2004 will be my 6th presidential election. In two of those, I voted for a third party candidate. Many of us have voted for third party candidates, but I don't understand the people who say "the two party system sucks, but I can't throw my vote away." Will a third party candidate ever be more than a thrown away vote if a third party can't be taken seriously?

After seeing Bill Maher and Mike Moore get down on their knees and beg Nader not to run in November, I had to wonder, "will there ever be a right time for a third party candidate?" Not this year because of this, not in 2008 because of that, and well, in 2012 there is that other thing. A lot of us bitch and moan about the 2 party system, but what do we do about it?

Nader's reaction to their proposal, on bended knee, was certainly funny. He appeared very embarrassed and awkward, but is ridicule what he deserves?

Now, obviously, I don't like Michael Moore very much, but I've liked Bill Maher for a long time(even though I'm not sure I know how to spell his name), and this isn't a slam against either of them. In fact, I know what they were trying to do and can appreciate both the humor and the message, while finding the actual act tasteless. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

For clarity, I found it tasteless because they belittled the man's honest effort. He's a man of principle, and whether I agree with him politically or not, I find that kind of thing hard to swallow. Maybe it's an ego trip for Nader, and if that were the case, I'd feel differently, but even Bill Maher admitted tonight on Hardball with Chris Matthews that he believed Nader was running for the right reasons. You can find people who believe both ways about Nader, but most who say it's an ego trip are those who are afraid he'll cost the Democrats the election in November. Like so many ABB'ers, too many are so busy voting against Bush, that they aren't voting for anything.

Is the only reasonable time for a third party candidate, in a presidential election, when it is *safe* or when that candidate might help your candidate by hurting his real opponent?

You're spelling his name right.

Well, awareness needs to be raised. Certainly, though lacking any fed-level clout, the Libertarians are controlling an average of 12 offices per state and rising.

The only wasted vote is the one not counted.
However, the lefties will never allow anything other than the two party system. If given even a smidgen of a chance, they would prefer to have only 1 party. And that would only be somewhere in left field.

um, who are you talking about? exactly? :confused:

Now, I'm woefully ignorant when it comes to American home-front politics, but based upon the addmittedly filtered news reports I get here, I have to agree with you Ronn regarding the Democrat's apparent lack of direction, at least in terms of foreign policy. Most of the Democrat election foreign policies (such as those regarding Iraq, unilateralism, War on Terror etc) seem to be mere reactions to Bush's policies, and don't seem to stem from any independant vision of how the nation should be managed. That won't make for an ordered country, nor a stable international diplomatic arena.

I'm no fan of Bush, but to be honest I don't think America (or the world) will be much better off with Kerry either.

*sigh* if only that silver-haired Arkansasian could run again... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-04-2004, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

I think Oblivion makes a good point -- if the third-party candidates can be elected at the local and state levels, over time it will change the system. Then more independent or third party candidates can make it into Congress, and then the third party will have a chance.

Funny, Felix, I think I see more liberals wishing for a third party than I do conservatives.

In this year's tight election, if you want Bush out more than you want to make a statement, then you won't vote for the third party -- unless of course you live in a state where your vote won't change a predetermined outcome (e.g. NY, IL, CA), and then you'll be doing the "effort to oust Bush" no harm by voting to make a statement.

If it's more important to you to use your vote to make a statement than it is to trade Bush for Kerry, then the third party vote is the one for you.

I think what a third party needs to be effective is a decisive stance on definitive issues while avoiding being seen as extremist. Pat Robertson, Al Sharpton, Pat Buchannon, nor Ralph Nader will ever be president because they are too extreme.

A good example of a great 3 party candidate would be Perot. His primary issue was the deficit. That issue was easy to get behind, and he left alot of us asking, "why isn't government run like a fiscally responsible business?". That was his focus. He wasn't too far right or left on anything else, and nearly 20 million Americans answered his call in '92.

I wonder if anyone could ever do it again? And if they did, would that person lose merely because we thought a third party vote was a wasted vote.

[ 08-04-2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Problem is Perot was running largely on his own dime. God bless him for it, I say, being thankful for the 8 years we had during the Presidency of that wonderful philandering orator from Arkansas.

What we need is a good strong third PARTY. Thus far, there have merely been faint flashes of hope from candidates, but there is no strong third party.

I highly disagree Timber. We need leaders, not Parties. Parties are thrown by frat boys to get girls drunk.

Political Parties are large in part for the corruption and perversion of a visionary governmental system.

On the topic of third/fringe parties, sometimes it's good to vote for them. As has been said before, if you want to make a statement with your vote, a fringe party/candidate is a nice option.

In four elections (two federal and two provincial), I've voted for candidates for four different parties. Twice I wished to make a statement (as the results were not really in doubt) and twice I voted for major parties because they had a fighting chance against different parties that I did not want elected.

Here in Canada, there is another good reason to vote for a fringe party, but I'm not sure it works this way in the States. If a party gets a certain percentage of the overall vote (I think it's 5%), they get some federal funding as an official party. That funding allows them to run more candidates and raise their public profile in other ways. That 5% of the vote is an important stepping stone for a fringe party to become a viable option.

Edit: In our most recent (June 30, 2004) election, the Green Party achieved the percentage it needed to get that funding.

[ 08-04-2004, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Aerich ]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Sometimes the vote is wasted sometimes it isn't. An example of when it isn't is as Aerich described.

One tactic that is often used up here is a candidate for a party will get his best friend (Independant) to run against him to draw votes away from the competition. This isn't always the case but it occurs and you really have to know the candidates to avoid the pitfall especially if you don't want the said candidate to get elected. In the case of Nadar you really have to look at who is friends are and why he is running. Is he funded by the Republicans to draw votes from Democrates or is he in it because he believes in his parties platform and values?</font>

[ 08-04-2004, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

If I remember my Government class correctly the numbers are similar here in the states, it might be as low as 4% of the vote (it's been about 6 years since I had that class, and it's not something I routinely use, so the info hasn't been accessed since that class).

Actually I think I read somewhere that he isn't part of a party this time (IIRC he was green party last pres election)...

The key tactic of third parties in the US is to steal votes from a major party. Next time round, they'll adopt some positions, planks, or parts of planks to lure those voters on back.

However, the policies of the DNC and GOP both run right against Libertarianism, so they pretty much have to fight it all or none.

From what I see of this election, I think it would matter if you vote for a third party. A 3rd party vote will not get your person elected. It's going to help one of the other two parties get in office. I wished Nader didn't run. He's helping the Bush team and I think he's doing it on purpose because in my view, he's a real Republican.

That's something said tongue in cheek, JS, but one only has to look at Nader's track record to see the fallacy in that statement.

All in all, it depends on what state you live in. Let's say, for instance, that you want Bush out of office.
Hypothetically.
Let's also say that you support the Green party. But your primary goal is to get Bush out. Now, if you lived in a swing state, or a Republican state, you would vote for Kerry. But if you lived in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, you might be safe voting Green. It applies whether you're Democrat or Republican; just reverse the example.

I agree completely with that statement. Well said [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] .

I do believe that Nader believes what he says and is very left wing. IMHO, he's running again because he truly believes in his platform. I also think that he's rather anti-Democratic Party. There's also no doubt that he's anti-GOP. However, he seems to be louder in his criticism against the Dems because he wishes that they were more like him.

The fact that some republicans have given Nader money is about the fact that these republicans are simply seeing that halping Nader ends up helping Bush in that it may draw some of the most liberal voters away from Kerry (or Gore in 2000) and to Nader. Nader is certainly free to refuse or return such money. But he may also just take the money and use it in spite of where it came from.

This is a salient point about third parties in the US, particularly in the 20th century. Third parties that performed strongly in a Presidential election almost always have their issues absorbed by the party closest to their views.

It's hard to say that this was the case after the 2000 election. Oh, the Dems are certainly paying more attention Nader this time around. But this "attention" is more along the lines of trying to prevent Nader from getting on state ballots, trying to convince voters that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, etc.