[JohnE]

Well, it would seem we have an election coming up. Dont know if any of you have heard about it.
Sometimes, there is controversy about the candidates. Maybe one or both of the big party guys is teh suck, and you cant bring yourself to vote for either one.
Do you-
1. Voluntarily disenfranchise yourself?

2. Vote for a third party candidate, effectively disenfranchising yourself, to make a statement?

or
3. Pick the lesser of two evils or the evil of two lessors?

 

[TheMontashu]

Voting for a 3rd part is not disenfranchising in the least. I think it is empowering, it's taking a stand against the scumbags in the 2 main parties and allowing yourself to vote for some one who can much better represent you. If America got its collective head out of its collective ass we might truly have a country run by the people instead of ****head A who works for the rich, and ****head B that works for the rich

 

[ridetoofast]

i've voted the lesser of the 2 evils in the past.
i'll go 3rd party this time.

 

[dante]

I've voted 3rd party* once as I thought that there was no way GWB could be worse than Gore...


Needless to say I was really, really wrong on that one. Now if necessary I will vote for the lesser of two evils, but I will also work hard during the primaries to ensure that one of the candidates *does* represent me.


*was NOT Nader.

 

[ohio]

I would only vote third party in a state where it won't be close. With what's at stake, the lesser of two evils may be a whole lot better.

 

[ridetoofast]

so does that mean a bean count means more to you than voting your conscious?

 

[Transcend]

It means not having a lunatic in power means more to him than wasting his vote.

 

[AngryMetalsmith]

Voting third party is a great idea, but that's where it ends. Having a chance for your voice to be heard is indeed a noble thought full of promise. But having your voice heard does not insure actions as a result. By choosing an independent candidate you are separating yourself from affecting the out come of an election. Independent parties are far from gaining enough voters to positively affect the election. Many Americans are not impressed with either Democrats or Republicans and feel left out. But unfortunately if you vote for a candidate that stands no chance to win, your voice results in non-action. Until our political system undergoes a major transformation, voting for the " lessor of two evils " must be done. To do so otherwise is wasting your vote.

 

[stevew]

I guess I am voting for whoever biden is pulling the strings for.

 

[ohio]

so does that mean a bean count means more to you than voting your conscious?

I don't think my conscience could take it if my vote could have prevented GWB from getting into office, but I voted third party to make a statement.

 

[JohnE]

The thing about making a statement is, who hears it? You are alone in the booth, unless you shout as your rebellion is counted, who knows? One vote matters not...but if you have a couple million statements...

 

[kidwoo]

I don't think my conscience could take it if my vote could have prevented GWB from getting into office, but I voted third party to make a statement.

How does your conspicuous feel about it though?

 

[rockwool]

Voting third party is a great idea, but that's where it ends. Having a chance for your voice to be heard is indeed a noble thought full of promise. But having your voice heard does not insure actions as a result. By choosing an independent candidate you are separating yourself from affecting the out come of an election. Independent parties are far from gaining enough voters to positively affect the election. Many Americans are not impressed with either Democrats or Republicans and feel left out. But unfortunately if you vote for a candidate that stands no chance to win, your voice results in non-action. Until our political system undergoes a major transformation, voting for the " lessor of two evils " must be done. To do so otherwise is wasting your vote.

If your political system does that.. Looking at how much yours or mine has changed since women got the right to vote I can't see any major differences. For example, I don't see change comming that 15-16 year olds will get to vote as that would mean raising the conscience of the young, of who the majority already tend to lean to the socialist block, which would mean loss of power for some. At least half our parliament wouldn't like that so it would never get the 2/3 of the votes needed to change our constitution.

Your Blue's and Red's have all to lose and nothing to gain from changing your constitution for the benefit of a third, and of course later even more, party/parties, so that will never happen.




I realized that any radical change won't come unless a radical party has a say in our parliament, and therefore a chanse to get heard in the mainstream media, and stopped throwing away my vote on the "lesser evil" three elections ago. A vote on a party means to those party leaders a confirmation of liking of their current politics, nothing else.

Voting for (in your case) a third party is not throwing away your vote. It is saving up to something that is worth striving for. One day you'll have saved up enough to go buy your dreams. I prefer to think in long terms and invest in a better future, and somebody has to take those first needed steps that in the begining look ooh soo unsignificant and hopeless..

 

[$tinkle]

*was NOT Nader.

fess up: lyndon larouche?

 

[MikeD]

How does your conspicuous feel about it though?

Compelled, I'd wager.

 

[ohio]

How does your conspicuous feel about it though?

Compelled, I'd wager.

My conjunctivitus always pushes me to vote pink party, but that's a no-brainer being a san franciscan.

 

[dante]

fess up: lyndon larouche?

Harry Brown, Libertarian. Didn't matter, was in NY which went solidly Democratic anyway. (Was actually registered Republican at the time, and voted for McCain in the primaries. Just couldn't stand GWB)

 

[RenegadeRick]

Here is another opinion on why choosing the lesser of two evils is a mistake.

It comes from:
Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

...

Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties.

The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.

This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted” vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.

...

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others.

That's right... this is from Ron Paul. You remember him, the former Republican Candidate who actually wanted to end the War in Iraq, cut government waste, and eliminate the IRS? The guy the media laughed at and most of the time couldn't get his name mentioned, but was actually espousing the positions of the American People?

Well anyhow... remember...
voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting FOR EVIL.



Happy polarizing event resulting in the willing surrender of personal liberty and constitutionally guaranteed rights day!

 

[Samirol]

on the other hand, ron paul is an insane nutjob that used the fanaticism of his fan base to land his family members with extremely well-paying jobs and have enough money to campaign for re-election for the next 10 turns.

edit: I'm all for more parties, it doesn't take away from Ron Paul's insanity.

 

[RenegadeRick]

on the other hand, ron paul is an insane nutjob that used the fanaticism of his fan base to land his family members with extremely well-paying jobs and have enough money to campaign for re-election for the next 10 turns.

the line between genius and insanity is awfully thin.

...I'm all for more parties...

I'm all for NO (political) PARTIES. I believe the party system is the root of much of the problems in America™.

Now the other kind of parties? We should have MORE of them.

 

[Samirol]

the line between genius and insanity is awfully thin.

That isn't saying anything, if he was given dictator powers for 10 years, the U.S would be a very dystopian country.

He profited off of the paultards, his stocks in gold and silver jumped up hundreds of thousands when millions of paultards started investing because of him

He is brilliant in the sense that he used the cult of personality surrounding him to his benefit, making tons of money off of stocks and book sales, but his domestic policies are absolutely horrible.

 

[$tinkle]

the line between genius and insanity is awfully thin.

hardly.
genius requires high organizational skills & ability to widely recognize reason

you'd be crazy not to get that.



oh.

 

[dante]

voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting FOR EVIL.

so, which of the major party's candidates did you campaign for, contribute money to, attend rallies, and work to change the way things are done? who did you get behind, sign petitions for, hand out literature, and really work towards something better? don't tell me that out of the 20-something major candidates you couldn't find *one* that resembled your views... Ron Paul, Kucinich, etc? don't forget that each election is built on the one prior. Obama's candidacy is a direct result of Dean stirring things up in '04, showing that you don't have to be "republican lite", and that standing up for socially liberal issues is a viable campaign tactic. Dean imploded, but the groundwork he laid, the enthusiasm he generated, and the work that he did is all apparent in this years election.

if you got involved and pushed hard for change from within, that's one thing. if you woke up one morning and said "huh, our choices are McCain and Obama? that sux." you really don't get much sympathy from me.

 

[RenegadeRick]

so, which of the major party's candidates did you campaign for, contribute money to, attend rallies, and work to change the way things are done? who did you get behind, sign petitions for, hand out literature, and really work towards something better? don't tell me that out of the 20-something major candidates you couldn't find *one* that resembled your views... Ron Paul, Kucinich, etc? don't forget that each election is built on the one prior. Obama's candidacy is a direct result of Dean stirring things up in '04, showing that you don't have to be "republican lite", and that standing up for socially liberal issues is a viable campaign tactic. Dean imploded, but the groundwork he laid, the enthusiasm he generated, and the work that he did is all apparent in this years election.

if you got involved and pushed hard for change from within, that's one thing. if you woke up one morning and said "huh, our choices are McCain and Obama? that sux." you really don't get much sympathy from me.

I campaigned for and contributed money to Paul. I was all excited that a major party candidate was saying the things that I have been saying for a long time now. Now I see that he has huge bank that was built on all of this support. So who is insane and who is the genius in this relationship? I'll give you a hint... I am not the genius.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I campaigned for and contributed money to Paul. I was all excited that a major party candidate was saying the things that I have been saying for a long time now. Now I see that he has huge bank that was built on all of this support. So who is insane and who is the genius in this relationship? I'll give you a hint... I am not the genius.

...wait.... did I miss something where you finally realized Ron Paul was just collecting a bunch of money for no real purpose since he had no real chance of winning? Was there a breakdown or lashing out of some kind? Link?