If we go by “rational voting”, as has been mentioned in this thread, meaning that voting for a third-party candidate is useless, then I’ll suggest a few other “rational voting” methods:
[ul]
[li]If you haven’t voted by the middle of the day and your candidate has a commanding lead, then you might as well stay home because the chances of him losing are pretty small.[/li][li]In a state with a large population like California (my state), we know damn well that the chances of the presidential elections or any state-wide ballot initiative being determined by one vote (mine) is zero. So I might as well just stay home.[/li][li]All I need to do is find someone I trust that votes the opposite from me on any issue, and make the agreement that we will both refrain from voting on that day. Then I don’t need to bother.[/li]If I’m Hawaii, it’s pretty much pointless for me to vote in a presidential election - it’s all over by then anyway.[/ul]
This is certainly true, in theory. The problem with it in practice is that the major parties are very good, in general, between them, in expressing the consensus opinion of the vast majority. Public opinion on issues in the US can generally be expressed on a bell curve, and the major parties generally occupy positions close to the middle of the bell curve. Third party candidates generally occupy extreme positions near the end of the bell curve.
That means that there’s a real disincentive to either major party to shift their position to pickup people who would vote for a third party, because by doing so, they will alienate those people in the middle of the bell curve, and thereby lose more people than they gain.
Even beyond structural reasons, the reason that the greans and the libertarians don’t win national elections is because most people think their positions are crazy or extreme. So if the Democrats started adopting the Green party platform, or the Republicans started adopting the Libertarian party platform, the other party would sweep into power in a landslide.
That’s certainly possible, and I think the Marquis of Condorcet wants a word with you. The problem is, that’s the lesser of two evils, everyone at least gets their second choice. In the case of the Nader spoilers, as we’ve been discussing, if Gore is their second choice, then a vote for Nader, their first choice, makes it more likely that Bush, their third choice, will win. (Feel free to substitute Ross Perot, George Bush, and Bill Clinton if it makes you feel better).
I am curious? Do you think that the Democratic presidential candidates have moved their policies more in the direction of Nader or in the direction of the Republicans. Because from where I sit they moved more towards the center. Basically they understand that moving towards Nader will loose them a lot more votes than moving towards the center.
Except that the Commission on Presidential Debates is headed by the former chairs of the Democratic and Republican parties, so this would be even more futile then voting for a third party candidate!
Not true. If 3rd parties garner a high enough percentage of the vote (5%? I think), then they become eligible for matching funds, which means that they are better able to get their ideas before the general public (and hopefully attract more voters) in the future. It’s all about money. This is how a 3rd party might become viable, through several election cycles.
If more people “wasted” their votes on actual human being candidates rather than the corporate whore satanic androids that dominate both major parties, our country might start heading in a good direction instead of the current hell and handbasket scenario.
Hey, you finally posted this tripe in a relevant thread! Good work. Perhaps for your next stage you could attempt to, ya know, defend it.
Tell us: in what way is Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, or Barack Obama a “corporate whore satanic android.”
Yeah it is. So why so much focus on the end game, when the chances of success are so slim? How many people who voted for Nader and hunger for a viable 3rd party candidate put their money where their mouth is? If all people are doing is voting for underdogs just on the principle of shaking up the election process–without actually trying to help organize and fund the campaigns necessary to make these guys really relevant, and without actually even trying to convince people why folks like Nader have positions worth supporting–then what good comes out of that?
I understand the mission: give America more than 2 options. But if the 3rd option is always a Nader-like extreme, it will marginalize itself and make it harder to gain the credibility it needs to be viable. It’s hard not to be frustrated with people who vote for these self-marginalized 3rd party candidates, especially when they are voting on principles that have little to do with the merits of the candidate.
Wow, another mind-reader who confidently claims to know the motivations behind those who vote for third-party candidates. I guess it never occurred to you that people might vote for those candidates because they agree with their policies?
Right on! If only those millions of democrat voters had done the same and put money and effort into supporting Al Gore instead of just showing up at the polls and casting their ballot for him, then the democrats would have won the last election! It’s a damn shame.
You lost me at the whole “I’m tired of being told _____.” I’ve never heard an intelligent argument following that phrase. It’s usually something like. “I’m tired of being told that being a fat alcoholic smoker is going to kill me,” or “I’m tired of being told that it’s stupid to run red lights.”
Ah, no. Fuck you. Unless someone walked into the voting booth with you, then you already could vote for whomever you wanted. You’re complaining because you’re being criticized for it. Too bad.
And that’s the problem. It’s not a game. You actually thought it would be a good idea to have a president who has no congressional party? What did you think would be accomplished?
They’re not going to become viable if the only time you hear about them is the Presidential election.
No matter how much I like a third party’s message, is their candidate really qualified to run the country? Could a total outsider actually get anything useful done when the entire legislature is Dem/Rep? Does the candidate have any experience in government, or at least running something other than his mouth? Maybe I don’t like the way the Dem/Reps are doing it, but at least they’re not a total crapshoot.
I can see a third party becoming viable with a REAL grassroots campaign, building their presence locally by winning local, state, and congressional seats. All they do today is get a semi-popular figurehead (or rich guy) to say he wants to be president. Until they get some base presence in the government, they’re not actually running to win the presidency, they’re running to get their message heard.
Indeed. So far at least, voting Nader has just been another way of voting Republican.
We have people in this very thread who admited to having for voted for Nader “on principle”, so it’s not like I’m pulling shit outta my ass.
Amen, Cheesesteak.
Speaking for myself, I also voted for the national congressmen of the third party. I wanted that party to have representation in Congress also.
I don’t know what you see on your ballot, but on mine I see third-party candidates for local, state, and congressional seats. And yes, I vote for them.
Yeah, you’re right. Don’t see what that has to do with the plight of the 3rd party supporter whose candidates lose elections close to 100% of the time, but okay.
But you were trying to establish a congressional third party, which is the right way to go about it. Create a congressional base, which would give a third party President something to work with. Trying to get a third party President elected without a congressional support base is next to impossible. If a miracle happened and a third party president got elected, he would be useless.