| Third party aka "Independent"
Posted: 10/8/2008 11:31:25 PM | For those who are completely disillusioned with both party's, (Democrats & Republicans), you do have other options and they are as follows. These people below may or may not be on your state's ballot. Do a search and discover who is on your state's ballot and if necessary, you can write in the candidate of your choice.
In Texas, it seems as if Bob Barr will be the only third party candidate showing up on our ballot. After looking into Bob's platform, I'm pretty impressed. Check into your own state's options if Barack Obama and John McCain turn you off. Send Washington your own message! There is absolutely no reason to stay home and not vote. Go to the polls and vote. Make a difference. You can't complain about the state of the nation if you don't involve yourself in the process.
If you want to see what these third party candidates have to offer you, take a look at this site: Ontheissues.com
There will be someone here who is a fit for you if Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin leave you cold. Just vote.
3rd-Party presidential challengers:
Constitution Party:
Chuck Baldwin
Libertarian:
Bob Barr
(former GA Rep.)
Independent:
Michael Bloomberg
(NYC Mayor)
Libertarian:
Mike Gravel
(former AK Senator)
PLS:
Gloria La Riva
(Liberation & Socialism)
Green Party:
Cynthia McKinney
(Former GA Representative).
Socialist Party:
Brian Moore
Independent:
Ralph Nader
(2000 & 2004 candidate).
Check them all out at ontheissues.com | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/12/2008 3:44:00 PM | First things first: I'm not trying to pick a fight here.
That being said, I disagree that it is wise to vote for a 3rd party candidate if you don't side well with Obama or McCain. It will have no effect other than to send a (weak) symbolic message. Technically speaking, it will have no impact on the outcome of the election.
I understand the frustration of being given only two choices, and I think that as citizens we should be trying to change that. However, I don't think that throwing away your vote on a hopeless 3rd party candidate is the way to do it. I recommend writing to your representatives and explaining your position. Inevitably they will be inclined to ignore you, since changing the 2 party system wouldn't benefit them. But if you mention that they're likely to lose your vote if they don't take it seriously, they start paying more attention. Give them a suggestion for the electoral reform (I'd modestly suggest a dual runoff system) that you would like to see enacted.
Will that work? Odds are against it, but I feel that it's still the best option. By passing up your chance to vote for your choice of the two realistic candidates for president, you're purposely passing up an opportunity to help decide who will be making the vital decisions that pertain to your life and the country you live in. Let's not forget who it is that picks the Supreme Court... | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/12/2008 7:15:44 PM | First off, to continue to vote for either of the two main parties is to grant them the sanction of your vote. You continue to support the idea that the two parties shall rule. Talking to you legislator isnt the answer, voting them out and replacing them is.
If more people were to stop picking the lessor of two evils, and started to vote third party then more and more these people would become "realistic candidates for president." Voting regardless of who one votes for really shouldnt be seen as being thrown away. Voting third party is no more throwing your vote away then say voting for Obama when one lives in a red state. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/12/2008 7:21:44 PM |
That being said, I disagree that it is wise to vote for a 3rd party candidate if you don't side well with Obama or McCain. It will have no effect other than to send a (weak) symbolic message.
This is the problem. Those who have the power to sustain the birth of these parties simply abandon them sooner or later en masse, resulting in their tailspin & ultimate death.
Technically speaking, it will have no impact on the outcome of the election.
We lived throough this in '92 when Perot mounted a 3rd party bid & got a respectable margin for a first-time candidate/party. He was blamed for the Bush Sr. loss to Clinton
THAT WAS & SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE MOMENTUM STARTER. Everybody took notice of this new power of this 3rd party & the resulting influence it had on the election, much like Nader's influence on the 2000 outcome.
The next election cycle('96) was basically the same candidates, except there was a somewhat weaker GOP team running against Clinton/Perot. Perot got less than half the vote in '96 than in '92. Those who gave birth to the movement selfishly killed it in the end.
I don't think that throwing away your vote on a hopeless 3rd party candidate is the way to do it.
This is called lesser-evil voting.
If Perot would have garnered the same, or more votes in '96 & beyond, , we would have a viable & growing 3rd party TODAY. But lesser evil voting keeps this from ever becoming reality, & the lesser evil voters are the ones who cry the most about it. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/12/2008 8:49:16 PM |
That being said, I disagree that it is wise to vote for a 3rd party candidate if you don't side well with Obama or McCain. It will have no effect other than to send a (weak) symbolic message. Technically speaking, it will have no impact on the outcome of the election.
I understand the frustration of being given only two choices, and I think that as citizens we should be trying to change that.
Totally contradictory statements. The weak nessage, by the way, is the one coming from people who continue to vote for either one of these traitors and remain in this politically vegetative state. The rationalization you mention is perfect example of .. "go along with it because if you don't .... "
Isn't that the same as Representative Sherman telling people some members of congress were told the sky would fall and there would be marshall law if they didn't go along with the faux bail-out? They just gave the power away to the Feds .. a private industry .. hello? Totally sold out and now they tell you to expect more of the same and thats what we're getting. More job losses, more home foreclosures, more tanking on wall street .. but on the bright side, we will get more cheap and tainted china exports - so thats a good thing, right? What country is going to trust us if either one of these two get in? Why should they? Nothing changes the fact that neither of them have addressed the fact that our money is backed by nothing and we can't repay the countries we borrow from! IF there's a temporary turn around, it'll be just that. Temporary.
With that said, some of us have woken up and realized that we are part of change and are doing what we need to do. I believe it's the rest of the people who need to wake up and show their dissatisfaction with the two parties who so happen to merrily skip along and vote everything unconstitutional under the sun. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/12/2008 9:08:43 PM | We all have our opinions, and I don't think that the fact that we disagree make any of us wrong. Regardless of any disagreement, I don't think that it will help anything if we start taking each other's statements out of context.
Oneblend, you wrote (in part):
That being said, I disagree that it is wise to vote for a 3rd party candidate if you don't side well with Obama or McCain. It will have no effect other than to send a (weak) symbolic message. Technically speaking, it will have no impact on the outcome of the election.
I understand the frustration of being given only two choices, and I think that as citizens we should be trying to change that. Totally contradictory statements.
As you quoted it, it appears contradictory. But if you add the next sentence, the second part becomes:
I understand the frustration of being given only two choices, and I think that as citizens we should be trying to change that. However, I don't think that throwing away your vote on a hopeless 3rd party candidate is the way to do it.
Then they are completely consistent. Whether or not you agree with the message stated in them is your prerogative, but they're in accordance with each other.
As for the real issue here, the two party system, I think this country needs to institute electoral reform and put a dual runoff in place. That would mean that there would be two elections, with the first one allowing any and all parties (or independents) to have candidates on the ballot. Everyone would vote in this election, and the top two votegetters would move on to the final election. Then a second vote would be taken between only those two. This way, people are free to vote for whoever they want in the first election (voting proactively rather than "lesser of two evils"), and even if their preferred candidate doesn't move on to the final election, they still have another vote to pick between the two final candidates. Thus, the potential for "wasting a vote" is minimized. A lot of other democracies do this and other than the costs of two elections, it makes a ton of sense. But then again a lot of other countries also base their elections on ideas and policy, not charisma and hot button issues. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/12/2008 9:20:15 PM | no impact? lol, what about the fact that because nader ran in 2004, he took votes from al gore and helped bush win.
there is impact. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/12/2008 9:28:47 PM | | Point taken. I meant to refer more to their own possibility of being elected to office. You're right that they have impact on others' chances. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/12/2008 9:37:02 PM | thank you, and on that point your right
but I really dont think we in the end choose whos elected, it is done by a group of 12 people that run the friggin planet
I know it sounds crazy lol, but just maybe it could be true. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/12/2008 9:58:13 PM | Given the recent overt shadiness with all the financial dealings, it's seeming less and less far fetched that there are a few powerful figures who are pulling strings that no one should be allowed to pull. However, the sheer magnitude and precision needed to pull off something like that makes my sense of logic hurt to much to truly think that it's possible.
But I'm curious, why 12? Did you make that up, or is there a theory about a group of 12? And if so, how does one apply for a position? Haha. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/13/2008 2:24:30 AM | LOL at Green Party:
Cynthia McKinney
---
Either way... I'm so glad Barr was able to get on as many ballots as he has. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/13/2008 7:15:52 PM |
As you quoted it, it appears contradictory. But if you add the next sentence, the second part becomes:
I understand the frustration of being given only two choices, and I think that as citizens we should be trying to change that. However, I don't think that throwing away your vote on a hopeless 3rd party candidate is the way to do it.
So you propose the two election method however, what makes you think it'll be any different from what we have now when the media did a great job at smearing, blacklisting and silencing what were IMO, the best candidate choices who spoke out against the corruption. You'd have to get rid of the corporate controlled media for starters and work your way UP the list.
You still insist voting third party is a wasted vote (hopeless candidate). That explains why nothing changes and we keep getting more of the same.  | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/13/2008 7:21:52 PM | Oneblend - I admire your idealism, and I completely agree with you in principle. However, I think that it's necessary to admit that as the system stands now a third party vote has extremely minimal benefits that are outweighed by taking away your ability to vote for a viable candidate. There is just too much on the line when it comes to the differences between Republicans and Democrats. For all the talk about how they're so alike, when it comes to things like supreme court nominations, they certainly are not.
I agree that corporate controlled media makes it harder to have an objective election, but I'm at a loss about how we could ever change that.
But that's just my opinion. And the fact that someone as involved and knowledgeable as you disagrees with me just makes me think even more that we need to change the system to allow everyone to have their individual opinions more represented by a candidate who has a shot to win. | |
|
edisto
|
Joined: 5/14/2008
Msg: 14 | |
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/13/2008 8:25:49 PM |
That being said, I disagree that it is wise to vote for a 3rd party candidate if you don't side well with Obama or McCain. It will have no effect other than to send a (weak) symbolic message. Technically speaking, it will have no impact on the outcome of the election.
as a reformed democrat, I am constantly told that I "have to vote for Obama" so McCain won't get in the WH, I am also told by republican friends that I have to vote for McCain so Obama doesn't get in the WH
I am voting, as I have always done, for the person I think would do the best job, I am not voting as others think I should, so the "other side" doesn't win
you say that will have "no impact on the outcome of the election"? maybe in your eyes, but for me, it is more ethical than voting the lesser of two evils only to stay in the two party system | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/13/2008 8:39:28 PM |
However, I think that it's necessary to admit that as the system stands now a third party vote has extremely minimal benefits that are outweighed by taking away your ability to vote for a viable candidate.
Between the two, there is no viable candidate. Idealist? Partly. Realist? Wholeheartedly. A third party vote only has minimal benefits when people don't realize their own power to make a change and instead let others do their thinking for them.
Voice of dissent. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/13/2008 8:44:24 PM | To vote for someone who you do not think is right for the job, is to grant your sanction to his policies or ideology. If we pick between the lessor of two evils we will still be voting for evil. Its like saying you dont have a choice to be free so pick your master, maybe a pragmitist would see this as a viable option but to me it is still choosing someone to beat me.
If more people chose to stop voting Republican and Democrat, if all the people out there who were voting for McCain or Obama to simply stop the other one would vote independent, independent would no longer be just a symbolic statement | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 1:23:06 AM | First off, I am a proud supporter of Bob Barr.
That being said, most people in our country are to stupid to vote outside of the status quo. They really are. Most people will vote along the party lines that exist currently and that's it. They will not take the time to research out their candidate. As long as that R or D is next to that candidate's name, that's all they will be concerned about.
Today as we sit and wait for the next president to be selected (apparently Obama has already won it, according to the media), the Libertarian Party is making huge gains against the two party system. In fact, they are the largest third party in America and in my state have the majority on a city council (Springfield MO). There are people that are starting to wise up against the two party system, but I believe it's too little, too late.
The only way that any third party will ever make it in this country is if people get wise, get a little smarter and start voting against the status quo.
In closing, I will leave you all with a quote from Bob Barr:
"A vote for the status quo is a wasted vote" | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 6:21:48 AM | I can't make this any clearer...you all keep trying to convince me that we should stop it with the two party system and start casting our votes outside of Republican or Democrat: I agree. Really, I do. There is absolutely no need to convince me of the downfalls of the two party system. I hate it.
But, until anyone can show me even a glimmer of hope for a third party in any given national election, then I absolutely cannot justify that. Does that make me a sellout? According to your definitions, probably. But I would rather be a sellout who actually impacts the vote for our next leaders than to vote my true conscience and become rendered irrelevant.
To no1shero - for full disclosure, I consider myself to be more libertarian than any other party. I vote libertarian in local elections and champion the party's ideals at any given opportunity. But on a national level, I just can't justify casting my vote in a way that takes away its elective impact. I respect those who do, though. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 7:02:40 AM | But, until anyone can show me even a glimmer of hope for a third party in any given national election, then I absolutely cannot justify that. Does that make me a sellout? According to your definitions, probably. But I would rather be a sellout who actually impacts the vote for our next leaders than to vote my true conscience and become rendered irrelevant.
To no1shero - for full disclosure, I consider myself to be more libertarian than any other party. I vote libertarian in local elections and champion the party's ideals at any given opportunity. But on a national level, I just can't justify casting my vote in a way that takes away its elective impact. I respect those who do, though. This is precisely the apathy that prevents the third party option. Each year a third party comes into play and causes a swing in electoral college vote tabulations. Eventually people who actually care will put an end to the two party system, and if you want your ideology to be at the forefront, give your preferred third option the power NOW rather than wait till it becomes viable by the efforts of others.
While I've always considered the "Green Party" to be a bunch of granola chewing, tree hugging socialists, in 2000 they made significant headway and had a respectable candidate in Ralph Nader. Politically speaking, I have absolutely nothing in common with the party or with Nader's politics, but lets look at where that lack of support has gotten the party ... Cynthia McKinney, one of the biggest jokes to ever hit the beltway and some ex-pottery barn assistant manager for second chair. This move will be their undoing, and will garner them even less support than the first year they appeared on a National ballot.
In 1992, Perot showed us that Bush was not conservative enough for his base, and in 2000 Nader showed us that Gore wasn't liberal enough for his... BOth of these 3rd party efforts changed the outcome of the elections, and trust me when I say neither of the big 2 want to lose an election like those again!
If you want more than two options at any time in the future, you have to vote in accordance with what you want. No vote is "wasted" because the stronger the 3rd party dissent the more the people in DC will pay attention to what WE THE PEOPLE say.... | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 7:13:23 AM | | It's not apathy. It may be ignorance, or stupidity, or flat out incorrectness (depending on your subjective assessments) but it's not apathy. It's a calculated choice. It's a decision that the risk of having a Republican elected are too large to justify the reward of sending a symbolic message with my vote. If I felt that both candidates for the major parties were equally good or bad, then the calculation would be altered. In that scenario, there would be no benefit to voting for either of the main parties. However, this year there is an extreme disparity between the two which I feel strongly about. This creates a need to value my vote more to select one of the two viable candidates rather than send the previously mentioned symbolic message. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 7:16:20 AM |
But, until anyone can show me even a glimmer of hope for a third party in any given national election, then I absolutely cannot justify that.
... and will continue cheerleading for the winning team. Sportsmanship and Jockism at it's best.
That's not what this country needs. It needs a leader who has integrity and for people to look outside the box. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 7:28:30 AM |
... and will continue cheerleading for the winning team. Sportsmanship and Jockism at it's best.
That's not what this country needs. It needs a leader who has integrity and for people to look outside the box.
No candidate that I've ever voted for in any national election has won. Most that I've voted for in state elections have not won. This is not bandwagon politics, and frankly I think that to level such a charge is stooping to a level that we certainly don't need in any honest discussion of politics in this country.
My views are my own, and clearly yours differ. I'm not accusing anyone of being ignorant in their beliefs, I'm simply stating why I disagree. To be accused of being a jock and unsportsmanlike, to the extent that there is even a connection to politics, is in itself indicative of the us vs. them mentality that the two party system has driven. I again reiterate that I would like to see that changed. I simply disagree with you on how to do it. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 7:37:18 AM | In hoping for a breakthrough of any 3rd party or to break up the Democrat-Republican Duo-opoly in politics, the wrong way to approach it is to expect to elect a 3rd Party President THIS YEAR. You begin to break the corporate/media stranglehold by looking for 3rd party-minded candidates at lower levels of government. When you look up and one day you have a dozen or so Independents, several Libertarians and Greens. etc. in Congress then it becomes clear that those parties (or non-parties) are actually viable and it opens the door for one of their Presidential Candidates to not be brushed aside.
I would love to have seen a serious shot for Ron Paul but the country even if not ignorant just wouldn't be ready because there wouldn't have been any change in fundamental thinking within Congress to have allowed him to be effective.
To break up the two-party stranglehold, you have to change the fundamental landscape at the lower levels.
I live in downstate Illinois so I can vote for a 3rd party candidate without it affecting the outcome in the Presidential election. Every one south of Tinley Park to Cairo can vote McCain and Obama still carries the state... just how it is in the land called Lower Chicago. So while not altering the outcome, I can vote with my principles without wasting my vote. When I get charged up is if in my Congressional choices I have a candidate endorsed by say Ron Paul, then my chances for my vote to be a significant action bringing change improve at that time. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 8:29:13 AM | | The problem is with most independent presdential nominees is that they flat-line when it comes to presidential elections. There hasn't been a popular Independent to even come remotely close to winning the white house since Ross Perot, because most of them can't fire up their base to vote for them let alone another party. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 8:30:26 AM | The only ones who DONT want you to vote 3rd party are members of the 2 parties.
Firstly, when one uses the excuse that their 1 vote will not make a difference in the outcome of a 3rd party candidate who gets 3% of the vote, then that very same 1 vote will SURELY also have no effect on the outcome of a 2 party candidate who garners 45% of the vote.
Secondly, those who voted for Perot, or Nader, & felt remorse that they caused the wrong party to take power, are looking at it all wrong I believe. What they did was actually CHANGE the 2 party outcome from OUTSIDE its influence. Thats some scary shit for the status quo, & that's a ton of power for your measly 1 vote..
Think back to 1996, when both parties mounted an all-out assault on Perot voters, trying to lure them back to the fold. They knew what was happening & were scared to death - because of only few percent of the voters actually taking a chance.
Statistically, your vote is far more powerful & influential with that 3rd party candidate. Your vote is statistically a bigger fish in a smaller pond, will have more personal value, & at the same time sustain & grow what you fundamentally yearn for | |
|
Home
login 
