Vote for any 3rd party.

[LordMagnusKain]

Of course, if you are in one of the battle ground states: choose the lesser of two evils.

But as a member of the other states please vote for one of the third party candidates, anyone. Even if they get no electoral votes, voting for a 3rd party candidate will help them do better in the next election by helping them qualify for federal matching funds. Voting for a third party is the only way to make your vote truly count in a non-battleground state.

In order of 2000 results:

1. Green Party - 2,882,955 (2.735%)

2. Reform Party - 448,895 (0.426%)

3. Libertarian Party - 384,431 (0.365%)

4. Constitution Party - 98,020 (0.093%)

5. Natural Law Party - 83,714 (0.079%)

6. Socialist Workers Party - 7,378 (0.007%)

I'm voting Constitutional Party but that's not for but .1% of the nation.

No matter who you are or what you believe is important, we need to rotate out our current compromised parties.

 

[Dissipate]

This book, which apparently isn't out yet, Dime's Worth of Difference talks about how the differences between the Democrats and Republicans are illusory.

You are correct, people who vote Republican or Democrat are really the ones wasting their votes, because they are voting for the same B.S. Unfortunately, there are no third party candidates this year that have a chance of winning. The last third party candidate that had any shot at all was Ross Perot back in 1992. He got over 19 million votes. Unfortunately with the stupid winner take all system, he didn't get any electoral votes.

I think that if Badnarik or Nader had as much money as Ross Perot, they could get millions more votes as well. But they don't.

In any event I'm going to be voting for Libertarian candidates right down the line this year. For president that happens to be Michael Badnarik. In reality though I think that voting is an immoral practice because it makes the bureaucrats believe in inane dogmas like the "will of the people." Then you hear collectivists/statists say equally inane things like "we are the government."

 

[GoPackGo]

I would like to see a return to federalism. The US Govt does way to too much and costs way too much.

I think if the Founders saw how much we were taxed there would be another revolution and some more tea might end up in Boston Harbor.

I think Washington and Jefferson and Company would like cease their spinning!

 

[daveshel]

The choices in your poll are too constrained: let's hope they do not reflect constraints on your thinking as well.

I'm not voting thrid party again like I have numerous times in the past because I realize that statistically, none of them can get enough votes to matter, and that the likely outcome is that they will draw votes from the Democtaric candidate.

I know there is an argument that third parties can also draw from the Republicans, and that this supposedly happened in 1992, but I have yet to see any credible analysis that leads to this conclusion, and don't see any candidates this time around that seem to overlap a substantial portion of the Republican ideology to the point where I see this as a factor here.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Voting Libertarian here.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

It certainly would be nice if Third Parties got more respect, and if our electoral system wasn't winner take all. But the huge road block is that right now the 3rd parties have no leverage whatsoever. We can talk about what should be til the cows come home, but when it comes to implementing the actual reform, no one seems to have a good idea.

My angle is to work for reforming the Democratic Party which will in turn reform the country. Things like Instant Runoff Voting and true campaign finance reform are supported by many rank and file Democrats. Yes, I know the Dems are just as corrupt as the Repubs. But to me its a more plausible angle of attack than just voting for a 3rd party and b!tching that they won't get any votes.

 

[daclayman]

I shadow monsta's beliefs except my reasoning is a little simpler; I'm voting Bush out of office.
:beer:

 

[yankeesfan]

too young to vote

 

[0marTheZealot]

lol reform is impossible. Are we going to ask our (Democrat and Republican) congressmen to rightfully fix our election system so that 3rd parties can be viable? That's like writing your own job review and then giving yourself demerits. Not in our lifetime. The American public is too stupid, the system too dedicated to the status quo, and congressmen who'd rather stay in power than lose it.

Getting a 3rd party into congress is like getting OBL thru JFK airport. Not going to happen without setting off thousands of alarms.

 

[sandorski]

The 2 Party system is a failure and is only widening the split in the US, right down the Middle. It is my opinion that the US is slowly but surely heading towards Civil War brought about by the current system which views the Other as the Enemy. There are many problems in the US, 1 of those(which I believe is related to the 2 Party system) is lack of Voter Participation. Increasingly the average citizen doesn't see anything in the 2 Parties that they can accept, so they just don't bother participating.

The People need to stand up and be counted! Send a Message to the Politicians, tell them that You are in Charge, not them.

 

[0marTheZealot]

sandorski, the problem with that is the status quo is so entrenched into our thinking that there is literally no escape from it. How can any candidate acheive critical mass when the system is ACTIVELY working against him/her. It's simply not possible.

Civil war or a revolution is the only way for the current problem to be resolved. There is no way for any 3rd party to get their voice heard. Matching funds is a token gesture; the democrats/republicans know damn well no one will acheive the %es necessary for matching funds.

I can guarentee this. Nader will get EVEN less votes this time than he did in 2000.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
sandorski, the problem with that is the status quo is so entrenched into our thinking that there is literally no escape from it. How can any candidate acheive critical mass when the system is ACTIVELY working against him/her. It's simply not possible.

Civil war or a revolution is the only way for the current problem to be resolved. There is no way for any 3rd party to get their voice heard. Matching funds is a token gesture; the democrats/republicans know damn well no one will acheive the %es necessary for matching funds.

I can guarentee this. Nader will get EVEN less votes this time than he did in 2000.

I wouldn't say it's "impossible", but it is likely "improbable". You don't really need $ to do it, but you do need a Popular uprising, of sorts, to succeed. That is the biggest problem. There's no need for Violence, but there is need for People to get out and Vote!

 

[0marTheZealot]

I say it's impossible

 

[totalcommand]

IMHO...Nader is an arrogant piece of crap. He claims he will keep corruption out of the White House and return integrity to the Presidency, that he is an outsider to politics. Then he goes and accepts Republican money, fundraising, and petitioning from a party that has completely oppositie ideals he has. If Nader actually had the integrity he claims to have, he would reject this support. But instead, in his arrogance, he accepts the money willingly and without any reservations. Nader is just like any other politician, saying one thing, then going and doing the other. The fact that he does this with a straight face throwing crap at both Bush and Kerry for their politics makes him an arrogant piece of crap.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I say it's impossible

Oh yeah? .... Nee...NEEE! nee!!!

You could be right.

 

[0marTheZealot]

I hope I'm not

 

[cjgallen]

I'm George W. Bush, and I approve this message

 

[LordMagnusKain]

literally no escape from it. How can any candidate acheive critical mass when the system is ACTIVELY working against him/her. It's simply not possible

it amazes me when I talk to perfectly rational people about fixing what they see wrong, and they response ?I?m going to help it keep going, because no one else wants to admit there is something wrong?

Then you call for violence? How bout you call for people to think, because sometimes: they will.

The fact is that your vote has no meaning unless you vote for a 3rd party candidate, the facts alone will slowly sway people to think outside of partisanship.

My angle is to work for reforming the Democratic Party which will in turn reform the country.

that?s fine, but won?t voting for a 3rd party and thus forcing the democratic party to expand the tent to better encompass the views and get back your vote be the loudest way to do that?

 

[heartsurgeon]

vote for anyone but Kerry

 

[chowderhead]

Again, I will pose this question to people wanting to vote 3rd party for President.
Why should I give my vote to a (any 3rd) party which has ZERO members elected to Congress and few members elected to state legislatures across the country? Shouldn't 3rd parties grow their support at the state and local levels first before trying to run candidates for president? They cannot win, they can only act as spoilers or as a protest.
-----------------------------
As an aside, I think the 2 major parties will poach/co-opt the ideas of the 3rd party if the ideas are good. That is one big reason why I don't think 3rd parties will be viable in the foreseeable future. Other factors against third parties are that the two major parties have huge advantages in organization, money, inertia, public perceptions and the fact that voters have become increasingly partisan (many factors). Lastly, House Congressional incumbents have a 95-98% reelection rate (money, redistricting, etc) which is ironic since you have a better chance probably of defeating an incumbent in the old Soviet politburo than a sitting member of Congress.

Still, I think 3rd parties should build at the grassroots level.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

My angle is to work for reforming the Democratic Party which will in turn reform the country.

that?s fine, but won?t voting for a 3rd party and thus forcing the democratic party to expand the tent to better encompass the views and get back your vote be the loudest way to do that?

But I don't think that just voting for the 3rd party is necessarily the "loudest" way. I think truly working for change within the existing party is a better way. Actually I think the Democratic Party should split into two, one party Moderates (that would attract Rockefeller Republicans and independents) and one for Progressives (that would attract Greens), but thats just a pipe dream...

This November, if I can vote for a Green candidate in what I consider an "safe" race, I'll do so. I'll still be voting Kerry for President though....

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
Again, I will pose this question to people wanting to vote 3rd party for President.
Why should I give my vote to a (any 3rd) party which has ZERO members elected to Congress and few members elected to state legislatures across the country? Shouldn't 3rd parties grow their support at the state and local levels first before trying to run candidates for president? They cannot win, they can only act as spoilers or as a protest.
-----------------------------
As an aside, I think the 2 major parties will poach/co-opt the ideas of the 3rd party if the ideas are good. That is one big reason why I don't think 3rd parties will be viable in the foreseeable future. Other factors against third parties are that the two major parties have huge advantages in organization, money, inertia, public perceptions and the fact that voters have become increasingly partisan (many factors). Lastly, House Congressional incumbents have a 95-98% reelection rate (money, redistricting, etc) which is ironic since you have a better chance probably of defeating an incumbent in the old Soviet politburo than a sitting member of Congress.

Still, I think 3rd parties should build at the grassroots level.

I agree with this fully.

Unfortunately what if someone is not attracted to the dems or the republicans?...

for example, somebody is fiscally conservative, yet socially progressive.
and the dem candidate is not appealing or too left leaning.

I think this warrents a 3rd party vote. As if you do not vote you look apathetic and not involved in the political system, when in fact you are. This protest must be accounted for.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: chowderhead
Again, I will pose this question to people wanting to vote 3rd party for President.
Why should I give my vote to a (any 3rd) party which has ZERO members elected to Congress and few members elected to state legislatures across the country? Shouldn't 3rd parties grow their support at the state and local levels first before trying to run candidates for president? They cannot win, they can only act as spoilers or as a protest.
-----------------------------
As an aside, I think the 2 major parties will poach/co-opt the ideas of the 3rd party if the ideas are good. That is one big reason why I don't think 3rd parties will be viable in the foreseeable future. Other factors against third parties are that the two major parties have huge advantages in organization, money, inertia, public perceptions and the fact that voters have become increasingly partisan (many factors). Lastly, House Congressional incumbents have a 95-98% reelection rate (money, redistricting, etc) which is ironic since you have a better chance probably of defeating an incumbent in the old Soviet politburo than a sitting member of Congress.

Still, I think 3rd parties should build at the grassroots level.

I agree with this fully.

Unfortunately what if someone is not attracted to the dems or the republicans?...

for example, somebody is fiscally conservative, yet socially progressive.
and the dem candidate is not appealing or too left leaning.

I think this warrents a 3rd party vote. As if you do not vote you look apathetic and not involved in the political system, when in fact you are. This protest must be accounted for.

I'd add that the 2 Major Parties Co-Opting Third Party issues is not a bad thing. In fact, that's one of the advantages of a Multi-Party system, the thrusting of Issues onto the Stage of the process from Significant Minority Parties.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: chowderhead
Again, I will pose this question to people wanting to vote 3rd party for President.
Why should I give my vote to a (any 3rd) party which has ZERO members elected to Congress and few members elected to state legislatures across the country? Shouldn't 3rd parties grow their support at the state and local levels first before trying to run candidates for president? They cannot win, they can only act as spoilers or as a protest.
-----------------------------
As an aside, I think the 2 major parties will poach/co-opt the ideas of the 3rd party if the ideas are good. That is one big reason why I don't think 3rd parties will be viable in the foreseeable future. Other factors against third parties are that the two major parties have huge advantages in organization, money, inertia, public perceptions and the fact that voters have become increasingly partisan (many factors). Lastly, House Congressional incumbents have a 95-98% reelection rate (money, redistricting, etc) which is ironic since you have a better chance probably of defeating an incumbent in the old Soviet politburo than a sitting member of Congress.

Still, I think 3rd parties should build at the grassroots level.

I agree with this fully.

Unfortunately what if someone is not attracted to the dems or the republicans?...

for example, somebody is fiscally conservative, yet socially progressive.
and the dem candidate is not appealing or too left leaning.

I think this warrents a 3rd party vote. As if you do not vote you look apathetic and not involved in the political system, when in fact you are. This protest must be accounted for.

I'd add that the 2 Major Parties Co-Opting Third Party issues is not a bad thing. In fact, that's one of the advantages of a Multi-Party system, the thrusting of Issues onto the Stage of the process from Significant Minority Parties.

Ok, which party is going to co-opt plans to abolish both the IRS and the Federal Reserve?

 

[Genesys]

im with ya Kain, i'll be voting Constitutional myself. i've been entertaining the idea of getting some of the Constitutional literature and distributing it around my town...