| Author | Message | ||
     Ryker77 |
Only post a reply if you actually vote.  What is your valid reason for not voting for a third party person? And include if you even spent more than 30 seconds researching the third party choices in either last presidental elections or the upcoming 2008. | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
I voted for Ross Perot!! That cost Bush #1 the election and set into motion the crap fest we now have......  I really liked Stockdale, he just couldn't "speak" | ||
| Bomber |
Ryker -- I have spent more than 30 seconds researching 3rd party candidates -- I've not voted for one as none have represented a decent chance of winning -- that's my valid reason. btw, I understand the self-fulfilling prophecy nature of this statement Sadly, neither have I ever voted FOR a presidential candidate -- only against one, if that makes sense. the last 3rd party presidential candidate that came close to winning was Teddy Roosevelt, if memory serves it is a shame, though, as the republicans and democrats, both, have become more polarized than the vast majority of US voters, I believe | ||
| Glitch |
Wow, Bomber, we're more alike than different I think! I'll second most of what you just posted. Yeah I've thought about, and even voted Libertarian before. | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
"Sadly, neither have I ever voted FOR a presidential candidate -- only against one, if that makes sense" AMEN!! | ||
| Slaughter |
Good question. I tend to think in terms of minimizing damage on the national level... agreeing with the above sentiments. More voting against a candidate than for the other. State and local I am more likley to vote Libertarian. | ||
| Bomber |
Glitch -- yep, I've voted libertarian on the local and state levels, never nationally, tho i think if a major party candidate would emerge, address more than one issue, try to speak to more than one part of the electorate, and act like a representative of the "silent majority," that candidate would: 1 garner the enthusiastic support of the populace 2 not raise enough money to be on the ballot after the primaries funny, ain't it? | ||
| Rainman |
I voted for John Anderson in 1980, John Hagelin in 1996 and Nader in 2000. Hagelin and Nader were protest votes as, if you vote for the lesser of two evils you are still voting for evil. I cast a real ballot in 2004, but that doesn't mean I like the guy I voted for. I would love to vote for a party that actually represented my extremely centrist political leanings: Fiscally conservative but socially responsible. | ||
| Kenb |
hehe mark you me and 20%(?) of the electorate voted for perot, shame we cost bush the election, who woulda thunk ? last time i ever voted for a third party candidate. the awful feeling i had when i woke up the next morning turned on the news and realized we put bubba in the whitehouse, gosh still haunts me today. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Fiscally conservative but socially responsible. Not possible. Anyways, I have never voted for a 3rd party because they never have a chance of winning. It's basically just the same as giving a vote to the guy who's ahead anyway. The libertarian agenda is an interesting one, and for a while I thought I was one, but they (like most any other 3rd party) are a little too radical for my tastes. The design of their system starts out free and with excellent intentions, but I believe it would quickly move into a kind of unregulated socialist government. I personally have felt in the recent years that the majority of the country is a lot more to the right than people might think. You think the parties are polarized? I have a hard time telling them apart lately. The republicans are just as far left as the democrats. No real good choice for me. However, I do make sure I vote FOR a candidate at least as much as I vote against one. I think merely voting against someone can become reckless. | ||
| Ryker77 |
I think merely voting against someone can become reckless. But that is exactly what the media brainwashes people into thinking. Over and over and over these "talking heads" come on the news and talk about how Nader will take away votes from Clinton or Gulinai. They won't take a second to see what his thoughts are on real subjects. WE need to STOP allowing the mass media brainwash us. | ||
| Xl1200r |
WE need to STOP allowing the mass media brainwash us. I stopped that a long time ago. | ||
| Bomber |
XL -- very good points, all of em -- and I agree, as well, except for the part that you can't tell the difference between the parties although the republicans ARE spending like democrats these days, and the democrats ARE calling for fiscal restraint like republcans . . . . when a major republican candidate doesn't sweat the fundamentalist christian vote, and a democrat comes out in favor of the right to own firearms, THEN you and I will be in 100% agreement it's in the fundraising that the differences become most apparent, I think -- once in office, the performance is pretty much moot, one party over the other | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
Giuliani has NO chance | ||
| Jayvee |
Our last presidential election here in CA, there must have been about 9 candidates on the ballot. Who are you calling the "third party"? Why vote for one, when so unlikely to win? Just depends on what you want to get out of your visit to the polling place (vote). Sometimes one party will truly represent what you care most about. Sort of a poll, using your vote. (Message edited by jayvee on February 16, 2007) | ||
| Ryker77 |
xl1200 "WE need to STOP allowing the mass media brainwash us. I stopped that a long time ago." But in the prior posting " I have never voted for a 3rd party because they never have a chance of winning. It's basically just the same as giving a vote to the guy who's ahead anyway. " That some type of thinking is one of the major reasons why voters don't give third party a 60 second chance. Brainwashed into thinking "they don't have a chance". | ||
| Ratyson |
I have been a libertarian for the last 15 or so years. And I vote libertarian pretty much across the board. I will continue to do so. I just don't believe that either of the two main political parties has any interest in upholding the constitution, nor defending the rights of the people. | ||
| Chellem |
How do you think Libertarians would become Socialists? Libertarians are like, ultra-conservative - in the "classic" conservative view, without having the religious stuff mixed in like Republicans have. I've found Libertarians to represent my view almost 90% of the time. Their main stance is that unless you're hurting someone else, or infringing on their personal freedoms, the government should leave you alone. That is, to me anyway, conservative, not liberal. Smaller government, less spending, etc. They don't refer to themselves as one or the other, but I think historically, "conservative" has meant smaller government, less intrusion, etc. It's just that the conservative party has become wrapped up in the Religious Right, which seems to me to be in direct contradiction to the "personal freedom" aspect of conservativism. I also vote locally third party. I'm just afraid, having been burned on the Perot thing in the past. Finding the "lesser" of two evils is getting harder and harder to do. | ||
| Ryker77 |
There are other parties on the 3rd party side OTHERTHAN libertarians. | ||
| Frankfast |
During the Viet Nam war, I voted for Dick Gregory on the Freedom and Peace ticket for president. The next day the newspaper listed the election results. In my district he received one vote. That was the only time I've ever felt that my vote counted. | ||
| Ryker77 |
I think there was 3 votes for Nader in my County. One was mine and one was my wifes. Though I knew Nader wouldn't get elected my VOTE was a MESSAGE to all parties that not every American is brainwashed. | ||
| Liquorwhere |
I will tell you I like the idea of working off the constitution...I voted Nader, even though I have been a registered republican since I came of age to vote, I have yet to cast a vote for lil Bush...just can't do it. I like the libertarian platform and I think we need to look for even a fourth or fifth party..the more it is spread out the better..but as of right now I agree with Kinky Friedman...it doesn't matter if it is the Blood's or the Crip's in office..it is the same government.. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Interesting discussion here. I've been very tempted to vote 3rd party a few times, but have always held back due to the "he can't win" reasoning. If you want to see a really screwed up election, look back at 1860. Lincoln wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in Florida of winning if not for the fracturing of the Democratic party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_preside ntial_election,_1860 From what I've read, the "radical Republicans" (as they were known then) were considered so far out of the mainstream by most Americans it would be about like the Green Party today. If not for the Democratic party split, the Civil War with its 600,000 casualties (and you thought Iraq is bad) might have been avoided. | ||
| Bomber |
Interesting observation, Hugh -- I'm thinkin the civil war would likely have happened anyways, but you may be right -- slavery, the major states-rights sticking point, was very much on the wane by that time, and, without it, who knows? Lincoln was also the least popular president for quite some time -- his approval numbers would make the present president's look pretty darned good by comparison -- | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
But I thought GOD wanted Bush to get elected?  | ||
| Xl1200r |
xl1200 "WE need to STOP allowing the mass media brainwash us. I stopped that a long time ago." But in the prior posting " I have never voted for a 3rd party because they never have a chance of winning. It's basically just the same as giving a vote to the guy who's ahead anyway. " That some type of thinking is one of the major reasons why voters don't give third party a 60 second chance. Brainwashed into thinking "they don't have a chance". I just realize that the rest of the country doesn't ignore the media. And, as I explained, any 3rd party that I'd be interested in is just too radical for my tastes. | ||
| Xl1200r |
How do you think Libertarians would become Socialists? Libertarians are like, ultra-conservative - in the "classic" conservative view, without having the religious stuff mixed in like Republicans have. I've found Libertarians to represent my view almost 90% of the time. Their main stance is that unless you're hurting someone else, or infringing on their personal freedoms, the government should leave you alone. You got it exactly right, but where does the "hurting someone else" stop? Technically, polluting would harm other people and therefore become illegal. How would you regulate and control that? Say goodbye to pretty much the entire economy. You can no longer ride your motorcycle because it burns fossil fuels. Same goes for heating your home. Isn't farting technically polluting? I digress... Libertarianism is one of those utopian mindsets. It will never work in the real world. On paper it's near perfect, but just think about all the things everybody seems to be offended by these days. Where do you draw the line? These are the reasons why I believe a Libertarian government would actually create more control and less freedom. Believe me - I wanted to be a libertarian in the worst way because it sounded so good, but after some careful (and unbiased) research, I decided it wasn't for me. I vote republican because it's "close" (I should say "the closest") to what I want while still be realistic. (Message edited by xl1200r on February 16, 2007) | ||
| Davegess |
"Fiscally conservative but socially responsible." Sounds like Russ Feingold to me | ||
| Jimidan |
I voted Nadar for President in 2000. There has not been a 3rd party candidate that was worthy of my vote other than him since I have been voting. As long as we have the Electoral College and no public financing of campaigns, then a 3rd part candidate will not have a chance. | ||
| Liquorwhere |
Mark, All kidding aside, the argument that you put forth is a logical fallacy called a Red Herring..I am not trying to pick a fight with you, but when you bridge from "hurting someone" to pollution and the economy you make an argument that many have tried ( in form I mean) bridging one issue to another with no real connection...ie If gay's are allowed to marry then people will want to marry animals so we must stop gay people from being married to protect animals from being exploited and the ruination of society.....you see that is a fallacy by form and contradiction it tries to bridge two issues that have no connection those being gay marriage and beastiality..unless one of the gay people looks like sasquatch..I digress..as you did with inflicting harm on someone and pollution to the economy...so anyway it is based off of modus ponens and modus tolens the basis and most rudimentary logical means of deduction. fallacy, in logic, a term used to characterize an invalid argument. Strictly speaking, it refers only to the transition from a set of premises to a conclusion, and is distinguished from falsity, a value attributed to a single statement. The laws of syllogisms were systematically elaborated by Aristotle, and for an argument to be valid, it must adhere to all the laws; to be fallacious, it need only break one law. |
