Third Party Candidates -- Viable choice?

[2Xtreme21]

I've gotten into debates with many people about whether or not voting for a third-party candidate / write-in for President is throwing away your vote. Most said it is, but others said that you can't discredit a guy for trying if you genuinely support his cause.

As a second argument, will this help Bush? Some people are voting someone other than Bush just to get him out of office (many of which are picking the Libertarian / Independent ticket)... will this hurt Kerry's chance of winning? Are the third-party candidates just there to steal votes from the main ones?

 

[BA]

Where do you live? Bush has a ~20% lead in polls here.
Thanks to the EC, whether good or bad, I believe my vote is largely irrelevant. I feel my vote is far more meaningful in support of third parties( libertarian by default, but I'll take others) than in voting for either major party.

 

[Engineer]

In America...the only "throwing away" of a vote is people who don't vote. It's your country...and your choice. (IMO)

 

[shimsham]

if it wasnt such a close race, id vote third party just to express my disgust with the dems and repubs. but being so close, and after the 2000 election, im voting for one of the big two.

they both turn my stomach tho. lesser of two evils this time.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: shimsham
if it wasnt such a close race, id vote third party just to express my disgust with the dems and repubs. but being so close, and after the 2000 election, im voting for one of the big two.

they both turn my stomach tho. lesser of two evils this time.

Me too. I regularly vote third-party, in part because I think those votes count more than voting for the big two. In a normal election, an extra 1% for the Republicrats is meaningless. An extra 1% for a third party is quite significant.

Not this year. I live in a swing state. This vote is too important. America's future, and perhaps even our survival are at stake.

 

[CubicZirconia]

Condorcet: A Better Election Method

Read.

 

[LtPage1]

look: only two guys can get elected. so, ask yourself- is making a statement that wont gain anyone anything better than both candidates? are they really exactly the same for you? because if you really dont care about ANY issues, then you could vote for a third party candidate. otherwise, youre in the same boat as people who dont vote: you cant bitch when were stuck with another 4 years of bush.

 

[packmule]

The only way to throw your vote away is to not vote. I say vote for the candidate that best reflects your thoughts on runing our great nation. If you think that voting for a candidate other then democrat or republican is a wasted vote I would say you are wrong. Think about this if you vote for whom you think is the best candidate and everyone that is unsure or disatisfied with the candidates does the same thing we very well may see a new party emerge. One that represents the people of America and not the large companies or groups the send lobbyist loaded with cash to DC to sway the minstream political parties.

 

[Thump553]

Voting is an individual action that has a collective effect. Voting for a third party candidate is, in essence, a vote for the incumbent. If you could stomach that effect of your actions, then feel free to do so.

 

[CubicZirconia]

Think about this if you vote for whom you think is the best candidate and everyone that is unsure or disatisfied with the candidates does the same thing we very well may see a new party emerge.

That most likely will never happen under our current voting system.

See Duverger's law.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

See Duverger's law.

Yup, Duverger's law sums it up nicely. I'm all for third parties, ONCE WE HAVE A DIFFERENT VOTING SCHEME. I wish the poeple focusing on third parties would spend more time pushing electoral reform. I'm sure most Americans would support it if they knew more about it.

 

[Veramocor]

If you are in a non-swing state go ahead and vote for who you want to. In a swing state I would consider voting for the one of the top 2 canidates that you most prefer.

If you are a Nader/Cobb/Badnerick supporter AND you also like to see Kerry win over Bush I consider www.vote-pair.org. It'll let you trade your swing state vote with a safe state vote.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Haha that vote-pair thing is awesome. Probably extremely insecure, but awesome nonetheless. I live in PA so if I were to support one of the third-party candidates, I probably would do that. But.. I don't, so...

Many people criticized Nader when he announced he was running in this election just because he seems to "get in the way" of the traditional system. I kind of have to agree with them because many people, as I said before, will vote someone who definitely won't win, thus nearly throwing away his / her vote (granted, they could not vote at all, which isn't good either).

 

[conjur]

Did anyone see the replay today of the debate between Libertarian, Socialist, Constitution, and Green party candidates?

Each and every one of them offered up some good ideas. However, each and every one of them also had some aspect to them that, imo, was a bit too extreme for me to accept. If we could somehow get the best of these guys together, we'd have a really viable 3rd-party candidate.

 

[judasmachine]

depends on what you're voting for? if you are voting against Bush then no, the 3rd party isn't viable, if you are voting for Bush then either will suffice.

 

[CubicZirconia]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

See Duverger's law.

Yup, Duverger's law sums it up nicely. I'm all for third parties, ONCE WE HAVE A DIFFERENT VOTING SCHEME. I wish the poeple focusing on third parties would spend more time pushing electoral reform. I'm sure most Americans would support it if they knew more about it.

Exactly. I'd go as far as to say that you are wasting your time supporting a third party unless you're also supporting a change in our electoral system. I don't understand what guys like Ralph Nader are thinking. He's not doing anything of value under our current system. Any way you slice it he's just making Bush more likely to win. If we went to a condorcet voting system Ralph Nader could be a legitimate player (as good the libertarians and greens and who knows else).

Even people that vote Republican or Democrat are frustrated with the two party system. It just doesn't make any sense. If someone explained the flaws in our current voting system to the people, I have no doubt that they would support a change. Of course none of the lawmakers would, but that is only because they are the beneficiaries of the current flawed system.