What is one trying to prove by voting for Nader in the last elections?

[mugs]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: LtPage1
It means that you consider the system so messed up, that you'd rather vote Green and contribute to maybe one day having a truly democratic multiparty system, than vote for one of the two who can win, neither of whom you'd like to see President.

It's not an untenable position, if you really understand the situation. Myself, I voted for Kerry because I knew Bush to be far more incompetent, and his policies (to me) to be far more unnacceptable than Kerry's.

I voted Nader because Bush and Kerry represented what I DIDN'T want in office. I knew nader wasnt gonna win, but I still want a third party out there. I will continue to push for a third party until one happens or I die. I dont care which party (as long as they arent extreamists), but we need a third one.

we already have more than two. what is wrong with the system is how much funding the presidential candidates get to promote themselves (and not the money they use of their own, but of random donations). most candidates not aligned to the democrats or republicans don't see that kind of funding. proper funding and a candidate worth seeing in office is all that is needed, just like with the main parties.

The problem is not the lack of suitable candidates, the problem is that most people have a preconceived notion that a third party candidate can't win, so nobody even considers them.

we have had a few presidents who weren't of the main two parties.

Like who? The two main parties have not always been the Democrats and Republicans, but I don't think we've ever had a "third party" candidate win.

 

[SophalotJack]

Voting for Nader was ironic.

It was an attempt for people to express their freedom of choice (outside the two main parties).

The irony is that it extended the term of a guy that hinders our freedom by "protecting" it.

 

[miniMUNCH]

It is a vote of dissent.

I voted green party...I will continue to vote green party as a vote of dissent until either dem's or rep's get their act together.

I didn't vote for Bush because he's a liar.
I didn't vote for Kerry because he's a liar.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: madeupfacts
whats the purpose of voting? You life sucks no matter who becomes president

I dunno... I like my life just fine. That isn't going to change because of who the president is.

 

[Fritzo]

I only voted for him because I thought he was Darth Nader, and I thought the Sith would really shake things up.


Really misread that one

 

[thomsbrain]

one's goal in an election is NOT to elect the person you think is best. it is to bring about the most favorable of the POSSIBLE results. nadar has never been a possible result. and the "well if everyone who really wanted him actually voted for him..." excuse is bull because there simply aren't enough supporters, even if every Nader-freak voted for him. so when a liberal votes for nadar, they literally have wasted their time and the taxpayer's money, and helped secure the least favorable (to them) result. this is pure idiocy. so is saying "bush and kerry were the same."

voting for nadar is NOT the same as voting for a democrat in a red state. because when you do that, you are again trying to bring about the most favorable of the possible results. a democrat winning in a red state is FAR more possible than nadar winning anywhere, and it is in these states more than any other that a wide group of "liberals" banding to together to support a compromise candidate will have the best chance of affecting the result in a way that they would consider positive. the republican voters have known this for years. you don't see the hardcore conservative voting for some wacko independant in the final election. they band together behind their best bet of the possible outcomes.

<--- liberal who will never cease to be amazed at the blinders worn by some of the "open-minded" side of the political spectrum.

 

[Skunkwourk]

people like to make statements, it gives them a sense of empowerment no matter the outcome...

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: mugs

we have had a few presidents who weren't of the main two parties.

Like who? The two main parties have not always been the Democrats and Republicans, but I don't think we've ever had a "third party" candidate win.

you'd be right I guess, didn't realize the Republican and Democrat parties weren't always the man, forgot that the Federalist party was big for awhile. Was Whig considered a main party? Looking at president lists, a few have been from the Whig party.

here's a president by party list: link
here's the wiki for third party: link

 

[Baked]

I write my name in the empty box for all election ballots. I vote for myself.