Would you consider a third party candidate??

[Linc]

Nonsense, we owe nothing to either of those corporate parties....

Don't you mean second closest??

Gee, I wonder who came up w/ this idea that not voting for one of the two parties "is a waste"...

Or the concept that somehow voting for someone I don't really want is making my vote count.....:roll: Count for who??:3oops:

I'll mark you down as one who doesn't want input into what Federal Judges will be appointed on all three levels.
Not to mention one who doesn't want input into who holds Cabinet positions and Heads Important Government Agencies.

Did you even vote in 2010--59.1% didn't--and we got this House.
How about 2014--63.4% didn't--and we got this Senate with raving lunatics like Cruz calling his own Majority Leader a LIAR numerous times.
An unprecedented breach of Senate rules and a total waste of valuable time.
Time needed for such trivial matters as a Transportation Fund that goes bankrupt this Friday .

 

[Dragonfly]

American Politics = Insanity

Repeating the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

 

[molten_dragon]

Why??

Circumstances??

Not unless that candidate had enough support that I thought it was at least plausible they could win the election. I think voting for a candidate that has no hope is pointless.

 

[Dragonfly]

Not unless that candidate had enough support that I thought it was at least plausible they could win the election. I think voting for a candidate that has no hope is pointless.

I hear that "complaint" enough to wonder that if everybody just voted for the candidate they liked best, without worrying about their choice's "chances", there might be some very surprising election results.

 

[molten_dragon]

I hear that "complaint" enough to wonder that if everybody just voted for the candidate they liked best, without worrying about their choice's "chances", there might be some very surprising election results.

Doubtful, because of the large numbers of people who vote for candidates based solely on what party they belong to.

When election methods change to give third party candidates more of a chance, then I'll start voting third party.

 

[Dragonfly]

Doubtful, because of the large numbers of people who vote for candidates based solely on what party they belong to.

When election methods change to give third party candidates more of a chance, then I'll start voting third party.

But if people like you, and there are an awful lot of people like you, keep voting for the R's or D's, then why would anything change?

You want Sprite. Your favorite restaurant only sells Coke.
So you buy coke.
Why should the restaurant add Sprite if you keep buying Coke?
But if you, and maybe a few dozen other Sprite fans stop buying the Coke, and you start asking for Sprite, they just might add it.

When you vote for an R or a D, you basically say that's the choice you want. You're buying the Coke and not even asking for the Sprite. So you'll never get the Sprite.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Why??
Circumstances??

I have reached the point where I feel ethically obligated to vote straight third-party whenever possible.

 

[tres borrachos]

Why??

Circumstances??

Do you have a specific third party candidate in mind? Or a third party (not necessarily the candidate)? I can't think of one right now that I'd vote for, but who would answer "no" to this question anyway? Of course we all would consider a third party candidate, if it was the right one.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, I consider them carefully. Most often I see that they will draw votes away from only one of the competing D or R candidates and therefore I am (in effect) supporting the other major party's candidate. It does send a message that simply not voting does not but it can change the results in a largely detrimental way.

 

[Unrepresented]

I vote for the candidate that most closely aligns with my views, regardless of party.

 

[rhinefire]

You must ask then how much cooperation would the third party president get when in office. Maybe a lot as the goonies in Washington will kiss anything to male themselves appear to be competent or maybe none. It all depends on how popular the person was. If it was a landslide victory most politicians would leave their party and join the person that got everyone's vote only to save their own little butts. Sad but true.

 

[faithful_servant]

For Congress, yes, for POTUS, not at this time. We need change in Congress far more than we need change in the White House. In most cases, voting for a 3P candidate for POTUS is pretty much throwing a vote to the opposition, but we have a chance to change Congress since with Congressional elections, there's actually a chance of a 3P candidate winning. Once we have 4-5 different parties as actaul players in Congress, then it's time to go after the Oval Office.

 

[GunFora]

I would if I felt he/she were electable. I will always vote for the most conservative electable candidate.

 

[DCJ]

Convince the main party to give you a couple more bones (the first part is easier than the second, but the second results from the first).

Well IMHO getting a couple bones is far superior than supporting one of two evils..........

 

[DCJ]

I'll mark you down as one who doesn't want input into what Federal Judges will be appointed on all three levels..

Thanks........

SO I will held hostage, voting for someone I don't want, the "lessor evil" for that???:roll:

 

[DCJ]

Not unless that candidate had enough support that I thought it was at least plausible they could win the election. I think voting for a candidate that has no hope is pointless.

If you vote 3rd party that sends a message to the two corp parties,one that you care/vote & two that you are not interested in what they are selling..

What message does voting for the lesser evil send??:roll:

 

[DCJ]

I have reached the point where I feel ethically obligated to vote straight third-party whenever possible.

:bravo::bravo::bravo:

It was my hope (a lost hope, long shot) that the two major 3rd "movements" would find some common ground (which I believe they did/do have) & join forces to challenge the two corporate party dictatorship we now live under..

 

[ksu_aviator]

If I think that that is what I need to do to punish the GOP party leadership.

x2

But I hate to vote in Hillary in the process. But, if Jeb is the nominee, I'm not voting for him.

 

[DCJ]

Do you have a specific third party candidate in mind? Or a third party (not necessarily the candidate)? I can't think of one right now that I'd vote for, but who would answer "no" to this question anyway? Of course we all would consider a third party candidate, if it was the right one.

Well you can see many, if not most have said no, they don't wanna waste their vote, they prefer the lesser evil or to support their team right or wrong, good bad or ugly etc

I don't have one yet, way to early for me, but I voted Jill Stein last election..

 

[DCJ]

For Congress, yes, for POTUS, not at this time. We need change in Congress far more than we need change in the White House. In most cases, voting for a 3P candidate for POTUS is pretty much throwing a vote to the opposition, but we have a chance to change Congress since with Congressional elections, there's actually a chance of a 3P candidate winning. Once we have 4-5 different parties as actaul players in Congress, then it's time to go after the Oval Office.

So eventhough my party, my team or "my guy" isn't doing what I want, will not give me what I want, I should still vote for him because....:3oops:

Do ppl use this kinda illogic picking a gf or spouse?? A car?? House?

 

[tres borrachos]

Well you can see many, if not most have said no, they don't wanna waste their vote, they prefer the lesser evil or to support their team right or wrong, good bad or ugly etc

I don't have one yet, way to early for me, but I voted Jill Stein last election..

No vote is wasted. There's no rule that says you have to vote for 1 of the top 2.

I would vote for Jon Huntsman if he ran as a 3rd party candidate. I voted for Perot. Why not?

 

[DCJ]

No vote is wasted. There's no rule that says you have to vote for 1 of the top 2.

I would vote for Jon Huntsman if he ran as a 3rd party candidate. I voted for Perot. Why not?

I Perot was right.......... Especially about NAFTA..

 

[faithful_servant]

So eventhough my party, my team or "my guy" isn't doing what I want, will not give me what I want, I should still vote for him because....:3oops:

Do ppl use this kinda illogic picking a gf or spouse?? A car?? House?

Because if you vote for a 3P candidate, while you are voting for the guy who gives you what you want, you are voting against someone who has a chance of getting you some of what you want and voting against someone who going to get you none of what you want. It's about who you don't vote for more than who you vote for in our current paradigm.

 

[faithful_servant]

No vote is wasted. There's no rule that says you have to vote for 1 of the top 2.

I would vote for Jon Huntsman if he ran as a 3rd party candidate. I voted for Perot. Why not?

..and by doing so, you helped to put Bill Clinton in the Oval Office. Without Perot, he would have never been elected.

 

[molten_dragon]

But if people like you, and there are an awful lot of people like you, keep voting for the R's or D's, then why would anything change?

You want Sprite. Your favorite restaurant only sells Coke.
So you buy coke.
Why should the restaurant add Sprite if you keep buying Coke?
But if you, and maybe a few dozen other Sprite fans stop buying the Coke, and you start asking for Sprite, they just might add it.

When you vote for an R or a D, you basically say that's the choice you want. You're buying the Coke and not even asking for the Sprite. So you'll never get the Sprite.

I've gone through this argument before. Currently, the system is set up to favor the two main parties. Using my vote to send a message requires hundreds of thousands or millions of other people to do the same thing, or the message will be ignored. And I don't have enough faith in other people to do that. So I'll vote for the candidate I dislike the least that has a chance of winning, because then at least my vote means something.

If they change the election process so that third party candidates have a better shot at actually getting elected, I'll consider voting for one.