Vote!!!! Third Party!!!!!

[Turtle]

I'm a card carrying member of the "I voted for John Anderson Club," too.

A third party candidate can win a national election, but it won't happen as a result of the normal processes and circumstances, like the current third party candidates find themselves in. It doesn't matter how badly someone think Ron Paul should win, he won't. He can't. The circumstances are such that it is quite impossible for him to win. He has no chance. None. Sorry. You can say, "Well, if people truly voted their conscience, he can!" all you want, but he still can't win. The circumstances just aren't there.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't vote for him. That's what the secret ballot is all about. If you want to vote for him, then vote for him. But it's also not a bad idea, as Leo suggests, to take a pragmatic look at what that vote does, as doing so is equally valid. Make up your mind from there.

Ross Perot had a legitimate shot, close, circumstances were almost there, but even if he hadn't shot himself in the foot, he wouldn't have won. There just wasn't enough of the right circumstances to allow it.

By circumstances, I mean that someone will emerge, probably out of great turmoil, to become the fan favorite, and then will be pushed and prodded into running for office. It won't be someone who sets out to run for office and then becomes the favorite, like so many wish that Ron Paul would become. It won't be a politician, or at least not a national politician. Colin Powell was nearly someone that was set up in those circumstances. It'll happen eventually, but not likely with anyone we've ever heard of presently.

 

[ATeam]

You John Anderson fans might be interested to know that he came to Minnesota several times to support the development of the Independence Party and its candidates.

The events were not public events but meetings and fundraisers that his Minnesota admirers helped organize and attended. Most of these people had, as younger folks, campaigned for John Anderson. They stayed active in politics and went on to gain positions in government and public offices at mostly local levels.

It was quite something to see political types from two major parties gather happily in someone's home or in a meeting room to meet the man they once supported, trade old campaign stories and talk TOGETHER about the affairs of the day. The admiration they had for Anderson and their joy in seeing him face to face filled the room.

At one dinner, I happened to be sitting next to Mr. Anderson. He had recently been to Richard Nixon's funeral. Intrigued to know more about such an event, I mentioned the wide range of dignataries that had attended the funeral and asked Mr. Anderson why people go to the funeral of someone who was long out of power and significantly discredited?

Anderson quipped, "I went to make sure the son-of-a-***** was really dead!"

I did not come to know John Anderson well, but what I saw of him convinced me that people's admiration and respect for him is well placed.

 

[pelicn]

And this does what to our "vote"?

Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ATeam]

I should have been more direct. It has to do with the potential to elect a third-party president, which is being discussed in this thread.

There is in America a body of experienced, skilled, competent and politically-involved people that, given the right candidate, will abandon their loosley-held Democratic and Republican self-identification and act to elect an independent or third-party president.

As illustrated by the John Anderson story above, they will gather in living rooms. They will write checks. They will contribute their expertise. They will travel to help build state and national organizations. The fact that many of these people now call themselves Democrats and Republicans, and sometimes even hold public office in those party names, is not something that the two major parties can take for granted.

Third-party interest rises from time to time. In modern times, it is easier than ever to network them. Given the right candidate, circumstances and leadership, their talents can be focused -- successfully, I believe -- on winning the White House.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

You're in a prison where they serve only mush and spam; but the inmates have to vote for what they want. You dislike spam, but you despise mush. One day, they add cheesy broccoli to the menu you vote on. To you, cheesy broccoli would bring a nice change, and you really like it. But you're afraid to vote for cheesy broccoli because the others are so used to mush and spam. You vote for spam because you don't want mush. Others vote the same way because they too don't want the tenants of C-block to put mush on the menu.

Congratulations... spam wins, and you continue have the lesser of two indigestions.

No wonder nothing productive ever gets done in this country. Educated ppl are afraid to vote for it. Uneducated ppl will just continue to vote for the flashiest candidate who will give them goodies. It's easy to see what's happening. More uneducated ppl are being pushed thru our school system to keep those flashy ones in power. (By uneducated, I mean ppl who don't know or care about the issues.)

 

[blondechick]

Bob Barr, Bob Barr - Go Barr, Yeah. His stance on the issues fits like a glove. Part of me wants to run to the polls and vote Barr/Root, and yell it to the roof tops. But the "Leo" side of me says "gotta vote for McCain", my second pick. I am a financially conservative and Obama's position on the issues doesn't agree with my thoughts. I'm hoping, praying, and trying to become rich enough to worry about taxes on the rich. I don't like McCain's social beliefs, I believe in states rights and that religion should not be used to make policies. Amish women don't shave, cut their hair, or wear pants. If they were in power to control these issues, I'd be miserable. If I had to choose; I'd choose hairy legs, stringy hair, and dresses over tax increases. Sorry Bob Barr.

 

[pjjjjj]

If the 2 major parties were going to be equal in their end result once in power, then one could risk their precious one vote on the 3rd party, knowing it may give credibility to the 3rd party, which they really wanted, and knowing it wouldn't matter which of the 2 majors ended up winning.
But if one of the 2 major parties is viewed as disastrous if in power, how could one waste their precious one vote, voting for the 3rd, (even tho they might really want the 3rd), knowing the 3rd can't get in anway, and that one vote will be one less vote for the lesser disastrous major party?
When it comes to such important matters, unfortunately sometimes strategic voting is called for, as opposed to wishing and making a statement.

 

[LDB]

Someone gets it!!!

 

[chefdennis]

So when your lesser of the evils candiate that you voted for loses, did you waste your vote too??? With the voting for the lessed of the evils any vote not going to the winner is a wasted vote.

Sorry, i'll vote for the one that best suits my positions.

 

[LDB]

No, it is not a wasted vote because it was a vote that potentially had a chance of bringing about victory insofar as electing the lesser evil can be called a victory where a vote for the 3rd party has zero chance of bringing victory. While the 3rd party vote is also a vote against the greater evil it is an impotent vote.

 

[RLENT]

Someone gets it!!!

Yeah ..... but unfortunately she's a Cannuck ..... and can't vote down here .....

 

[RLENT]

pj - which of the following three words don't you understand or seems unclear:

1. self, 2. fulfilling, or 3. prophecy ?

 

[RLENT]

No, it is not a wasted vote because it was a vote that potentially had a chance of bringing about victory insofar as electing the lesser evil can be called a victory ....

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing ....... or they just simply vote it in ....." (Edmund Burke ...... with an rlent ad-lib .....)

where a vote for the 3rd party has zero chance of bringing victory.

Again Leo, while pj may understand your point, neither of you understand mine.

Essentially what you both seem to be advocating is subscribing to the "group think" ...... IOW:

"I'll follow the rest of the group (or some larger portion thereof) ..... because that is likely to be the safe thing to do"

While that choice might seem to be the wise thing to do (flawed logic), it really isn't - because it will never field or elect the best candidate ..... and is in fact, probably the least courageous choice.

Some folks just seem to like milquetoast - however ...... one should not complain that that is what is being served, after having asked for it .......

Takes a little more cahones to support someone who the "conventional wisdom" says doesn't have a prayer ......

While the 3rd party vote is also a vote against the greater evil it is an impotent vote.

The only thing I can imagine that would more impotent than that, is an individual that would compromise their own reality and fail to support the candidate who they knew to be best qualified to lead - and really do something effective.

Cheri, you do really get it.

 

[Turtle]

""I'll follow the rest of the group (or some larger portion thereof) ..... because that is likely to be the safe thing to do"

I disagree. In a country where there is a secret ballot, "safe", in any connotation you wish to apply, doesn't enter into it. You call it "conventional wisdom", I call it critical analysis and testing of the truth. I've said it earlier in the thread, and I'll reiterate it here, it's not a question of a third party candidate not having a prayer to win (conventional wisdom), it's simply a matter of circumstances that make it quite impossible for one to win (truth). A third party candidate can win, but only under very special circumstances, and we don't have those at this point in time.

This is not conjecture, this is reality. And the reality is, unless something wholly unprecedented happens before the votes are cast, one of the two major party candidates will win this election. Knowing that, you must vote accordingly. If that means you vote your conscience for a third party candidate, then the reality is that your vote becomes, at at best, a vote that is not cast for the lesser of two evils, and at worst, is merely a wasted, impotent vote. You can agree or disagree from a philosophical standpoint all you want, but it won't change the reality. It won't change the truth.

Often people will vote for a third party candidate knowing full well that their candidate can not win, and then sometime during the next 4 years they will say something along the lines of, "I didn't vote for either of them, I voted for so and so, so don't blame me for any of this mess," but that's a fallacy, as each and every voter must take responsibility for who gets put in office, regardless of who they voted for, as their vote did, in fact, have an impact on who won. But hey, that's why we have a secret ballot. Use it as you see fit.

If you want to truly support a third party candidate, you must figure out a way to create the circumstances in which a third party candidate can win. I'm not sure how that can be done as part of a concerted plan, but I do know that Youtube ain't it.

 

[RLENT]

I disagree.

Oh ..... I pretty much figured you wouldn't be able to resist chiming in ....

In a country where there is a secret ballot, "safe", in any connotation you wish to apply, doesn't enter into it.

Bzzzzzzztttttttt ......

Again, misunderstanding of the point being made ... it does in fact apply, and here's how:

"Safe" refers to any given individual's inherent desire to be right - this is a very powerful thing in the human species (as evidenced by the degree to which people will go to "be right" about a particular matter, even when they clearly aren't) - since being correct in one's choices ultimately leads to better survival.

Picking the candidate that didn't win would be "being wrong", therefore the human proclivity usually tends to be to pick the candidate that they feel has the best chance of winning - as modified by their own personal "how-tightly-can-I-hold-my-nose-so-I-don't-get-too-big-of-a-whiff-of-the-stench" factor ......

One might well be safe from all others, one is, however, never safe from oneself ..... that's one ya always have to answer up to ... although many do try and avoid it.

You call it "conventional wisdom", I call it critical analysis and testing of the truth.

Well .. yeah ... I'm sure you would.

And we all know how good the general public and common Joe out on the street is at "critical analysis" and "testing of the truth" ...... why just look around at the results it has gotten us thus far .....

Actually, what I call it is "group think" (or group insanity, if you like)

I've said it earlier in the thread, and I'll reiterate it here, it's not a question of a third party candidate not having a prayer to win (conventional wisdom), it's simply a matter of circumstances that make it quite impossible for one to win (truth).

I dunno Ken ... that pretty much sounds like just semantics to me ... and those two things (conventional wisdom and a "truth" resulting from it) sound like they might somehow be related ..... ya 'tink ?

A third party candidate can win, but only under very special circumstances, and we don't have those at this point in time.

But .... guess what ? .... the election is not being held today .... although it does draw nigh ....

This is not conjecture, this is reality.

LOL ... "Reality" is not a static thing - at times it can be quite variable ..... political "realities" can change in an instant or with a single utterance, as a word passes the lips .... or with the reporting of a story ... or a whole slew of other things ..... there's a whole graveyard of people that you could ask and they would tell ya .... 'ceptin they're all dead (politically, at least)

Reality is a very fluid thing - it's pretty much being changed, and is changing all the time.

And the reality is, unless something wholly unprecedented happens before the votes are cast, one of the two major party candidates will win this election.

Well, I'm not too much of a prognosticator ..... I left my crystal ball back at the house last time I come out .... besides, afterall, if change is what one truly wants wants one might be best served by figuring out what might be effective to make that occur, and then just doing that - as opposed to making pronouncements about what will happen.

Knowing that, you must vote accordingly. If that means you vote your conscience for a third party candidate, then the reality is that your vote becomes, at at best, a vote that is not cast for the lesser of two evils, and at worst, is merely a wasted, impotent vote.

Any vote cast, is never a wasted vote. The only vote that is truly ever wasted, is the vote not cast.

You can agree or disagree from a philosophical standpoint all you want, but it won't change the reality.

Sorry - but that's utterly wrong - if enough people disagree (with the conventional wisdom or common "think") the reality (of the situation) is in fact changed. Surely ... you do understand that ?

Reality, in the political sense at least, is merely agreement - if enough people disagree with whatever is the current reality (Obama is gonna win, McCain is gonna lose, Ron Paul ... or whoever ... doesn't have a chance, etc., etc.) then the old "reality" is no more and there is a new reality ....

It was once a "reality" that all that lived here in the colonies were subjects of the Crown ... of course that is no longer THE reality .... and basically that all started with simply disagreeing with the present reality of that time.

It won't change the truth.

Heheheh .. Ken ... you're cracking me up ...... you seriously believe that (a) "reality" is "truth" ?

What kind of "truth" are you referring to exactly ?

Absolute, immutable, unchanging "truth" ?

Or the "truth" of a moment ? ... here now, but gone in an instant ?

"Political truth" ? (surely an oxymoron if ever there was one ...)

Often people will vote for a third party candidate knowing full well that their candidate can not win, and then sometime during the next 4 years they will say something along the lines of, "I didn't vote for either of them, I voted for so and so, so don't blame me for any of this mess," but that's a fallacy,

Oh ..... it is indeed. That viewpoint would be the height of irresponsibilty ..... (unfortunately it is probably reflective of the overall responsibility level of the general population)

The more responsible viewpoint would be to be asking oneself the following:

Did I support my candidate as much as I could have ? Could I have contributed more (money, time, or effort) ? What I could I have personally done differently that might have allowed them to achieve success ? Etc., etc., etc.

as each and every voter must take responsibility for who gets put in office, regardless of who they voted for, as their vote did, in fact, have an impact on who won.

Yup - that's right.

But hey, that's why we have a secret ballot. Use it as you see fit.

Surely I will.

(Yawn ... perhaps more later, if I feel up to it .... )

 

[LDB]

As usual, I voted Libertarian in several races where the outcome didn't hold the potential for as severe negative results as the presidential election. For that one I did what had to be done and voted against the greatest evil.