Voting for Third Parties

[Lithium381]

So this thread will have two topics, both related to third parties in elections. The first topic is the concept of voting third party is 'throwing your vote away'. The second is how the two major parties are attempting to retain their power by making laws to restrict third parties from ever being on the ballot. In previous threads, we've discussed how the two-party system develops from many parties and how it retains its structure. I think Eskimospy was the one who provided links to those and it makes a lot of sense. The issue is that peoples' opinions change over time and the parties platforms may not accurately reflect the peoples' desires. Case in point: The divide between the Establishment GOP and the Tea Party Faction.

Many people say that voting for anything other than the two major parties is simply throwing away your vote. There is the concept of voting for 'the lesser of two evils'. For example, in some states such as California voting anything other than Democrat is 'throwing it away'. I contend that voting third party sends a stronger message than voting for the lesser of two evils(assuming your party isn't the guaranteed winner). It shows the politicians what the people want more directly and can possibly prompt the secondary party to modify its platform to become more appealing to the base that they're potentially losing.

In many states the Republicans and Democrats are trying to lock third parties off of the ballots. They see third parties as a threat, as they should. They feel /entitled/ to the votes and feel that the third parties are "stealing" votes from them, causing them to lose elections. I understand that they want to retain power and allowing people to see that they have other choices than R/D is a threat to that power. Should anyone who wants to be on the ballot be allowed to appear? I believe so.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/politics/article_19f25110-d862-11e2-b47a-001a4bcf887a.html

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ohio-Senate-passes-new-third-party-ballot-rules-4877972.php

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...ballot-access-laws-State-still-two-party-lock

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...-to-keep-third-parties-off-ballot-in-november

Okay, I lied. 3 topics in this thread. Poll above. Would removing the party label from ballots improve voting and voter awareness? In that i propose that many people vote party line, ignorant of any factor other than the party label. Thus, encouraging them to at least look up the name of the candidate running for their prefered party could compel learning about the issues and what the candidate stands for? Would it help or hurt our voting system?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'd be good with this. There is not much which is more harmful at the ballot box than voting based on blind loyalty. No pulling the big D or R lever or whatever they use now.

 

[schneiderguy]

What happens when someone renames themselves "Candidate for the ______ Party"? :awe:

 

[dank69]

Voted no because I think removing party labels will not increase voter awareness; I think it will reduce voter turnout which is already too low to begin with.

Keep in mind that most people who don't currently vote do so because they are simply too lazy/unmotivated to go down to the polling station.

 

[Moonbeam]

I only vote Republican where the Democrat, like Feinstein, is already a Republican. I prefer an out of closet Republican to one that pretends not to be but is. This means I have to vote for a Democrat once because Republicans are insane whereas a Democrat just might be. The proper solution to this, I think, lies elsewhere, as in public awareness that the solution is to change the Constitution. No matter who you vote for today you know about them only because of money. It's money I want out of power.

 

[smackababy]

If you remove the party label how will 90% of America know how to vote for?

You should have to answer a questionnaire about the policies of each candidate for the positions you want to vote for. And if you can't get a passing score of 70%, you don't get to vote. Sure, voter turnout will be low, but at least you will have people educated. Even if they look up a cheat sheet, knowing candidate X stands for this and Y stands for that on each point might sway voters to choose with their head not some artificial club they think they belong to.

 

[AViking]

I don't know if it would help or hurt. It seems like a decent thought but if we really are at the point where we have to consider this we probably have a bigger problem.

I think simply improving voter turnout would be the better idea. Yeah in CA you "waste" your vote but only 55% vote. Get the other 45% to vote and who knows what can happen?

Rather than remove party names how about we reform the media? The media contributes to a lot of the problem since they frame the entire political landscape as a battle between the two parties. They don't tell the whole story. How about they stop making controversy out of everything and simply focus on the issues and educating voters on what is actually going on?

Way too many people are getting their news from comedy shows and talk radio. This is making Americans relatively dumb when it comes to politics. Worse it's making them extremely partisan and all they do is parrot talking points.

Politics needs to be less Superbowl and more Debate Club.

 

[smackababy]

Politics needs to be less Superbowl and more Debate Club.

No thanks. I don't want to watch 4 hours of non answering or simply bashing the other guy. Politicians need to be forced to answer yes or no to questions. And then come site can compile their stances on issues. Simple as that. Imagine: Candidate X are you for or against stricter gun laws? Answer: against! Any additional comment? Explanation: harsher penalties to those who violate gun laws or use guns to commit crimes.

If only... I swear, if I ever run for office, I will be the most boring candidate ever. I will get asked a question, and I will answer it with my stance. If I don't have a stance, I'll research it and get one.

 

[boomerang]

If only... I swear, if I ever run for office, I will be the most boring candidate ever. I will get asked a question, and I will answer it with my stance. If I don't have a stance, I'll research it and get one.

How about this for a stance? "I will vote solely according to the wishes of the majority of the people in my district." That would be enormously refreshing to hear.

 

[Lithium381]

According to a recent gallup poll, Americans are itching for a third party!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165392/perceived-need-third-party-reaches-new-high.aspx

 

[piasabird]

Why not just do away with political parties if you dont want party affiliation on the ballot? I think we should also outlaw a party donating money to help out specific candidates. All donations should have to come from inside the voting districts, otherwise it is electioneering.

When the party is handing out money for people's campaigns how it works is if you vote party line and support your party you get the money. It is just bribery and influence peddling.

 

[velillen]

How about this for a stance? "I will vote solely according to the wishes of the majority of the people in my district." That would be enormously refreshing to hear.

Ya know Ive talked to many people who have wanted that same thing. And with the technology we have today it is truly amazing no politicians seem to put out a poll or talk to people in their districts. Colorado is a great example. Two Senators get recalled from people in their districts for doing something they dont agree with. It seems like it would have been easy enough for those senators to put up a poll for their county and to vote the way the poll leans. (which to be fair if i remember right one of those would have been a clear no and the other was much tighter). Im sure theres been countless times people have voted against their voters.

I guess to me it seems easy enough for these major choices; ACA, gun control, NSA spying, the budget, ect to have a government website you can go and vote. That way we have the true feelings of the people felt and the data can be broken down by area as well. O WA state is against XXX but New York is strongly for it. Well new York can then go on a state level and do something about it. These are things that effect the nation. There should be a way to see how the nation feels and not by some super easily biased poll (only polling urban, blacks, whites, males, females, ect to get the result you wants....ie 90% want gun control......)

I think we should also outlaw a party donating money to help out specific candidates. All donations should have to come from inside the voting districts, otherwise it is electioneering.

When the party is handing out money for people's campaigns how it works is if you vote party line and support your party you get the money. It is just bribery and influence peddling.

I could go on and on about that one but thats for a different thread

 

[Greenman]

Voted no because I think removing party labels will not increase voter awareness; I think it will reduce voter turnout which is already too low to begin with.

Keep in mind that most people who don't currently vote do so because they are simply too lazy/unmotivated to go down to the polling station.

I don't see that as an issue. Voter turnout is a based on the idea that you can increase a sum by adding zeros. A million uninformed people won't make better choices than a hundred thousand uninformed people. I would much rather see a very low turnout with voters that actually understand what they're voting for.

 

[irishScott]

According to a recent gallup poll, Americans are itching for a third party!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165392/perceived-need-third-party-reaches-new-high.aspx

Yep. Now if we could just form one with a coherent platform.

Everybody I've ever talked to says there's a need for a strong 3rd party, the issue is agreeing on what exactly that 3rd part should stand for.

 

[soulcougher73]

Id vote yes. If you dont know the issues or the candidate or what they stand for then your vote is basically useless. I only want informed voters no matter how small the turn out.

 

[biostud]

Why stop at three parties?

Couldn't something like the voting system for the EU parliament work in the US?

 

[werepossum]

I don't see that as an issue. Voter turnout is a based on the idea that you can increase a sum by adding zeros. A million uninformed people won't make better choices than a hundred thousand uninformed people. I would much rather see a very low turnout with voters that actually understand what they're voting for.

This, exactly.

 

[Lithium381]

So this thread will have two topics, both related to third parties in elections. The first topic is the concept of voting third party is 'throwing your vote away'. The second is how the two major parties are attempting to retain their power by making laws to restrict third parties from ever being on the ballot. In previous threads, we've discussed how the two-party system develops from many parties and how it retains its structure. I think Eskimospy was the one who provided links to those and it makes a lot of sense. The issue is that peoples' opinions change over time and the parties platforms may not accurately reflect the peoples' desires. Case in point: The divide between the Establishment GOP and the Tea Party Faction.

Many people say that voting for anything other than the two major parties is simply throwing away your vote. There is the concept of voting for 'the lesser of two evils'. For example, in some states such as California voting anything other than Democrat is 'throwing it away'. I contend that voting third party sends a stronger message than voting for the lesser of two evils(assuming your party isn't the guaranteed winner). It shows the politicians what the people want more directly and can possibly prompt the secondary party to modify its platform to become more appealing to the base that they're potentially losing.

In many states the Republicans and Democrats are trying to lock third parties off of the ballots. They see third parties as a threat, as they should. They feel /entitled/ to the votes and feel that the third parties are "stealing" votes from them, causing them to lose elections. I understand that they want to retain power and allowing people to see that they have other choices than R/D is a threat to that power. Should anyone who wants to be on the ballot be allowed to appear? I believe so.

any thoughts on the above topics?

 

[dank69]

I don't see that as an issue. Voter turnout is a based on the idea that you can increase a sum by adding zeros. A million uninformed people won't make better choices than a hundred thousand uninformed people. I would much rather see a very low turnout with voters that actually understand what they're voting for.

That's pretty much the opposite of democracy. While I'd love an informed populace it isn't grounded in reality. It's tough to sort out good information from bad information as it is. Many of the people you think of as informed are actually misinformed. Democracy is all about every person having the right to vote for what they believe are their best interests.

 

[Lithium381]

That's pretty much the opposite of democracy. While I'd love an informed populace it isn't grounded in reality. It's tough to sort out good information from bad information as it is. Many of the people you think of as informed are actually misinformed. Democracy is all about every person having the right to vote for what they believe are their best interests.

This is often very short sighted, too.

 

[AViking]

When Romney proposed dropping capital gains taxes he was purposefully appealing to get all the rich people's votes. That issue alone pretty much guaranteed that anyone rich who was voting in their best interests would vote for him.

This is the problem. People know this. So what they do is they map out the different voter groups and try to appeal to as many of their best interests as possible without actually taking into accounts the best interests of the country, the future of the country, or financial reality.

 

[Lithium381]

When Romney proposed dropping capital gains taxes he was purposefully appealing to get all the rich people's votes. That issue alone pretty much guaranteed that anyone rich who was voting in their best interests would vote for him.

This is the problem. People know this. So what they do is they map out the different voter groups and try to appeal to as many of their best interests as possible without actually taking into accounts the best interests of the country, the future of the country, or financial reality.

It's also apparent that third parties such as Libertarians don't get large corporate donations like the two major parties do. . because they don't promise the special privilages like the D/R teams do. Although they do stand for less regulation and lower taxes so not sure why businesses don't get behind them. . .

 

[smackababy]

It's also apparent that third parties such as Libertarians don't get large corporate donations like the two major parties do. . because they don't promise the special privilages like the D/R teams do. Although they do stand for less regulation and lower taxes so not sure why businesses don't get behind them. . .

Because just lowering regulations and taxes aren't enough. If they can't guarantee special favors from the politicians, they won't give them any money. It is simply bribing, but we allow it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It's also apparent that third parties such as Libertarians don't get large corporate donations like the two major parties do. . because they don't promise the special privilages like the D/R teams do. Although they do stand for less regulation and lower taxes so not sure why businesses don't get behind them. . .

One reason is many libertarians are against patents, copyrights, trademarks, protections against counterfeits. Others have odd agendas with returning to the gold standard and shutting down the FDIC. Some are such small-government extremists that they oppose a federal military.

Businesses don't like "oppressive" regulations but they do like IP protection and the rule of law.

 

[Incorruptible]

It's also apparent that third parties such as Libertarians don't get large corporate donations like the two major parties do. . because they don't promise the special privilages like the D/R teams do. Although they do stand for less regulation and lower taxes so not sure why businesses don't get behind them. . .

The third parties like Libertarians don't get large donations because they want to cut subsidies and corporate welfare. Big corporations love corporate welfare and will give donations to democrats and republicans since they will keep supporting corporate welfare.

Less regulation and lower taxes are good but the big corporations can find ways around them and they prefer getting tax dollars.