Debate: why you SHOULDN'T vote for a third party candidate

[treesinger]

This isn't an endorsement of either Kerry or Bush. I think third parties are valuable because a different voice gets to heard. I only wish they would start earlier and louder so that they can actually be contenders. A vote for a third party candidate that doesn't have enough exposure is a throwaway IMO.

I liken it to a horse race where Bush and Kerry are the thoroughbreds and the other candidates are three-legged ponies. They have NO shot at winning. Now, in the case of someone like Ross Perot, he actually had enough popularity that he could garner enough votes. A vote for him back then was NOT a throwaway because there was a realistic chance of success, even if a SMALL chance.

Does anyone here think Nader can win? LaRouche? Votes for these candidates doesn't send a message to anyone but the people that vote for them. The public at large doesn't learn from the noble act of voting your conscience. In politics, conscience doesn't matter.

So vote for Bush or Kerry. If you don't like either one, pick the one that most represents your views or pick the most important issue of the next four years and vote for the candidate who best represents what you want. In my case, I don't like either candidate much. But I feel the GWOT is the absolute most important issue that I may ever see in my lifetime and I am basing my vote on who I think is going to carry it out the way I want to see it carried out. I have to take the bad with the good. But at least my vote will go to someone who has a chance of winning.
My conscience won't elect a President, but my vote will.

 

[Maleficent13]

IMO, one of the main reasons third party candidates can't win is funding, to a certain extend. And, they very rarely get the media attention the two main parties get, which basically amounts to free advertsing for them.

I think the two party system is past its prime and we need to get out of that box we seem to be trapped in. I do agree with you that a third party candidate isn't going to win this election, and a vote for one of them isn't going to get that guy in office. But, how are we ever going to get GOOD choices if we keep voting for the same old stuff (that no one seems to be too happy with) being pushed on us by the two main parties?

I think that if more people actually cared about the state of the country, and actually researched their choices, maybe we'd be able to break out of this box. But that's a different debate...

 

[EsmeraldaX]

I know I feel like if I'm choosing between Bush and Kerry, that I'll be selecting "the lesser of two evils" .

I know SO many people (who will be voting for one or the other) who feel the same way.

IMO, an election should not have to be this way. A lot of people are frustrated on both sides and I think a 3rd party vote is for many a way to say, I am not pciking either of the other two guys because i can't stand either of them.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
IMO, one of the main reasons third party candidates can't win is funding, to a certain extend. And, they very rarely get the media attention the two main parties get, which basically amounts to free advertsing for them.

I think the two party system is past its prime and we need to get out of that box we seem to be trapped in. I do agree with you that a third party candidate isn't going to win this election, and a vote for one of them isn't going to get that guy in office. But, how are we ever going to get GOOD choices if we keep voting for the same old stuff (that no one seems to be too happy with) being pushed on us by the two main parties?

I think that if more people actually cared about the state of the country, and actually researched their choices, maybe we'd be able to break out of this box. But that's a different debate...

I agree that the two party system is outdated. And the fact that ONLY two parties get federal funding does irk me. I'd like to see more voices heard much more loudly. But I think that is more a problem to be LEGISLATED away by our Congress than voted away by the people. I would bet a majority of the people in this country don't even know there are more than two candidates and won't find out until they get into the polling booth and see all the names.. That is, if they vote at all.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
I know I feel like if I'm choosing between Bush and Kerry, that I'll be selecting "the lesser of two evils" .

I know SO many people (who will be voting for one or the other) who feel the same way.

IMO, an election should not have to be this way. A lot of people are frustrated on both sides and I think a 3rd party vote is for many a way to say, I am not pciking either of the other two guys because i can't stand either of them.

Agreed. But you'll still get stuck with one of the choices so you may as well excercise your ability to try and influence which of the undesirables you'll have to see for the next four years.

 

[Lewisc]

Under the electoral system your vote doesn't really do anything if your state is solidly behind either candidate.

Although I would still vote for one of the two main cadidates one could argue that under those circumstances there is nothing wrong in sending a message.

 

[katerkat]

Actually, a bunch of Libertarians are moving to New Hampshire to try to get one whole state in the electoral vote. I'd go!

I do think, on a national level, voting Libertarian isn't the best plan. It has much more effect on the local level and state level, to a certain extent.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by katerkat
Actually, a bunch of Libertarians are moving to New Hampshire to try to get one whole state in the electoral vote. I'd go!

I do think, on a national level, voting Libertarian isn't the best plan. It has much more effect on the local level and state level, to a certain extent.

Voting Libertarian tends to get the Democratic candidate elected. I'm not sure that is their goal.

 

[ErikdaRed]

Its sentiments like this that make the best argument for automatic runoff voting. Of course I don't want to see the people that can't poke a hole in a card trying to list out the candidates in order.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ErikdaRed
Its sentiments like this that make the best argument for automatic runoff voting. Of course I don't want to see the people that can't poke a hole in a card trying to list out the candidates in order.

OMG, no doubt!!!! I can see the angst and anxiety now...

"For the love of God, WHICH NUMBER COMES AFTER 2????"

 

[katerkat]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Voting Libertarian tends to get the Democratic candidate elected. I'm not sure that is their goal.

Yeah, I just checked - both senators from NH are Republican. Darn Libertarians can't get anything right!