Why I vote 3rd party

ted · Post by **ted** » 24 Aug 2004 09:16

Why I vote 3rd party

Frankly, with all of the political banter here I am suprised this hasn't really come up yet. So...
I refuse to support a 2 party system that I don't believe is really addressing the most important issues. I am outraged that obtaining unbiased, unfiltered, unprocessed news is a project, not a choice. I am frustrated and angry about the role of my county in a global economy and our participation in shortsighted actions with little responsibility. Republican or Democrat, whether they have been fiscally responsible or raided federal trust funds, established new wildlands or bastardized existing environmental laws, the United States, I feel, has never embodied the social and economic justice and opportunity we celebrate ourselves for. And until a viable candidate emerges that addresses these things, I will never throw my support behind them. For now, my vote for a third party is not so much about support of their values, but a refusal to vote for any established candidate. I voted for Nader, not because he personified my beliefs but because there was not a "NO" option on the ballot. My vote is a signal that the two parties are not touching the subjects I want to see change. However, I remain a vote they can court in the future.

"But what about Bush? Anyone is better than Bush!"

I see the point here but also view it as a perpetual conundrum; will there ever be a series of candidates about whom I can say "this election doesn't matter, either candidate will be a good one, so I feel secure 'wasting' my vote"? I think that 'anyone but Bush' is a dangerous opinion to hold at the ballot booth. I have heard so many like-minded people say 'I would vote 3rd party but...' I Vote strictly for what I believe in, not out of fear of what will happen if I don't. At that point, the principles of democracy would have been totally co-opted from me. Voting within a two party framework, to me, is a vote for complacency and ignorance.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 24 Aug 2004 09:37

URL

I wish there was a negative vote.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 24 Aug 2004 10:51

Cameron,

That avatar makes my whole being hurt.

On topic:

What if there was a negative vote, how would that work? If enough people vote no, then what? Does the current president stay in office until suitable candidates can get nominated for another election? How much will that cost?

Just curious what you think. Personally I think you can do better than Nadar. I voted for Perot in my first election. I'm a republican, but at the time I didn't feel we could do any better with the given choices.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 24 Aug 2004 10:58

A negative vote would work by subtracting one vote from that candidate's total. It would be like being able to get a vote to everyone but Bush.

oZonE-juNkie · Post by **oZonE-juNkie** » 26 Aug 2004 08:54

Not only does the 2 party system suck, but the way electoral votes work, it's even harder for a third party candidate to ever get elected.

The electoral voting system completely sucks, it's antequated, and needs to go away forever...

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 26 Aug 2004 18:40

I always vote for non major parties in Australian elections, but we have a preference system so if there are 15 parties running for the election I can vote the best of the two major parties second last and the other major party last and unless a minority party gets elected my vote will go to the better of the two major parties. Thus the only way my vote doesn't go to the party that gets elected is if they get a majority before my preference goes to them.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 27 Aug 2004 09:16

I heard there is a possibility of Bush winning the popular vote, but losing the electorial vote(which we saw last election with Gore)

If that happens, is Kerry the unelected president? Is he not the real president?

-n

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 27 Aug 2004 09:17

Another thing that sucks about american politics is the parties don't rally their "supporters" during the campaign. They focus on the 2% of likely voters who are undecided. If you are undecided after 4 friggin years, there is a good chance you are mentally deficient in both comprehension and information retention, and should have your license to vote recinded.

Maybe if the parties actually campaigned on their ideas instead of trying to be non-offensive to the undecided . . . the undecided could make up their minds about which group might represent them better.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 27 Aug 2004 09:42

Yeah, I think they(the media) pump up the importance of the "undecided" so they dont have to do a real story.

I would love it if a a candidate got up and said,

"undecideds?....why bother with them? Their opinions don't matter anyway, they won't even come out to vote. They are to stupid to vote even if they DO come out(Florida). "

-n

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 27 Aug 2004 09:49

I don't feel as much of that from Bush as I do from Kerry. Bush has already been in office, we know his quarks, we know his agenda. Kerry on the otherhand is like a spatula, he flip flops for the audience in front of him, like an actor on stage giving seperate tailored performances. But after watching them I still have no earthly idea what his plans really are and who he has himself allied with to acheive his plans.

No Kennedy's please, Edward (Kennedy) has got to go, and the other Edwards needs to grow a beard before he can tell anyone how to shave it off. He simply lacks the experience necessary to deliver powerful leadership as a Vice President.

Nadar can't seem to get the votes needed to get on the ballot. So hopelessly we are stuck with the 2.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 27 Aug 2004 10:05

Bush flip flopped on climate change and the correlation of increased global warming with increased levels of Carbon Dioxide today. . . .

Bush Flip flopped on the reason for invading Iraq from imminent threat++WMD to Liberation

Bush Flipflipped on the banishment of embryonic stem cell research

Bush flip flopped on the need for a 9-11 independant investigation

Bush flip flopped on the cost for this war

Bush flip flopped on the duration of this war

Bush flip flopped on the effectiveness of the war on terror. One minute we are "safer because of actions taken" the next day we are more vulnerable than ever due to increased terrorist recruitment and higher levels of chatter.

Bush flip flipped on the "New Urgent terrorist Attack plans from three years ago" that we already knew about, but just wanted to scare the people after Kerry took a lead in the poles.

Bush flip flopped on the soft money ads.

Bush flip flopped on the campaign promise of being a united not a divider

Bush flip flopped on the campaign promise of having a humble foreign policy

Bush flip flopped on the campaign promise of having a smaller more efficient government.

*ZIP*
Suck my balls, I'm sick of hearing about flip flopping from an administration that has flip flopped on issues critical to every carbon based life form on the planet.

Tsiangkun

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 27 Aug 2004 10:28

And you know all of this about Bush. Yet we know [putting his ear to the air] jack shit about Kerry.

I saw nothing in your list that shows any positive reinforcement for Kerry. Not one fact that makes me say yeah I'll vote for that guy. Not a single piece of an agenda at all.

So I say *ZIP* right back

Cause I'm sick of the bashing with no earthly idea what the F__k Kerry plans to do.

Just the facts Cameron, just the facts.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 27 Aug 2004 10:37

Which is WHY I noramlly VOTE THIRD PARTY, hence the thread name, except for this election for reasons already stated.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 27 Aug 2004 10:57

Good then

oZonE-juNkie · Post by **oZonE-juNkie** » 27 Aug 2004 11:59

HighDemonslayer wrote:I heard there is a possibility of Bush winning the popular vote, but losing the electorial vote(which we saw last election with Gore)

If that happens, is Kerry the unelected president? Is he not the real president?

-n

This has happened (recently and a while ago) a few times in history. Electoral is the only one that "counts" - popular means nothing. Hence, one of the many problems with the electoral college system...

oZonE-juNkie · Post by **oZonE-juNkie** » 27 Aug 2004 12:02

oZonE-juNkie wrote:
HighDemonslayer wrote:I heard there is a possibility of Bush winning the popular vote, but losing the electorial vote(which we saw last election with Gore)

If that happens, is Kerry the unelected president? Is he not the real president?

-n
This has happened (recently and a while ago) a few times in history. Electoral is the only one that "counts" - popular means nothing. Hence, one of the many problems with the electoral college system...

btw, this is one of the main reasons why third party gets screwed. They can a huge number of popular votes (although unlikely), and get little or no electoral votes...

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 27 Aug 2004 12:22

Why do you guys keep bashing the electoral college? If we went popular vote, then States like Texas, California and New York would get to say who is president and your little po dunk town wouldn't have a voice.

I've said this many times, just cause something is popular doesn't make it the best choice. Look at McDonalds. Very popular with people, yet will clog your arteries and make you over wieght.

Popular is bunk, you are stripping the rest of the country of their right to elect who might be better suited for them.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 27 Aug 2004 12:53

I'm bashing the two party system. I wish we had somehting like australia.

oZonE-juNkie · Post by **oZonE-juNkie** » 28 Aug 2004 18:22

You can't blame a state for having more population than other parts of the country. In fact, you can't delineate between states - it's not that California, New York, and/or Texas would decide who's president, it's that the US population would decide. So what if there's more people in NY than in Alamaba. Not all NY'ers vote the same way.

And, fact is, electoral college promotes repub/democrats - leaving third party essentially out of the equation.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 28 Aug 2004 21:11

Its an interesting topic. I'm not sure how I feel.

Damon said:

Why do you guys keep bashing the electoral college? If we went popular vote, then States like Texas, California and New York would get to say who is president and your little po dunk town wouldn't have a voice.

And there is some truth to this, but its not that simple. Another way of looking at the electoral college is this: if 51% of a state votes one way, 100% that state's electoral votes go that way. With the E.C., the majority of California, Texas, and NY's voters get an enormouse influence because the majority opinions now means 100% and the minority opinions of those states mean zero. Without the E.C., the 49% of some state will have at least 49% of the say, not zero percent.

I don't feel like thinking too hard about exactly how losing the E.C. would change things because I don't feel like I have enough information on the subject and I don't think I've got the will to learn all about some hypothetical situation involving the disappearance of some mega-important institution over which my one little ass has no control.

However, it does seem to me that the Electoral College is some kind of throw-back to a time when our country was just a collection of mini-countries called States that didn't think of themselves as one big country. All these colonies, Virginia, New York, Vermont, Georgia, etc. all liked to think of themselves as independant from the rest. I don't really think that Americans think of themselves as citizens of a particular state the way they used to. Back then, citizens of those states actually went to war against citizens of their neighbor states. That was a long time ago. I don't think the people of this country think of themselves and their states and their country that way anymore. It doesn't seem to make sense to me anymore that citizens of a state vote amongst themselves to decide how their state is going to vote in the electoral college and thus I can't really relate to that institution at all.

Another hypothetical: If I live in a state that always votes Republican by a large majority, I know casting a vote for the Democratic party in that state means zero because of the electoral college. I might feel pretty apathetic about the voting at all as my vote really and truly doesn't count even the tiny fraction that it might without the EC.

I think I favor a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister. I think a voter can have more say this way since he doesn't have to vote on exactly one huge platform or the other that covers all the issues, but rather gets to pick a sub-group who's agenda is more specifically focused, and when that group wins some seats in parliament they can join a coallition with other groups who have different set of issues they are concerned with.

Anyone out there care to chime in on the pros and cons of Parliament and Prime Minister versus Congress, States, and President?