In the Al Gore Pleads to Voter's thread Artemise said


and I responded:



and Cube Jockey responded



As he was right that this was taking Titus's thread off topic I am starting this one.

Question to Debate:
Is a Presidential campaign a place for Indy and Third Party voter's to take a stand and not vote for so so candidates and why? Why should the disenfranchised voters put their qualms for both parties aside because it is a Presidential elections? If you think that voter's should put their conscience aside how is that not "throwing away your vote"? How will the major parties know they are not appealing to a significant portion of the population if we are voting the "lesser of two evils"?

A timely topic DreamPipEr and as someone who "threw away" their vote when I voted for John Anderson over Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan, I think you have the right to vote your conscience and the hell with the conventional wisdom.

Come November millions of Americans will vote for Kerry or Bush---and vote wrongly when their candidate loses. But because they have voted under the umbrella of the two-party monopoly those people will feel less of a loser than if they had opted out for a third party candidate.

It's not easy to be a true independent and vote for a candidate who doesn't have a "R" or "D" after their name. The media mocks you. The established parties question your sanity. Your friends call you a hopeless idealist. Children laugh and dogs bark at you.

However, I agree with both Cube Jockey and Artemise that the problem with third parties is they haven't established themselves as players on the political scene on a local or statewide level, but want to jump in the deep end of Presidential politics and start swimming. Well, it's okay to have ambition, but that ambition should be tempered by a sense of realistic expectations.

Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a Socialist whose formal description is Independent. Ron Paul of Texas is a Libertarian impersonating a Republican and there may be a handful of others whose political label doesn't conceal their true allegiance, but by and large, third parties have failed to make significant inroads since Ross Perot's Reform Party crashed and burned and Jesse Ventura left the governor's office in Minnesota.

http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml
http://bernie.house.gov/

It's a tedious and painfully protracted process for a third party to slog through 50 states winning offices a city or county at a time, but that's the only way to build a true political machine that can stand against the Republicans and Democrats dominance of the national agenda. How could a Libertarian or Green President ever have any effectiveness if they had to constantly deal with a Congress controlled by the two major parties?

Third parties will remain essentially boutique parties until they start racking up some wins. They've got their rhetoric down and they may even have some ideas worth giving a try, but until they start electing some school board members, mayors and state representatives, they're never going to elect a President.

Before you get to the filet mignon you've got to eat a lot of hamburger.

Question to Debate:
Is a Presidential campaign a place for Indy and Third Party voter's to take a stand and not vote for so so candidates and why? Why should the disenfranchised voters put their qualms for both parties aside because it is a Presidential elections? If you think that voter's should put their conscience aside how is that not "throwing away your vote"? How will the major parties know they are not appealing to a significant portion of the population if we are voting the "lesser of two evils"?


Good questions. I wonder if this debate will take the same tone as it might have taken had we been here during the Anderson, Perot, and Buchanan third party campaigns..... Probably not.

In any case, it seems to me that the choice of a voter is a pretty personal thing made for personal reasons. If one's desire is to simply remove President Bush and replace him with whomever and you really don't care who, then it would probably be best to vote for Kerry. That's the ABB vote, and there's quite a lot of it.

However, if one is looking to change the direction of the Democratic Party or Republican Party for that matter, voting for the status quo is counter-productive. Let's look at it in the context of this election with Kerry, Bush and Nader. Nader isn't going to win, period. But, he could possibly cause Kerry to lose as Perot most likely did to the first Bush in 1992. Now, does that send a message to the Democratic Party? You bet it does! It tells them that if they want to win the White House the next time, maybe they should consider what drove so many voters away from them this time. Maybe the next time they'll pick a candidate that is more like Nader and that will jog the party a little more to the left. It's an incremental change to be sure, but it may be really the only way any change can be affected.

I came across this from the ever-prickly Eric Alterman on The Nation's web-site. He has his own opinion how third parties can gain power and influence.

I really couldn't care less about the Democratic Party as an entity, except as a vehicle with which to frustrate the ambitions of evil and misguided people--like the ones funding and collecting signatures for the Nader campaign in Michigan.

The Democratic Party is not going to go away anytime soon, given the way our Electoral College works and it's always amazed me how stupendously stupid Nader and company were to try to go the third-party route rather than to try to take it over as the Christian Coalition and the other far-right groups have done with what once was a relatively moderate conservative Republican Party.

What Bai and Tomasky are talking about is the takeover of the Democratic Party, one way or another, by billionaires, which sounds like a bad thing, but isn't necessarily. After all, it depends on the billionaires. It's a long and complicated process and where it all ends, knows God. We all know, something somewhere had to give.

But it's begun and that's a good thing. Let's hope the Naderites wake up to this fact before their blind devotion to their megalomaniac maximum leader cause another war…

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/liberalmedia?bid=10

Ouch.

NT, we are eating hamburger. I don't think anyone here has said that they can't understand why a third partier hasn't won national office yet.
The Libertarians currently hold 601 public official positions nationwide. Link
The Greens lag farther behind at 209. Link


I would counter that we aren't very darn effective now!

If enough people start to realize that there is strength in numbers, and they need to stop being scared to 'throw away' there vote, then maybe either change will happen in the number of viable national parties, or the two bully parties will revert to their original ideals and serve the nation instead of themselves.

Thanks for the interesting links Dontreadonme. This board is soooo educational.

I don't hold out much hope that the Democratic and Republican Parties will find their soul and principles as long as they remain wholly owned subsidiaries of Corporate America and imprisoned to entrenched special interests and lobbies.

Eric Alterman may have a point in his assertion that if you can't beat 'em, subvert them from within. However, I don't know whether you can change something that has been corrupted into something worthwhile.

I'm not hostile to third parties. I want more democracy, not less. I just don't think they have made themselves politically viable yet and while the major parties throw up roadblocks to thwart the rise of alternatives, inevitably it is up to those new parties to nuture and grow themselves.

Is a Presidential campaign a place for Indy and Third Party voter's to take a stand and not vote for so so candidates and why? Why should the disenfranchised voters put their qualms for both parties aside because it is a Presidential elections? If you think that voter's should put their conscience aside how is that not "throwing away your vote"? How will the major parties know they are not appealing to a significant portion of the population if we are voting the "lesser of two evils"?

Ok, let me start by saying that I do believe that you should vote your conscience and not be pressured to vote for a candidate you are uncomfortable with. That is your right and privledge as an American citizen.

That being said however, I would submit that if your goal as a voter is to get a third party candidate with green, libertarian or some other politics elected, the presidential election is not the most effective way to do that. The battle between Democrats and Republicans is like a boxing match between two heavy weights, adding an independent in there is the equivalent of throwing a 98-pound weakling in there to spar with the victor -- they are going to get creamed every time.

I know some of you believe that voting for an independent candidate sends a message, but I don't think it is the message you intend. The message the politicians receive is that your poltical party is a joke, unorganized and is not a threat. In the 2000 election Bush got what 6% of the black vote? Did that make the Republican party lean back and say hmmmm.... maybe we should figure out why black voters don't like us? No, it didn't. Nader ran in 2000 and he got something like 3 or 4% of the national vote I believe (that may be high). Did that prompt the Democratic party to approach Nader and find out how they can get him on their side? No it didn't, they are trying to thwart him because 3% will be significant this year and the Republicans are trying to help him out for the same reason.

The only way that independent candidates are ever going to gain any sort of respect, clout or pull on the political stage short of some catastrophic event is if they work on getting elected from the ground up. That means that if you really believe in a certain candidate, your efforts and energy would be far better utilized helping them beat an incumbent democrat or republican candidate for a local office, mayoral position, state legislature or house of representatives spot. Like I said these elections are most definitely winnable because they occur on a much smaller scale. You have a far better time convincing several tens of thousands of people that your way is the right way than you do of going up against tens of millions of people with entrenched ideas. No to mention the fact that your candidate is completely unproven as far as political office goes in most cases. I would venture to say (and I could be wrong) that every single Republican or Democratic candidate in the last 50 years has been qualified by either previous major political office or distinguished military service. You cannot say that for any independent that I am aware of.

Independents have a place in politics and I would like to see them holding more offices, but you can't head up the slopes as a beginning skiier and expect to take on a double black slope.

So to sum up, I do not feel that independent voters should do anything other than vote their hearts. However, you have to be a realist. You have to realize that your goal of getting your candidate elected is not going to happen right now and that any message you intended to send is going to be garbled by the time any politician analyzes it. If voting for your candidate satisfies you even if the guy that wins holds completely opposite beliefs as you do and you can live with that, fine by me -- it is your right. I however, could not live with that were I an independent I would want the person closest to my beliefs in office. I would also be focusing my efforts on getting the people I did believe in elected at a more granular level. You are but a grain of sand on the national level, but you have some power locally.


I stand corrected about the local offices, but I also do not see one single federal legislator in that list, nor do I see any federal judges. In my opinion California should be leading the way here, especially Northern California. There were a handful of state legislators. These people need to put it on the line and think bigger if they want the democrats and republicans to take notice.

They won't do this by going for president, that is just asking to be swatted like a fly. They could do this by taking a few seats in the house of representatives from Democrats and Republicans and eventually a few senate seats.

The major parties will never realize a thing until they begin to lose spots in a steady and even more importantly costly fashion.
But where are the voices. Where are the people who become the names.
None of the alternate parties have anyone worth note. The candidates they feild will continue to be footnotes at best. Nader only made a splash because he has a long history as a antigovernment big business spoiler, Perot had wads of cash and the little ferengi had a mouth bigger than he was. Ventura is Ventura and knows how to play the media.
Can the average American name one single solitary 3P candidate. How about at least 1/4 of any of their platform.
Nobody on this debate site counts. We are not normal. most Americans pay attention ONLY during the conventions and right before the elections. Its just like tax time, come April its OMG!
Even at the local level 3Ps (I hereby trademark and copyright the term 3P for future use, All opposed say NAY,,,,,no one? Kewl,, All in Favor,,,,Whoa! that was painfully loud thanks,,, Hey Democracy in action) are political hensteeth. A novelty item discussed by members of debate boards like this.



Are you throwing your vote away?
At any other time NO.
But right now YES.
The Republicans MUST be stopped and right now the 3P landscape is the Maginot Line.
If you aid and abet the Republicans then by the time we get to 2008 the damage will be massive. By voting Democrat you will place a roadblock in the way. A stale mate that will allow us time to hopefully begin to make some noise.
I guarantee you that if the Republicans win they will consider it a mandate and I don't think the Dems will be able to stall them any longer. They will dismantle the Constitution to get their ban on Gays and will continue to invade your privacy and homes and persons to save their lily white backsides from their fear of the falling sky!
You want to promote a 3P? By all means do so. But it will do you little good in the remains of the landscape from the Republican blitzkrieg.

A stalemate will allow a concerted effort to promote 3P candidates at many levels of Government. I think enough people will be alrmed by the current state of affairs between the 2 parties that enough buzz can be generated to start some type of movement.

First off the debating and getting on the ballot are severely skewed towards the 2 major parties. I won't be shy and say "oh but there is nothing I can do about it" and I will come out and say that it down right ticks me off! This is where I see the injustice in our elections. I read this A Constitutional Crisis recently. While this author is so obviously biased towards Nader and I gather he seems to think that the Indy's would vote for Nader he makes some points can be applied to other potential candidates that don't follow the R or D platform.

For example:





and most telling of the corruption and power hunger of the R and D is this:

emphasis mine

So why should indy's succumb to this hypocrisy? Why do some (and I have also fallen into this trap) think that if we have no other choice then to vote for one of the major parties? This whining that we have no choice is based on the false assumption that we have no choice. We have a choice and we should be demanding that the R and D parties relinquish their stronghold on political debates. It is hypercritical for any R or D party to call us a representative democracy when they inhibit choice! We should be take control of our destinies and not allow our destinies be mandated by either party. We are responsible in allowing this to happen and we are responsible when we give false endorsement to either party.

I don't think the R and D parties will give up their control, at least in my lifetime, but the first step is to stop them allowing viable 3rd party candidates from being heard. Allow the people to make a decision and for pete's sake stop harassing us for wanting to be "progressive" and forward thinking. And this argument that we have to start at the ground and work our way up does not hold for me. What better platform then the Presidential election for the parties to truly get the wake up call they desperately need then in a national election.

edit to add an important word "not".

There is a false assumption that a third party has to win to make a difference. Was it just a coincidence that reductions in the budget deficit occurred after Perot made an issue of it?

From Friedman's "Free to Choose"



Friedman pretty convincingly argues in "Free to Choose" that the Socialist Party was the most successful party in the USA in the 20th Century, when measured by accomplishing their agenda, despite few electoral successes. While I agree that grass roots activism is important you cannot skip the big show. I do not vote Libertarian because I think there is a chance in heck that Badnarik will win. What I hope for is that at some point the Libertarian Party's positions will rub off on the big two.

DP, I feel the same way you do about the Democrat and Republican control of the country, but as you eloquently pointed out their stranglehold on political power isn't likely to change in the near future (although I wouldn't go so far as to say our lifetimes). I have the same goal you do as far as getting more viable political opinions to the table, but I guess I'm just more cynical and I have a different tactical approach.

I think that approaching this from the ground up is the only viable tactical solution. You contend that the best way to approach it is to shoot for the presidency, but how can you say that is the right way to go about it when you know that no independent stands a chance in that battle.

I am of the opinion that we need to let the Republicans and Democrats duke it out for the Presidency for the time being and we should vote for the candidate that we feel most closely mirrors our beliefs, call it a lesser of two evils if you want.

At the same time we should work to get people elected to federal office. That is the only way the two big parties will ever pay attention to greens or libertarians other than to swat them away from the prize. If a green or libertarian were to take a spot or two in the House of Representatives or Senate, that would get noticed. The people running for the spot would also likely marginalize the green or libertarian candidate but if that candidate used methods that have worked for the Democrats this year (i.e. grass roots support via the internet) or if they got some kind of organization then they could do some damage.

Do the green and libertarian parties actually have some cohesive unit they belong to that makes strategic and tactical decisions? Because I get the distinct feeling they don't and most of the time the candidates are truely "independent" and without a large support network. A perfect example of this is what happend to Nader and the green nomination (which he failed to get and consequently won't be on the ballot in many states).

To use an example from a recent political race I'm familiar with -- the recent San Francisco mayoral election. Newsom (a Democrat) and Gonzales (Green) were the two favorites. Newsom had the Democratic apparatus helping him the whole time in the form of campaign contributions and endorsements from everyone from Diane Feinstein to obscure state reps. Gonzales on the other hand didn't have anyone other than some passionate people running his campaign. Where was the green support from other green office holders? According to DTOM's link there are 65 of them in California alone, mostly in Northern California. Shouldn't they have a concrete party that is in place to be mutually beneficial to all? Not surprisingly Newsom won. I happened to agree with his platform, but that isn't the point. Gonzales never stood a chance because he had no support.

I'm not sure why so many people are consumed with third parties in the presidential elections, as if it's the only race in the country that they are campaigning in.
The fact of the matter is, that while working to get candidates elected to local office, it is equally important to get a national structure and framework in place for the time when it is feasible to get one elected. It's working harder not smarter to take the approach of well in a few years when we get a good base of third party candidates elected at local levels, then we'll take a few years to get settled on a national scale. They're getting that on the job training now, and getting the message out. As much as the media will let out. Thank god for C-SPAN!


If you turn this reasoning around and exchange Democrat for Republican, it gets me ever so close to voting Republican. Soooo close. But I'm not whoring myself out this time around.

I'm not sure that qualifies as working harder, not smarter -- there is a reason there are no greens and libertarians in the news, they don't hold any positions of distinction. The smart way to get around that in my opinion is to gain a few positions of distinction. The hard way is to keep getting shut down in elections where the odds are ridiculously against you.

Now, I think you have a great point about the media, I'm sure there are some smart and capable green and libertarian politicians out there. So prove me wrong, I want to know who these people are so I can listen to their message. I'm not necessarily arguing with you here, I really want to know who these people are if they have something worth hearing. It doesn't even necessarily have to be part of this thread, but let's discuss these people more often around here.

I am not so sure that you do. My main beef is that the R and D parties is the REASON we don't hear from the minority parties. The realization you quoted is more because these parties are not going to give up their monopoly without a fight. A fight I have come to realize that I am willing to have until they shape up and listen. Your tactics, it seems to me, is giving the party you are closest aligned to this false sense of security that they represent you. If anything, my tactic, while it may not do much for this election, can help pave the way for future elections. Either the R and D will start taking what the people want into account or the third parties could garner more support. This strategy works equally well at the local level but why must we be restricted? If anything, the Dem's have shown that they are scared but they failed to take the steps (other then trying to inhibit ballot access and appealing to the emotion) required. The Republican's got the scare in 1992 but they weren't listening. Eventually both parties are going to have to listen, especially if they keep alienating a significant portion of population. It is not some strange thing that 35% of the population are not R or D. So for me it is pretty clear, one can keep the status quo and vote the lesser of two evil or vote your conscience and hope for change in the future. My strategy looks to the future with some short term bumps in the road. What it boils down to is 1. I can no longer condone a candidate just because they are the lesser of two evils and 2. If it means me supporting a candidate that doesn't stand a chance, so be it, I am willing to take that chance as long the R and D candidates don't hold enough of what I believe in their platform. They either have to ship up or ship out!

There are two concerns to my mind when you are deciding to vote a third party candidate.

-Conscience
-electability

Certainly no one should ever be afraid to vote their conscience. If you just cannot stand either the Dem or GOP candidate, no one should get down on you for voting for someone else.

However, you just must be ready to know that your candidate will NOT get elected to president. We have NEVER had a third party candidate get elected to office since DAY ONE! The only one that even got close was Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 with the Bull Moose (Progressive) Party and people were voting Teddy, NOT the party then.

Now, HERE is the key for a third party. Go for the silver instead of the gold! Get your guys elected in the states FIRST. THEN go for the presidency based on strong party organization in the states.

Of course under the electability standard there was not much use voting for the Democratic candidate in 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988. Not much use voting for the Republican candidate in 1964, 1992 or 1996. Why even go vote unless you live in a battleground state?

Democrats and Republicans go vote even when they know their candidate will not win. Why should not third parties do the same?

Let me clarify that I would like better than anyone to break the two party monopoly. I also believe everyone should vote their concience.

My first big problem is with Nader who throws himself into the Presidential elections as a spoiler only. He has never held Any political office, his BIO does not even mention a local run for any office, not even a schoolboard, so to me his political aspirations are simply to shake things up knowing he can never win. Ill admit that what really gets to me is that it works for the Republicans and I consider this crucially a detriment in these times.

The other problem for me with 3rd parties is lack of consistancy and solid platform. We have independants in Alaska that range from eliminating the scourge of homosexuality permanently in the US to considering the protection of Anwar or our rights to have guns as the only thing to consider in political life. They all look like whackjobs with one thing only to promote. That is NOT going to get you national recognition.

I think that Cube jockey and Nightimer are really onto something about building a base in local and congressional elections, getting people up there with political records that can be debated, something to say on a national level, some cohesion and experience.

Id like to say that Indy voting is just fine if you really believe the candidate can be a good president, however that would be slightly hypocritical of me since this year I am voting against rather than for as well.
Though, Im not doing it on principle because I think the 2p system is unfair ( I do) nor because I just dislike Republicans always (I dont). Im doing it because I dont want to see anymore preemptive invasions and anymore people killed off on 'faulty intellegence", our national resources on all levels further squandered and further enviromental destruction in the name of Bush and Co.
In peacetime, in prosperity I might have the luxury of pushing 3rd parties to the forefront and taking a stand against the Dems who I feel do not represent the left in all the ways Id like. Im about as left as you get on this board, therefore feel the urgency to oust this admin now and not waste my vote, this time.
I would never vote for Nader now, what a mess he would make in times of terrorism and global unrest- its not time to restructure the US government entirely as he would like. Though I hope someday we have the courage to take on these problems.



I think there are times when one can stand on principle and its another to know when and where to pick your fights and if you (or your party) has done the work necessary to back up your position. (The Art of War -Sun Tzu- dont start a war you cannot win or at least advance your position) So far left-wing third parties have not done the groundwork, and by acting as spoilers (Nader) they effectively get the party elected and possibly reelected that is furthest from their ultimate position and goals.
Think about this: Libertarians have done much better in getting their views heard and assimilated into the Republican party platform, making them less divided, increasing their national coverage and voice. Soon the Libertarians will come out with a strong third party and a reliable voting block.
This election is going to be devastatingly close and I believe a stop block vote is worthy right now. Unless another 4 years of wars (at the least) is really to ones liking. Those are my values, which take precedence over any negatives the Dems are proposing.

I can understand and respect anyone's decision not back a 3rd party. I can totally respect your reason to not support Nader, I don't support him either and am therefore am not planning on voting for him. I do, though, support Nader's right to campaign and be a candidate and I do not support the strategies to remove him from the race. I'm not voting for Nader but I will sign any petition that comes my way. And I will say this now if Badnarik does not get on my ballot, which he hasn't yet, then I will vote for Nader. Not because I believe in him but because I am not happy with what is going on. The Dem's will place my possible vote as a lost vote for them, and that would be a sad sad mistake. Now if all the candidates could debate and have the same ballot access rules as the R and D party then I would have no problem voting for who I think is the best candidate which could be a R or D. The R and D ethics are in question here. As I see it they have none and are afraid of what a 3rd party candidate might say. If these other candidates don't have a leg (platform) to stand on then they should have no problem making that point in a debate.

DP, respectfully, how is that any different than voting for Kerry because you don't like Bush? Sounds kind of like the same thing to me, just in a different package.

Actually I dont think this is fear of what a third party candidate might say. What is happening is wasting everyones time with people who have not paid the dues it takes or gotten the support it takes to be a presidential candidate. Airtime is expensive and these people have little base. Who will pay for their airtime, US taxpayers? Its bad enough we pay matching funds...whoever passed that bit of citizen theft to millionaires angers me already.

I do not support Kerry, as I said in my previous post that would be a misguided assumption of the Dem's. I could change my mind but as of now that doesn't seem to be happening. Now if my choice is INHIBITED because of the actions of both CORRUPT major parties then I will go with Nader. That is a protest vote and has nothing to do with my conscience it has to do with the fact that the R and D are indeed corrupt and they better shape up if they want my support again. Now if either party could put someone up that I can support then I am not so fixated against their corruption to not throw my support behind the candidate but right now, this year, they have severely failed in providing me someone I can support.

Finally this Anyone But Bush slogan is a complete turn off for me. It is not a reason to support Kerry and supporting someone because they are not someone else will never be a reason I vote for a major party candidate.



Well one person considers a waste another considers inhibiting choice. How much more does cost to put a few more candidates on the same stage running the same camera's? Really I don't see the issue with this. DOTM already posted how much support the Libertarian and Green parties have on local level. So what is the issue? Support of candidates they are AWARE of goes up when they see them debate. Again I come to because they are afraid. Sorry but that isn't a good enough reason for me to not be angry at both of the major parties.

My electoral vote will surely count for Kerry, so I will probably vote for Nader, Cobb, or Badnarik.

The issues I favor are proportional representation, land-value tax (or at least green-shift taxes), reduced corporate welfare, reduced military spending, social welfare reform, and increased personal liberties.

I don't completely agree with any of my options on all issues. Though I'm pro-gun, I don't own one. I generally favor small government, but I'm leaning in support of universal healthcare. Specifically I consider myself a Georgist libertarian, which actually seem to have more support in the GP than the LP, however, Nader's website is the only one of the three who mention Henry George by name.

I think the key is winning proportional representation, and my best course would be to vote for the one of the three with the most support.

To the first, good luck! Politics have been corrupt since the beginning of time. Better get a thicker skin AND start to consider what you actually want done and if you can get it done in realistic terms AND in your lifetime.

Second... I admire those values, but if people vote Nader theyre likely to get 4 more years of Bush-Cheney,(far from those values, far from Green values as well) 4 more years of preemptive WARS for the sake of special interests, cronyism and advancing american military might globally, an increased deficit, environmental destruction to the tune of the last 4 record worst, logging roads and eventual drilling of ANWAR, faith based actions in your childrens schools with 'abstinance programs', no advance in health care, actually, WAR will permeate your life for the next 4 years, as it did these last 4, because that what this admin is all about.

I cant help it but it infuriates me that people want to act like its normal that this admin is sending people to war on false premises and are talking about "Im for less corporate welfare" Hello! So am I, but do you understand this administration is about getting people killed for the sake of making their friends and family rich and have a policy to continue to do so? Not to mention, reduced corporate welfare is a pipedream when you are talking BUSH. They ARE corporate america and some of the biggest arms dealers in the business.
""The haves and the have mores. Some call you the elite, I call you my base". gdub

So, get Bush elected again by being spoilers, then live the next four. Just 'because' youre angry about the process and in the meantime get nothing within your values accomplished in 8 years. Let me ask, did anything you stood for get done in the last 4? How many more wars do you want to live?
Hey, life is long after-all, at least for some..not for the dead Iraqis or Americans. They can make all the wars they want, kill as many as they want, destroy the environment we live in, drive our children into poverty by deficit... as long as you are making a political point, (losing and making no point at all), thats the important thing? Right NOW?

Artemise- I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t mean to be insulting in your first comment as I understand your position about GW Bush and how passionate you are about removing him from office. Just because you are passionate about removing him, though, does not mean everyone else has to be nor does it mean that their passions are less valid.

My goals are long term goals and if I don’t see results I can hope for something better for the future. Perhaps you see that as unrealistic but I beg to differ. Short sighted tunnel vision does not make for a happy long term future. So for me bumps in the road are worth it because I am looking at the greater picture here not just 4 years down the road.

Again I believe there is an assumption here that people who vote for Nader would vote for Kerry and that these votes are spoilers to the Democratic Party. It may be a spoiler, to some degree, but 3rd party voting is not necessarily a spoiler to the Democratic party it works both ways, it is also a spoiler to the Republican Party. Which I think should please the Democrats. It also sends a message, either you consider the 35% of the population that are not R or D and adjust your platform to garner their support or you risk loosing power. I will try to explain this better. If, by chance, I vote for Nader it is NOT a lost vote for Kerry. That vote, should it ever come to pass, is a protest vote and nothing more. And while yes a vote for Nader, at least for me, is a vote against the system a vote for Badnarik is conscience vote and a vote against the system. If I were to stay within the strict R and D monopoly party voting and not consider an outside vote then my vote would go to Bush. If the Democratic Party wanted my support then they should have put a better and more appealing candidate on the table. I will also say, again, I am not against going with a major candidate but only if they bring something to the table that I can bite into. “Anyone But Bush” is something I will never bite into and it is not a persuasive reason for me to vote for someone.

Let’s look at 2 other people on this forum that have announced they are going 3rd party, Mike and DOTM. They will have to pipe if I say something incorrect here, but I think it is a fair assumption that they would rather do something extremely painful to themselves then vote for a Democrat. I would think that voting Democrat would go against every grain of their being. So it works both ways. I will repeat, if the R or D want our support then shape up! If they continue on this path then I see either an increasing support for 3rd parties or continued decrease in voter turn out. The first is not good for their retaining power and the second isn't good for a representative democracy.

Artemise, your goal is clear, you are infuriated by the current administration and you have every right to vote for whomever and for whatever reasons you choose. I would never try to stop you from voting your conscience or for what you believe in but I ask why I, or any other person, should not do the same? Is it really OK to give someone a false sense of security that they are representing you?

edit: spelling

I agree with you, but only because I know Mike and DTOM are conservative and therefore wouldn't generally consider voting Democrat anyway. I'm not going to make assumptions about who they would or wouldn't vote for, but more often than not it is the Republican party that appeals to Conservative Independents.

I do think Artemise has a very valid point though.


Now this is just my opinion here, but I think there is a point where you have to think a little shorter term to avoid grave damage to our country and our place in the world. It doesn't do any good to think long term if something in the short term puts us on a track that is not easily reversed in the long term.

I guess I just find the concept of a "protest vote" hard to understand, I find it even more difficult to understand when the outcome of that "protest vote" could likely result in a candidate that runs contrary to your values being elected, when there is a candidate out there that meets at least some of your values. That statement could really be applied to either end of the political spectrum too. Isn't the goal to get a candidate elected that you share some values with? I think it is completely unrealistic to expect that any presidential candidate shares all of your values because of the broad audience they have to appeal to in order to be elected.

Our votes are not owed to anyone. If any of us vote for a candidate, no matter what party, it should be because the candidate has earned our vote.

Right now the Republican and Democratic parties are two faces of the same machine. For all the vitriol thrown about by the two parties as they use social issues to pit us against each other neither party stands for anything but power brokering- right now the Republicans control every branch of the government, but for all their talk they do nothing to advance the cause of the people they campaign to (thank God).

You're right CJ and DP, I would probably pluck my eyeballs out before voting Democrat, but I do like voting for the person, not the party, so you never know.
My third party vote is not a protest vote against the current system, but rather voting my conscience. Neither the D or the R party represent my values and ideals. Even the Libertarian party doesn't completely speak for me on all issues. I can only hope that through continued and increased exposure, the vote totals will rise for third parties and the two bullies will either accommodate us by going back to their supposed ideals, or simply not be able to silence us.
As far as this not being the right 'time' to 'throw away your vote', I'm of the opinion that it will never be 'the time' if you listen to supporters of either major party. There will always be a national security or economic issue, or appointment of SCOTUS justices or some such. (Which actually may be the only reason to possibly sway me to vote R this time)
The only answer I can give to Artemise's venomous anti-Bush, conservatives just want to kill old people and destroy the earth screed is Bush may not represent me all that well, but do you think Kerry will? Nope. As far as your perpetual war stance, I don't buy it. And believe me, I've weighed that issue long and hard. My wife is in Iraq now, and since I'm still on active duty, I will be back over there fairly soon (again). Kerry is not going to change that fact.

As I've said before, I refuse to whore myself out to any party that has lost it's roots, lost it's way, and in some issues, lost it's collective mind.

I live in Maryland, my electoral vote will go to Kerry regardless of who I vote for. There's no spoiler effect here, just one more voice of someone who doesn't like what the Dems and Repubs have to offer.

Either way we will have the majority of our elected officials representing special interest groups rather than people. We'll continue to give away our shared resources at fire sale prices to corporate interests with the most donations. We'll continue to have huge amounts of economic drag due to politically favored tax breaks and subsidies. We'll continue to spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined. Healthcare costs will continue to burden our country to the benefit of trial lawyers.

For me, the only consciousable action is to oppose the status quo. The democrats may have better lip-service, but neither one is good for our country in the long run.

Again I believe my point is being missed. Or there is some selective reading going on.

I think that DTOM understands me, but perhaps that is because he feels similar to what I feel. He just said it differently or approaches his reasoning differently. There are many reasons that one chooses to vote third party and no one has a right to tell me that I, or someone else, do not have that right. I will not be bullied into voting for the R or D party because you think I am wasting my vote. Sorry but 4 years of Bush of Kerry is not going to make an iota of difference. So if I can throw my vote towards a party that desperately needs recognition so that the R and D parties either take notice and change or they loose power it is a well placed and strategic vote.

Again, either the major parties can listen to the voices of a significant portion of the population or they can continue to ignore and ridicule us at the expense of their power. Either way I will not give my vote to a major party unless they earn it. Neither has earned it!

Is it so difficult to see that R and D party have gone so far beyond "sharing values" that now the only way they can get elected is to be a bully, joining forces to stop other parties from being heard, effectively trying to keep the population ignorant, and yes the R and D approaches to fear mongering (CJ even you used a form of fear mongering in your post with the line "grave damage") are not "values" I agree with at all. Both parties are hypocrites and I am not going to condone their behavior.

Ok...in all fairness and calm..I understand third party voting and all the reasons...but perhaps I could be forgiven for being old-ish and have a little bit gone against my former liberal viewpoints. I have heard these arguments since I was in my teens. No, it was actally worse. In that time young people who wanted change just didnt vote.. against 'the corruption of the 2 party system' as protest, well, that went nowhere as you would expect. Nader was around and outspoken on 2p corruption then too. I think he might have actually encouraged NOT voting as protest way back when. I have had enough of his empty talk and losing spoiler tactics for YEARS.

Although I may at this point in time agree that a vote for Kerry or Bush will not change the Mid-East/Iraq situation, votes for Gore instead of Nader might not have ever put us there, I can be pretty sure of that as well as relinquishing other issues that were important to true liberals. Im speaking mostly to liberal Indies not conservative ones.

I have fought a long ago for liberals to get off their lazy butts and vote instead of whining about 2p corruption and a 'really one party all corrupt America'. Ive already heard all the arguments, then and now, and yes, its gotten worse. As Indy liberals screw around thinking we can keep voting for Nader for the next 20 years, we are losing lives and losing the country to people who keep engaging us in more frequent wars and make that policy a known badge of honor and right now a continuum platform. DOTM, you say you dont buy it... Do you think we will not have another war if Bush wins? I wish I had that optimism, but I would bet you right now we will. Ill see you that bet in 2005-6 (Bush win). Of course there will be some good intel to back it, conservatives will believe. Lets go with Iran, just for fun and a few thousand lives, Ill put a few chips on Syria as well and raise a few more thousands.

I am very torn about 3P voting because Ive seen NO change in 20 years with it. Until the groundwork is done, if they are willing and not expect Joe Nobody or Tired Old Stand-by to get in, I expect there will be little more in my lifetime, so Ive given up the good fight in order not to keep losing and seeing the country turn back the clock of progress, toward some puritanically run society and a global crusade, in mounting deficiet as well.

There are 62 women in the House , 14 in the Senate. Congress in my earlier years used to be an unpenetrable boys club, the hatred and backlash on females who wanted to be in politics was outrageous, however, that changed. In the same time period of complaint-- there is not a single 3rd party candidate in the House or Senate, not one Independant. Is it because the political machine is unfair? Oh, it is, always has been, but interesting that so many women, mostly democrats made it through the ultimate challenge, despite insults, harrasssment and prevailing social norms. They didnt get their votes as protest votes either.
Now, that would suggest 3P people are not doing the work required but expecting silver platter results.

To a young person I say, go for it! But do it for real, pay attention to your local elections and get your people a base, not just complain that so-and-so cant get support as President all of a sudden out of nowhere. Its not a winning strategy, its just another excuse to rage against the 'unfair' machine which is simply naiive.
In a way the system IS fair, because anyone in any success story has to pay their dues, even at a minimum (being born into a dynastic family ), and work their way into position to be supported enough for people to want to listen to what they have to say. Bush, as lame as he is, was a governor and strangely, people listen. So why cant Independants get people motivated? Poo poo, everyone is against us. Hardly. America is just waiting for a viable option.
When THAT happens, we shall have a real third party candidate and neither D or R will be able to thwart the tide. Things come through perseverance and filtering ( or family ties and money. ) Its reality.

Many good points have made about this issue.

As far as Al Gores "Dont throw your Vote Away" speech goes. In my opinion he thinks if not for votes lost to Nader he would have won the 2000 election and is trying to convince people not to vote for him again and steal votes from Dems. In short he thinks a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!

For those who say the Greens Libertarians and other Third parties needing to crawl before they can walk. It seems to me that getting the word out is the most important part of elections, the voters have to know who you are if you want to win. People in N.Y. dont care who the Mayor of Cutinshoe Texas is but a national debate is seen across the country. These third Parties would be more viable if given the exposure that the Big Guns get. Most people dont know what Libertarians and Greens stand for. Theres even a party called the Pot Party! No joke! And you know what they want. But most pot smokers voted for Dems because Clinton smoked it but didn't inhale, they dont know about the Pot Party.

No I dont support the Pot Party its rediculous but it further illustrates my point.

Give the Alternative Candidates the same exposure and expand Democracy Surely theres a Party out there for people who Dont like either Bush or Kerry. But with out equal exposure they'll remain unknown and unheard of and the VOTERS are the only real losers herein.

This is a great topic. I've forgotten exactly what the question was so please forgive me if my position is a little off-topic.

To answer some questions/speculation in previous posts:

The Libertarian Party has been around since the 1970s. They have been building their support -- slowly in national elections but reasonably quickly on the local level, at least in those areas where personal liberty and the smallest possible government are considered important.

In 1988 Dr. Ron Paul was the Libertarian presidential candidate, with an expectedly small percentage of the national vote. Shortly afterward he joined the Republican Party (although his principles have never changed) and ever since he has been elected the U.S. Congressional Representative for District 15 in Texas -- a group of counties in central Texas where people believe that government should not control the individual, but individuals should control the government. My parents live in this district. He is so constitutionally-grounded and reductionist in his view of government that he has run unopposed for most elections, and his constituents love him.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, merely tolerates him. He is known as "Doctor No" -- he is an M.D., and he votes against any legislation that is not absolutely mandated by the U.S. Constitution (and consequently he votes against almost every bill that comes up). He is definitely the greatest constitutional scholar in federal government; if you truly believe that the Constitution should be the foundation of this country's federal government, simply study Dr. Paul for guidance. He will never steer you wrong. For a crash course in constitutional conformance just go to http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/welcome.htm

Anyway, the Libertarian Party has been slowly building support, but they've been doing it in the most principled way. As an example, the LP candidate for the U.S. house for my district (14) of Texas, refuses to accept any political contributions. He is running his campaign totally on his own money. He's a long-shot, but then again if he can get his position across to the voters he certainly could win.

As someone said earlier, the LP has over 600 office-holders across the nation, making it the largest 3P by the standard that counts. Michael Badnarik, the LP presidential candidate (the LP had a confirmed candidate before either of the mainstream parties, by the way -- for whoever it was that was grumping about them not being able to pick a candidate), is a software engineer and constitutional scholar from here in Austin, Texas. I feel certain that he would make a much better president than K or B, but he would have a hard time getting anything done -- although that's one of the best things a president could have said about him after he leaves office. Since early in the history of the republic, our presidents have been doing WAY too much (constitutionally speaking, of course).

Which brings me to the point of this debate, or discussion, or whatever it is. I live in Texas, which is a foregone conclusion -- it will fall for Bush. Therefore I'm free to vote for Badnarik, and "make a statement" (for what it's worth). If I lived in a swing state I would have to vote for the candidate who I believe would be least able to make the government even less constititutionally-grounded, which would be Kerry. I would also vote for a Republican/libertarian Congress, so as to create the greatest gridlock possible. In some strange way I believe that would be the principled thing to do.

To DP, or whoever it was that said she'd vote for Badnarik if he got on the NJ ballot: he is very close. He definitely is on 47 or 48 states' ballots and the District of Columbia, so he certainly is the most viable 3P candidate in terms of the POSSIBILITY of getting electoral votes. If you really want to see him on the ballot you might even consider contributing to the LP ballot drive (http://www.badnarik.com).

As to the presidential debates, why in the world would the mainstream parties want to share the podium with the 3Ps? In their view it would only dilute the discussion -- and given the miniscule proportion of the vote garnered by the 3Ps in their entirety, and the general lameness of the positions of the two mainstream parties, I can hardly argue that point of view. What I can argue is that a more divergent debate would be informative to the general citizenry, and therefore trumps the desires of the 2Ps. (I'm going to copyright the term 2P, without even asking for a vote ) Even the League of Women Voters, who used to organize the presidential debates before a coalition of the Dem/Rep parties took it over (for the good of the electorate, no doubt), there was no chance of any 3Ps being invited. I don't think it was any conspiracy to exclude anyone -- I think that, in their brain-washed state, they couldn't fathom that the 3Ps were in any way a valid part of the debates.

Now, for what I really want to say to all of you: This is a little technical, but it's also extremely important. Our current method of election of candidates is called Single-Member-District-Plurality (SMDP) or alternatively First-Past-The-Post (FPTP or FPP). In this method, each voter selects one candidate. All votes are counted and the candidate or option with the most votes is the winner.

Political science demonstrates that SMDP voting tends to favor the institutionalization of a two-party system (and tends to make "strategic voting" the norm). This is known as "Duverger's Law" (even though it is really only a tendency -- there are certainly instances which contradict the "law").

There is another system of voting which tends to favor a greater number of parties. This is called "Instant Runoff Voting" or IRV (also known as alternative vote, the preferential system, or the Hare method). In this method of voting, voters "rank" the candidates by their preference. In other words, if the 2004 presidential election were IRV, I might vote for LP first, Constitutional Party second, Green Party third, Nader fourth, Kerry fifth, and "no other candidate" sixth. Votes are tallied as normal. If this is a single-position vote (as we have here in the U.S. -- in other words, each position has only one possible winner), the candidate with the lowest count is eliminated. The vote is then recounted, and any vote with the eliminated candidate in first place is counted in favor of the candidate in the second-highest position. The recount continues until there is a clear winner.

The Constitution is a wonderful document, but at the time it was created there was no concept of political science, and the founders certainly didn't consider the possibility of another method of voting. If we really want to see elections with a more valid plurality of candidates, we should certainly consider changing the voting method to IRV.

Not that this change would be easy to get instituted. Again, why would the 2Ps even consider allowing this type of voting?

But there's no reason why you and I can't consider it, and the Internet offers an ideal way to spread the word. In fact, the Internet may be the only hope -- in this age of overwhelming corporate influence in the election process -- for a return to a vote that reflects the will of all the people.

Give it some thought, people.

For more information on these voting methods: http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/...f_voting_1.html
http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/...ral_system.html

EDITED TO ADD: Boy, is my face red. After all this, I find a debate that deals specifically with IRV. Well, in the words of Emily Littella, never mind. Go to that debate and register your opinion there!

I have an illustrative story to describe my opinion of the two party system versus multiple candidates.

Picture the people of the country in a house. The house is on fire. President Bush is inside telling the occupants how good things are, so good that he might even put an addition on the house. John Kerry arrives at the house and tells everyone that the house is on fire and he thinks it is important that everyone move into the next room. Meanwhile, there are people outside the house shouting for everyone to get out. Their voice is smothered and not heard very well by those inside the burning house.

Someone from the outside manages to get inside and ask some of the occupants why they are not leaving the burning house?

"There isn't any fire. Bush has told me so."

"I think there might be a fire, but it is just a small fire. Someone will put it out."

"I can not leave! I might lose my favorite place at the dinner table."

"I know there is a fire but I am waiting for one of the others to leave and then I will, too"

"You know, I have been in the house my whole life. I am not going to leave it no matter what."

"It would be a waste of time. One of those people outside might put me in a house that is on fire."

"Sure, Kerry is not leading me out of the house but I do like the decor a whole lot. Who can stand the decor Bush has picked out."

"Yes there is a fire, but as long as it does not burn me, I am OK with it."

I find the way that a two party system has been entrenched into our system to be counter productive. In speaking to people from other countries with multi party governments (everyone but us, isn't it?), I simply cannot come up with any advantages our system has over theirs.

As for whether a vote on a third party candidate is wasted, I don't think so. With the two parties split so evenly, any group that dissents is likely to cost that party the election--thereby forcing the losing party to cater to that group's issues to avoid that fate. So, in reality, these votes might actually have even more significance. Even if that were not the case, I think you should for whoever best represents your views, irregardless of whether they can 'win' or not. First, it is that very mindset that needs to be broken to make third party candidates viable. Second, I think representative government functions best when people actually vote for those who best represent them.

As for me, I am registered Green but will be voting for Bush this election. Why? Easy one. The Dems have done nothing but blame Nader since 2000. I get tired of their complaning. They [the Dems] are good at blaming others for their failures but not so good in taking responsibility for their own actions. Sad but true, the Dems and the Greens have done everything in their power to keep this a two man show. So be it.. Out of the two, IMO.. Bush over Kerry.