• 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.

Voting Johnson is not throwing vote away

Ontologuy said:
T

There is only one choice: to save America by electing Romney.
Click to expand...

So vote for change by voting for more of the same! Brilliant!

If anybody ****ed things up in this country, it's Republicans and Democrats. Voting for them only says "**** us up some more! Yay!"
 
Bobcat said:
many of us thought the same thing and voted for Perot. That action elected Clinton. If you want more obama, vote Johnson. This is not the election to try to create a viable 3rd party.

The people pushing this are most likely obama supporters.
Click to expand...

If someone really wants to push a viable third party, it needs to begin at the state level and grow to the congressional level. These third parties that try to break into the presidential race are driven by specific personalities and not by some over-arching ideology. In my opinion, that's why they always fail.
 
There hasn't been a viable multi party system in this country for a hundred and fifty years. Since then the 2 major parties have done everything they could to make sure any new parties didn't gain any power.

If you want to see the rise of alternate parties then people need to work on enacting legislation that levels the playing field. Until then any vote for a third party is just what it is portrayed as...a protest vote.

If you want to send a message, call Western Union.
 
A vote for Johnson is not a thrown away vote DEPENDING on your reasons for casting your vote. I've said this numerous times and I'm a defender of those that wish to vote 3rd party. That said...the thought of getting 5% of the popular vote is laughable. Let me pull up the numbers I had when someone was suggesting that they'd do significantly better if they were in the debates and highlight just how AMAZINGLY far off they are from getting 5% popular vote:

Zyphlin said:
The Libertarian Party couldn't manage even .5% of the popular vote last year. That's less than half a percent. Same goes for 2004. Guess what, same goes for 2000 as well. Actually, if you add up their percentage of the popular vote for the past THREE Presidential elections you BARELY get over 1% total of the popular vote (1.08%). Look at that again, you've got to add up their votes for the past three elections to even get to 1% of the popular vote. Over the past twenty years, that's 6 elections, they've not even broken 2.5% combined (2.33%) with their highest in that span being half a percent in 1996. That's pathetic.

Even if we assumed that being in the debates would give them...hell, lets go crazy...a 500% bump in their COMBINED results they'd still only have 14% of the popular vote. And that's going over their combined totals from 6 elections. Going off their average, to get to that same measely 14%, would mean that they'd need a 3,500% bump. To get from their average over the past 20 years (.39) to even a THIRD of the popular vote would mean an increase of almost 8,500%. I don't care if they had a debate that was nothing BUT the Libertarian candidate on stage, there's no way in hell that it's going to give them a 500% bump let alone one 17 times that amount.
Click to expand...

A Five Percent popular vote would be more than double their total popular vote garnered from combining the past 6 elections.
 
Moon said:
If someone really wants to push a viable third party, it needs to begin at the state level and grow to the congressional level. These third parties that try to break into the presidential race are driven by specific personalities and not by some over-arching ideology. In my opinion, that's why they always fail.
Click to expand...

In many ways you're right. In the mean time, though, if you believe that a 3rd party offers a better choice you should vote that way.
 
Bobcat said:
many of us thought the same thing and voted for Perot. That action elected Clinton. If you want more obama, vote Johnson. This is not the election to try to create a viable 3rd party.

The people pushing this are most likely obama supporters.
Click to expand...

How rude. lol

I am not an Obama supporter but I *will* be voting 3rd party. My county is the 3 most conservative county in the USA and 5th most conservative city. Romney will win here by a landslide. So my vote will be actually counted voting for Gary.
 
muciti said:
The Five Percent Threshold « Current Events « PostLibertarian

If Gary Johnson can secure 5% of the popular vote this November the Libertarian party may have a shot at making some noise in the 2016 presidential election. Some people view voting for Johnson as throwing their vote away or only doing it as a protest vote. Voting Johnson now will likely not get him into office this year however you can be making a difference in the future by breaking up this two party strangle hold that the Democrats and Republicans have on us.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is never a waste to vote the proper choice. Never a waste to try to keep the Republic. Never a waste to insist on proper political competition. The single party stranglehold is killing the Republic. The continued voting for the lesser of two evils has only driven us further down the road to hell. Johnson is a quality candidate with a solid platform and he gets my vote.
 
vauge said:
How rude. lol

I am not an Obama supporter but I *will* be voting 3rd party. My county is the 3 most conservative county in the USA and 5th most conservative city. Romney will win here by a landslide. So my vote will be actually counted voting for Gary.
Click to expand...

It's not rude, it's just a stupid propaganda comment. Some people cannot actually debate on substance, so the arguments must be hyperbole, spin, and propaganda. Don't support crap because....OK. I don't support crap, the Republocrats can kiss my vote goodbye. Only those who wish to destroy the Republic make "throw your vote away" arguments.

HAHAHAHAHA, I can do it too.
 
vauge said:
How rude. lol

I am not an Obama supporter but I *will* be voting 3rd party. My county is the 3 most conservative county in the USA and 5th most conservative city. Romney will win here by a landslide. So my vote will be actually counted voting for Gary.
Click to expand...

If it is certain a state will go one way or another, then a 3rd vote makes good sense as it is the only way your vote really would mean anything.
 
rocket88 said:
So vote for change by voting for more of the same! Brilliant!

If anybody ****ed things up in this country, it's Republicans and Democrats. Voting for them only says "**** us up some more! Yay!"
Click to expand...
I realize so many of us want something that's so greatly better than what we're offered.

But that doesn't exist on November's ballot.

And if Obama is allowed to win, America's very life will be at stake.

So though Romney isn't my idea of "something that's so greatly better", he isn't likely fatal for America.

Thus, since Romney is the only person capable of beating Obama, the decision to vote for Romney is the right one.

Fantasizing there's a better choice with just 8 days before the election is mere wishful thinking that comes far too late to be of any new-party-forming value.

If centrists want a better choice, though they've been traditionally "silent", they will have to speak up and create a centrist party and field a centrist candidate.
 
vauge said:
How rude. lol

I am not an Obama supporter but I *will* be voting 3rd party. My county is the 3 most conservative county in the USA and 5th most conservative city. Romney will win here by a landslide. So my vote will be actually counted voting for Gary.
Click to expand...

To go along with that, I live in a big "blue" city (Minneapolis) in a "blue" state (Minnesota). Most likely going Obama. Voting for Romney in South Minneapolis is like spitting into the wind. Voting for Johnson...well it makes the only statement I can make.
 
There is only one way right now to make a 3rd party become legirimate, and that's money. Voting for them accomplishs nothing.
 
muciti said:
The Five Percent Threshold « Current Events « PostLibertarian

If Gary Johnson can secure 5% of the popular vote this November the Libertarian party may have a shot at making some noise in the 2016 presidential election. Some people view voting for Johnson as throwing their vote away or only doing it as a protest vote. Voting Johnson now will likely not get him into office this year however you can be making a difference in the future by breaking up this two party strangle hold that the Democrats and Republicans have on us.
Click to expand...

The thing is that the President isn't the end-all be-all for the Libertarian and Green parties.

We also need them to run for the House and the Senate.

That way we can get third party candidates in Congress as well, since a third party President would have no support in a Congress full of Democrats and Republicans and block the reforms a third party President would push for.

And another way to support third parties is to elect them to local and state offices. That way an area will have the grass roots support necessary to go on to national offices.

Yes, the office of the President is an important national one. But third party candidates may have better success at local and state offices, and can use their experience in them to go on to national office, which includes Congress as well.
 
Grim17 said:
There is only one way right now to make a 3rd party become legirimate, and that's money. Voting for them accomplishs nothing.
Click to expand...

Until they are such spoilers in elections that only the least popular candidates get elected.

Then social pressures will force the two parties to reform themselves.
 
Voting third party is no more "throwing your vote away" than is voting for your favorite party candidate in a district that is not in doubt. For people that suggest people shouldnt vote for a third party candidate because they cant 'possibly' win...does that mean democrats in a heavily republican district shouldnt bother throwing away their vote? Or republicans in heavily favored dem districts? You vote because voting is the right thing to do. You vote for the candidate you most believe in.
 
rocket88 said:
To go along with that, I live in a big "blue" city (Minneapolis) in a "blue" state (Minnesota). Most likely going Obama. Voting for Romney in South Minneapolis is like spitting into the wind. Voting for Johnson...well it makes the only statement I can make.
Click to expand...

I live in a swing state and my vote will go to Jill Stein. Hopefully the Green Party will be in a better position for 2016, especially with support from the Occupy Movement.
 
the only time I've wasted a vote was in 1996. I wasted it by not voting. every other vote, whether for a major party candidate or not, was not wasted.
 
joko104 said:
If it is certain a state will go one way or another, then a 3rd vote makes good sense as it is the only way your vote really would mean anything.
Click to expand...

So let's look at that statement for a moment, shall we?

The concept that your vote only means something, if, and only if, your vote for a 3rd party is in a decidedly red or blue state.
There is some truth to what you are saying, but not to the individual.
A 3rd party vote in a hard red, or hard blue state means something to the 3rd party you are voting for.
You won't be able to swing the outcome of your state, but you will be contributing to another party's vote percentage.

That being said, where your statement falls short is in neglecting what a vote means to an individual.
As a 3rd party voter, it means I was honest with myself, who I am, and what I believe.
I did my due diligence to effect a change for the better, based upon what the current status quo looks like.
I did not succumb to the fear propaganda of "If X wins, Y will happen".
I did not accept either of the 2 poisons, one of which I will ultimately have to swallow.
I did not tow a party line.

If Hitler and Mussolini were standing in front of us today, both were going to kill us, and there was no way we could avoid that outcome, than I and other voters of conscience, would be the remaining patriots that would spit in their face, and tell them to go **** themselves.
The rest of society would choose who gets to kill them, yes, but would not die honorably, with dignity, or with pride. They would die cowards.
 
I voted for Johnson because he most closely represents the America I want. Voting for Romney or Obama is voting for more of what I don't want. Why in the hell would I vote to have more of what I don't want? Beyond that, I will not allow the ruling two party system to tell me that I have only two choices. The system is rigged. I will not be their willing patsy.

Someone puts a turd in each of your hands and tell you to pick the turd you like best. Sadly most of the voters will dutifully decide between two turds like good little government controlled sheeple.
 
tres borrachos said:
I made a protest vote against George HW Bush by voting for Ross Perot, thinking that I was sending a message to Bush & the GOP. Instead, we got 8 years of Slick Willy Clinton. I wish I could take that protest vote back.
Click to expand...

Ross Perot didn't have a party independent of him which is what went wrong and his suspending his campaign right when he was coming into the hunt sort of doomed his cause. If he hadn't done that, there may very well be a third party. He was the Tea Party of his day.
 
samsmart said:
The thing is that the President isn't the end-all be-all for the Libertarian and Green parties.

We also need them to run for the House and the Senate.

That way we can get third party candidates in Congress as well, since a third party President would have no support in a Congress full of Democrats and Republicans and block the reforms a third party President would push for.

And another way to support third parties is to elect them to local and state offices. That way an area will have the grass roots support necessary to go on to national offices.

Yes, the office of the President is an important national one. But third party candidates may have better success at local and state offices, and can use their experience in them to go on to national office, which includes Congress as well.
Click to expand...

There are Libertarian candidates running on all levels of the government. Some will win most wont. But to give you idea here is a review of 2010.
In 2009

Throughout the year, 48 Libertarians are elected or re-elected to public office. In Indianapolis, Councilmember Ed Coleman officially switches his affiliation to Libertarian. By the end of the year, there are 146 Libertarians holding elected offices.
Click to expand...

In 2010

Over 800 Libertarian candidates run for office in November. Libertarians running for U.S. House receive over 1,073,000 votes. Pamela Brown, running for California Lieutenant Governor against both a Republican and a Democrat, receives 574,640 votes. 38 Libertarians are elected or re-elected to public office, and by the end of the year there are 154 Libertarians holding elected office.
Click to expand...

Heres hoping the trend continues this year!
 
I love the idea of third parties. Unfortunately they have such cult like leadership that they have trouble democratizing themselves with less zealous folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom