Many, if not most people, are sick of the main-stream political party (republican-democrat) system. Yet few, judging from election results printed in the “World Almanac” are willing to go another route. I, personally, usually vote libertairian, unless there is another candidate that expresses beliefs close to my own.
This is more of an oppinion survey than a question: Am I “throwng away” my vote by voting Libertairian? (or any other third, fourth or fifth party for that matter?)
I do realize that Lincoln was elected when the Republicans were more or less a third party at the time.
You never ‘throw away’ your vote no matter how you cast it.
I’m not sick of the two party system. I like it a heck of a lot better than a multiparty system where coalitions have to be formed with more radical parties. I consider myself to be liberal, vote Democratic most of the time, but I would much rather see a (within reason) conservative of whatever party win an election than one of those nuts from the Green Party due to a split of the vote.
In sort, I am all for the moderating system of two party democracy.
So yes, I do think voting Libertarian isn’t a smart choice, especially when there generally exists within mainstream parties candidates who would agree with you on a number of issues.
Me? I’m a big believer in the 7-forum system myself. Let’s see how this one does over in Great Debates.
Livin’ on Tums, vitamin E and Rogaine
You are throwing away your vote if you vote for a liar.
The difference between the American governmental system and those of many European countries is that the American leader is elected directly (more or less) by the people, where as in other democracies, the leader is decided upon by the legislature. The downside to the American system is that the Pres and the Congress are often opposite parties. The upside is that the Pres and the Congress are often opposite parties.
That being said, I welcome 3rd, 4th, 5th political parties. I believe you should vote for the candidate that supports the majority of the issues you support, not just because they are not republican or democrat. I would love to see a radical left party that supports total ban on guns and total freedom for abortions. I would love to see a radical right party that supports total ban on abortions and total freedom for guns. Let the gun nuts and the abortion nuts join those groups and let the rest of us have parties that reflect what the people REALLY believe.
“The large print givith, and the small print taketh away.”
Tom Waites, “Step Right Up”
Damn, so you/re The People. I’ve heard so much about you. Glad to meet you finally.
Gosh thats insightful Lib. Can you please find me a single human being on this earth that has never told a lie? I would love to vote for this person if I at least knew their name. Oh, and I don’t think I can vote for a six-month old - they will have to be qualified to run for office.
Oh, sorry.
Let me clear that up for the benefit of people who need longwinded and redundant explanations of the obvious.
Hmmm. On second thought…
Sorry, Lib, but I’ll have a go too.
Damned if I can remember the exact line, but paraphrasing: Anyone who desires elected office is unqualified to hold it.
Or will you say that Harry Browne is an honest politician?
-andros-
-andros-
Throwing away your vote? Well, considering that any vote you are going to make is rather insignificant when put amongst millions of other votes, then any vote is insignificant, so you might as well vote for the party you truly believe in.
That said, what do you think that is wrong with American electoral system, so it only favors two parties? It’s not true deomcracy that you have to choose for party that is “nearer” to your views, rather than giving truer match with multiple choices.
Sorry to pick nits, but who ever said that we live in a “true democracy?”
-andros-
I find it interesting that the same people who gripe about a two-party system are the same ones who refuse to acknowledge Clinton as the people’s choice because he didn’t receive a majority of the vote (in a three party race).
Be careful what you wish for, Americans. Case in point: Austria.
Elmer J. Fudd,
Millionaire.
I own a mansion and a yacht.
No vote is wasted. Even if your candidate doesn’t win, your platform is advanced. Let’s admit realistically that the Libertarian presidential candidate is not going to be elected in 2000. But if he or she gets as few as 5% of the votes, both the Democrats and Republicans will be sure to notice and will start incorporating items from the Libertarian platform into their own parties. A number of issues like abolition, prohibition, civil rights, and pro-life have become the policies of one of the two big parties by this route.
Well, I don’t think there’s any doubt in America’s current political climate that a third party vote is a wasted vote.
Elections are about money and no one’s going to outspend the two established parties anytime soon, even a billionaire like Perot, Forbes or Gates. As a result of gross criminal fund-raising activities, both main political parties have been (and are being) investigated and sued. Democrats spent $46,000,000 more than they were supposed to and the Republicans spent $17,000,000 more. How can a third party compete with that caliber of established criminal networking?
In 1996, in a nation of some 280,000,000 people, only 13.4M citizens voted for third parties out of the measly 96.3M votes counted.
Perot’s Reform Party got a stunning 8.1M votes to be the third largest party, followed by Brown’s Libertarians with a far-from-impressive 1/2M votes. That’s not to say those votes couldn’t have conceivably had some effect, though. Clinton only received a paltry 47.4M votes. With the tiny 8.2M gap between Clinton and Dole, a chunk of the 13.4M third party votes could have pushed him into the presidency (not that it would have been a good thing). Clearly the Republicans were hurt most by the 14% of the disgruntled voting public.
Until real campaign reform is established, I recommend everyone voting for the Dem. or Rep. candidate who will do the least harm to this nation. I’m leaning towards Rep.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
An interesting questions is why can the Libertarians only manage 1% or so of the vote? In informal polls away from election times, up to 10-15% of the people in the U.S. identify themselves as ‘libertarian’. On the Internet, the Libertarian candidates often win mock elections and straw polls. Yet when it comes time to pull the lever, all these Libertarian voters vanish. How come?
Peter North wrote:
So the “U.S. Taxpayers Party”, a.k.a. the “American Independent Party”, has changed its name yet again, eh?
I wonder how long http://www.ustaxpayers.org/ will continue to link to the same “Constitution Party” webpage.
They can barely manage half that, Sam. Again, I thing money (i.e., advertising, propaganda, smear campaigns) is the bulk of the problem. Rep & Dem candidates are celebrities by the time the campaigns are over. Perot was quirky (i.e., insane) and rich enough to became a household name too.
Most of the Libertarians I know are 25-35 white males with typically college educations and liberal social views and “alternative” lifestyles. That’s not a very numerous demograph.
The Libertarian Party needs a charismatic, intelligent, rich candidate and until they do, the must resign themselves to under 1% of the vote.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
The other thing is that Libertarians as a group seem to be more involved in the political process. The average libertarian spends more time thinking, writing and trumpeting their views than does the average person of a mainstream party. This is true of almost all fringe elements. Internet polls are not frequented by people who are only interested in politics once a year, but it is these people who decide the course of American government.