the Republican platform. By NOT voting (and that includes voting third party for all practical purposes), we can make it a bit less likely that the Republicans will win, but we will NOT change their platform significantly, even if they don't win.

if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you'll get evil, win or lose. And you will have supported evil by overt consent

Voting is ALWAYS choosing the lesser evil. I have NEVER seen a candidate that mirrors my views in every respect, and anyone who is really honest with himself would have to make the same admission. Therefore ANY vote is supporting evil by consent if you take the view in the quote.

I shall not be hectored into condoning what I judge to be wickedness, any more than you and those who believe as you do can be cajoled away from comprising your ideals for short-term gains.

You think YOU'RE being hectored. You're accusing people of supprting evil by overt consent, condoning wickedness, trying to force you to support evil, etc. Vote how you want--it's your prerogative. IMO, that's not what this is about. IMO, this thread and others like it are primarily about people seeking public validation for a flawed strategy.

BTW, I have no illusions about short term GAINS, I'm just hoping that the short term doesn't hold a LOSS that we can't recover from. THAT is a reality we all may face if we don't vote constructively.

Furthermore, the "compromising your ideals" argument is identical to the "lesser of two evils" argument and is therefore equally flawed. Unless you have found someone who PERFECTLY represents your ideals then you are also compromising your ideals. So I think we can do without the "more righteous" and "holier than thou" attitude. This is about a political decision, and last time I checked, politics and compromise are synonymous.

It's very simple. The next president will either be a Democrat or a Republican. You can help put the better of the two choices in office, or you can choose to ignore the reality of the situation...

 

[Herself]

RealGun:

Actual beliefs:

-That self-defense is a fundamental human right.

-That a government which governs least, governs best.

-That most things ought be neither prohibited nor required.

-That the initiation of force is immoral; and that responding to force initiated against one's self is moral and justifed. That delegating the initiation of force to others is deeply immoral.

-That the individual is the smallest minority.

-That there is no such thing as an unchosen obligation.

Those principles guide my voting choice. "Being contrarian" or "feeling smarter than others"* ain't even in the running.

How 'bout you?

--Herself

________________________________
* Smarts: there are all sorts. I get decent scores on standardized tests, myself, but I notice the actual range of functional human intelligence is quite small. Maybe the janitor isn't thinking Great Thoughts, but he's probably got something interesting and/or useful to say; and the august Corporate Vice-President in a fine suit probably appreciates a nice slice of cake or an off-color joke as much as the paperboy. They've all done some real idiotic things at some point. People aren't as stupid or as overwhelmingly clever as one might like to think. Are your lights still on? Is there food at the grocers? Consider how involved providing just those simple things really is. Humans are not so stupid!

 

[JohnKSa]

Those principles guide my voting choice.

Clearly they do NOT.

You have already stated that you are planning to vote in such a manner as to make it likely that the candidate that LEAST matches your stated beliefs will attain office.

 

[Herself]

It's very simple. The next president will either be a Democrat or a Republican. You can help put the better of the two choices in office, or you can choose to ignore the reality of the situation...

Well, that's your opinion. I don't ignore that whoever is elected, he or she will only work to make the Federal government more powerful and to further erode the Bill of Rights. I won't work for that -- and I would rather have a really, really bad 'un than one who is able to put a good face on bad actions.

I neither want nor will accept your or anyone else's "approval" or "validation." I will not look to anyone other than myself for that. This thread is about our individual reasons for voting third-party or following the masses of either of the two main parties. I'm standing up for my beliefs. That's not special, it's what I expect of you and everyone else here, too.

Maybe you believe some things I think are wrong-headed bilge; and perhaps I think the same of your notions. So? It's the people that don't stand for anything -- or who try to stand for too many contradictory things -- who worry me the most, and most of those folks are running for office.

Got it?

--Herself

 

[R.H. Lee]

It's very simple. The next president will either be a Democrat or a Republican. You can help put the better of the two choices in office, or you can choose to ignore the reality of the situation

The line between which party is better is becoming increasingly faint-that's the problem. As far as me 'helping to put the better of two choices in office' it's a non-starter- I live in California whose electoral votes will most assuredly go for the Democrat. My vote won't change that; all I can do is use my vote to benefit a third party-another option. The 'reality of the situation' is that goverment at all levels is out of control; electing Republicans has not changed that.

 

[JohnKSa]

Well, that's your opinion.

That's really stretching it...

If you actually believe that there is a reasonable chance that a third party candidate will be elected to president in the next election, then there's not much left to be said. I thought we were debating this issue based on reality.

I'm standing up for my beliefs.

If you mean your voting strategy, then you are standing up for your beliefs at the expense of your beliefs. That's not a brand of logic I care to learn.

I would rather have a really, really bad 'un

You may very well get your wish.

 

[Herself]

Clearly they do NOT.
You have already stated that you are planning to vote in such a manner as to make it likely that the candidate that LEAST matches your stated beliefs will attain office.

Tough. Your opinion of the likely outcome of my voting habits is so noted -- and will be ignored. I will vote for the candidate I want to see in the office. How everyone else votes is up to them. I have explained precisely how my vote (and that of many other third-party voters) cannot possibly help either of the two main parties -- unless they run candidates I find acceptable. If you do not chose to understand that, that's your problem.

If John Ross ran on the Communist ticket, I'd vote for him (he already ran for one office as a Democrat). If Pol Pot ran as a Libertarian, he would not get my vote.

If my only choices were voting against, I would return to not voting. There are always soapboxes and, in extremis, cartridge boxes in addition to ballot boxes. I prefer the pen to the sword, myself.

And if you want to blame me for the Democrat we end up with as president in the '08 election, instead of the polices and actions of the incumbent, go right ahead if it makes you feel better. You'll be mistaken but it would just break my heart for you not to have a scapegoat.

Luv ya!

--Herself

 

[JohnKSa]

Your opinion of the likely outcome of my votiong habits is so noted --and will be ignored

...along with reality.

And if you want to blame me for the Democrat we end up with as president in the '08 election, instead of the polices and actions of the incumbent, go right ahead if it makes you feel better.

Blaming someone never makes me feel better. But I see you DO know what the realistic outcome of the election will be--your previous rhetoric about my "opinion", notwithstanding.

 

[R.H. Lee]

You have already stated that you are planning to vote in such a manner as to make it likely that the candidate that LEAST matches your stated beliefs will attain office.

That statement is only valid if you perceive a BIG difference between the two parties-not their platforms, but their actions while in office. I would submit that one is much the same as the other. Sure the Republicans gave us a token tax cut, and allowed the AWB to sunset. But they've increased the size, power and intrusiveness of the federal government as much or more than any Democrat-so where's the upside? If Republicans have to become more like Democrats in order to win elections, who needs 'em?

 

[JohnKSa]

That statement is only valid if you perceive a BIG difference between the two parties-not their platforms

No, "least" is a relative term. It's use does not attempt to quantify nor even hint about the amount of difference. As long as there is any difference the statement is correct.

 

[GoRon]

That statement is only valid if you perceive a BIG difference between the two parties-not their platforms

Surely everyone can see a difference in court appointees.

 

[FeebMaster]

Surely everyone can see a difference in court appointees.

I can't.

 

[JohnKSa]

GoRon,

The whole argument (vote third party) is predicated on there being NO significant difference between the two major parties. An admission that there is ANY significant difference would down the house of cards and is therefore pretty unlikely.

 

[The Drew]

GoRon,

The whole argument (vote third party) is predicated on there being NO significant difference between the two major parties. An admission that there is ANY significant difference would down the house of cards and is therefore pretty unlikely.

Wrong, it is about voting for the candidate the voter would like to see in office REGARDLESS of who is likely to win.

Many of you can't get over the fact that if you'd drop the "who is most likely to win" crap, 3rd parties would become viable in just a few election cycles.

So if you're in a group where almost half the people are going to go commit some murders and the most of the rest (majority) going to commit an armed robbery, and one lone soul is going to read a book, you'll go with the majority and commit armed robbery because "it's just evil to kill"....

It's the same logic.

If you admit you're votes are about winning, then fine, I think you're doing a MAJOR disservice to the nation by dilluting real voters, but you are free to do so.

 

[JohnKSa]

Many of you can't get over the fact that if you'd drop the "who is most likely to win" crap, 3rd parties would become viable in just a few election cycles.

Again, this is absolutely false. The reason third party candidates are not viable (and will remain not viable) is because not enough people espouse third party views. The reason the two main parties ARE viable is because most people share their views.

The reality of the situation is that people with our views do not represent enough votes to make a third party president a reality.

BTW, your paragraph on murderers vs armed robbers is a restatement of the "lesser of two evils"/"no significant difference" argument. Which you just said WASN'T the point...

If you admit you're votes are about winning, then fine

I didn't write the rules--I didn't even pick the game, but I'm still stuck with the hand I've been dealt, and so are you. But I'm going to play my cards to make the best of the situation--while some people pretend they're playing checkers.

 

[RealGun]

Wrong, it is about voting for the candidate the voter would like to see in office REGARDLESS of who is likely to win.

Many of you can't get over the fact that if you'd drop the "who is most likely to win" crap, 3rd parties would become viable in just a few election cycles.

So if you're in a group where almost half the people are going to go commit some murders and the most of the rest (majority) going to commit an armed robbery, and one lone soul is going to read a book, you'll go with the majority and commit armed robbery because "it's just evil to kill"....

It's the same logic.

If you admit you're votes are about winning, then fine, I think you're doing a MAJOR disservice to the nation by dilluting real voters, but you are free to do so.

You seem to assume that your 3rd party platform should be okay with me, that somehow I would really rather vote 3rd party.