Educate yourself then spread the word. why Vote for the lesser of 2 Evils when it's still Evil?
ThirdPartyTicket.com
ThirdPartyTicket.com
Last edited:
Vote!!!! Third Party!!!!!
- Thread starter blaaze
- Start date
How about because the third party is not going to win and therefore you are letting others decide which of the two electable choices gets the office. Your vote can either have an effect on the outcome by actively selecting a possible winner or passively saying I choose to not participate in the actual selection but want to feel good inside. It's vaguely similar to Obama's over 100 votes of present in two years rather than him actually voting yes/no on a bill. I refuse to throw away my vote on a symbolic, feel good option that allows the greater of two evils more power.
Third-party and independent candidates sometimes win elections. Granted, it is not often, but it does happpen. These people understand the widely-held "wasted vote" notion very well but go on to overcome it and win.
Also note that when a significant percentage of voters say yes to a third-party candidate, elected officials in the more established parties often take note of it. While your third-party candidate of choice may not win, your vote for him or her sends a message to those who do win and the message is often heeded as public policy is being formed. There are numerous cases in American history where the rise of a third party has prompted changes in the other two.
Also note that when a significant percentage of voters say yes to a third-party candidate, elected officials in the more established parties often take note of it. While your third-party candidate of choice may not win, your vote for him or her sends a message to those who do win and the message is often heeded as public policy is being formed. There are numerous cases in American history where the rise of a third party has prompted changes in the other two.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Phil,
Don't waste your breathe ..... he just doesn't get it.
What Leo fails to see is that by (possibly) compromising with his own reality of who really ought to be president, or who would he really would like or, even more importantly, who shouldn't be elected at any cost (and that can include multiple candidates), he has gone down the rather sad road of being a "good" ........ but rather apathetic ...... citizen and voter.
What Leo fails to understand is that yes, his vote does count - it counts towards bringing us more the same old, same old ...... which is likely exactly the crap he detests ..... the irony of which I'm sure escapes him.
Instead, what he is actually doing is exactly what he accuses others of - voting in a manner which allows him to "feel good" - because he believes that his vote actually "counts" for something (what it actually counts for is up for debate) ..... and that he has had a part in "selecting" the eventual winner .....
The important thing is not that the best person, who might do the most good for the country, gets elected, but that his oh-so-precious vote isn't wasted .... ya know, pick the "safe bet" ....... it doesn't really matter that it's getting spent on evil - just that he successfully managed to cast it for the evil that eventually manages to get elected. He justifies it by saying it's "the lesser of two evils ...."
As was pointed out, evil is still evil ...... and by voting for it one is essentially supporting it ....
Thankfully, Leo was apparently not around when we had our little dust up with the Motherland here about 230 or so years ago ...... because we'd likely still be subjects of the Crown .... since that likely was far and away the safe bet.
Sadly, this is one of the darker sides of conservatism (I'm not speaking of political conservatism here .... but of conservatism as a human trait .....)
"........... This above all: to thine own self be true ....."
Last edited:
Just look back at what effect voting for third party presidential candidates has had in the past. Did the votes in 1992 for Ross Perot have any lasting effect? How about those for Ralph Nader in 2000? The answer to both questions is yes: in '92 the Republicans that didn't like HW Bush and wasted their votes on Perot allowed Slick Willie to take the White House; in 2000 the Democrats that wasted their votes in Nader very likely allowed "W" to win. You may think you're displaying your independance by voting 3d party in a presidential election, but in reality you may as well not vote at all.
I get it perfectly well and if it were a 3rd party for my local council seat I'd consider a win likely. If it were for a statewide race I'd consider it unlikely but possible. For president, no matter how much I want it, it's not going to happen. In the case of this year's election it's going to put the far far greater evil in power.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Oh boy ..... here we go .... another one of the "I'm-not gonna-waste-my-vote" lemming crowd heard from .....
...... ya figure that vote you cast had any real "lasting" effect ? Or didja waste it on the loser ?
By your computation, one might as well not vote for anyone ...... unless the outcome is practically assured ..... reminds me of someone wanting "cradle-to-grave" care ... the "sure bet" .... pretty whimpy if ya ask me .......
If you think you are going to see any real change from the Democrans or the Republocrats when you and others continue to decide your votes as you apparently do, I got some real nice swampland I can hook ya up with real cheap ..... well cheap compared to the little bill you or your progeny are gonna receive for the spending fiasco the "we're not for big government", "we believe in free markets (...... until it effects our portfolios)" crowd that you seem to support just executed (to say nothing of the rampant spending that they have engaged in for the last 8 years)
It's the only way that the two-party stranglehold will ever be broken ..... of course, you might think the two party system is a great thing ..... afterall,look how far it has already gotten us ..... into debt, that is .......
Hmmmm .... yeah .... Dow below 10K ..... yup, these guys know what they're doin' ..... they'll take care of ya alright .... jus' keep votin' 'em in ......
Uhhhh ..... who did you vote for in that election .... ?
...... ya figure that vote you cast had any real "lasting" effect ? Or didja waste it on the loser ?
By your computation, one might as well not vote for anyone ...... unless the outcome is practically assured ..... reminds me of someone wanting "cradle-to-grave" care ... the "sure bet" .... pretty whimpy if ya ask me .......
Fact is, and this was widely polled and reported, if the all the people that were actually for Perot had voted their conscience and not gone with your politically brainwashed tripe, he actually would have won.
If you think you are going to see any real change from the Democrans or the Republocrats when you and others continue to decide your votes as you apparently do, I got some real nice swampland I can hook ya up with real cheap ..... well cheap compared to the little bill you or your progeny are gonna receive for the spending fiasco the "we're not for big government", "we believe in free markets (...... until it effects our portfolios)" crowd that you seem to support just executed (to say nothing of the rampant spending that they have engaged in for the last 8 years)
Uhhh .... I could care less about my "independence" ...... what I do care about is being true to my own conscience about who is the best leader for our country - regardless of what the prevailing "wisdom" is along the chattering classes (media and Washington) about that individuals "chances" .....
It's the only way that the two-party stranglehold will ever be broken ..... of course, you might think the two party system is a great thing ..... afterall,look how far it has already gotten us ..... into debt, that is .......
Hmmmm .... yeah .... Dow below 10K ..... yup, these guys know what they're doin' ..... they'll take care of ya alright .... jus' keep votin' 'em in ......
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
No Leo, you actually don't .... really ..... trust me on this one ..... the remainder of the post above proves actually proves that you don't - your calculations in that post are about who can win or who is likely to win ..... or who "has a chance" ..... not who should win ......
And no amount of insistence on your part (that you can do get it) will ever change that fact.
The blind don't know what it is that they can't see, and the deaf don't know what it is that they aren't hearing ...
Last edited:
You are welcome to disagree with me but my vision and hearing are acceptable. I wish I could say perfect however I've worn glasses since jr. high and I'm sure my previously perfect hearing is probably feeling the effects of aging and isn't perfect anymore. Neither is gone however. I realize you were speaking figuratively not literally. Your opinion is as valid to you as mine is to me. Who should win has no bearing on who can win. I can know who should win, hope they do win and afterward say I told you so when they don't win but when there is no chance they will win then my voting for them rather than in a manner that might affect the outcome of the election is wasting my vote. It may be different for you but for me I have to vote in a manner that I believe will put the best candidate in office of those candidates with any chance and hope of being elected.
Jayman
Expert Expediter
Good point. Recently, I have talked to people about how much this election year is like 1992. With the exception that there is no "almost viable" third party candidate. As you noted, Perot allowed Clinton to win. If it wasnt for Perot...Dad Bush would of won. This may transfer into a very close election with McCain emerging the victor. Time will tell.
This year, the Dems are registering people to vote in large numbers, from what I hear. But, that was also true in 1992. From what I understand...youth and minorities have never carried a Presidential election. Its all about numbers, as you all know. I wonder what the numbers are today? (people who typically vote Republican vs people who typically vote Democrat)
That so many voters are convinced that a third party candidate can't win, (& therefore won't vote for him/her) is what makes it a self fulfilling prophecy.
I think we can agree that both the major parties are guilty of forgetting for whom they are supposed to be serving, and yet, we continue to choose one of them, every time.
When is it time to break the pattern of doing what we've always done, and getting what we've always got?
IMO, voting for a candidate who seems "the lesser of two evils" is the textbook description of wasting your vote.
I think we can agree that both the major parties are guilty of forgetting for whom they are supposed to be serving, and yet, we continue to choose one of them, every time.
When is it time to break the pattern of doing what we've always done, and getting what we've always got?
IMO, voting for a candidate who seems "the lesser of two evils" is the textbook description of wasting your vote.
Jayman
Expert Expediter
I wonder if we should seriously, I mean seriously push to have the parties abolished. Or, is that possible? I think we should have a primary were everybody running is running against the others. We vote and the top 3 move onto the fall election. After much rhetoric, name calling, and smear ads...we choose from those 3.
There will be no more partisian crap. No more conventions. Just debates and town hall meetings. Lets end the 2 party strong hold.
"You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us. And the world will live as one". -The Beatles
Winning at the state level and the national level are very different in modern times. I acknowledged earlier it's possible to win statewide as an independent. Lincoln's time was nothing like our time and not a comparable situation. As in all things, one has to do what they see as the right thing to do.
just cast my absentee ballot for McCain-Palin. It felt particularly nice to support Palin. If the race tightens in the last two weeks I expect McCain will pull slightly ahead. Don't trust pollsters much. Don't trust poll workers on election night. Surely don't trust the media. Absolutely discount anything the government spouts nowadays. Where can a skeptic turn?
BTW, because of the Bradley-Dinkins-Wilder effect, Obama will need a greater than 5% lead in the polls to win.
BTW, because of the Bradley-Dinkins-Wilder effect, Obama will need a greater than 5% lead in the polls to win.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Seems to me that voting is an act of conscience. We vote for those that we feel best reflex what we want for yourselves, or famlies or financial best interest and the country. When you vote for someeone that does not best reflex your own valules and ideals, it seems to me that you are doing nothing but cheating yourself.
If evil is what you want for yourself, by all means, vote for either of the 2 mainstream canidates. If a 3rd party canidate best falls within what you want from all listed above, then I'd think that is where your vote would go.
I am a registered independent. I lean conservative. That being said, I voted both times for clinton, but also both times for bush (i favor war). This time around, I won't be voting for either mainstream canidate, Ron Paul will get my vote. If palin Lead the ticket, I'd vote republican. And don't talk to me about experience, we have voted in governors more then we ever have a senator.
Cheri wrote:
It is also the textbook description of "insanity", as in, "doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result!!!"
If evil is what you want for yourself, by all means, vote for either of the 2 mainstream canidates. If a 3rd party canidate best falls within what you want from all listed above, then I'd think that is where your vote would go.
I am a registered independent. I lean conservative. That being said, I voted both times for clinton, but also both times for bush (i favor war). This time around, I won't be voting for either mainstream canidate, Ron Paul will get my vote. If palin Lead the ticket, I'd vote republican. And don't talk to me about experience, we have voted in governors more then we ever have a senator.
Cheri wrote:
It is also the textbook description of "insanity", as in, "doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result!!!"
It is not difficult to imagine a third party presidential win in modern times. In July, 1992, there was a point where Ross Perot led the two major-party candidates in the polls (he later self-destructed under his own dumb moves). In 1996, a national stir occurred around the possibility that Collin Powel might run for president as an independent. This year, for a time, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg considered an independent run for the White House and was considered a credible possibility.
Modern times make it easier, not harder, for a third-party or independent candidate to run. The internet makes it possible to instantly reach into the homes of most voters. Fragmented TV, Radio and print media outlets leave them hungry for content and news scoops; making it easer for a credible third-party or independent candidate to get exposure. Talk radio shows provide a free and ready resource for third-party activists to call in and boost their candidates's name recognition. The decline of major newspapers reduce the influence of editorial boards and newspaper endorsements that tend to be biased to the status-quo. Inclusion in the debates is easier than it used to be because of people like Perot and Ventura who fought their way in and disproved the notion that only two-way debates can occur.
The Democratic and Republican party candidates enjoy huge advantages in ballot access laws that are skewed in their favor and designed to keep third-party candidates out, and in pre-existing support networks. Money from rich poeople is easily tapped through existing channels. Lobbyists give more money to people in power than people who seek it. Longstanding groups of door-to-door party activists have for years been talking to their neighbors about their party's candiates and running get-out-the-vote efforts. Third-party and independent candidates do not have those resources.
But with the internet, easier media access, direct mail campaigns, three-way debates and other modern developments, I suggest it is easier for a third-party candidate to win the presidency than it was before. The major benefit they have is the hatred a large block of voters have for both the Democratic and Republican parties.
I would not be a bit surprised to see an independent or third-party presidential candidate elected in our lifetime. I know with reasonable certainty that if Jesse Ventura had run for president this year, his national poll numbers would have instantly risen to 20% in a three-way race and millions of donated dollars would have easily flowed into his campaign via the internet. The same would have been true for Bloomberg (plus he had the advantage of being wealthy himself, which gives him the ability to provide start-up money if not fund the entire campaign out of his pocket).
That is not enough to win. It would remain for the candidate to campaign well and close the deal. And it would remain for the people to vote for the candidate they want instead of voting against the candidate they fear. But such starts from such levels were unimaginable in days past.
Last edited:
If you truly believe in a third party candidate then vote for that candidate! There may be no chance of victory this election year but your vote could have an effect 4 years down the road.
In 1980 I voted for John Anderson, a republican congressman from Illinois who entered the presidential race as a third party candidate. He didn't expect to win but said a 5% showing at the polls would spur him on in 1984.
As 1984 drew near, Mr. Anderson had the good sense not to challenge the incumbent, Ronald Reagan. He quietly disappeared. I guess that didn't exactly support my 3rd party theory. Oh well!
In 1988 Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota as a 3rd party candidate. I voted for him because he was the lesser of three evils and there was no chance of him winning.
At our annual Christmas party for friends and neighbors, all 20 some adults admitted voting for Ventura. All said he was the lesser of three evils and he didn't have a chance to win.
If a 3rd party candidate was to win the presidential election, that candidate would have to be a strong leader and statesman to work with a Democrat/Republican dominated House and Senate. Sorry, but Jesse "the mind" Ventura ain't that candidate.
The only wasted vote is the one not cast!!!
"The (3rd party) revolution will not be televised."
- Gill Scott Heron -
In 1980 I voted for John Anderson, a republican congressman from Illinois who entered the presidential race as a third party candidate. He didn't expect to win but said a 5% showing at the polls would spur him on in 1984.
As 1984 drew near, Mr. Anderson had the good sense not to challenge the incumbent, Ronald Reagan. He quietly disappeared. I guess that didn't exactly support my 3rd party theory. Oh well!
In 1988 Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota as a 3rd party candidate. I voted for him because he was the lesser of three evils and there was no chance of him winning.
At our annual Christmas party for friends and neighbors, all 20 some adults admitted voting for Ventura. All said he was the lesser of three evils and he didn't have a chance to win.
If a 3rd party candidate was to win the presidential election, that candidate would have to be a strong leader and statesman to work with a Democrat/Republican dominated House and Senate. Sorry, but Jesse "the mind" Ventura ain't that candidate.
The only wasted vote is the one not cast!!!
"The (3rd party) revolution will not be televised."
- Gill Scott Heron -