I have heard a lot of arguments from Democrats who felt like Nader was a spoiler for the Gore campaign back in 2000.

I have also heard a lot of great arguments that Nader may have actually helped get more voters out who may have switched their vote to Gore at the last minute.

And then, of course, you can't blame the whole Florida debacle on Nader as there were many underhanded things going on there.

My personal belief is that it's important to vote for the candidate you believe would be best for the job, regardless of whether they have a chance of winning or not. This seems important for helping to set policy as well, as strong 3rd party candidates are able to bring up issues that Repubs and Demos just dance around each other with.

On the other hand, I don't think I, or any other of my fellow Greens could have predicted just how destructive 4 years of Bush could have been for the environment, jobs and the economy, and the cause of peace. I keep going back and forth between the idea of voting my conscience and doing anything to get Bush out of office.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I happen to live in a state where the majority votes straight ticket Republican regardless of the candidates' views and records, so all the electoral votes will go to Bush no matter what I vote. This frees me up to vote my conscience and not worry about being the cause of four more years of Bush.

I was curious how other third party members of AD felt about this dilemma, though. I've seen this issue come up in the general election forum, but I wanted to have a specifically 3rd party debate, since it affects how we vote more than it will effect how Dems and Repubs vote.

Question for Debate:

As members or believers of 3rd parties, is it more important to vote your party or the lesser of two evils in this upcoming election and why?


edited to fix spelling error

First, I don't think this should be restricted to third-party followers, the same logic applies when choosing to vote for someone within the major parties as well. My answer is that you should always vote for the person you think best represents your wishes/values/ideology, regardless of whether you think that person will win or not. Your vote still counts. Do you think the Democratic party is unaware of the votes spent on Nader during the last campaign? Or that all the votes that went to Perot didn't cause a major shift within the Republican party? If you fail to vote for the person that best represents you, you forego your chance to initiate change towards your viewpoint. The major parties certainly won't make any changes towards platforms that don't generate votes. Support your platform, and some of it will be adopted, even if the person you vote for doesn't win.

The reason I chose to debate this for 3rd parties here is that there is more than one thread in the general political debate on this same (or similar) topic.

I've also seen the topic of Nader in the Democratic debate and couldn't contribute my thoughts there.

I wanted to get an idea of how those in 3rd parties felt about this with out "muddying the waters" (so to speak --please do not take offense) with opinions of those from the major parties. It does affect those of us in third parties differently because we are having to choose between supporting and helping our parties, or trying keep out the worst candidate.

Also, ultimately, the more votes for nader, for example, force the democrats to try to move left to pick back up those votes. Its a long term strategy to change the main parties while not supporting the plutocratic two party system.

You're voting for who you beleave best represents your views. If your voting for who you beleave best represents your views then it isn't a waisted vote. For example, I was in favor of Nader last presadental election, (dispite the fact that I'm to young to vote), I thought that he was the best representative of what I beleaved so it wouldn't be a waisted vote.

I believe that if you are a third party voter who would otherwise vote for a Democrat, then you should stick to your principles and vote for your third party! It's only a "wasted vote" if you say it is!

If , on the other hand, you are a third party voter who would otherwise vote Republican, then you should be realistic and vote for the "lesser of two evils!" ... Oooops, I mean

You should be realistic with your vote. What will it accomplish?
One sees "If you vote your heart it isn't a wasted vote"
Bull
Think about the last two examples of this. Nader and Perot. The people who supported these guys simply handed the elections to the candidate who represented the opposite of their veiws.
4 years of Bush. Gotta wonder how many Greens puke themselves to sleep every night knowing they put Dubya in office.
Did those voters really accompilish any real lasting changes to the target of their wrath?? IMO None at all. The only exception I would offer is a complete loss of any friendly reception from their target. All Democrats live in fear right now of any Green candidate not because of fear that the"Real Progressives" are going to finally come to power and overthrow the corrupt system, but that they drain away at their shot of regaining power. Think they'll really change to meet your veiws?? Doubtful.
People who complain about the two party system in America fail to realize that the 2 parties pretty well cover the majority of Americans. Greens, Libertarians, Independants etc are the exception to the rule. The majority of Americans care about what they need to get through life. They don't sit around debating the fine points of capitalism as the driving force of liberty. They worry about jobs and their children and living good lives. They veiw the debates most 3rd party supporters thrive on as silly as the stupidity of the Mac vs. Windows flamers.
Which is why they rarely ever win any office worth having. The Mayoral office of Tinytown USA won't really do much to change the political system of this country. By the time they gain enough of an impact I would bet that the problems and attitudes of the country at that time will be different enough to make them irrelevant.
The thing that relegates 3rd parties to their place of insignifigance is their total lack of any useful solutions to average Americans. Parroting the words of your personal favorite political writer doesn't make your neighbors go "Hey Yeah, Thats right"
It just makes them avoid eye contact and back away slowly.
Until the third parties can offer useful ideas supporting them is useless. Supporting them offers the very real chance of placing your enemy in power and earning you the resentment and dislike of those who could have been allies. C'mon Nader, go ahead run! No one will support him again.
The more I look at it. The more I think I should just really get involved with one of the two parties. Get inside and do damage from there. I think Ron Paul is a good example.
Your vote should count for something other than to impress your friends and be used as a political hickey in online debate rooms.
Want your vote to actually influence anything realistically. Get enough like minded people together form a group and shop your vote power around to politicians. It is politics after all. One man One vote is great, But 1000 people with a big damn stick of a vote is way better.
Supporting someone who will just drain away the chances of someone who is at least in your idealistic atmosphere is silly.
Make your vote count.
Even better get off your duff and go outside and get involved. Find the politicians and make their lives miserable.

I vote my conscience, which is to say Libertarian Party, when my state is solidly in one column or the other. Why not vote for the one you actually agree with when it won't affect the results? There's no downside to it unless the pollsters are way off, and they're almost never that far off.

But when it's close and my vote might possibly tilt my state's electoral votes, then I hold my nose and vote for the one I consider the lesser evil, which this time around would be Bush.

In response to this first statement - Really? Is that the reson? A "total lack of useful solutions?" Are you sure about that? Care to back that up?

To the second statement- Gee, I often "parrot" my favorite political writers and many of my neighbors do indeed go "Hey yeah, that's right" or something to that effect. Sorry I can't cite them though. Would you like their phone numbers?

To the third statement- More power to you my friend! So what are you waiting for? I see you still claim to be an "independent."

And the fourth- If you really believe that, then why does your "hickey" remain unchanged?

I always voted the lesser of 2 evils in a Presidential election, and for me that has always been Republican. Recently I thought I was going to do the same this election but now I don't know. The closest 3rd party to my beliefs is the LP party, I would say I can agree with about 70% of their platform. That's the closest I have ever agreed with any party. I don't think the LP party is on my ballot in NJ so even if I wanted to register my dissent for both the Repub's and Dem's I can't. So now I may not know how I will vote till I enter the ballot box. Maybe I will stay home but I doubt that since I feel that everyone should vote.

Really?

While it is anecdotal, I have rarely heard anyone I know vote for someone in the two major parties other than to vote in the "lesser of the two evils". This is a clear indication in my mind that there are a lot of things the two parties are not addressing.



That's a pretty strong statement -- I think you should look at the Green and Libertarian platforms which I have read. There are some pretty good solutions in there:

http://www.gp.org/platform/2000/index.html
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/

edited to add:

P.S. If the the major parties are so good at meeting the majority of American's needs (in your opinion), why are you listed on AD as an independent and not a Republican or Democrat?

also, if you look at the question to debate:



since you are a belever or supporter of the two major parties, this debate doesn't seem to apply to you

I'm not cerain about this election year, but the LP has usually been on the ballot in all fifty states for some time now. Sometimes they miss one or two when a law is changed too late to make it possible to qualify but usually.

Hmm.. Maybe I misunderstood their website.
Libertarian 2004 Ballot Qualification
I didn't even see that they were trying to get NJ. Perhaps it just means that they haven't gotten to it yet!

If that's the case then I will know once they decide who is running. If they do get on the ballot then the Libertarian candidate will be a serious consideration.

Why haven't I changed my personal hickey from indie to one of the two parties?
This is something I have only begun to seriously consider. Problem is the moderates of each party are so close in veiw which way to go
I also prefer the idea of shopping my vote to the best possible candidate.


Are we ever going to get a perfect world. In searching through the two largest 3rd party alternatives I agree with Greens on maybe a 1/4 of what they want. Libertarians closer to 3/4. However I am so unimpressed by any of their possible candidates or actual chances of gaining meaningful power I see no reason to squander my vote. The chance of putting my polar opposite in power is too great and damaging to play games.


While I beleive they fit the majority of people I do not place myself in the majority.
Simple fact is that most Americans do not care about the fine points of political debate. They are interested in what can you do for me now and will i be safe and happy. We are the exception to the rule. People on AD and places like it spend considerably more time going over and thinking about this kind of stuff. Most other people play golf, go bowling or just watch Seinfeld. Most Americans know little to nothing about the third parties and what they want. Another veiw ofmine is that the two major 3rd party candidates are simply more distilled versions of the two dominant parties. Greens are the ultra lib Democrats and libertarians are Republicans without the religious imperialism. IMO opinion if the Greens were to seriously flood the Democratic party they would have the power to bring about the changes they want. Personally I prefer the Libertarians but don't think they have a shot in hell of any real signifigance anytime soon.





I did indeed look at and answer the question.

I am a registered Libertarian.

I am going to vote for Kerry. Unfortunately I am left with a lesser of two evils candidate.

Bush has been so incredibly harmful to personal liberty that I now feel that anyone would be better than him. With all the various Patriot-like acts this president has signed, and is now attempting to enforce, I am left with no choice.

The idea of a secret court, where the defendant does not learn what evidence is being used against him, who is testifying against him, and is not capable of receiving a jury trial is a very scary thing. This, unfortunately, is exactly what is happening.

I am usually very wary of any sort of 'slippery slope' argument. However, as this administration has demonstrated very well, once something like this court is created, it is never undone, and it is occasionally expanded in scope.

Suppose this court makes a mistake, like any other court might. Who will make sure that the mistake is corrected? When was the last time you heard a district attorney announce that they made a serious error and have arranged for someone who has been in prison to be released? Have you ever heard of a judge who reverses his ruling because he realized it was wrong? If you ever have, was it a spontaneous admittance, or was there some sort of public outcry? If you were being tried for something, wouldn't you like to know who it is that testifies against you? Well, I guess it doesn't matter, since historically it is well known that police never lie to get a conviction.

A Democratic President and a Republican Congress might deadlock the government a bit, so that less huge new programs get started. Well, that is my humble hope.

Then again, it is so very tempting to flip on Fox news, buy stock in Boeing, and enjoy the ride.
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/fiscshort.html

I am very wary of the slippery slope argument as well, but so much has been undone that took years to create, and damage that has been created in the last 4 years will take many years to undo if it can be done at all -- I'm with you on this one.

I'm an independent (not registered with any party), and probably agree with Libertarians most (I'm a former believer in Anarchism, but that was before I could vote, anyway (not that I would have voted if I could have...)). Anyway, I, and my girlfriend (who voted Nader in 2000) are both voting Kerry this year, simply on a lesser of two evils situation.

If I could have (and would have) voted in 1996, I probably wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Dole. In 2000, I would have voted Gore. After seeing that my fears have been realized with this puppet of a president, I'll do anything to get him out (including donating to Kerry (only $5, however, heh)).