Republicans and Conservatives - are you going to vote Libertarian?

[Exophase]

I keep being called a liberal by people on this board, but I'm more likely to vote for the Libertarian over Hilary because I just want more parties in the game already. It could be the one chance to bring compromise back into the political process. Get L's their needed % to be taken seriously and next time maybe Greens or some other group gets their % and pretty soon the D's and R's have to figure their shit out. We can all benefit from that.

I like the idea of getting the next most popular third party enough support to get funding and participate in the debates. And I like a few of Gary Johnson's platforms, but his tax and social service positions are like polar opposite from where I stand, I don't really think I could vote for him. So probably going to vote for Jill Stein (who is pretty close to Bernie Sanders on most things and really big on electoral reform) even if she'll still be well behind the Libertarians.

Plus I like the idea of both a right-ish and left-ish minor party rising in tandem. Poses something of a united front while diminishing the spoiler argument.

There is no possibility of there being a third party in American Politics without major overhaul of the electoral process. It is not a matter of will, it is a matter of math. Our first past the bar system guarantees only two parties.

The best you can do is swap which two parties are in contention. If enough people decide to switch to the Libertarian party then the Democrats will win every election until the Libertarian and Republicans unite their forces either by people abandoning one of them or actually combining into a single party. Then what ever that new party is will have the ability to gain enough support to challenge the Dems again.

You are correct. But I think that having a temporary surge in third/fourth party popularity will make people more open to considering electoral reform, especially if those parties are strongly advocating it.

 

[werepossum]

You consider Romney and Obama... Bush, Kerry, and Gore, to be evil? You certainly didn't get (or wouldn't have gotten) everything you want with any of these candidates, but isn't that sort of what Democracy is? Compromise?

Kerry and especially Gore, yes, though obviously not Hildabeast/Trump level evil. The others . . . I like things about each, but not enough to vote FOR them. I'm still voting against the other guy, not for them. (I did vote for Romney and I don't particularly dislike him - I think he did a good job as governor - but the only reason I voted for him was because I voted for him in the primary and he got the nod. I generally vote in the Republican primary, and if I vote the person who gets the nomination, as a matter of integrity I consider myself bound to vote for him or her in the general. Otherwise I'm one of them.

Gary Johnson is perhaps my ideal candidate, but I still have major disagreements with him, notably his open border policy, tariff/protectionism policy, and tax cut policy. And I'm fine with that. As Neil Boortz says, if two people agree on everything, then one of them is redundant. It's not a matter of refusing to compromise, it's a matter of whether I actually WANT this person to be President on her own merits, or only to keep it out of the other guy's hands. Even among the Libertarians, for me that includes Reagan and Gary Johnson only. There are other people for whom I would vote on their own merits, such as Bernie (for reasons that Sonikku pointed out - maybe Sonikku can be the first trans President; since we seem to have embraced novelty for novelty's sake, we might as well use that to elect a non-asshole) and Fauxcahontas (I like her populist streak and consider a lot of her legislation to be refreshingly clear, common sense and well-written) and Duncan Hunter, but damned few that I'd really like to see handed that kind of power.

I like the idea of getting the next most popular third party enough support to get funding and participate in the debates. And I like a few of Gary Johnson's platforms, but his tax and social service positions are like polar opposite from where I stand, I don't really think I could vote for him. So probably going to vote for Jill Stein (who is pretty close to Bernie Sanders on most things and really big on electoral reform) even if she'll still be well behind the Libertarians.

Plus I like the idea of both a right-ish and left-ish minor party rising in tandem. Poses something of a united front while diminishing the spoiler argument.

You are correct. But I think that having a temporary surge in third/fourth party popularity will make people more open to considering electoral reform, especially if those parties are strongly advocating it.

I can't see that ever happening. No matter how many people demand electoral reform to empower third parties, the two parties would lose more than they could ever hope to gain. Ergo no real electoral reform to empower third parties, although I do like the idea of third parties rising simultaneously on left and right. And EVERY third party is really big in favor of electoral reform, for the same reason one doesn't find beavers opposing tender young trees.

 

[TheGardener]

I don't vote.... for potheads and drunks. Really 90% of Libertarians are so to legalize pot, and only to legalize pot. Looked into that a decade and half ago. That's why I didn't join their party and vote for their candidate Harry Brown back in 2000. I thought for a minute that they were concerned about being governed by the Constitution. 90% of them have never read the Constitution. Too stoned.

 

[werepossum]

I agree, that's the dilemma. We keep voting for the lesser evil and end up with crap in govt. At the same time, I know a vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for hildebeast. I don't like Trump, but I'll probably end up holding my nose and voting for him.

There is one major overriding difference: the next president will likely get to appoint 3 (or more) scotus justices and thus heavily influence the country for much longer than the presidential terms. We already know hildabeast is going to appoint SJW garbage. With Trump there's still the possibility that he could appoint someone decent. That alone is reason enough to pick him over her.

That's true, but I don't find the conservative justices' gyrations to justify banning gay marriage any more attractive than the left's Social Justice. It's still voting for the lesser evil, just by extension. I find it very distasteful to be singled out for special beneficial treatment under the law, in direct violation to the sentiments we expressed when we revolted to form this nation: That all men are created equal and deserve to pursue happiness as they each find it. (Though I'm not that fond of being singled out special deleterious treatment under the law either. lol) Note that this is also the guiding principle behind Christianity (love thy neighbor), as well as a very central tenet in Islam (done well) and Judaism. It's that inherent trait that makes a child pause with a treat halfway to her mouth and offer it to another, and I somewhat agree with Moonbeam that to bolster our own sense of self-worth, we tend to smother this instinct, this little internal spark of G-d, to find reasons why we deserve that special treatment - as long as we don't too closely examine those reasons. (Christ, I get maudlin and wordy after working thirty-six hours!)

My four biggest issues are probably the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, encouraged off-shoring, and illegal immigration. Clearly Trump is monumentally better than Hillary on three of those, even granting that until this election he was basically a Democrat. But if I vote for Trump, I'm settling for the lesser evil on a scale not seen in my lifetime. As much as I dislike Hillary, I don't see anything about her sufficiently worse than Trump to kick that in.

Please note that I'm not trying to talk anyone out of voting for Trump; I have zero problem with anyone voting for Trump OR Hillary. We're all entitled to our own values and priorities. I'm just explaining my own thoughts.

You might have to accept some hardship to fix the problems. It is the unwillingness to do that that has let us get to this state to begin with. Keep voting against people and you will never have someone to vote for. The parties are going to make sure that there is always someone you should vote against.

I guess that would be a real problem if you think justice is a bad thing.

Justice like Kelo v. New London, where the liberal justices established as law the right of government to take away anything you own and give it to some rich individual as long as government considers itself better off? I for one certainly think that kind of "justice" is a very bad thing indeed. There is no clean end on this turd, brother.

If we had a more parliamentary system where factions had to unite to have a majority in Congress, we would have a different political landscape. But we don't. So we would have to fundamentally change the way govt works (or doesn't work) in order to get more viewpoints in the mix.

True. I don't see this third party thing working without such a change, allowing governments to be dissolved when they cease to function rather than by a set schedule.

 

[Charmonium]

That's true, but I don't find the conservative justices' gyrations to justify banning gay marriage any more attractive than the left's Social Justice. It's still voting for the lesser evil, just by extension. I find it very distasteful to be singled out for special beneficial treatment under the law, in direct violation to the sentiments we expressed when we revolted to form this nation: That all men are created equal and deserve to pursue happiness as they each find it

You probably realize this but to be clear, the "equality" in the Constitution was equality among white, male, landowners. It was much later that we decided to include women and blacks. Not sure about when the landowning requirement was dropped.

 

[evident]

Trumps implosion may be a good thing for a 3rd party candidate. although Hillary is going to win, it will bring a good amount of attention to a much needed 3rd party candidate and will certainly be good for the country in the long run.

 

[werepossum]

You probably realize this but to be clear, the "equality" in the Constitution was equality among white, male, landowners. It was much later that we decided to include women and blacks. Not sure about when the landowning requirement was dropped.

That was certainly the practical interpretation, but the stated principle was that ALL men are created equal, not just white landowners. (Man, talk about typing dyslexia - I actually typed "white nadlowners" which is a rather different thing.) As almost always happens, whenever we begin to implement these shiny new ideas, we begin to find reasons why we should be more equal than the other animals.

Humans routinely fall awesomely short of our expressed goals - as Wolfe pointed out in another thread, Christians gleefully executed and imprisoned gays for two millennia after Jesus expressly told us not to do that. Whenever we adopt such a goal, we immediately begin watering it down. "What about black men?" "Well, obviously not black men, or yellow or red men. All men like us are created equal." "Well, what about poor white men?" "Well, maybe not poor white men - probably need to own some land to deserve a vote. They are created equal, but not THAT equal." "But . . . we can still judge homosexuals, right?" "Of course we can still judge homosexuals - don't be stupid! When Jesus said not to judge people, he obviously meant just people like us." But that human failing is something to fight, not accept.

 

[SNC]

No. As much as I dislike Trump, a vote for a third party candidate is essentially a vote for hildebeast, and that ain't happening.

And the two party system continues......

 

[Charmonium]

Trumps implosion may be a good thing for a 3rd party candidate. although Hillary is going to win, it will bring a good amount of attention to a much needed 3rd party candidate and will certainly be good for the country in the long run.

That's what I was thinking when I started the poll. It seems to me that only the truly hard-core followers will actually vote for trump and almost all of those will do it solely so they don't have to vote for Hillary.

But if I were such a person and really wanted my vote to count, I'd vote Libertarian. Trump just keeps dropping in the polls. And there are no signs of any kind that he's creating any sort of campaign structure let alone one that could rival Hillary's. So a vote for Trump is just as wasted as one for the Communists or Green Party.

I would want to encourage the idea of a third party and the only way to do that is to have a 3rd party candidate get more than 10% of the national vote.

And the Libertarians are savvy enough not to follow the tea party and end up getting co-opted by the Pewbicans.

edit: in a side note, bacon seems to be the 3rd most favorite option and is beating pork chops by a 3 to 1 margin.

 

[Jhhnn]

And the Libertarians are savvy enough not to follow the tea party and end up getting co-opted by the Pewbicans.

The only reason that the Tea Party has any power is that they are Republicans. They extort the Speaker & the Party in the HOR thru the 50 member Freedom Caucus. No Repub can be speaker w/o their votes nor can legislation advance because of their mastery of obstructionism & arcane rules.

On their own they'd have no power at all.