Why bother voting anymore?

[GenMarshall]

Voting for a third party is essentially throwing away your vote .

 

[Snorrius]

Why bother voting anymore? I have a choice between cowardly democrats who appear to have a favorable ideology but go against what they beileve in anyway and republicans who have an ideology that is socially conservative and fiscally disastrous.

By the way, I wonder is it feasible (i.e. possible in practice not in theory) to create in US a party which could compete with Democrats and Repubublicans - at least to get a small share in US senate? What one needs for this?

 

[Miles Teg]

Voting for a third party is essentially throwing away your vote .

It's better than not voting. DT made a great point once that the political sphere takes note when a third party candidate gets a significant share of the vote, while they just cluck their tongues if voter participation goes down.

By the way, I wonder is it feasible (i.e. possible in practice not in theory) to create in US a party which could compete with Democrats and Repubublicans - at least to get a small share in US senate? What one needs for this?

You'd need to gather support from the kind of professional campaign staffers that are too smart to sign on with third parties, and a lot of patience. Your first seats in Congress would be in the House, not the Senate. You may or may not need to start at the state or local level before getting even that far.

Basically, building a viable third party would require people who despise the vote grubbing, deal cutting, and money raising of modern politics to grub for votes, cut deals, and raise tons of money. They could do that and still be effective advocates for the changes they want, but they aren't temperamentally inclined to see things that way. It'd be a heck of a lot easier to apply that energy to winning primaries in the party that's closest to your politics. The Tea Party is living proof of that.

 

[downtown]

Yeah, I think there is a fairly good chance I won't be supporting the President or my current Dem congressman this election, but I can do that because I live in a completely not competitive state and congressional district (I'm in one of the 5 most Democratic seats in the country). I might end up holding my nose and voting green, even though they are WAY to the left of me...if only to send a message that the people I voted to represent my interests are not doing so.

Nobody cares if you don't vote. If 10% votes for Greens, or Libertarians, I promise you people notice.

And Miles, I personally believe that the first real electoral gains for 3rd parties need to be in STATEhouses, not the US House. You need to get people to trust that you can actually govern before people will give you that responsibility.

 

[SerriaFox]

By the way, I wonder is it feasible (i.e. possible in practice not in theory) to create in US a party which could compete with Democrats and Repubublicans - at least to get a small share in US senate? What one needs for this?

No it is not possible. It would require a constitutional amendment to change the way we elect congress.

It is however possible to take over a party.

 

[Defiant47]

They disagree on what would help them best. You should not have put in the part I underlined.

It doesn't matter whether they disagree or not. Or rather, even if there's a majority agreement, the propaganda machine can spin the disagreeing side into a seemingly worthy group.

Perfect example: climate change. It is widely accepted in the scientific community. The vast majority of climatologists agree on its occurrence. Yet your media focuses on the opinion of a random average Joe, blows up the whole story, and makes it seem like there's a real controversy here. Then legislation won't be passed to deal with climate change, because "not everyone agrees on what should happen" or "it's a controversial issue". Thus, democracy is shut down, and people like you fly in to say "there are other people out there, just because you didn't get the results you wanted doesn't mean democracy isn't working".

It doesn't matter what the people think, because that's not what's going to happen. Democracy isn't working. An overhaul of the system is necessary.

The rest of the American public disagrees with you about that. From the very day Obamacare first reared its nine gruesome heads, the American Voter said this: that some kind of health care reform was needed, but that Obamacare was the wrong kind.

Funny how this fits right in to my point above. The people wanted health care reform, but Obama compromised with the Republicans to the point of current reforms being worthless. The Republican propaganda machine worked, by using such tactics as for example zeroing in on one small part of the agreement, and misinterpreting it and focusing on it continuously to sow dissent.

The mere fact that any given election didn't go the way you wanted it to, is not proof.

If you keep saying things like these, I will have to simply resign myself to the fact that you don't understand anything I'm saying.

 

[downtown]

By the way, I wonder is it feasible (i.e. possible in practice not in theory) to create in US a party which could compete with Democrats and Repubublicans - at least to get a small share in US senate? What one needs for this?

Most people are skeptical that this is possible in a first past the post system, but I think it is possible if parties focused all of their time, energy and resources on capturing much smaller level seats (think city councils and statehouses), to show to voters that they are responsible enough to govern, and to best use their marginal resources to make elections competitive.

A Green or a libertarian is never going to get 30% of the vote in a statewide race, let alone win. A smart Green could absolutely win a statehouse race though. You can build from there.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

A third party can only be effective if its policies are split between the two major parties--either a libertarian type of party, or an economically liberal and socially conservative party. The Greens would just become part of the liberal wing of the D caucus, and the Constitution Party would just be conservative members of the R caucus.

But if the Libertarians, for example, win enough seats to prevent the major parties from having a majority, they're in a very strong bargaining position. We'll caucus with whoever supports our platform, thereby putting you over the top. Double-cross us and we'll pull the rug out from under you.

 

[Supr49er]

It's increasingly hard to vote for someone, usually you vote against someone.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Voting for a third party is essentially throwing away your vote .

This is only true as long as people keep believing it. I wonder how many voters vote dem or repub grudgingly, even though there's a 3rd party candidate they like more, because they don't want to "waste" their vote? Enough to get a 3rd party elected? Probably not. Enough to make a big enough impact to make people sit up and go "whoa, what happened over here?" Maybe!

 

[Colonel]

I did. Nationwide. The People, as a whole, disapproved of Obamacare for a wide variety of reasons--there is no one "blanket" reason to cover all those opposed.

I don't think you actually read what I said so I'll type it again. If you ask on a whole without actually telling people whats in Obamacare it is disapproved of. If you inform them of what is actually in the bill and then ask them provision by provision if they approve or disapprove you get a large majority of people supporting 7 of 9 provisions. I would hardly count that as broad nationwide opposition to Obamacare. I would call the initial answer a sign of ignorance on the part of most Americans and fear mongering on the part of FOX to scare people away from something most people actually want.

 

[Tani Coyote]

If a third party starts gaining enough votes, the major parties will try to seduce its membership. All prominent third parties, sans maybe the Libertarians, have fallen from grace. Prohibition, Progressive, Reform, etc. They had minor victories here or there (Reform had a Governorship as I recall, but they were riding on the back of Ross Perot), but mostly have become irrelevant.

Independents sometimes win in elections, but they quickly caucus with the sitting parties. They have no real power. Winning once or twice =/= power.

 

[The_Tyrant]

It's impossible for a third party to be effective in American Politics. That's why the Tea Party leadership decided to stay in the Republican Party, and just form a seperate caucus. Instead of fragmenting the Republican Party, the Tea Party decided to change the GOP from inside, and it worked.

 

[BasketCase]

I don't think you actually read what I said so I'll type it again. If you ask on a whole without actually telling people whats in Obamacare it is disapproved of.

Of course. I never approve of anything if I don't know what it is. That's not what's wrong with Obamacare. (I did read your claim--I ignored it because it's irrelevant)

If you inform them of what is actually in the bill and then ask them provision by provision if they approve or disapprove you get a large majority of people supporting 7 of 9 provisions.

Doesn't change the fact that a large majority of Americans opposed the whole thing. Seven of nine isn't large-scale support. Seven of nine is a pinup poster with large breasts, boring hair, and no acting skill (perfect setup there, dude ). It doesn't tell you which seven parts the people agree with, or why. Por ejemplo: huge numbers of liberal Democrats opposed Obamacare because it didn't go far enough. They did agree with just about everything in it--but it wasn't what they really wanted, and they were hoping to force Obama to put in what they did want. Their plan backfired. Alleged media disinformation had nothing to do with it.

If a third party starts gaining enough votes, the major parties will try to seduce its membership.

And they fail at it. Most third parties in the U.S. are impossible to seduce, because the Republicans and Democrats are too cushy for their taste. The three active Socialist parties in the U.S., for example: those three parties CANNOT be seduced by the Democrats, because the socialists consider the Democrats to be merely the liberal wing of the Republican Party; the Socialists will never want anything to do with Democrats, and will never be absorbed. Same with the American Constitution party; the Republicans will never be able to absorb them because the Constitution party considers the Republicans to be too liberal.

The Libertarians and the American Constitution party are both large enough to pose a threat to the Republicans and Democrats (and frequently siphon a lot of votes away from both). Yet they haven't been absorbed, and will not be absorbed.

Third parties are not usually sponged up by The Two Big Parties; they simply haven't yet got enough members to win elections wholesale.

It doesn't matter whether they disagree or not. Or rather, even if there's a majority agreement, the propaganda machine can spin the disagreeing side into a seemingly worthy group.

I don't care. To say that they "can" means nothing. You have to prove that they DID. Nothing else will do. The reason I'm disagreeing with you so adamantly is because you started out on the premise "all reasonable people will support X" (X being Obamacare, in this particular case). You must ditch that premise.

Perfect example: climate change. It is widely accepted in the scientific community. The vast majority of climatologists agree on its occurrence. Yet your media focuses on the opinion of a random average Joe, blows up the whole story, and makes it seem like there's a real controversy here.

And American opinions do not reflect that. The majority of Americans do believe climate change is a problem--and while a significant number of Americans think the news media exaggerates the severity of the problem, they are nevertheless a minority. So, no. The (alleged) propaganda machine isn't working.

Media blabbering is not the reason climate change legislation is fail. Here's what's really going on: most of the world's governments have accepted climate change as a problem. But each individual government wants somebody else to step up first and take a bullet for the team.

The people wanted health care reform, but

.....but Obamacare was not the kind of health care reform the people wanted.

 

[Defiant47]

I don't care. To say that they "can" means nothing. You have to prove that they DID. Nothing else will do. The reason I'm disagreeing with you so adamantly is because you started out on the premise "all reasonable people will support X" (X being Obamacare, in this particular case). You must ditch that premise.

I did prove it... with subjects such as health care. The fact that they can sway a large portion of the public towards rejecting universal health care can only attribute it to propaganda.

And American opinions do not reflect that. The majority of Americans do believe climate change is a problem--and while a significant number of Americans think the news media exaggerates the severity of the problem, they are nevertheless a minority. So, no. The (alleged) propaganda machine isn't working.

My example was showing how the media can twist perceptions of reality for a lot of people. I bet you that you would get a sizable number of people to agree that "there are conflicting reports in regards to global warming and if it's real or not". In fact, some of them open with this idea right from the beginning.

.....but Obamacare was not the kind of health care reform the people wanted.

Exactly my point. The health care reform that people would have wanted (and would have benefited them the most) was shot down in a useless compromise because of the heavy influence from certain parties.

 

[GenMarshall]

It's impossible for a third party to be effective in American Politics. That's why the Tea Party leadership decided to stay in the Republican Party, and just form a seperate caucus. Instead of fragmenting the Republican Party, the Tea Party decided to change the GOP from inside, and it worked.

And thus become more right-winged and less moderate .

 

[The_Tyrant]

And thus become more right-winged and less moderate .

And thus become more representative of the American population as a whole.

 

[CaptainF]

And thus become more representative of the American population as a whole.

Yeah, the whole population of the Koch Brothers oil business leadership, adding up to two (2) individuals in total.

 

[Cutlass]

And thus become more representative of the American population as a whole.

The American populace as a whole is heavily more liberal than the Democratic party.

 

[Miles Teg]

And thus become more right-winged and less moderate .

I doubt you would be complaining if the Democrats became less moderate. Personally, I'd be dropping to my knees in joy. The problem with the Tea Party isn't simply that they're extreme or that they don't share the same vision that the majority of Americans hold.

That's all true, but the real problem is that the Tea Partyy advocates bad policies. The other stuff is secondary.

The American populace as a whole is heavily more liberal than the Democratic party.

That's a selective interpretation. The American people want to cut spending, except on pretty much every program. They want lower taxes too, and they want the deficit to be cut. You can't argue that "the American people" hold this or that ideology. They don't. You can argue that the don't agree with a certain party on a certain issue (like Republicans and taxes for the rich), but that's about it.

EDIT: Tyrant, same goes for you. The American public doesn't have a real philosophy, be it liberal or conservative.