• 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!

Voting For Third-Party Candidates - POTUS

Will you, would you vote Third-Party in 2016?


  • Total voters
    60
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.

Supporting the status quo is indeed endorsing it. If you vote for it, you endorse it.
 
If you're accusing illegality, do you have some proof of that?

Quibble the reasons all you want. The reality is that parties like the Libertarian Party can't even get ONE PERCENT of the entire vote and aren't anywhere CLOSE to having ever gotten an electoral vote. The idiocy in thinking that "oh, if they'd just get a bit more attention they'd be legitimate, therefore YOU MUST GIVE THEM ATTENTION" is just that...idiocy. Something that has shown time and time and time and time and time again to be absolutely incapable of spurring even ONE PERCENT of the vote doesn't deserve to be given ample time.

If they could show themselves as even mildly viable of even making a bit of headway outside of the standard infrastructure, then things absolutely should be reworked to include them into the process and allow them a legitimate shot to make the next step. But they're not even close to getting to that point. This isn't going "They'd be able to compete if you'd just let them in the door", this is "They'd just be able to compete if you'd pay for their airplane ride to the city in question, get them an uber to the location, and then let them in the door".

If you think it's time for a "true revolution" with violence, more power to you. That's not what "I'm saying" and nothing you can point to that I have said suggests that, so even stating it in that fashion is laughable, dishonest, and idiotic.

And I stated there's no sense in you voting for any PRACTICAL reasons. There's plenty of principled and personal reasons to vote for 3rd party. None of them are practical in the sense that they'll actually have any impact on the election or on the greater whole of the country; but there's absolutely a variety of individual reasons to vote 3rd party. It's the exact reason I'm very likely to be voting 3rd party in 2016. But I also don't fool myself that it's likely to actually impact anything, that the individual will have any chance of winning, or that they should any way be given similar amount of attention and exposure as those that ACTUALLY have a legitimate realistic practical likelihood of winning.

Maybe they haven't obtained even "ONE PERCENT" is BECAUSE nobody ever gives them any attention.

Politics is a media driven business. This is the reason why Donald Trump remains relevant, he is being talked about on TV ... ALL... THE... TIME.

And Hillary Clinton is a woman, so the fact that she is a woman has been played up in the media for "history" reasons.

Fact is, we should demand that our media pay a huge amount of attention to 3rd party candidates, just to see if it has any effect on the results of an election.

That would be the answer to the riddle of what motivates people to elect someone.
 
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.

This is what I have been saying,

The best possible outcome to really shake things up would be a Ticket that looks like this...

Hillary Clinton (D)
Ted Cruz (R)
Bernie Sanders (I)
Donald Trump (I)
Gary Johnson (L)

All of those on your General election ballot for President of the United States.
 
Less pathetic than rolling over and accepting it.

The American people are stupid, sorry to say. So long as that is true, there will be no change.
 
This is what I have been saying,

The best possible outcome to really shake things up would be a Ticket that looks like this...

Hillary Clinton (D)
Ted Cruz (R)
Bernie Sanders (I)
Donald Trump (I)
Gary Johnson (L)

All of those on your General election ballot for President of the United States.

I would be EXCEPTIONALLY interested in watching a situation such as that. I also think it'd be striking if, that in such a situation, the libertarian candidate STILL...despite it being a season rife with multiple party voting...could not obtain 1% of the vote.
 
Maybe they haven't obtained even "ONE PERCENT" is BECAUSE nobody ever gives them any attention.

If a party can't garner one percent of the national vote on their own efforts, it's completely unrealistic and laughable to suggest that they would be even mildly relevant even IF they gained attention. Essentially, it's an indication that the party in and of itself...based on its message, based on it's infrastructure, based on it's own campaigning, based on it's own ability to advertise, based on it's own ability to get out the vote and motivate it's base...can't even garner a SINGLE PERCENT of the population to get on board with it, yet miraculously if they get a bit more news coverage they'd become relevant and have a legitimate shot?

No, no they would not.

Any party/candidate needs to show they can at least garner a sizable and realistic base on their own before the limited time and exposure that the public has to presidential candidates is invested even moderately in them. If their own efforts cannot even get a single solitary percent of the population, there's ZERO reason why anyone should believe that with additional exposure they will do anything but be taking up space and time.

Again....demanding that the media and the public pay similar, if not as much, attention to Libertarians during the presidential elections is like demanding that ESPN pay similar, if not as much, attention to professional bowling as they do the NFL and College Football during the fall. Because you know, if only the media would spend more time talking about Ryan Ciminelli and Bill O'Neill, well they'd be competing with Tom Brady and Peyton Manning for being people that individuals want to hear about and watch. :roll:
 
Last edited:
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.

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:

So with the coming election this fall, will you vote for a third-party candidate? Both ruling parties of Corpgov are worthless, often treasonous. IMHO anyone who votes along party lines, especially now, is a fool or intellectually lazy or a political whore.

I vote issues rather than party. I haven't voted against anyone in a long, long, time. I don't have a problem voting for a Republican or Democrat if they are worthy and not part of the feckin establishment that has all but destroyed this nation. In this election there are two such candidates, Trump and Sanders.

Clinton is just about as establishment as she can get. She has no character and she can't be trusted. I'd never vote for her.

Trump never intended to be a viable candidate. He wanted to place or show but never believed he'd have a chance at winning. He was and is thus unprepared for where he now finds himself. Trump has somehow inadvertently given license to bigots, creatins, lifetime losers, racists and people who can't read.

I'm voting for Sanders. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination I'll vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
 
In local and state elections I would definitely vote 3rd party. but nationally, particularly president, its a wasted vote.
 
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.

What are you talking about? Do you even know why people vote third parties? I vote for whom I think is the best candidate. That's rarely a person in the Dems or Reps. I dont know what you're talking about when it comes to "protest votes" but it looks like the rantings of someone who's too lazy to research all the candidates during a presidential campaign.
 
What are you talking about? Do you even know why people vote third parties? I vote for whom I think is the best candidate. That's rarely a person in the Dems or Reps. I dont know what you're talking about when it comes to "protest votes" but it looks like the rantings of someone who's too lazy to research all the candidates during a presidential campaign.

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a single person running in *ANY* party that deserves the White House. I don't agree with any of them. I think they all suck.
 
Go look at what party he ran as at that time.
Just saying.

So that gives credence to the idea that, it's not necessarily what you believe or how much experience you have, it's about lobbying with who has partial control.
Not to mention that both DNC and GOP have state subsidization of their party functions.

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.

Why should it?
There is a whole host of economic and psychological research behind topics like this.

Just my anecdotal evidence has shown that people don't even know who the hell these other parties are.
That's not necessarily proof though.

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.

We'll have to disagree on this.
I mean, the primary candidates (GOP and DNC) get media exposure out of the gate.
Before voters have even had a chance to make a choice of who.

Why do they get this coverage before getting public support?
 
Honestly, you never struck me as the insecure type that has a need to identify with the winning side.

There is no winning side. No matter who wins, we all lose. I'd just rather keep the bad stuff that happens to a minimum.
 
I'm not pretending there will be any change. We both know there won't be. I just acknowledge it.

That just means the Republic is lost. I guess we can quit on it, but I'd rather try to make it work instead.
 
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.

Mighty fine post. I agree with every word. You deserve the clap. :applaud

To illustrate your point, it was just a few short weeks ago that Hillary stopped invoking Obama in almost every speech. She often railed on at Sanders and Trump for not giving Obama credit for damn near everything. Hillary said she "will not take a back seat in my support of President Obama." (Rumor has it Hillary has never been asked to be in the back seat with anyone.)

Hillary couldn't shout her love for Obama's administration loud or often enough. Her strategy was twofold: 1. Pimp the status quo; 2. Imprint Obama=Hillary in the minds of black voters, which she needed to carry the South. Those days are over.

Hillary won the Southern states and Sanders and Trump have forced her to back away from promising to be what would be tantamount to an Obama 3rd term. Hillary doesn't need the black vote so much now. Thankfully we no longer have to hear her channeling "Step 'n' Fechit" as she panders to the black community. Bill, Hill and even Chelsea have backed away from the black community and things especially important to black voters.

Hillary's initial strategy to win the Democratic vote was to ride in on Obama's coattails. It didn't work. Trump and Sanders, the anti-status quo, anti-establishment candidates, found amazing reception and support from millions and millions of Americans who are beyond sick and tired of the Corpgov system. The establishment shuck and jive is not working. More and more Americans want the establishment bull**** to end. Hillary's campaign has had to try to change horses in the middle of a stream. It is barely working for her.

People don't want more of the same. Trump and Sanders are proof of that. Corpgov's two ruling factions, Republicans and Democrats, have been taken by surprise and they are still struggling to understand it. The GOP looks to be imploding and the Democrats won't be far behind.
 
That just means the Republic is lost. I guess we can quit on it, but I'd rather try to make it work instead.

So long as it remains the way it is, yes, it is lost. When you have people who would rather vote based on who looks best on TV and on manufactured sound bytes, when the majority of voters are ultra-low-information voters, we're doomed.
 
So long as it remains the way it is, yes, it is lost. When you have people who would rather vote based on who looks best on TV and on manufactured sound bytes, when the majority of voters are ultra-low-information voters, we're doomed.

This coming from someone who has practically admitted they are voting for the two-party system because a third party vote is a waste. It's comedy gold!
 
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a single person running in *ANY* party that deserves the White House. I don't agree with any of them. I think they all suck.

I can always find at least one person during a presidential run I can vote for. I think you're full of it. There's often upwards of 20 people on a ballot. If it's that hard to find a person you agree with on a presidential ballot then the problem probably isn't that you lack good options...
 
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a single person running in *ANY* party that deserves the White House. I don't agree with any of them. I think they all suck.

Just out of curiousity, what would be the outline of your party platform, that you don't see in any candidate?
 
By voting 3rd party, after the two big parties eff everything up, at least I can say, "Don't blame me. I didn't elect these schmucks."

If you voted for them, for ANY reason, you are part of the blame and part of the problem.
 
Mighty fine post. I agree with every word. You deserve the clap. :applaud

To illustrate your point, it was just a few short weeks ago that Hillary stopped invoking Obama in almost every speech. She often railed on at Sanders and Trump for not giving Obama credit for damn near everything. Hillary said she "will not take a back seat in my support of President Obama." (Rumor has it Hillary has never been asked to be in the back seat with anyone.)

Hillary couldn't shout her love for Obama's administration loud or often enough. Her strategy was twofold: 1. Pimp the status quo; 2. Imprint Obama=Hillary in the minds of black voters, which she needed to carry the South. Those days are over.

Hillary won the Southern states and Sanders and Trump have forced her to back away from promising to be what would be tantamount to an Obama 3rd term. Hillary doesn't need the black vote so much now. Thankfully we no longer have to hear her channeling "Step 'n' Fechit" as she panders to the black community. Bill, Hill and even Chelsea have backed away from the black community and things especially important to black voters.

Hillary's initial strategy to win the Democratic vote was to ride in on Obama's coattails. It didn't work. Trump and Sanders, the anti-status quo, anti-establishment candidates, found amazing reception and support from millions and millions of Americans who are beyond sick and tired of the Corpgov system. The establishment shuck and jive is not working. More and more Americans want the establishment bull**** to end. Hillary's campaign has had to try to change horses in the middle of a stream. It is barely working for her.

People don't want more of the same. Trump and Sanders are proof of that. Corpgov's two ruling factions, Republicans and Democrats, have been taken by surprise and they are still struggling to understand it. The GOP looks to be imploding and the Democrats won't be far behind.

I'm going to give you the clap for this great post. You simply nailed it.
 
Back
Top Bottom