Voting 3rd party.....

[Guest NoCalMike]

I assume that the majority of the users on this board are within my age range(I am 21). With that being said, would you vote 3rd party and do research in order to find a candidate for you, or will you just go from what you see on Nightline, AbcNewsNow, Cnn, Foxnews...etc...

 

For me, I voted for Nader in this last election, and after seeing Bush in office, and Gore acting like the buffoon he is during the post-election, I am sure glad I can tell people I didn't vote for either one.

[Guest Invader3k]

You know, voting for Nader is fine if that's what you did...it's your vote, and you should damn well vote for whoever you want...but it seems like whenever someone says they voted for Nader, they don't follow it up with "because I agreed with his platform." It's always something like "I voted for Nader because I hate Bush and Gore."

 

I probably would've voted for Nader...but didn't agree with much anything in his platform. So I voted for Gore, who I did agree with mostly.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Invader, my post wasn't really supposed to ask who anyone voted for, I was just asking a general question whether people actually would vote 3rd party if they felt they like the candidate or if they would still stick to the 2 big parties no matter what. I figured most people that post in the current events thread know by now my bias towards 3rd parties, so I just didn't want to go and list the reasons all over again.......but I am sure I will in the future, so stick around~!

[Guest ant_7000]

It would be nice if they had a 3rd party, Republicans and Democrats hog up all the TV time and use their power to prevent the 3rd parties from getting TV time. We need stop condition ourselves or let the 2 major parties tell us that if we vote for a 3rd party your basically throwing your vote away.

[Guest hardyz1]

Just check my sig to get my thoughts on the matter.

[Guest DrTom]

The party I align closest with is the Libertarians. I did the research in 2000, thought Harry Browne was a bit of a loon, and cast my vote for Bush. In the absence of a viable Libertarian candidate, I vote Republican, since I agree with them a lot more often than the Democrats.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Libertarians have some good ideas but they tend to go overboard.

 

I'll probably never vote for a democrat because in Minnesota there too liberal.

 

No way in hell I'd ever vote for the Green Party or Ralph Nader.

 

Most people can figure I'm a Conservative Republican, but if the Republican canidate is liberal than I might vote for another canidate.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

I do research to find the best candidate regardless of whether or not they are third party. Most people would guess that I'm a conservative Republican also. But, in reality, I am not registered to any party. I generally agree with Republicans most of the time, too.

[Guest Some Guy]

Idealogically I'm a Libertarian but I realize that it would lead towards anarchy so I vote for the closest thing, which are Republicans.

 

Verne if you think Dems are too liberal in Min. try Mass on for size. Our Republicans more closely resemble Democrats than anything else. The GOP here (to the extent that it really exists) only want to raise our taxes a small amount where as the Dems want us to pay through the nose for being successful.

[Guest Kingpk]

Idealogically I'm a Libertarian but I realize that it would lead towards anarchy so I vote for the closest thing, which are Republicans.

 

Verne if you think Dems are too liberal in Min. try Mass on for size. Our Republicans more closely resemble Democrats than anything else. The GOP here (to the extent that it really exists) only want to raise our taxes a small amount where as the Dems want us to pay through the nose for being successful.

Ah, Taxachusetts, gotta love this state.

 

How much is the Big Dig gonna cost again?

[Guest bob_barron]

I'm a republican as well and for the 2000 election I went to cnn.com's issues section and decided to see who I agreed with more and it turned out to be Dubya.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

You get no arguments from me SomeGuy, the People's Republic of Massachusetts is worse than Minnesocialist.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Minnesocialist"

 

Hahahahaha -- haven't heard that one before.

 

Much like Tom, I'm a Libertarian sympatherizer but vote Republican. In my 8 years of voting, I only went Dem. once and that was for a local guy. I would vote for a Dem though if I liked them.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Invader, my post wasn't really supposed to ask who anyone voted for, I was just asking a general question whether people actually would vote 3rd party if they felt they like the candidate or if they would still stick to the 2 big parties no matter what. I figured most people that post in the current events thread know by now my bias towards 3rd parties, so I just didn't want to go and list the reasons all over again.......but I am sure I will in the future, so stick around~! >>>

 

 

BUT, if the only reason you vote for third-parties is to stick it to the Republicans and Democrats---does that make your vote any LESS wasted?

 

Voting for a guy whose platform you agree with is fine.

 

Voting for a guy because you like the idea of sitting back and bashing whatever guy won is hardly the basis of a sound republic.

-=Mike

[Guest Ace309]

The main problem I have with most third-party candidates is that they HAVE no platform.

 

I voted for Nader, mainly because I liked his domestic policy and I lean very far to the left. However, he had no foreign policy provisions in his platform. In retrospect, even though I live in New York (which goes overwhelmingly Democratic regardless of who's running and therefore a third-party vote was safe), I probably should have voted for Gore, if only because the Democrats have a more well-thought-out policy.

[Guest NoCalMike]

The main reason I think everyone should vote 3rd party is because I believe the democrats and republicans have COLLECTIVELY sold the american people out. Granted, Bush might oppose abortion, and you agree or disagree, but at the end of the day is abortion being legal or illegal really going to help YOUR situation at all? NO,of course not, but the main two parties would like us all to squabble with each other over frivilous and tiresome issues like these, while they just take bribes, errrrrrrrrrr, donations from corporations to mold the country how they see fit. The problem is most of the "truth" doesn't ever get revealed until the president has been out of office for approx 20 years...

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

I voted third party in the 2000 presidential elections (guess who) and I would do it again, however I don't see who would be running third party in 2004. In that case, I'd probably have to vote Democrat, unless its Hillary Clinton running, and then I probably will move to some deserted island in the Pacific Ocean by myself.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well, I believe Nader will keep running for the Green Party, unless he decides to hang it up. I believe his goal is mostly to garner 5% of the votes so he can participate in the following election. I am not sure if it is Nader himself that would have to participate in the following election or just a member of his same party. I just would like to see a 3rd member in the debates. Did you all know that this past election Bush and Gore put a moritorium on certain issues that hurt the other. I want someone in there that will not go easy on them and really press the issues, I don't want the usual, "I would like to make things better for the children" rhetoric. I mean everyone wants that, but this past debate was probobaly the weakest content-wise EVER. I don't need people throwing them softball questions. Ross Perot participated in '92, but he had his own billions to finance fund-raising and ad campaigns and it helped him garner enough votes. Most 3rd parties don't have the funds to do that, yet does that mean they shouldn't get a voice?

[Guest Some Guy]

Idealogically I'm a Libertarian but I realize that it would lead towards anarchy so I vote for the closest thing, which are Republicans.

 

Verne if you think Dems are too liberal in Min. try Mass on for size.  Our Republicans more closely resemble Democrats than anything else.  The GOP here (to the extent that it really exists) only want to raise our taxes a small amount where as the Dems want us to pay through the nose for being successful.

Ah, Taxachusetts, gotta love this state.

 

How much is the Big Dig gonna cost again?

Billions and Boston is still a fucking mess. Every time I go there the fucking streets are different and I get lost. I went to the Sox today and just parked in Charsletown and took the T. And man is it hot here today, 99 at game time.

 

"Minnesocialist" is pretty damn funny, I like it better than "People's Republic of MA" because "People's Republic" is usually reseved for Cambridge (where Harvard is), those people are wicked screwed up there.

[Guest Mr. Slim Citrus]

I consider myself a conservative centrist, so if there were a Centrist party, I would probably vote with them. I usually end up voting Republican.

[Guest Ace309]

I have to take issue with the stance of the original post.

 

I'm not flame-baiting, and I'm not trying to sound insulting. However, it seems that your entire political stance is based on disillusionment with the two major parties.

 

You use the example of abortion, and dismiss it as important because it doesn't affect you personally. However, in my estimation, abortion is one of the "litmus" issues that will tell the public how the candidate will stand when it comes to other issues such as state-funded faith-based education, prayer in schools, military expenditures, welfare issues, and so on.

 

Take a look at multi-party systems abroad. Their "third parties" are much different than ours. In Canada and Germany, for example, their Green parties actually accomplish "green" objectives on the national level. In the United States, the Green party's platform essentially boils down to "Give us money so we can establish ourselves nationally." I have no problem with that; it's just that, in a close election, and in a swing state, it seems irresponsible to take a third-party stance based entirely apathy or distaste for the major parties.

 

If a third-party candidate has a platform that you wholeheartedly support, by all means, vote for him. But "Gore acting like a buffoon post-election" should not be, as the French say, le deciding factor in how to cast your vote.

[Guest Ram]

I thought Nader had a good plan to go by and I liked his ideas and stuff, but he seemed to be someone on the edge of extremism sometimes. Glad I didn't vote for him now, considering the terrorist attacks. I'd rather a Bush-Texas boy go for our country.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The 3rd party will never really take off in this country. Basically since 1789 with the election of George Washington, it's been a two party country in some form or another, third parties have had brief runs but none seem to last.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

The main reason I think everyone should vote 3rd party is because I believe the democrats and republicans have COLLECTIVELY sold the american people out. Granted, Bush might oppose abortion, and you agree or disagree, but at the end of the day is abortion being legal or illegal really going to help YOUR situation at all? NO,of course not, but the main two parties would like us all to squabble with each other over frivilous and tiresome issues like these, while they just take bribes, errrrrrrrrrr, donations from corporations to mold the country how they see fit. The problem is most of the "truth" doesn't ever get revealed until the president has been out of office for approx 20 years... >>>

 

 

And you seriously expect a "third-party" President to be any different?

 

Keep in mind, it takes a monumental ego to even consider running for the office of President---so ANYBODY who runs already has a rather high opinion of themselves.

 

Which means that they will usually feel that what they do is justified because they're good people.

-=Mike

 

...Nader is just as easily purchased as Gore and Bush---likely moreso.

[Guest NoCalMike]

<<<...Nader is just as easily purchased as Gore and Bush---likely moreso. >

 

What is this statement based on? Nader has been a government watchdog(and a good one at that) for a long time now, I am sure he has had money thrown his way t shut up now and then, I never said he was perfect. Just a better candidate then Gore/Bush

 

I don't only vote for a 3rd party based on my frustration with the "big two" I have only been able actually to vote for 1 election in my lifetime. I voted 3rd party, because I believed in the platform. Coming up in highschool, I always thought I would vote for a Democrat or a Moderate Democrat, but the few years I have spent living since highschool, I have come to realize that the Democrats were just as awful, as I had thought the Republicans were.

 

Now, yes being frustrated and mad at the Republicrats is not reason enough not to vote for them, but I went on the net and looked up a few other parties besides the Republicrats and found the necessary info I needed to throw my support in a different direction.

 

Now, as far as Nader "changing" things. Of course if he even became president that would probobaly not change that much since the senate and congress still hold as much if not more power than the prez. However I think he could introduce new ideals to people, get a different message across, "shake things up"

[Guest NoCalMike]

<<<<<<I voted for Nader, mainly because I liked his domestic policy and I lean very far to the left. However, he had no foreign policy provisions in his platform>>>>>>>

 

Ermm, Bush said during his campaign that foreign policy didn't matter and he had no platform for it, yet so many people think he is the best candidate to go to war with!?!

[Guest Ace309]

That's only a valid dismissal of my argument if I said that Bush was better than Nader. Personally, I don't think Bush is well-informed and I'm thanking God he inherited Powell from his father.

 

However, think of it this way: Given the option between Nader, who is a very intelligent man but did not see fit to place in a platform that is essentially comprised of his views any provisions for foreign policy, and Bush, who is essentially a figurehead for the entire Republican party, who would you rather have at the helm? I'd rather have Bush, who has Powell, than Nader, who has Phil Donahue.

 

Which is not to say I agree with the Republicans. (I think it's sensationalistic and somewhat ignorant to refer to everyone else as 'Republicrats' - recent candidates' policies notwithstanding, the two parties stand for very different things in the United States and to pretend that their party platforms are identical is silly.)