Is a vote for the 3rd party REALLY a wasted vote?

[Ronn_Bman]

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?

[Oblivion437]

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.

[Felix The Assassin]

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.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: 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?

[The Hierophant]

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 ]

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Ronn_Bman]

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 ]

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Night Stalker]

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.

[Aerich]

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 ]