1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Who needs to change?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Atlas14, Jul 20, 2007.

  1. Atlas14

    Atlas14 "Sophomoric Troll Master"

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Location:
    Maryland
    So here it is:

    Many Dems blame the re-electing of Bush on people voting for Ralph Nader. Now it is not my intent to judge whether Nader was a great candidate and worthy of being President or not. However, when a third party candidate IS good and SHOULD be elected but up until voting time has NOT really been a top runner in any of the national polls, should you vote for him (assuming you like the guy/gal)?

    Why, if you genuinely think a 3rd party candidate is the best thing for this country, should you throw your vote to someone who is a piece of crap in your eyes? Why should you change? Shouldn't all the *moronic* people voting for the top Dem runner change, not you?

    Currently I see Bill Richardson as my choice for Presidency, even if it is a little early to tell who is going to be top runner/best candidate or not. However, if he chose to run as 3rd party instead so he could still run, I would vote for him.

    Come Nov. 2008, I vote for Richardson as 3rd party, and some crackpot Republican wins the election, is it MY (or anyone elses' who voted for Richardson) fault for the electing of a very poorly qualified candidate?
     
  2. puglover

    puglover Disturber of Worldviews

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2002
    Messages:
    9,643
    Location:
    Kansas
    I would vote third party if I didn't like any of the more popular candidates. But if there was great polarization between the Republican and Democrat candidates like you describe, I suppose I would vote for the lesser of two evils.
     
  3. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,920
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    It is not your fault. For example, in 2000, if Gore had won his home state, he would have won the election, so it is more Gore's fault than Nader's. From a practical standpoint, if you live in a swing state and there are only two candidates with a realistic chance of winning the overall election, I would think the wise choice would be to pick the one you favor (or disfavor the least) between those two. However, it is your vote and if neither of the top two candidates has earned it, it is not your fault. It is your vote to exercise in anyway you see fit.
     
  4. The Yankee

    The Yankee The New Yawker Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    19,467
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    I'd hope there's enough people that hear about Bill Richardson to give him a better shot of winning the Democratic field and I highly doubt he'd try a third-party run. Even so, if that were the case, I'd have to consider throwing my vote in with him.
     
  5. potatokiosk

    potatokiosk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,292
    It wouldn't be your fault, it would be the fault of the fools who voted for the Republican crackpot.
     
  6. amadeus

    amadeus めっちゃしんどい

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    32,508
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    It isn't necessarily anyone's fault; you win the most votes in a state, you get the electoral votes. That's how our elections work.
     
  7. LordRahl

    LordRahl The Objectivist

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,500
    Location:
    NYC, USA
    I vote Libertarian whenever possible. Consider it protest vote. If enough people start voting for 3rd party alternatives, the big parties will notice, and hopefully incorporate at least some of the 3rd party ideas.
     
  8. JohnRM

    JohnRM Don't make me destroy you

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    11,582
    Location:
    Death Star
    I think that it is personal choice. I tend to stay loyal to my party, but if they are not loyal to me and choose a guy who represents our core party values then I feel no obligation to vote for that candidate and may go third party.

    However, in some instances, which may arise in 2008, I may have to vote for just about whomever is nominated for the Republican Party just to vote against Billary Clinton. I just cannot risk handing her the election just to show my dissatisfaction with our potential candidate. The only way that I will not vote for the Republican, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, is if that person is John McCain. I WILL NOT for vote that man.
     
  9. bhsup

    bhsup Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    30,387
    Your should always vote your conscience. To do anything else is to betray yourself. It does not matter if your choice has little or even no real chance to win. I, while on occasion referring to myself as a Republican simply because that is how I tend to vote, am really not. I'm a religious conservative if you want a label and feel absolutely no loyalty to any party. If the Republican candidate is inferior enough, I may well bolt and vote for someone else instead.
     
  10. Swedishguy

    Swedishguy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Eskilstuna, Sweden IQ: N/A
    Who needs to change? The americans! The twoparty system is undemocratical as every party should have a say.
     
  11. Cheezy the Wiz

    Cheezy the Wiz Socialist In A Hurry

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Freedonia
    The two party system is de facto; nowhere is it written that we must have only two major parties, that's just how it's happenned. Don't make the mistake of thinking that these two parties are the only two that have ever existed, that it's rule of law that there are only two parties, or that there have only ever been two parties at any one time in American history, or even that our Founding Fathers intended for there to BE political parties in the first place!
     
  12. The Yankee

    The Yankee The New Yawker Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    19,467
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    It's just as well that we have two major parties, since smaller parties will end up in coalitions anyway. That said, there's no law saying that there cannot be a third party. After all, we do have two independents in the Senate (though one is officially in the Joementum party). Outside of the usual constraints to little guys, there's no statute that says there couldn't be 100 independent Senators.

    The same thing for President. We just tend to conform to one party or the other since we really would not want the other guy to win.
     
  13. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,920
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    Joementum is an IINO (Independent in name only). He might as well go all the way and become a Republican.
     
  14. GoodSarmatian

    GoodSarmatian Temporary Pattern...still recognizably human...

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    9,170
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Horned City, The Abyss
    Imho the american majority voting system should change because it greatly discriminates smaller parties.
     
  15. The Yankee

    The Yankee The New Yawker Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    19,467
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Wrong. It greatly discriminates in favor of incumbents and anointed party hacks. That's as true within the major party as it is in contests between the two major parties as it is to third parties and independents. But that's more a problem with some of the powers of incumbency.
     
  16. Swedishguy

    Swedishguy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Eskilstuna, Sweden IQ: N/A
    How about a fourth party? Or a fifth party? Or maybe even a sixth?
     
  17. bhsup

    bhsup Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    30,387
    In the 2004 Presidential election, the Missouri ballots had four parties listed for President. Republican Party, Democratic Party, Constitution Party, and Libertarian Party. In addition, you can always write in a name if you like. So the only people to blame, and really I mean only, if one is upset about the two main parties always hogging the votes are the voters themselves. They have other options available if they wish to partake of them.
     
  18. Splime

    Splime Regular Lurker

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Messages:
    804
    Location:
    SF, CA, USA
    I think the problem is the system itself. If we had, say, a two round voting system, then voting for a third party in the first round isn't going to mess up the election.
     
  19. Catharsis

    Catharsis catch u on the flip scythe

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,999
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Clinging onto underside of forum
    But if that were the case, would the USA not just end up like France, with a plethora of candidates all voicing practically the same ideals? There were several candidates in that Presidential election that were socialists/communists who ran separately - perhaps because of small differences in ideology, perhaps because of a want of personal power; I'm not up on French politics, so I don't know. The point is, this approach presented the left as disjointed and was probably a factor in Sarkozy's victory. The one-round voting system saves US politics from this sort of palaver.
     
  20. History_Buff

    History_Buff Knight of Cydonia

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    6,529
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    The only problem with that is that the non-mainstream parties is that they tend to fall towards the extremes of the political spectrum. Because the majority of voters are relative moderates, a mainstream party adopting ideals on either side would likely just cause more voters to defect to the other mainstream party.
     

Share This Page