Why is it that we have to vote for the "lesser of two evils"?

[DisgruntledVirus]

I am not talking about this election specifically, but it started with Gore/Bush (well started getting progressively worse IMO, but as far back as I can remember this seems to be the case post WWII) and has since degraded each presidential election. At what point will the American public say enough with the only two parties in this country that have a shot at the presidency, and either have a 3rd party come into the picture or a "restructuring" of the two current parties?

I understand that we will never have somebody that truely is "of the people" and an "average American" be president. It just won't happen, but at what point do we finally have enough of this crap and actually go about changing it? Not just saying "I am for change", but actually doing it.

I don't mean for it to degrade into a "Obama vs McCain" thread, but seeing as they are the two canidates currently running I will use them as examples. We have McCain who people have said (and I don't know if I can entirely disagree) is Bush Jr., and we have Obama whose campaign is built upon "change" but really is just a "change" from Bush. Either way we still lose (we being the general public) in the long run, because lets face it they both have questionable intentions and worth millions who don't know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck. Neither knows what it's like to work your ass off to be able to own a home.

Will the generall population ever get fed up and say "enough" with the status quo of politicians, or are we going to stay in this same cycle of "which canidate will screw up this country the least" for our lifetimes (or longer)?

 

[Juddog]

There should actually be 4 parties, for each of the 4 corners of political beliefs.

 

[nakedfrog]

"Under no circumstances should anyone capable of being elected President be allowed to do the job"

 

[fskimospy]

Because we have a winner take all system. As long as 50.00001% of the vote gets 100% of the representation we will have only 2 viable parties/candidates in any election. The only way to change this is to change the constitution, which would require the two major parties to sponsor legislation to put themselves out of power.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Moonbeam]

What eskimospy said, but your thinking is very flawed. You call Obama a change from Bush. When you are headed off a cliff a change in course is mandatory. You're thinking is that it is better to drive off the cliff than maybe change direction and run into a wall. You are in fantasy land in your head.

 

[woodie1]

Topic Title: Why is it that we have to vote for the "lesser of two evils"?

Because those who would be a good POTUS are too smart to want the job and all the crap that comes with it. Can you blame them!

Leaves us with the bottom of the barrel candidates.

 

[Jaskalas]

Tell them to vote third party, and they?ll tell you to stop wasting your vote.

It?s a simple matter of blackmail. Of entrapment. If you fail to support side A, then side B will win. Side B is the devil incarnate so unless you want the end of the world you have to vote for side A, forever.

It is astonishing how effective a two sided coin is. If people think you?re doing a poor job you just point to the other side. Yet as long as both sides favor government expansion then they have no real difference between them. The people get screwed either way. Yet the people can?t understand this. What we have here is an ancient strategy of taking the people and dividing them to fight amongst themselves.

How do you overcome divide and conquer? By realigning the sides and uniting under a new banner. Not as Republican or Democrat, but as the people against the party elite. All the R and D talk of ?change? and ?for the people? is to get ahead of this movement and step between you and the desire for change. Why does it work? All they do is point to the other side of government as the problem, and to themselves as salvation.

Yet the true problem isn?t the party elite. They would be powerless if the American people held American values. We sacrifice freedom for security. We sacrifice individual power in favor of government power. We hold our own Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights in contempt. We would have never allowed the current state of affairs if we believed in our own founding.

Yet what do we hear? That these are living documents meant to change with the times. That they are too old to be relevant. Yes, the Bill of Rights is ?too old? to be ?relevant?. The problem with America, is that we have not raised Americans. Too few people believe in our tenants now.

 

[Genx87]

People only say this because they dont particularily like their own candidate. If you truely believe it then dont vote for either.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What eskimospy said, but your thinking is very flawed. You call Obama a change from Bush. When you are headed off a cliff a change in course is mandatory. You're thinking is that it is better to drive off the cliff than maybe change direction and run into a wall. You are in fantasy land in your head.

Your pro-Obama slant is evident here, but what the hell I'll play.

I believe with BOTH parties we are heading off that cliff. The only question is what's at the bottom of the cliff, a huge pit of lava or a huge pit of acid. Either way we are screwed. How is my thinking flawed in that it is not possible for somebody that is not a D or R to win a presidential election? My thinking is that either way we are going to end up worse off then where we started, and when (if ever) will the American public have enough of it to change it? As Jaskalas said, if the American people wanted change it could be changed. Unfortunately that doesn't seem likely anytime in the near future, if ever.

I firmly believe we need 3 parties (maybe 4, but no more because then it gets too divided so 4 might even be pushing it), and/or a change in the political landscape. Okay sure we have the Ron Paul types out there, but they do not have any realistic chance at winning. Currently the two primary parties are so entrenched in the status quo that they just keep digging deeper. At what point do we hit rock bottom because of it?

I understand that the way the Constitution is a 3rd party is not really possible, because look at the last two elections with just two primary parties. We had real close outcomes both times, and it has been said that GWB shouldn't have won re-election because of the way the system is setup. This does not mean that I don't think things should change, and that the American public one day might finally get fed up with it enough to change it (and I don't mean in a civil war type change either).

 

[brxndxn]

I have a political science degree.. and this is one thing I learned:

The two-party system's main goal is to stay in power. They do this by dividing the American people as evenly as possible. They pick and choose random issues devoid of any one left or right direction in politics to 'stand for' in order to convince the American public that each is the lesser of two evils..

How do the American people have any power at all? They cause a landslide victory for one single party that will force the other party to change for the better. OR, they vote for 3rd party in significant numbers. Significant numbers are less than one would think.

For example, if Democrats win the next election with 48.4% of the vote and Republicans lose with 47.9% of the vote and the Libertarian party gets 2% of the vote - enough to cover the entire margin of victory, the Republican party is forced to move in a libertarian direction (or more to the center to take direct Democrat votes).

If both 'fringe' parties get more than 1-2% of the vote, the Republicans and Democrats are forced to move apart. Right now, both parties are extremely centrist with very little difference between the two.. essentially, you are not making a choice if you pick either of the two main parties.

The only vote that does not count is the vote that is not cast. Voting for a 3rd party has more influence than you think. Not voting at all ensures your complete irrelevence.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
People only say this because they dont particularily like their own candidate. If you truely believe it then dont vote for either.

Not voting/voting for Ron Paul (or other canidate with no real chance at winning) doesn't get anything done either because one or the other is still getting elected. At least I can vote for who I think will do the least amount of damage to the country, which is why I will be voting. I have not figured out who for though.

I dislike the "fringe parties" just as much because they are generally for things that are against what current popular belief is (a lot of the time).

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Juddog
There should actually be 4 parties, for each of the 4 corners of political beliefs.

That would be disastrous and the more extreme would get elected.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Genx87
People only say this because they dont particularily like their own candidate. If you truely believe it then dont vote for either.

Not voting/voting for Ron Paul (or other canidate with no real chance at winning) doesn't get anything done either because one or the other is still getting elected. At least I can vote for who I think will do the least amount of damage to the country, which is why I will be voting. I have not figured out who for though.

I dislike the "fringe parties" just as much because they are generally for things that are against what current popular belief is (a lot of the time).

I dont really buy that argument either. If people took your advice and didnt vote for Ross Perot in 92, Clinton would only be known as a Presidential nominee. You will notice after that smackdown the republicans refocused and got their small govt shit together in 94.

If enough people didnt take your advice and voted in 3rd party candidates then the two big parties would have to listen or risk being replaced.

 

[Lemon law]

I do not think there are any real structural bars preventing the rise of a semi permanent three or more party system, but only the voters can really decide that. But our two party system does have its advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage is that a third party will a very small representation can gets its disproportionate say when its the swing vote that can empower either one or the other major much larger parties.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Tell them to vote third party, and they?ll tell you to stop wasting your vote.

It?s a simple matter of blackmail. Of entrapment. If you fail to support side A, then side B will win. Side B is the devil incarnate so unless you want the end of the world you have to vote for side A, forever.

It is astonishing how effective a two sided coin is. If people think you?re doing a poor job you just point to the other side. Yet as long as both sides favor government expansion then they have no real difference between them. The people get screwed either way. Yet the people can?t understand this. What we have here is an ancient strategy of taking the people and dividing them to fight amongst themselves.

How do you overcome divide and conquer? By realigning the sides and uniting under a new banner. Not as Republican or Democrat, but as the people against the party elite. All the R and D talk of ?change? and ?for the people? is to get ahead of this movement and step between you and the desire for change. Why does it work? All they do is point to the other side of government as the problem, and to themselves as salvation.

Yet the true problem isn?t the party elite. They would be powerless if the American people held American values. We sacrifice freedom for security. We sacrifice individual power in favor of government power. We hold our own Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights in contempt. We would have never allowed the current state of affairs if we believed in our own founding.

Yet what do we hear? That these are living documents meant to change with the times. That they are too old to be relevant. Yes, the Bill of Rights is ?too old? to be ?relevant?. The problem with America, is that we have not raised Americans. Too few people believe in our tenants now.

QFT

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Tell them to vote third party, and they?ll tell you to stop wasting your vote.

It?s a simple matter of blackmail. Of entrapment. If you fail to support side A, then side B will win. Side B is the devil incarnate so unless you want the end of the world you have to vote for side A, forever.

It is astonishing how effective a two sided coin is. If people think you?re doing a poor job you just point to the other side. Yet as long as both sides favor government expansion then they have no real difference between them. The people get screwed either way. Yet the people can?t understand this. What we have here is an ancient strategy of taking the people and dividing them to fight amongst themselves.

How do you overcome divide and conquer? By realigning the sides and uniting under a new banner. Not as Republican or Democrat, but as the people against the party elite. All the R and D talk of ?change? and ?for the people? is to get ahead of this movement and step between you and the desire for change. Why does it work? All they do is point to the other side of government as the problem, and to themselves as salvation.

Yet the true problem isn?t the party elite. They would be powerless if the American people held American values. We sacrifice freedom for security. We sacrifice individual power in favor of government power. We hold our own Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights in contempt. We would have never allowed the current state of affairs if we believed in our own founding.

Yet what do we hear? That these are living documents meant to change with the times. That they are too old to be relevant. Yes, the Bill of Rights is ?too old? to be ?relevant?. The problem with America, is that we have not raised Americans. Too few people believe in our tenants now.

QFT

Couldn't have said it better myself.

We could have better government if people weren't stupid. Duh?

All you ideological idiots think the same. You all diagnose the problem and have no answers that mean a thing. Always there's this if only this or if only that and there's no chance at all your if will be in any timely manner.

And to hear Jackass talk about others not believing in the Founding Fathers and knowing his cowardly reaction to Islam just makes me laugh.

There is only Obama this time who has any possibility of bringing meaningful change. The fools will vote third party and Republican.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What eskimospy said, but your thinking is very flawed. You call Obama a change from Bush. When you are headed off a cliff a change in course is mandatory. You're thinking is that it is better to drive off the cliff than maybe change direction and run into a wall. You are in fantasy land in your head.

There's no "maybe run into a wall" with Obama. It's still driving off a cliff. Lots of people shout about "change", and they're right, with Obama we will drive off a different cliff. The net result is identical, of course, but hey at least it's a "change", right?

Forgive me if I'm not enthusiastic.

The lesser of two evils is still evil and it is only an utterly defeated person without any hope remaining who would choose a lesser evil over even the tiniest chance of good.

ZV

 

[StageLeft]

I understand that we will never have somebody that truely is "of the people" and an "average American" be president. It just won't happen

It shouldn't happen. The average American doesn't know jack sh*t about anything beyond their immediate and pop culture. THAT, in fact, is why people choose between lesser of two evils, because the quality of the voting public is so dumbed down and incompetent that it lacks the critical skills necessary to choose good leadership.

 

[JTsyo]

Trouble though is that the political bias is measured on one axis (left to right). If you introduce a new party it'll have take votes from the other two. Whichever party is ideologically closer to the new party will lose more votes making the other the winner. By creating a new party you actually hurt you side of the issues since you'll split the vote. The only way for the third party to be formed successfully is if it can steal enough votes to actually win outright. Which is very unlikely since the voters are currently pretty loyal to their parties.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
I dislike the "fringe parties" just as much because they are generally for things that are against what current popular belief is (a lot of the time).

If a million people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing. If current popular belief is your chief arbiter of right and wrong then that really ought to be a sign that something is wrong.

Kierkegaard said it quite succinctly: "The crowd is untruth."

ZV

 

[Fern]

Why is it that we have to vote for the "lesser of two evils"?

At what point will the American public say enough with the only two parties in this country that have a shot at the presidency, and either have a 3rd party come into the picture or a "restructuring" of the two current parties?

Vote for whomever you want, there's a space on a ballot to write in any person you want.

I think it quite likely if we had a multi party system that there would still only be 2 (of the many parties) in the lead for the POTUS spot. Also if we had a multi-party system, it's almost certain tha the winner would gain office with far less than 50% of the people supporting them.

We'd have to ditch our system and adopt one like Canada's to make 3rd parties a real possibility IMO.

Fern

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
I dislike the "fringe parties" just as much because they are generally for things that are against what current popular belief is (a lot of the time).

If a million people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing. If current popular belief is your chief arbiter of right and wrong then that really ought to be a sign that something is wrong.

Kierkegaard said it quite succinctly: "The crowd is untruth."

ZV

No doubt, but I don't see a point to legalizing weed among other things that Ron Paul is for (his stance on the housing market for example is horrible, we cannot let it crumble even if they deserve it to).

 

[Svnla]

As an independent, I wish we have a "America First" party.

A party with common senses and LONG TERM solutions...ie..how to fix SS/Medicare/economy/etc. without the band-aid quick fixes/scare tactics/half truths from BOTH sides as they stand right now.

Too much lobbyist/greed/$$/self serving in polictics <on both sides>.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
I dislike the "fringe parties" just as much because they are generally for things that are against what current popular belief is (a lot of the time).

If a million people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing. If current popular belief is your chief arbiter of right and wrong then that really ought to be a sign that something is wrong.

Kierkegaard said it quite succinctly: "The crowd is untruth."

ZV

No doubt, but I don't see a point to legalizing weed among other things that Ron Paul is for (his stance on the housing market for example is horrible, we cannot let it crumble even if they deserve it to).

Saves money by not prosecuting the court cases or incarcerating the prisoners, frees up police resources, potentially opens up new tax revenue stream.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I have a political science degree.. and this is one thing I learned:

The two-party system's main goal is to stay in power. They do this by dividing the American people as evenly as possible. They pick and choose random issues devoid of any one left or right direction in politics to 'stand for' in order to convince the American public that each is the lesser of two evils..

How do the American people have any power at all? They cause a landslide victory for one single party that will force the other party to change for the better. OR, they vote for 3rd party in significant numbers. Significant numbers are less than one would think.

For example, if Democrats win the next election with 48.4% of the vote and Republicans lose with 47.9% of the vote and the Libertarian party gets 2% of the vote - enough to cover the entire margin of victory, the Republican party is forced to move in a libertarian direction (or more to the center to take direct Democrat votes).

If both 'fringe' parties get more than 1-2% of the vote, the Republicans and Democrats are forced to move apart. Right now, both parties are extremely centrist with very little difference between the two.. essentially, you are not making a choice if you pick either of the two main parties.

The only vote that does not count is the vote that is not cast. Voting for a 3rd party has more influence than you think. Not voting at all ensures your complete irrelevence.

Most insightful post in this thread.

Americans need to get over their pick-the-winner voting mentality. A vote for a third-party candidate sends a much stronger message than a vote for either Tweedle-Dum or Tweedle-Dumber.