Why dont we vote 3rd party?

[yucaipa]

Unfortunately, your logic is flawed on several counts:

I don't believe so.

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.

IMO Presidential elections are two way races because, we have a two party system at this point in our history

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.

That's OK there are millions of Democrats that would agree with you on the 1st half of your statement. They also hope you continue to see the mis-guided logic of the 2nd half.

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

The voters have,just because you find yourself in the minority doesn't prove that the majority has done something wrong.....that's Democrat's thinking, I though you 3rd party folks had new ideas, shame on you

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.

As has already been pointed out the "2 evils'is nothing more than political physo babble. If we all watch the swearing-in of Clinton (44) then we can sit down and you can explain to me the political purity of your "2 evils" theory.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If either of the two big parties could manage to avoid that, their candidate would get my vote.

Well since you don't define evil that way, that line wouldn't apply to you then, would it? However it may well apply to others here based on comments I've read over the years.

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

I guess that depends on whether your goal is to spend more time looking at yourself in the mirror or making a positive change in your government. If you want to do the latter, you must have the votes to do it. The LP plainly has nowhere near those votes and must convince others why their method is superior to the current parties. If they want to do that, then starting out by telling those voters that they are overtly supporting evil with their stupid vote isn't going to be very helpful towards that goal.

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.

Which is why absolutist, no-compromise ideologies will forever remain the province of fringe parties that have no impact on society or government. Our system of government rewards compromise.

They embrace a powerful and growing Federal government while treating the citizens as no more than children. Why are you so worried what people will think?

Because unless you want to limit your political activism to patting yourself on the back, you need the votes of those people to make changes.

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.

The Founders achieved power by revolution and used it to set up a system where changing the government by working within the system was much easier than revolting in order to accomplish that goal. If you cannot change the current system working within it, you stand zero chance of meeting your goals with armed force.

One of the points of working within that system is that you cannot be so kooky that a majority of your fellow voters will refuse to vote for you come election time. The LP isn't making any progress here and appears to be moving backwards on this as near as I can tell.

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.

You can support anyone that suits you. If worrying about looking at yourself in the mirror is your number one concern, then by all means vote for nothing less than what your conscience demands. Just realize that you are also throwing away any chance to get people who share 50% of your conscience to vote with you to change the policies you claim to abhor.

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

Doubtful... I said it was usually used in that fashion. That wasn't a specific comment to you and frankly if that is what you consider an ad hominem attack I'm surprised you can tolerate the internet at all.

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.

As opposed to not compromising my ideals in return for no gains? In any case, I wasn't attempting to hector you at all. I was merely pointing out to you and any other LP stalwarts who were listening that the line is old and not adequate for convincing anybody who wasn't already convinced. If you really want change, you need a new horse to beat. If you just like the panache of a snappy Internet line, well this is pretty well gone too; but feel free to keep using it if you think it serves your needs.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I think youse republican apologists may be having an effect on me. I am starting to see the light.

Since voting for third parties is, like irrelavant, I propose the following;

Local elections........vote Libertarian.
State elections........vote R for the legislature, D for the governor.
Federal elections......vote R for the congress, D for president

The power resides in the legislature. The executive only gets to suggest, veto and nominate the judges.

Thus, gridlock will ensue. Probably best for the remaining days of the republic. I heard it said before, "To stand still is to move backwards." In this case is the way to go.

If the Republicans are the weenies like usual, they will approve the judges, but it doesn't really matter to me, since I yam old and when they come for my guns they will have to take them by force. Not a problem, I am gonna die soon anyway.

Yes, youse guys talked me into it. Why waste my vote by voting my third party conscience. Just help to elect her Hillariousness and get it over with.

You Republicans can reap what you sow.

Thank you for helping me to see the light.

 

[CentralTexas]

Is this analysis correct?

AAA is running against BBB and as a 3rd party candidate a person who mirrors your ideals but you consider un-electable is running.
So you decide to go with AAA or BBB.
Anyone who chooses the 3rd party is a loon and caused AAA or BBB(whichever you like less) to be elected???
Is my analysis of the overall thread correct so far?
I'm pretty sure if you continue to vote for the lesser of 2 evils the best candidate will NEVER get elected, I could be wrong...

CT

 

[Sindawe]

Yep, that sounds about right CT.

I too have Seen the Light! If the Republic is indeed doomed, the sooner we get to Empire the better. We may not have our Liberty anymore, but at least the Thugs in Charge will have snazzy uniforms.

 

[JohnKSa]

One sentence summaries of the last three posts.

1. Deadlock the government--I don't care because I'm gonna die soon anyway.

2. Vote for the lesser of three evils, not the lesser of two evils.

3. I've watched Starship Troopers one too many times.

 

[ka50]

vote for what u belive.

 

[Sindawe]

vote for what u belive.

Exactly.

One sentence summaries of the last three posts.

1. Deadlock the government--I don't care because I'm gonna die soon anyway.

2. Vote for the lesser of three evils, not the lesser of two evils.

3. I've watched Starship Troopers one too many times.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT WRONG! But thanks for playing.

 

[JohnKSa]

I agree with you on one point. The comment "vote for what u belive." is actually very representative of the entire "Vote third party" argument in more ways than one.

Gotta disagree on the second point. The summaries are all too correct.

 

[Sindawe]

Gotta disagree on the second point. The summaries are all too correct.

Golly, you KNOW what was in MY head when I wrote that post? OK, I admit it and confess my sins. I've seen Starship Troppers one too many times.

I watched that farce ONCE, and that was one too many times.

Point of fact is, either the Republicans or Democrats have been running this country for that past 100+ years, and what has it gotten us?

* A Nanny State that presumes to regulate the strength of our beer, the kinds of guns we can own and the amount of water our toilets use with each flush.

* A Fatherland that presumes to listen in our our private conversations, sneak into our houses in search of dirt on us, and holds us incommunicado when it thinks we may be "The Bad Guys".

* A government that spends like a drunken sailor on shore leave, while giving the money it stole from us to our worst enemies, all the while chastising us for not giving enough.

Yep, we had better "Get with the program" and vote for XXX/YYY, since if we vote for YYYY/XXX, or (deity) help us ZZZ, XXX/YYY will cast us into bondage and torment.

 

[RealGun]

AAA is running against BBB and as a 3rd party candidate a person who mirrors your ideals but you consider un-electable is running.
So you decide to go with AAA or BBB.
Anyone who chooses the 3rd party is a loon and caused AAA or BBB(whichever you like less) to be elected???
Is my analysis of the overall thread correct so far?
I'm pretty sure if you continue to vote for the lesser of 2 evils the best candidate will NEVER get elected, I could be wrong...

CT

Your analysis of the overall thread is not correct IMO. There is the strong implication, even assumption, that the 3rd party platform exists which would "mirror your ideals"...that there is something wrong with the concept of being a conservative Republican...that getting back to basics within the Republican Party is an unworthy goal. There is also the implication that parties have to be strongly polarized on certain issues...applying pejoratives to people who represent any crossover. A lack of philosophical purity is somehow "evil" and intellectually indefensible. Only fanatics have valid political causes and philosophies.

 

[BigFatKen]

SCOUS

Any vote not for GW Bush was a vote Chuck Schummer supreme court member led by a woman. Most likely Hillary or Nancy Peloci.

 

[IndianaDean]

[QUOTEFederal elections......vote R for the congress, D for president

[/QUOTE]

Except in Indiana, where both the D and the R congressmen in my area are anti-gun and just plain stink.

 

[The Drew]

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

I never said ANYTHING about a specific 3rd party. If you like the direction the nation has been going under republican leadership these last years, and the direction the nation has been going during the prior Democrat controlled period, then fine, keep voting for them.

If those who are fed up with the direction things are going, and give up the propaganda of "the most important election of our time" and "a 3rd candidate can't possibly win" and actually vote for change, then a 3rd party becomes viable, or at least a threat to become viable, which at the very least should influence the policies of the ruling parties. By voting for either of the ruling parties, you are just giving them your consent. And they will assume that they have your approval. If they DO in fact have your approval, then fine, I am not attempting to influence people who are happy with their party of choice and the policies they implement.

What I am trying to do is argue that continuing to give consent to these parties when you actually DO NOT, is wrong, and you'd help the rest of us if you didn't vote at all, or voted for yourself.

 

[RealGun]

If those who are fed up with the direction things are going, and give up the propaganda of "the most important election of our time" and "a 3rd candidate can't possibly win" and actually vote for change, then a 3rd party becomes viable,

If you set up a premise whereby you don't have to deal with reality, then anything is possible.

IMHO what works best in these discussions is not to get too torqued out about what others are doing. I see nothing wrong with sharing rationale for one's own choices or defending against mockery from someone else. But to proactively mock others is asking for a scrap and a shut down thread.

 

[The Drew]

If you set up a premise whereby you don't have to deal with reality, then anything is possible.

IMHO what works best in these discussions is not to get too torqued out about what others are doing. I see nothing wrong with sharing rationale for one's own choices or defending against mockery from someone else. But to proactively mock others is asking for a scrap and a shut down thread.

Ok, I'm disconnected with reality, because I see where the ruling parties are leading us, and choose NOT to give them my consent, and advocate others do the same, but you're not because you think as long as a Democrat isn't in office everything will be OK...

Yeah... you've got that right.

 

[yucaipa]

A Nanny State that presumes to regulate the strength of our beer, the kinds of guns we can own and the amount of water our toilets use with each flush.

Not to hijack the thread but,

We agree there and it's only going to get worst when baby boomer's start to retire watch out. They are going to demand and vote in people who will use the government to give them things,people with that mind set will probably take a dim view of individualism,personal rights/responsibilities etc.


Now back to our regular scheduled thread.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here is the point all those who support the LP need to consider:

Libertarians are fond of sayng "If you keep doing what you have been doing, you'll keep getting what you've been getting."

This from a party with a 30+ year history of failure, mind you.

What the Libertarian Party is doing is not working for it AT ALL. They are not growing their percentage of the vote or their political power. In 2006, the LP will be in a unique position to exploit widespread dissatisfaction with both parties for the House elections; but that is a very narrow window that they must take advantage of by making cogent arguments of why voters should choose them over the traditional two parties.

Further, unless the Libertarians get their act together now, their one advantage in this campaign to supposedly change the system is going to disappear. Eventually the major parties will recognize the nature of the Internet provides a very fertile ground to build opposition to the current major parties - and being the current major parties they will pass "bipartisan campaign finance reform" that will remove that advantage. This is already being talked about.

If the LP ever wishes to be taken seriously as an agent of change instead of some type of pseudo-intellectual social club, it must win seats in the House - and sooner rather than later. Good professional candidates and an aggressive campaign are going to be needed in 2006 if the LP wants to exploit the limited advanatges it has.

Likewise, I would encourage some of the traditional defenders of the LP to look back on their current posts here and on other bodies. Much like the party, what you are doing is not working for you at all. Often I see antagonistic "us v. them" style posts. When "us" is 0.3% of the vote, an "us v. them" strategy isn't going to work in a democratic system (or a republican one eiither for the nitpickers out there)

One more thing, do us all a favor and stifle the need to talk about how the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified and therefore tax evasion is legal, or how a Declaration of War is an absolute must despite the fact that undeclared wars date back to 1798 and were used by the actual founders of this country. Even if you believe those things, they don't help your cause and they are not arguments that any of the voters you need to win care about.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Roberts, thank you for your opinion.

Yes, every election for which I have voted LP has been lost. That is why I am thinking of revising my strategery.

My mission, goal, preference, whatever is a fed.gov drastically reduced in size. Maybe 2 or 3 percent of its current size. I cannot remember reading a string here on THR about 16a, I could be wrong, I just don't remember.

I yam recalling from a book I read many years ago......Maybe called "The Hope and the Glory" an American History. In it I recall reading that

in 1932 (then) Major Eisenhower was like an aide to General MacArther. Mac Arther had been provided a car but Eisenhower wasn't. The Military was very small at the time. There was no Pentagon.

As we all know, Mac Arther was vain and wouldn't allow Eisenhower the use of his car so when Eisenhower had to go somewhere on business, he (a major) would go down the hall, fill out a chit, and be issued 2 bus tokens. One to go and one to return.

THAT is the size that I would like to see for .gov.

This was before Socialist Security, ATF, CIA, NSA, TSA, DHS, DOA, NASA, UN and most of the other alphabets.

Yes, I realize that reducing the size of .gov is not going to happen. There are too many trough feeders (even on this forum) for me to ever succeed in helping them to find productive employment. They can rationalize and tell us that they are serving a valid purpose.........yes, but the trouble is, the valid purpose for which they advocate is not constitutional.

So, If I cannot reduce it's size by like 97 percent, I guess the next thing to hope for is to break it.

Yes, break it. This (benevolent?) dictatorship of total republican control has to change.

I think I yam gonna vote for Hillary.

 

[xd9fan]

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

There is morality in the Classical Liberal Philosophy. I dont think you can have liberty WITHOUT morality.
Is it Moral to control others behavior that does not effect you?? Is it Moral or "right" to use the Fed Govt in this way?
As long as americans use thier Fed Govt to control and limit people(how ever) and not limit the fed Govt to protect Individual Liberty....we will have what we have today.....multiple groups fighting against each other for mothers milk. And Mother playing God trying to make everone equal. Isnt this one the of biggest reasons why the Fed Govt is so powerful and its growth seems unstopable??

IMHO

 

[Herself]

Where to begin?

For everyone who thinks my vote makes me somehow responsible for the outcome of the election, guess again. I only control my own vote and that's the only one I have to answer for.

For those who think the "vote OTHER" approach only works if there is "no substantive difference" between the two parties, that's untrue and simplistic. For example, the two parties have quite different concepts of morality, which are clearly reflected in their platforms and in the overall voting records of their members in Congress. While I find much to admire in both, in my opinion neither has more good aspects than bad ones. At one time, the two parties had very different fiscal policies, but this is no longer the case; both favor slightly different versions of a Welfare State. It is possible the majority of voters do, as well. That does not make it right.

The Libertarian Party is very easy to poke fun at; they're mostly amateurs, after all. That doesn't mean they are wrong, either; and there's no requirement they be "taken seriously by voters." They are on the ballot in more states of the Union than any other third party, followed by the Greens. That's serious enough. Gotta start somewhere.

Nor would a Democratic President or even a Democratic majority in either house be a disaster. Democrats are generally abler adminstrators and legislators than Republicans (they have more faith in betterment through laws, after all) and Republicans are generally more effective as keen-eyed, sharp-tongued "outsiders," waging (their notion of) The Good Fight against close odds.

Last of all, this country was not founded on the so-called two-party system; you will find it nowhere in the Constitution. The nation's first President under that Constitution was harshly critical of political parties and the "big-tent" polarization they engendered.

Vote as you choose. While I may think your vote misguided, you have exactly as much of a say in such matters as do I.

I have avoided naming names and making quotes. We have all done quite enough of that to suit me. YMMV.

--Herself

 

[rfurtkamp]

Vote as you choose. While I may think your vote misguided, you have exactly as much of a say in such matters as do I.

Where the Libertarian Party has doomed some of the more conservative Republican folks out there is by its linking of unrelated issues- we're not going to get better gun laws at this point IMO as long as all the antis of the world have to do is point to the "Libertarian Republican wing wanting unlimited gun rights, unlimited hard drugs, and hookers on the streets."

What's also missed is the fact that all too often, the individual members of the LP spell its own doom - because there are no real national figures (and let's be honest, in real terms Badnarik is a nobody in terms of recognition) or major regional politicians in the party, the absolute kooks win every time - and that's what the party is going to be defined by both internally and in the eyes of the greater electorate. I won't even go into the constant near religious zeal of the LP folks who step in at any questioning of voters, Democrat or Republican, and try to convert them then and there. The religious conversion thing reminds me personally way too much of the wacky leftists and Marxists in the world, but well, my general views on the LP and Marx are pretty well known.

In practical terms, the LP hasn't helped gun owners one bit in the short term or the long term. Did the LP get us the gun industry protection bill or let the AWB sunset or get the extremely favorable 2nd Amendment paper from DOJ? Nope. Neither did the Democrats as a group.

The fact remains that things have gotten better - in slow, incremental steps. The key is just that - the slow, incremental steps of change. We're not talking the "nothing can happen" scenario presented to the Founders. We're talking about people who scream time and time again for absolutes when they haven't earned a place at the table to even get the opportunity to discuss what's on the menu. "Absolute freedom now!" is the cry of the fanatic, and what happens when fanatics get frustrated by the slow pace of change in politics has been shown time and time again in history. McVeigh, Bin Laden, and their ilk are what transpires in practical reality.

 

[Chris Rhines]

The reason that the LP has been unsuccessful in electoral politics is very simple, and has nothing to do with media conspiracies or the inherent unfairness of the one-party system.

In short: Most Americans are not libertarian.

That's the first problem that we need to fix.

- Chris

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Where the Libertarian Party has doomed some of the more conservative Republican folks out there is by its linking of unrelated issues- we're not going to get better gun laws at this point IMO as long as all the antis of the world have to do is point to the "Libertarian Republican wing wanting unlimited gun rights, unlimited hard drugs, and hookers on the streets."

What's also missed is the fact that all too often, the individual members of the LP spell its own doom - because there are no real national figures (and let's be honest, in real terms Badnarik is a nobody in terms of recognition) or major regional politicians in the party, the absolute kooks win every time - and that's what the party is going to be defined by both internally and in the eyes of the greater electorate. I won't even go into the constant near religious zeal of the LP folks who step in at any questioning of voters, Democrat or Republican, and try to convert them then and there. The religious conversion thing reminds me personally way too much of the wacky leftists and Marxists in the world, but well, my general views on the LP and Marx are pretty well known.

In practical terms, the LP hasn't helped gun owners one bit in the short term or the long term. Did the LP get us the gun industry protection bill or let the AWB sunset or get the extremely favorable 2nd Amendment paper from DOJ? Nope. Neither did the Democrats as a group.

The fact remains that things have gotten better - in slow, incremental steps. The key is just that - the slow, incremental steps of change. We're not talking the "nothing can happen" scenario presented to the Founders. We're talking about people who scream time and time again for absolutes when they haven't earned a place at the table to even get the opportunity to discuss what's on the menu. "Absolute freedom now!" is the cry of the fanatic, and what happens when fanatics get frustrated by the slow pace of change in politics has been shown time and time again in history. McVeigh, Bin Laden, and their ilk are what transpires in practical reality.

Cheese! I don't know where to start. Probably in futility.

Are libertarians fanatics?
Was McVeigh a Libertarian?
Is the NSA warrantless wiretapping getting better in slow, incremental steps?
Was Marx a libertarian? Was he a Democrat?
I knew Groucho was wacky and a Marx, but was he a leftist?
Was Patrick Henry a fanatic"..."Absolute freedom now!"
Is Osamer bin Goldstein a fanatic? He hates our freedom.
must not be, must be a Republican.
Is "wanting unlimited gun rights, unlimited hard drugs, and hookers on the streets" bad? Which article covers the drugs and hookers?
How about just unlimited gun rights?...thought so.
Are we ALL DOOMED?
Are us absolute kooks libertarians really such winners?


You need to get back on your meds and I will see if I can find my Hillary Clinton Testical Lock Box that Rush keeps advertising.

 

[Herself]

I have previously addressed the silly "dope and whores" criticism of the LP; Libertarian Republicans will have to speak for themselves on that topic, as I'm not one. I'm not a member of the LP, either, but I find myself voting for their candidates.

To recap, the LP does not encourage prostitution or the use of narcotics, stimulant or hallucinogens; it merely believes that such acts, foolish and/or immoral as they may be, should not be illegal in and of themselves. Prostitution is really a matter of degree and certainty of outcome, and the use of drugs no different to the use of alcohol. Outlawing them is just like outlawing the private ownership and carrying of guns because some persons abuse them.

The local LP stalwarts I have met were of rather traditional moral character; many were quite religious. Many did not approve of sex outside of marriage and many did not drink, let alone do drugs; but they saw no reason why their choices in such matters should be made law. A few of them neither own nor carry guns; but they would deny it to others.

There was a time in the United States when narcotics and prostitution were either unregulated or widely tolerated. It was the 19th century. It did not lead to widespread crime or the dissolution of morality. No, those trends got started after drugs, alochol and hookers were outlawed and efforts were made to stop them for the public good! Tell me again how well that works?

The occasional bad example is worth a library full of laws.

--Herself