• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Not in a swing state? Why not vote 3rd party?

Sarcogito

Sarcogito

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
2,333
Reaction score
2,090
Location
SE Asia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I get the impression that the vast majority of the membership here at DP are neither Obama nor Romney fanboys and fangirls. Most the people here who plan to vote for Romney will do so because they simply think he is less bad than Obama and those who plan to vote for Obama will do so because they simply think he is less bad than Romney. Unless you are in a swing state, you already know who your state's electoral votes are going to go to. If you are voting for one of them because you truly think he will make, or is, a great President then carry on and more power to you. But this thread isn't directed at you.

If you are a registered voter in a swing state then I understand the concern in voting for a third party. Let's face it, a third party candidate is NOT going to win. So if you are in a swing state and don't want to contribute to the risk of your state's electoral votes going to the "greater of two evils" then good luck to ya, but this thread probably isn't for you.

So as for the rest of, those who are not inspired by either Romney or Obama and who are already in solidly red or blue states. I would like you to consider voting 3rd party. I know it is tempting to not vote at all since you already know where your electoral votes are going. But you can still affect the popular vote.

I don't want either the Republican or the Democrat winner to think he has a mandate from the American people. I want whoever wins to walk away with LESS than 50% of the vote. I want him sitting in the Oval Office thinking "most Americans don't agree with me".

But if the disenchanted just stay home then they won't be counted against the popular vote. And maybe, just maybe, if Republicans and Democrats consistently win with less than 50% of the vote we may speed up the day when we can usher in run-off elections. Maybe it just wishful thinking, but it is an idea.

What say ye?
 
Interesting logic. It reveals more and more towards the end where you talk about why it's tempting to not vote at all.

I suppose the real problem is we have a Presidential, not Parliamentary, system. Third parties get more attention when merely voting for them guarantees that you'll have representation. In today's system, you just end up with an outcry in the form of a number on a page.

Numbers don't convince people to make qualitative change because they're boring, and on top of that, forming the number is incredibly difficult to orchestrate. It has fatalism painted all over it.

Half of the fatalism comes from depressed people who don't see any hope. The other half comes from stubborn people who only want to oppress depressed people because they enjoy seeing people stuck on the bottom.
 
Been voting 3rd party since 2 years into ol' W's first term.
 
People are too self involved and apathetic about politics to look into anyone past the main two parties.
 
Arbo said:
People are too self involved and apathetic about politics to look into anyone past the main two parties.
Click to expand...

Ideally, political parties wouldn't exist. They divide the country, establish elitist leadership, and convince people to make politics a career.
 
Daktoria said:
Ideally, political parties wouldn't exist. They divide the country, establish elitist leadership, and convince people to make politics a career.
Click to expand...

A few of the founders talked about this... and a few people way before the founders existed did as well. It has always been known that parties corrupt the system.
 
Daktoria said:
Ideally, political parties wouldn't exist. They divide the country, establish elitist leadership, and convince people to make politics a career.
Click to expand...

Ideally that would be great. But I think humans like to group things up and thus parties are perhaps a natural phenomenon.
 
Voting is picking the lesser of evils, but then much of life is like that any way.

Voting 3rd party not only is of no value, but rather is usually voting against your interests and views.

It was votes for Nader that put Bush into office. It was votes for Perot that put Clinton into office.

I think, instead, if you are not in a swing state you should vote for the candidate you know won't win. Generally, I think people should vote against incumbents.
 
joko104 said:
Voting is picking the lesser of evils, but then much of life is like that any way.

Voting 3rd party not only is of no value, but rather is usually voting against your interests and views.

It was votes for Nader that put Bush into office. It was votes for Perot that put Clinton into office.

I think, instead, if you are not in a swing state you should vote for the candidate you know won't win. Generally, I think people should vote against incumbents.
Click to expand...

I think that if you want to vote in an insanely stupid way which is guaranteed to break the Republic, we do as you suggest here.
 
Ikari said:
Ideally that would be great. But I think humans like to group things up and thus parties are perhaps a natural phenomenon.
Click to expand...

You don't need political parties for that. Identity politics gets it done well enough:

  • Feminism
  • Multiculturalism
  • Environmentalism
  • Egalitarianism
  • Consumerism
  • Industrialism
  • Workaholism
  • Professionalism
 
I will vote third party as soon as one of them represents my beliefs better than one of the major parties does.

I am not a stoned republican, so the libertarian party is out.
I am not a hippy so the green party is out.
I do not want to **** all over other people's rights, so the constitution party is out.
I am not a socialist nor a commie so those are out.
I am not religious so the republican, america first, christian liberty, or other conservative party.
 
Redress said:
I will vote third party as soon as one of them represents my beliefs better than one of the major parties does.

I am not a stoned republican, so the libertarian party is out.
I am not a hippy so the green party is out.
I do not want to **** all over other people's rights, so the constitution party is out.
I am not a socialist nor a commie so those are out.
I am not religious so the republican, america first, christian liberty, or other conservative party.
Click to expand...

This is a fairly ignorant and dishonest assessment of third parties.
 
Should anyone ever expect honesty from Redress?
 
It's somewhat depressing that you have to suggest people even consider all the options before casting their vote. I suspect many voters can't even put a name to local candidates for elections, they just tick the red or blue boxes they've been programmed to.
 
I'm in California, and with our new top-two primary system, voting third party in November is impossible.
 
As far as I know none of the third parties on the ballot fit my views any more than Democrats or Republicans do, but I've been considering writing in Huntsman on the Presidential line if Missouri doesn't look like a tossup state come November.
 
Obama is succeeding on ripping Romney apart.
This is not going to be much of an election.
 
I've been doing this already in every election I've ever voted it. The problem is, I'm one of the very few people who do it, apparently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom