Voting For Third-Party Candidates - POTUS

Dragonfly said:

The Reps & Dems want you to believe there's no point in voting for anyone else.
That's part of their mission. They've created a monopoly within the political landscape of America and anything that challenges that monopoly is a threat.

That why, more than ever, we as a people NEED to get past the idea that there are only two reasonable choices for POTUS, and that those choices ONLY come from the reps and dems.

Click to expand...

It's not the Dems and Reps it's the FPTP voting system

Zyphlin said:

This is not a business, this is not a "market", and trying to discuss it as such is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I disagree.
We have a marketplace of ideas, intellectual property being one example.

Zyphlin said:

Presidential elections occur one every four years, for a short period of months where an actual candidate is running. The amount of air time for debates and other such things is limited. It is an absolutely and complete disservice to the citizenry to even THINK of giving parties who...on their own can not even garner ONE PERCENT of the popular vote...even, or even SIMILAR, amount of exposure and time as those who have shown routinely to be able to legitimately challenge for the Presidency. We already have significant issues in this country in terms of having a knowledgeable and educated voter base that forms their opinions on who to vote for, and watering that down even farther by having every yahoo possible on stage taking up time and demanding "equal time", despite showing ZERO ability to even make themselves relevant on their own, is not the preferable option.

Click to expand...

Gary Johnson was elected governor.
Just saying.

I didn't demand equal time.
Although I don't think the current situation is palatable.

Zyphlin said:

If you can't even manage to get ONE PERCENT, let alone the 5% threshold I personally think should be needed in the previous election, through grassroots effort of presenting your message to the masses and swaying them to your cause then I see absolutely zero reasons why anyone on a national level should waste their time, and the voters time, in giving significant coverage to said parties candidates.

Click to expand...

Grassroots doesn't work, if you get no media traction and/or have no advertising.
I do agree, they suck terribly at advertising.

It's a kind of paradox though.
You can't raise money, unless you have media exposure.
You can't get media exposure, without having money.

Although again.
I don't believe the electorate is competent in electing in the first place.
And no it's not because "meh libertarians" didn't get elected.

Dragonfly said:

Nobody likes the candidates. Almost all tend to vote for the lessor of two evils.
So many refuse to vote for anything but a Dem or Rep for a variety of reasons.
I call that insanity, but so be it.

So with the coming election this fall, will you vote for a third-party candidate?

If not, why not? Especially if you feel the Rep and Dem candidates are the worst we've ever seen?

I wonder what percentage of DPers would go alternative. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Other. I usually vote Green. I did vote for Slick Willie. In this election year, Sanders represents most of my political viewpoints and will surely get my vote if he can secure the Dem Party nomination. If he does not get the nomination and runs third party, I will vote for him. If he is not in the picture at election time, I will vote either Green or Trump. Unsure which. Trump would rock a boat that needs rocking.

Dragonfly said:

The Reps & Dems want you to believe there's no point in voting for anyone else.
That's part of their mission. They've created a monopoly within the political landscape of America and anything that challenges that monopoly is a threat.

That why, more than ever, we as a people NEED to get past the idea that there are only two reasonable choices for POTUS, and that those choices ONLY come from the reps and dems.

Click to expand...

You are on the right path here.

We have all known for sometime now that there is a coopetition between Democrats and Republicans in one of the few areas they mutually agree on, as much control over the political process as possible and doing all they can to exclude any other party from participation. In some ways the media is in on the game.

Not necessarily illegal, but is designed to ensure all the other aspect of modern politics stays as is. Namely establishment power and control. The GOP seems to be having trouble with this lately, but the Democrats seem to have a slightly better handle on ensuring their choice stays out front.

Yes, we see 3rd parties on ballots, but that's a diversion, a prop, a phony object for empowering the people. The dog and pony show is owned and operated by two long standing parties that are actually independent entities, not THE government itself.

However, these two parties control the government and the voting process...and starting at primaries, in which 3rd parties always have been, is, and will forever be ****ed. Pitching 3rd parties a bone at election time is just a mind **** that prevents ourselves from having a sense of guilt for not participating in the dog and pony show.

I vote for the lesser evil (e.g. now Kasich<Cruz<<<Hillary<Trump or Sanders), IF I find myself in swing state by November. If polls solidly favor one or the other evil, I go for Gary Johnson (L) or other such ideologically close personage (Can't say there was another, in the last three decades)

Zyphlin said:

If the Libertarian or Greens could actually capture....oh I don't know, a percentage point or two? Or actually manage to capture a state? Then perhaps I'd take it seriously that if they were more "included" they'd have some kind of legitimate shot. But their performance has been laughable for years and the attempt to distill it entirely to "well they don't get the attention" like many do is ridiculous, as it essentially removes all responsibility they themselves have for that fact as well.

Not to mention that this is for the Presidency. Is there a list of Libertarian Party mayors? Libertarian Party governors? Libertarian Party Senators? Have they actually been winning executive positions or state wide elections and showing they are a legitimate contender? Or are they basically going "I want to be President, I'll run for president, goddamn you should treat me with the same level of seriousness and legitimacy as the Republican or Democratic candidate". Hell, they don't even manage to get on the ballot in every state.

Click to expand...

Do you deny that the Reps & Dems have pretty much rigged everything about the election process to PREVENT third-party inclusion?

Do you not think the whole "wasted vote" philosophy includes all elections for all things, not just POTUS?

I see third-party candidates on local ballots. They get the same treatment locally as they do nationally.

People still complain constantly about how awful the choices are, but they continue to chose the same choices. So what's going to ever change?

Definition of insanity.

Remember Ross Perot? He got a (relative to most third-party candidates) a crap-ton of votes.
That's when the Reps/Dems bandied together and started to work on snuffing out any chance of something like that happening again.

And don't for a minute think the almighty dollar doesn't play into this as well.

Grassroots and/or alternative parties can't compete with the financial juggernaut that is Rep/Dem.
That does NOT mean that some of the alternatives are not highly qualified and "better" candidates than those with a "D" or "R" by their name.

Those who win wars create the laws and write history. The R's & D's have won the wars and they've created the laws.

If all the people who say "I'd love to vote for third-party candidate ________, but I just can't bring myself to waste that vote." actually cast that vote....it might make a huge difference in American politics.

As it stands now, if the lemmings keep voting for D or R, we'll just keeping getting the same trash made to look like new trash.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Gary Johnson was elected governor.
Just saying.

Click to expand...

Go look at what party he ran as at that time.
Just saying.

Grassroots doesn't work, if you get no media traction and/or have no advertising.

Click to expand...

Does it work to WIN the presidency? No.

But it absolutely should work to get more than ONE PERCENT of the total vote if we're to expect that a party would have a viable chance of winning the presidency if they were getting media traction and advertising.

it's a kind of paradox though.
You can't raise money, unless you have media exposure.
You can't get media exposure, without having money.

Click to expand...

Except it's not.

You can raise money without media exposure. You probably can't raise enough money to WIN the Presidency, but that's not what I'm suggesting needs to be done. They need to simply show that they're viable enough to be able to garner at least even a PERCENTAGE POINT of the American publics support before I think anyone should be giving them the benefit of extra attention.

They're *ALL* evil. No third parties remotely appeal to me, even less so than the major two. The majority of third parties are just like the major two, except with one or two elements blown way out of proportion. And they're never getting into office, so no, they won't get my vote. I don't support them and they have no shot in hell.

Dragonfly said:

Nobody likes the candidates. Almost all tend to vote for the lessor of two evils.
So many refuse to vote for anything but a Dem or Rep for a variety of reasons.
I call that insanity, but so be it.

So with the coming election this fall, will you vote for a third-party candidate?

If not, why not? Especially if you feel the Rep and Dem candidates are the worst we've ever seen?

I wonder what percentage of DPers would go alternative. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

No. I'm a fairly reliable Republican voter who will be voting for Clinton as my choice in 2016. I haven't yet decided how I will vote in the lower races.

Dragonfly said:

Do you deny that the Reps & Dems have pretty much rigged everything about the election process to PREVENT third-party inclusion?

Click to expand...

I deny it, as to say they "rigged it" is to suggest they manipulated it fraudulently. I would not deny that the system is set up to make it extremely difficult for third parties to be included, and I have ZERO issue with that, because many of the hurdles that are required are frankly reasonable imho.

Do you not think the whole "wasted vote" philosophy includes all elections for all things, not just POTUS?

Click to expand...

I don't buy into a "wasted vote" philosophy, so ask someone who does.

People still complain constantly about how awful the choices are, but they continue to chose the same choices. So what's going to ever change?

Click to expand...

Welcome to human nature, people like to complain. I imagine if such complaints were fully legitimate and honest, said third parties would be able to garner more than one percent of the vote.

Remember Ross Perot? He got a (relative to most third-party candidates) a crap-ton of votes.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do. As an INDEPENDENT, not a third party candidate, Perot did exceptionally well. I absolutely would've supported his equal inclusion in the debates in 1996 given that performance. In 96, the Reform Party was the only third party to show even mild viability recently, and even then it wasn't much (and yet was still significantly more than Libertarians/Greens have shown). And I would've supported the notion that the Reform Party's candidate in 2000 should have been included in the debates of that season as well.

My general take is that if your party manages to garner at least 5% of the popular vote the previous Presidential cycle then you should be included in the debates. A party needs to show that, by their own merits, efforts, and message, that they can generate a significant and reliable base of support with access across the co. At such a point, THEN it is in the interest of both those hosting the debates and the American people to include them in such debates and provided them an additional means of reaching the American people.

Dragonfly said:

Nobody likes the candidates. Almost all tend to vote for the lessor of two evils.
So many refuse to vote for anything but a Dem or Rep for a variety of reasons.
I call that insanity, but so be it.

So with the coming election this fall, will you vote for a third-party candidate?

If not, why not? Especially if you feel the Rep and Dem candidates are the worst we've ever seen?

I wonder what percentage of DPers would go alternative. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Starting at 18, I was a registered Republican, voted straight GOP all the time. Voted for GW in the primary then in the first election. During his first term, I switched to the libertarian party after realizing that the main party is just out for itself and it's friends and not the People. Been voting libertarian since.

The problem with third parties is that most seem to be personality driven rather than ideologically. None of them seem to be smart enough to do the work required to build up a base even regionally. Elect some mayors or congressmen first and show what they stand for. Build from there.

Zyphlin said:

If the Libertarian or Greens could actually capture....oh I don't know, a percentage point or two? Or actually manage to capture a state? Then perhaps I'd take it seriously that if they were more "included" they'd have some kind of legitimate shot. But their performance has been laughable for years and the attempt to distill it entirely to "well they don't get the attention" like many do is ridiculous, as it essentially removes all responsibility they themselves have for that fact as well.

Not to mention that this is for the Presidency. Is there a list of Libertarian Party mayors? Libertarian Party governors? Libertarian Party Senators? Have they actually been winning executive positions or state wide elections and showing they are a legitimate contender? Or are they basically going "I want to be President, I'll run for president, goddamn you should treat me with the same level of seriousness and legitimacy as the Republican or Democratic candidate". Hell, they don't even manage to get on the ballot in every state.

Click to expand...

This is the "elephant in the room" for the Libertarian Party, IMO. If they're really serious about being a legitimate party and force in American politics, then they need to build a base. They need Libertarian mayors and governors and House representatives, and so on.

Now, as time has passed, and because they don't seem to put much effort (if any at all), into building a base, I question their sincerity in even wanting a Libertarian President. Part of me wonders if all they really want to do is "play politics" and entertain themselves.

Moon said:

The problem with third parties is that most seem to be personality driven rather than ideologically. None of them seem to be smart enough to do the work required to build up a base even regionally. Elect some mayors or congressmen first and show what they stand for. Build from there.

Click to expand...

That's something I've been saying for years. If these ideologies are so great, then you ought to be able to show major city mayors and major state governors who hold and follow those ideologies and have made their cities and states successful using those ideologies. But no, they go straight for the presidency because they want power, they don't want to spend their time building up a base, they don't want to prove their ideologies actually work in practice , they want a short-cut to the top.

Things don't work that way.

Third party candidates usually tend to be even worse that the best of two evils.

I've never understood the "3rd party is a wasted vote" mentality.

reinoe said:

I've never understood the "3rd party is a wasted vote" mentality.

Click to expand...

Because someone is going to win and everyone, no matter who they voted for, is going to live under the "rule" of whoever wins. Third party candidates have no chance whatsoever of winning in the general. There just isn't enough support, even if everyone voted for whoever they most wanted to win. They have no conceivable shot in hell. You can vote for Mickey Mouse all you want, but Mickey Mouse will never win, not in a billion years. Therefore, unless you really like meaningless protest votes, which is fine if you want but it doesn't demonstrably achieve anything, your only real choice is to pick one of the candidates with a shot at the White House and vote for them, or against the one you least want to win. Otherwise, you're just signing over your fate to the vast majority. That's your choice too.

It's not a great system but it is the one that we have, take it or leave it. Whining about it and protesting won't change anything without widespread national support, which third parties simply do not have, nor will they ever have.

Cephus said:

Because someone is going to win and everyone, no matter who they voted for, is going to live under the "rule" of whoever wins. Third party candidates have no chance whatsoever of winning in the general. There just isn't enough support, even if everyone voted for whoever they most wanted to win. They have no conceivable shot in hell. You can vote for Mickey Mouse all you want, but Mickey Mouse will never win, not in a billion years. Therefore, unless you really like meaningless protest votes, which is fine if you want but it doesn't demonstrably achieve anything, your only real choice is to pick one of the candidates with a shot at the White House and vote for them, or against the one you least want to win. Otherwise, you're just signing over your fate to the vast majority. That's your choice too.

It's not a great system but it is the one that we have, take it or leave it. Whining about it and protesting won't change anything without widespread national support, which third parties simply do not have, nor will they ever have.

Click to expand...

Endorsing the status quo... which is effectively what you're doing... achieves something? Phfft!

radcen said:

Endorsing the status quo... which is effectively what you're doing... achieves something? Phfft!

Click to expand...

It's not endorsing the status quo. You can stay home for all anyone cares, your vote really doesn't matter if it isn't going toward someone who might possibly win.

Cephus said:

It's not endorsing the status quo. You can stay home for all anyone cares, your vote really doesn't matter if it isn't going toward someone who might possibly win.

Click to expand...

You're only kidding yourself. Even staying home is endorsing the status quo.

radcen said:

You're only kidding yourself. Even staying home is endorsing the status quo.

Click to expand...

Well best of luck changing it then. You be sure to let us all know when that actually happens.

Cephus said:

Well best of luck changing it then. You be sure to let us all know when that actually happens.

Click to expand...

Less pathetic than rolling over and accepting it.

You know, the argument that because almost no one votes for third parties that it is not worth voting for third parties is **** logic. If those people that say that ridiculous logic would just vote for third parties that would change, but no, lets not vote for third parties because almost no one votes for third parties. :doh

reinoe said:

I've never understood the "3rd party is a wasted vote" mentality.

Click to expand...

It's a self-fulfilled statement predicated on the stagnation of our two party system. If people will either not vote or buy into the non-viability of third parties, then third parties will never aggregate the votes necessary to win. So long as you repeat the mantra, it is true. If you hold your nose and say "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils" every time, then of course third parties won't win.

But the insane part is this belief that voting for the lesser of two evils over and over and over again will benefit us. When was the last time the main party gave us a choice that wasn't an evil? So we ratchet down every cycle, while people believe that voting third party is a waste of a vote. Not because it actually is, but because enough people have convinced themselves that it is.

What you end up with is what we have now, a one party system trying its best to look like it's two. Because there is no true political competition. The R's and the D's know they aren't actually going to lose power, they just teeter-totter control back and forth. In the end, all the major stuff is the same. The status quo is the same on both sides of the isle. And that's what we will get time and time again. Look even now. Trump and Sanders are party outsiders and the GOP and DNC are doing everything they can to try to stop them. They want someone more controllable, one who will toe the party line better. And then we'll be presented once again with a "lesser of two evils" (not that I like Trump or SaSanders all that much, it's just that those two make the main party's intentions super clear).

The lesser of two evils is still evil. It's not sustainable. Perchance if you had a lesser of two evils rarely, it could be stomached, but every time? No, the system breaks.

So if you're like me and you cannot stand the actions of the Republocrats and the direction that the Republic is going, what are you to do? Not vote? The Republocrats win. Hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils? The Republocrats win. The only option left is to vote third party. It's a long shot, but it's the only one with a non-zero probability of making change.

Furthermore, to affect the system, the third parties don't even have to win. All you have to do is unbalance the teeter-totter. If you take enough votes from one side such that they cannot win, they have no other choice than to try to put up candidates that can recapture those lost votes. You're not going to change the party from the inside, this election cycle proves that. You can only deviate the line of motion with outside force.

So "voting third party is wasting your vote" is only true so long as we remain short sighted and believe it ourselves. Furthermore, if you are unhappy with the status quo and the Corporate capitalist model we run now, you have no choice but to vote third party. Supporting the status quo will not change the status quo.