IMPORTANT: A message for those who support 3rd party candidates

[Thrilla]

Or maybe it's just that the 2 major parties have earned their position by being immensely popular and winning elections, something the 3rd parties have never done. Maybe instead of whining about it, the third parties need to actually put up or shut up, prove they can produce a candidate and a platform that appeals to the majority of the American public, prove they can make money on a large scale and prove they can get a significant portion of the popular vote.

Until they can do that, why take them seriously?

if the playing field were level, i would understand and agree with your point... but the playing field is obviously not level, so i do not agree with your blaming the victim for their circumstances.

 

[Thrilla]

I would agree with this, but it's the corporations that think the same way many of the posters on this thread do. IOW, give your money and votes to the one of the two major parties or else it's a waste. Seriously, the third-party candidates don't have a chance in hell to be competitive. The third-party candidate that could compete would have to be Jesus Christ himself in order to be able to measure up.

Jesus Christ, himself, would not be elected in this country.. unless he ran as a Dem or Rep

 

[Thrilla]

Or maybe it's just that the 2 major parties have earned their position by being immensely popular and winning elections, something the 3rd parties have never done. Maybe instead of whining about it, the third parties need to actually put up or shut up, prove they can produce a candidate and a platform that appeals to the majority of the American public, prove they can make money on a large scale and prove they can get a significant portion of the popular vote.

Until they can do that, why take them seriously?

another point about this post.... blocking 3rd parties is usually a national election ideal for Dems and Reps... lots of 3rd party candidates win local elections where the obstacles are far less severe, if they are present at all.

there should be a simple message in that factoid , but I doubt Dems and Reps will find it...

 

[ChrisL]

Jesus Christ, himself, would not be elected in this country.. unless he ran as a Dem or Rep

Your probably right. Those two parties have the country so brainwashed either one way or the other that it seems like they cannot even recognize that there is a middle ground. It is absolutely disgusting and disheartening to see the country divided over party lines like it is now. I don't know if it's ever been this bad before.

You can just see it in the election threads. IMO, most of the election debate threads are just completely full of nasty insults from one side to other and absolutely nothing of substance at all, just talking points and insults.

 

[Cephus]

I would agree with this, but it's the corporations that think the same way many of the posters on this thread do. IOW, give your money and votes to the one of the two major parties or else it's a waste. Seriously, the third-party candidates don't have a chance in hell to be competitive. The third-party candidate that could compete would have to be Jesus Christ himself in order to be able to measure up.

In order to be worthy of support, a third party would have to do all of the things I said *FIRST*, then they can have my support if their platform is well-defined and I agree with what it says. Today, that's not true of any third party, therefore today, they're not getting my support.

 

[Thrilla]

In order to be worthy of support, a third party would have to do all of the things I said *FIRST*, then they can have my support if their platform is well-defined and I agree with what it says. Today, that's not true of any third party, therefore today, they're not getting my support.

that is a valid reason not to support them.

it must be nice to have your platform advertised,dissected, and discussed for months upon months upon months before every national election... for free.
that's something the 3rd parties do not have... instead, they have a media that completely and utterly ignores their existence.( I'm sure you'll blame the 3rd parties for that too)

 

[radcen]

Great points. I have actually liked a lot of the libertarian platforms, but always their foreign policies are a BIG turn off to me, and some are just downright scary. :shock:

I'm a "reformed libertarian" myself. There are several things that I still like. Some, like foreign policy, always concerned me. Unfortunately for the libertarian concept, it seems to be dominated by people who only use it to justify their selfishness more so than being anything about equal opportunity. Talk to some long enough, and it is clear they have no interest whatsoever in equality for anybody else, they only want unlimited chance to get as much as they can and keep it.

 

[Cephus]

if the playing field were level, i would understand and agree with your point... but the playing field is obviously not level, so i do not agree with your blaming the victim for their circumstances.

The playing field isn't level because the third parties haven't been playing the same game. The major 2 parties get millions and millions in contributions. Why don't the 3rd parties? Because they don't have a platform that resonates with the American people and thus, encourages the American people to give them money to support their cause. You get lots of 3rd party apologists whining that they just don't get enough money to compete, yet they jump the gun and ignore the fact that they haven't EARNED it!

EARN IT ALREADY!

 

[ChrisL]

In order to be worthy of support, a third party would have to do all of the things I said *FIRST*, then they can have my support if their platform is well-defined and I agree with what it says. Today, that's not true of any third party, therefore today, they're not getting my support.

Okay, but most of that is an opinion on your part. My issue is that a lot of people will never even HEAR the third-party's platform because they just don't have the funds to get their message out there in a widespread manner like the two majority parties.

Oh and just to be clear here, I am only referring to presidential elections. I feel that third-party candidates have a MUCH better chance in local elections, so I can agree with your point if you are referring to local/state elections.

 

[Cephus]

that is a valid reason not to support them.

it must be nice to have your platform advertised,dissected, and discussed for months upon months upon months before every national election... for free.
that's something the 3rd parties do not have... instead, they have a media that completely and utterly ignores their existence.( I'm sure you'll blame the 3rd parties for that too)

They haven't earned that privilege because they haven't made themselves popular enough. Yes, I know it's a difficult hurdle to overcome but you have to remember that elections are basically popularity contests and third party apologists are basically complaining they're the unpopular kids who can't win. Well guess what, the only way to change that is to actually become popular.

 

[radcen]

In order to be worthy of support, a third party would have to do all of the things I said *FIRST*, then they can have my support if their platform is well-defined and I agree with what it says. Today, that's not true of any third party, therefore today, they're not getting my support.

This is the biggest fallacy in debates like this, setting the bar absurdly and pretending of open-mindedness: "I won't support X because X isn't absolutely 100% perfect, but if it ever does become absolutely 100% perfect then I'll support it."

Yet, the current system is nowhere near absolutely 100% perfect, and people will mindlessly support it without question.

 

[Thrilla]

They haven't earned that privilege because they haven't made themselves popular enough. Yes, I know it's a difficult hurdle to overcome but you have to remember that elections are basically popularity contests and third party apologists are basically complaining they're the unpopular kids who can't win. Well guess what, the only way to change that is to actually become popular.

privilege?... wow... I think we have different ideas of how he media should act in regards to elections

yes, ppopularity is imperative to winning elections... a reasonable person would see that the need for media coverage is imperative to becoming popular... and not use the lack of popularity as a reason to be blacked out of the very entity that is used to make them popular.

the obstacles your ilk impose on 3rd parties aren't "difficult" to overcome... they are near insurmountable.
3rd parties do win elections.... but only when the playing field is level.
the only impediment to the rise of a 3rd party is the 2 major parties and the discriminatory rules they impose on 3rd parties.

 

[poweRob]

The demonstrable reality, whether you like it or not, is that third parties do not make a difference. They do not have a shot in hell of winning. All people who vote third party have is idealism, and idealism and $5 will get you a latte at Starbucks.

Right. Third parties don't matter before then election... then when the election is over, the two major parties blame the results on the third parties for mattering too much.

 

[Cephus]

privilege?... wow... I think we have different ideas of how he media should act in regards to elections

The media ought to report on stories that are of import to the majority of viewers. Like it or not, stories about the major 2 players are important to people. Stories about 3rd parties just aren't. If they want to have more attention paid to them, they need to actually be more applicable to the majority of Americans.

 

[Thrilla]

The media ought to report on stories that are of import to the majority of viewers. Like it or not, stories about the major 2 players are important to people. Stories about 3rd parties just aren't. If they want to have more attention paid to them, they need to actually be more applicable to the majority of Americans.

yeah.. candidates for president aren't important to the majority of America... unless they are Dems or Reps, anyways.

you are still not understanding that media coverage is how candidates/parties gain popularity.... you just keep sayin' they need to be popular before they get coverage, as if it happens by magic.
it makes no damned sense.

 

[Thrilla]

Right. Third parties don't matter before then election... then when the election is over, the two major parties blame the results on the third parties for mattering too much.

troof.....

 

[Hatuey]

yeah.. candidates for president aren't important to the majority of America... unless they are Dems or Reps, anyways.

you are still not understanding that media coverage is how candidates/parties gain popularity.... you just keep sayin' they need to be popular before they get coverage, as if it happens by magic.
it makes no damned sense.

This would be true if we hadn't seen the progression of media and government throughout history. 160 years ago, there wasn't a single newspaper that covered every corner of the U.S. and yet, Republicans and Democrats were still the major players with smaller parties being highly irrelevant. Why is this? Well, they both had clearly defined stances that actually resonated with the public. Today, some guy going on a stage and saying 'close down our foreign bases!' is neither attractive to the majorities of either wing nor is it practical to the larger political context the U.S. exists in. So alas, the smaller parties simply don't hold possitions most of the country cares about to any degree. :shrug:

 

[Cephus]

yeah.. candidates for president aren't important to the majority of America... unless they are Dems or Reps, anyways.

No, they're not. Democrats and Republicans get all the votes. Show me a third party whose platform resonates with a significant chunk of American voters, then you might have a point.

 

[Thrilla]

No, they're not. Democrats and Republicans get all the votes. Show me a third party whose platform resonates with a significant chunk of American voters, then you might have a point.

media shouldn't report on candidates who don't get all the votes.
to get all the votes, they must be popular
to get popular, media overage is imperative.
...but.
the media shouldn't report on candidates who don't get all the votes.
to get all the votes, they must be popular
to get popular, media overage is imperative.
...but.
the media shouldn't report on candidates who don't get all the votes.
to get all the votes, they must be popular
to get popular, media overage is imperative
...but.
the media shouldn't report on candidates who don't get all the votes.
to get all the votes, they must be popular
to get popular, media overage is imperative
...but.
the media shouldn't report on candidates who don't get all the votes.
to get all the votes, they must be popular
to get popular, media overage is imperative
...but.
the media shouldn't report on candidates who don't get all the votes.
to get all the votes, they must be popular
to get popular, media overage is imperative



that about sums it up....

 

[poweRob]

No, they're not. Democrats and Republicans get all the votes. Show me a third party whose platform resonates with a significant chunk of American voters, then you might have a point.

Oh I see where you are coming from. You are under the delusion that the average American voter knows what any party's platform is or that they give a **** about that. lol

 

[VoteForTheDucks]

This is only true in swing states. In non-swing states, your vote for a major candidate doesn't matter. But your vote for a third party candidate can affect whether they get public funding in the next election. Plus it can send a message of dissatisfaction with the status quo and encouragement for these candidates.

 

[joko104]

Nothing will stop militant disgruntled Ron Paul Supporters from voting 3rd party. Paul never was a Republican and it was just personal-glory tactics that he pretended to be.

 

[jonny5]

I'm a "reformed libertarian" myself. There are several things that I still like. Some, like foreign policy, always concerned me. Unfortunately for the libertarian concept, it seems to be dominated by people who only use it to justify their selfishness more so than being anything about equal opportunity. Talk to some long enough, and it is clear they have no interest whatsoever in equality for anybody else, they only want unlimited chance to get as much as they can and keep it.

What do mean by equality?

 

[jonny5]

yeah.. candidates for president aren't important to the majority of America... unless they are Dems or Reps, anyways.

you are still not understanding that media coverage is how candidates/parties gain popularity.... you just keep sayin' they need to be popular before they get coverage, as if it happens by magic.
it makes no damned sense.

Libertarian candidates get 10% support, but 0% coverage by the media. If the media wanted to present things that are important to viewers, then they would have 10% of the stories be about Libertarians. At least FNC has several libertarian personalities. Stossel is probably doing more for Libertarianism than anyone else.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Libertarian candidates get 10% support, but 0% coverage by the media. If the media wanted to present things that are important to viewers, then they would have 10% of the stories be about Libertarians. At least FNC has several libertarian personalities. Stossel is probably doing more for Libertarianism than anyone else.

That 10% support doesn't show up in either the vote or the polling though. No third party candidate has achieved more than 1%in any national poll, except when somebody who really catches people's imagination runs. George Wallace did very well as a third party candidate and would have done better if he wasn't a racist extremist and therefore was rejected by most Americans.

Ross Perot with very little campaign money and a strictly grass roots organization got the attention and affection of America and, I think if his crazy side had not come out and he didn't go wierd on us toward the end--if he had not suspended his campaign and then restarted it--I think he might have actually won as a third party candidate. As it was he got 17% of the popular vote and in two elections denied Bill Clinton a majority of the popular vote in both of his elections. Perot got plenty of media coverage because he was such an interesting and fun and compelling figure and therefore was a darling on all the talk shows and everybody wanted to interview him.

When you have Gary Johnson looking like he has been sucking on a sour persimmon and whining about being neglected, he is not a compelling figure. The other night he was on Fox's late night show and everybody else was laughing it up and having a good time. Gary sat there like a stump, didn't crack a smile, looked like he was miserable. That is not conducive to getting a lot of media attention. Too many of the third party candidates are like that.