Voting For Third-Party Candidates - POTUS

[Dragonfly]

Nobody likes the candidates. Almost all tend to vote for the lessor of two evils.
So many refuse to vote for anything but a Dem or Rep for a variety of reasons.
I call that insanity, but so be it.

So with the coming election this fall, will you vote for a third-party candidate?

If not, why not? Especially if you feel the Rep and Dem candidates are the worst we've ever seen?

I wonder what percentage of DPers would go alternative. :mrgreen:

 

[Crovax]

I picked 7 different ones as they all partially reflect my view on a 3rd party vote in 2016

 

[iacardsfan]

I tend to vote Libertarian, but with that in mind, I don't blindly throw my vote to whomever they nominate, I look at many factors to ensure that they fully represent my views.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Nobody likes the candidates. Almost all tend to vote for the lessor of two evils.
So many refuse to vote for anything but a Dem or Rep for a variety of reasons.
I call that insanity, but so be it.

So with the coming election this fall, will you vote for a third-party candidate?

If not, why not? Especially if you feel the Rep and Dem candidates are the worst we've ever seen?

I wonder what percentage of DPers would go alternative. :mrgreen:

Virtually no one knows they exist.
They aren't doing any serious advertising.
They won't be allowed in the Presidential debates.
I could get behind Gary Johnson, perhaps some of the others.

There's no point in doing so, for those reasons.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Nobody likes the candidates. Almost all tend to vote for the lessor of two evils.
So many refuse to vote for anything but a Dem or Rep for a variety of reasons.
I call that insanity, but so be it.

So with the coming election this fall, will you vote for a third-party candidate?

If not, why not? Especially if you feel the Rep and Dem candidates are the worst we've ever seen?

I wonder what percentage of DPers would go alternative. :mrgreen:

Voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 after Ron Paul didn't get the nomination. This go-around I'll vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson if Sanders doesn't get the Dem nomination.

I think people should vote for the candidate that best represents them, even if they're from a third party. I believe a lot of the problem with our political system (and why nobody is happy) is that we lie to ourselves that we have to accept any asshole the two major parties decide to nominate. We need a political system with many parties, competing for power, rising and falling with public opinion and the consequences of their actions.

I think this election is going to give third parties an opportunity to get a real percentage of the vote, and hopefully that will give them more attention next election cycle. Honestly, who the hell is perfectly happy with having two and only two parties in power having a stranglehold over our entire government?

In reality the current race should be more like:

Donald Trump - The Make America Great Again Party
Hillary Clinton - The Democratic Party
Bernie Sanders - The Progressive Party
John Kasich - The Republican Party
Jill Stein - The Green Party
Ted Cruz - The Tea Party
Gary Johnson - The Libertarian Party

 

[radcen]

Nobody likes the candidates. Almost all tend to vote for the lessor of two evils.
So many refuse to vote for anything but a Dem or Rep for a variety of reasons.
I call that insanity, but so be it.

So with the coming election this fall, will you vote for a third-party candidate?

If not, why not? Especially if you feel the Rep and Dem candidates are the worst we've ever seen?

I wonder what percentage of DPers would go alternative. :mrgreen:

Approximately half of my lifetime Presidential votes have been 3rd party, Libertarian specifically. Barring something specific... to which I outlined in a fairly recent rant thread that I am too lazy right now to go look up... I will probably vote Libertarian again this time. None of the "Big 4" interest me.

 

[Dragonfly]

Virtually no one knows they exist.
They aren't doing any serious advertising.
They won't be allowed in the Presidential debates.
I could get behind Gary Johnson, perhaps some of the others.

There's no point in doing so, for those reasons.

The Reps & Dems want you to believe there's no point in voting for anyone else.
That's part of their mission. They've created a monopoly within the political landscape of America and anything that challenges that monopoly is a threat.

That why, more than ever, we as a people NEED to get past the idea that there are only two reasonable choices for POTUS, and that those choices ONLY come from the reps and dems.

 

[radcen]

Virtually no one knows they exist.
They aren't doing any serious advertising.
They won't be allowed in the Presidential debates.
I could get behind Gary Johnson, perhaps some of the others.

There's no point in doing so, for those reasons.

IIRC, you don't vote at all, correct?

If I have confused you with someone else, my apologies.

 

[Casper]

The thing is, what would be the point? The way the system works (or not depending on ones POV) is that the States through the Electoral College elect the President, not The People and with that said there is no way a Third Party candidate can win the Whitehouse. Welcome to Reality Folks.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The Reps & Dems want you to believe there's no point in voting for anyone else.
That's part of their mission. They've created a monopoly within the political landscape of America and anything that challenges that monopoly is a threat.

That why, more than ever, we as a people NEED to get past the idea that there are only two reasonable choices for POTUS, and that those choices ONLY come from the reps and dems.

I like my fellow humans and think most are generally decent folks.
With that said, the amount of people who are as actively participatory in politics, like those here, is incredibly small.
Voters, en mass, are rationally ignorant.

If the 3rd parties were advertising in every state, I'd change my tune.
That isn't happening.

 

[Dragonfly]

They won't be allowed in the Presidential debates.

Why aren't more people pissed off about that??????

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

IIRC, you don't vote at all, correct?

If I have confused you with someone else, my apologies.

Correcto.

 

[radcen]

The Reps & Dems want you to believe there's no point in voting for anyone else.
That's part of their mission. They've created a monopoly within the political landscape of America and anything that challenges that monopoly is a threat.

That why, more than ever, we as a people NEED to get past the idea that there are only two reasonable choices for POTUS, and that those choices ONLY come from the reps and dems.

To me, voting for the lesser of two evils... because they have a legit shot at winning, is the usual reason given... is the wasted vote.

You're effectively saying that you disapprove of the status quo, but you also have this low self-esteem issue that makes you need to identify with the winning side, so you're going to make sure and do your part to support the status quo.

Why? So you can still be dissatisfied and complain about the same things next time, and then do it all over again?

That's just... dumb. Counter productive and dumb.

Generic "you", of course.

 

[tres borrachos]

I'm going to consider voting for Gary Johnson this time around. I know I won't vote for Clinton and I know I won't vote for Trump. But in the end I'll probably write in Rubio or Kasich.

 

[Zyphlin]

The Reps & Dems want you to believe there's no point in voting for anyone else.

That's because, from a practical stand point, there isn't.

 

[Zyphlin]

Why aren't more people pissed off about that??????

Because the reason they're not allowed at the Presidential Debates is the same reason more people aren't pissed out about them...because most people don't give a crap about them and don't want to waste their time listening to or focusing on individuals who in a practical sense as it relates to history has about as much of a chance of winning the presidency as you or I.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Why aren't more people pissed off about that??????

I read a book on it when I was about 20.
Started my path to none participation.

It should violate anti trust law.

 

[Dragonfly]

The thing is, what would be the point? The way the system works (or not depending on ones POV) is that the States through the Electoral College elect the President, not The People and with that said there is no way a Third Party candidate can win the Whitehouse. Welcome to Reality Folks.

So you're saying there's no use in regular folks voting at all? None what-so-ever?

 

[Dragonfly]

That's because, from a practical stand point, there isn't.

That's only true is the system is rigged. Illegally rigged.
As in, perhaps it is time for a true revolution which could be a violent revolution.

Is that what you're saying?

There's no sense in any of us voting because who the people vote for doesn't matter?

The "popular vote" is just a feel good measure to make the masses think they've made a difference?

 

[Zyphlin]

I like my fellow humans and think most are generally decent folks.
With that said, the amount of people who are as actively participatory in politics, like those here, is incredibly small.
Voters, en mass, are rationally ignorant.

If the 3rd parties were advertising in every state, I'd change my tune.
That isn't happening.

If the Libertarian or Greens could actually capture....oh I don't know, a percentage point or two? Or actually manage to capture a state? Then perhaps I'd take it seriously that if they were more "included" they'd have some kind of legitimate shot. But their performance has been laughable for years and the attempt to distill it entirely to "well they don't get the attention" like many do is ridiculous, as it essentially removes all responsibility they themselves have for that fact as well.

Not to mention that this is for the Presidency. Is there a list of Libertarian Party mayors? Libertarian Party governors? Libertarian Party Senators? Have they actually been winning executive positions or state wide elections and showing they are a legitimate contender? Or are they basically going "I want to be President, I'll run for president, goddamn you should treat me with the same level of seriousness and legitimacy as the Republican or Democratic candidate". Hell, they don't even manage to get on the ballot in every state.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

If the Libertarian or Greens could actually capture....oh I don't know, a percentage point or two? Or actually manage to capture a state? Then perhaps I'd take it seriously that if they were more "included" they'd have some kind of legitimate shot. But their performance has been laughable for years and the attempt to distill it entirely to "well they don't get the attention" like many do is ridiculous, as it essentially removes all responsibility they themselves have for that fact as well.

Not to mention that this is for the Presidency. Is there a list of Libertarian Party mayors? Libertarian Party governors? Libertarian Party Senators? Have they actually been winning executive positions or state wide elections and showing they are a legitimate contender? Or are they basically going "I want to be President, I'll run for president, goddamn you should treat me with the same level of seriousness and legitimacy as the Republican or Democratic candidate". Hell, they don't even manage to get on the ballot in every state.

Do they bear part of the blame? Absolutely.
Their advertising is pathetic, atrociously pathetic.

With that said, you can't excuse the anti competitive behavior of the current, major market participants.
If they were a standard industry like steel, cars, etc.

They could be taken to court for violating anti trust legislation.
At least in terms of the Presidential debates, it can be proven.

 

[Casper]

So you're saying there's no use in regular folks voting at all? None what-so-ever?

Nope, there are lots of other positions and issues that require us to vote and it is important that we do so, it is just that the vote for President is just for grins.

 

[Zyphlin]

That's only true is the system is rigged. Illegally rigged.

If you're accusing illegality, do you have some proof of that?

Quibble the reasons all you want. The reality is that parties like the Libertarian Party can't even get ONE PERCENT of the entire vote and aren't anywhere CLOSE to having ever gotten an electoral vote. The idiocy in thinking that "oh, if they'd just get a bit more attention they'd be legitimate, therefore YOU MUST GIVE THEM ATTENTION" is just that...idiocy. Something that has shown time and time and time and time and time again to be absolutely incapable of spurring even ONE PERCENT of the vote doesn't deserve to be given ample time.

If they could show themselves as even mildly viable of even making a bit of headway outside of the standard infrastructure, then things absolutely should be reworked to include them into the process and allow them a legitimate shot to make the next step. But they're not even close to getting to that point. This isn't going "They'd be able to compete if you'd just let them in the door", this is "They'd just be able to compete if you'd pay for their airplane ride to the city in question, get them an uber to the location, and then let them in the door".

If you think it's time for a "true revolution" with violence, more power to you. That's not what "I'm saying" and nothing you can point to that I have said suggests that, so even stating it in that fashion is laughable, dishonest, and idiotic.

And I stated there's no sense in you voting for any PRACTICAL reasons. There's plenty of principled and personal reasons to vote for 3rd party. None of them are practical in the sense that they'll actually have any impact on the election or on the greater whole of the country; but there's absolutely a variety of individual reasons to vote 3rd party. It's the exact reason I'm very likely to be voting 3rd party in 2016. But I also don't fool myself that it's likely to actually impact anything, that the individual will have any chance of winning, or that they should any way be given similar amount of attention and exposure as those that ACTUALLY have a legitimate realistic practical likelihood of winning.

 

[WCH]

Perhaps we should wait until after the conventions to see just who is running 3rd party.

 

[Zyphlin]

Do they bear part of the blame? Absolutely.
Their advertising is pathetic, atrociously pathetic.

With that said, you can't excuse the anti competitive behavior of the current, major market participants.
If they were a standard industry like steel, cars, etc.

They could be taken to court for violating anti trust legislation.
At least in terms of the Presidential debates, it can be proven.

But this is not directly analogous to a business.

Presidential elections occur one every four years, for a short period of months where an actual candidate is running. The amount of air time for debates and other such things is limited. It is an absolutely and complete disservice to the citizenry to even THINK of giving parties who...on their own can not even garner ONE PERCENT of the popular vote...even, or even SIMILAR, amount of exposure and time as those who have shown routinely to be able to legitimately challenge for the Presidency. We already have significant issues in this country in terms of having a knowledgeable and educated voter base that forms their opinions on who to vote for, and watering that down even farther by having every yahoo possible on stage taking up time and demanding "equal time", despite showing ZERO ability to even make themselves relevant on their own, is not the preferable option.

If you can't even manage to get ONE PERCENT, let alone the 5% threshold I personally think should be needed in the previous election, through grassroots effort of presenting your message to the masses and swaying them to your cause then I see absolutely zero reasons why anyone on a national level should waste their time, and the voters time, in giving significant coverage to said parties candidates.

Since we're making bad comparisons....Would Bowling be as popular or have as much of a shot at being the national pass time as Football, if only ESPN would give them equal time? Would Curling blow up in the United States if only CBS would spend as much focus on it as they do college basketball? And thus, despite the fact that those things barely capture ANY interested what so ever in the population, should those networks just start giving those other sports equal, or substantial, attention and focus out of a misguided notion that it will magically cause them to be viewed on an equal footing...the actual interest of the public be damned?