Would you have voted for a third-party candidate last time you voted

[AreaCode707]

I ask because in the last election I voted third-party for a candidate for senate and I was amazed at the number of people who, upon finding this out, told me they would have done the same except they didn't think a non-Democrat/Republican candidate would get enough votes to even be a factor in the race. Well, if you'd VOTED for them, maybe they would have!

I think the polarized two-party system has been one of the largest factors in getting the country to it's current state. People won't vote their true principles because they don't believe their candidate can win, and they wind up voting a half-assed version of their principles (as represented by some candidate with enough schmooze and cash to get the backing of the Dems or Reps) who winds up not representing their views at all. And we're stuck with this because there's seemingly no way to incite a mass breaking of the cycle.

Agree/disagree?

 

[Steeplerot]

I would have voted third party in a heartbeat if I did not see the current regime as so dangerous to our future. Actually having a chance at winning is secondary imo.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I would have voted third party in a heartbeat if I did not see the current regime as so dangerous to our future. Actually having a chance at winning is secondary imo.

But the chance of winning is primary, if your goal is to overturn the current regime, right?

 

[Steeplerot]

I think putting idealism aside when a vote is so crucial is necessary, yes.

Hopefully we don't get another candidate dumped on us as bad as I foresaw bush to be again anytime soon, it was no easy choice to make past few times around but it was for the best.

 

[AreaCode707]

Dang, traffic in P&N seems to have really slowed down lately.

 

[daniel49]

depends on what his/her platform was. To just vote 3rd party for the sake of voting 3rd party is intellectually bankrupt in my opinion.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Sure, if the third party was socially moderate, fiscally conservative, pro-environment and free of extremism.

A party aligned with PETA, ELF, radical religion, rabid atheism, etc. then not a chance.

 

[HombrePequeno]

I did vote third party last election. I'm actually surprised the Libertarian Party Senatorial candidate Bruce Guthrie didn't get more votes here. Considering how liberal Washington is, you'd think people would pass on Cantwell considering how close her positions were to the Republican candidate (pro-Iraq war, pro-Patriot Act, etc.). Unfortunately Mr. Guthrie only got roughly 1% of the vote.

 

[Jaskalas]

For California Governor, I voted for the Democrat simply because I hate Arnold so greatly. He?s not a Republican even though he?s on our ticket and he has failed to stand up against our corrupt law makers.

If there was a third party candidate who was known by name, and who I supported ideologically, I certainly would have gone with them. Same holds true for the next Presidential election and other offices.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: daniel49
depends on what his/her platform was. To just vote 3rd party for the sake of voting 3rd party is intellectually bankrupt in my opinion.

Yup. Although at this point, really, what difference would it make?

Republicans spending money like there's no tomorrow...
Democrats touting national security and fiscal responsibility...
Dogs and cats living together... MASS HYSTERIA!

Washington is broken.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I did vote third party last election. I'm actually surprised the Libertarian Party Senatorial candidate Bruce Guthrie didn't get more votes here. Considering how liberal Washington is, you'd think people would pass on Cantwell considering how close her positions were to the Republican candidate (pro-Iraq war, pro-Patriot Act, etc.). Unfortunately Mr. Guthrie only got roughly 1% of the vote.

I voted for Guthrie.

 

[Craig234]

I only see third parties becoming viable one way, if a vote system is adopted which allows ranking of candidates.

Under that system, your second choice vote still counts if the first choice vote doesn't win.

It lets you vote for who you want most, without having to 'waste' a vote. It would greatly increase the vote for third parties.

Without that, all third parties can pretty much do is split the vote and elect the other side, like Ralph Nader did in one of the greatest crimes against humanity in decades.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I only see third parties becoming viable one way, if a vote system is adopted which allows ranking of candidates.

Under that system, your second choice vote still counts if the first choice vote doesn't win.

It lets you vote for who you want most, without having to 'waste' a vote. It would greatly increase the vote for third parties.

Without that, all third parties can pretty much do is split the vote and elect the other side, like Ralph Nader did in one of the greatest crimes against humanity in decades.

This is a damn good idea. :thumbsup:

 

[PrinceofWands]

I almost always vote for the candidate I think is best, third-party or not. The only exceptions were 2000, 2002, 2004 when I voted almost straight Dem to try and stop the neocon menace.

 

[Genx87]

I would have voted for a 3rd party candidate if there was one who had views I like.

 

[imported_Lothar]

The 3rd party candidate in Maryland was complete crap.
If we had some good ones like the ones from the midwest or Maine come over here, I wouldn't mind voting for them if they won't affect the person I don't want in office like the FL election 2000 debacle.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: HotChic
I ask because in the last election I voted third-party for a candidate for senate and I was amazed at the number of people who, upon finding this out, told me they would have done the same except they didn't think a non-Democrat/Republican candidate would get enough votes to even be a factor in the race. Well, if you'd VOTED for them, maybe they would have!

Tell that to the people in FL who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

Yes, I agree with your second paragraph.
At the moment, 3rd party don't do anything except siphon votes from other candidates.
It's a waste of time voting for them unless you live in Minnesota or Maine.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I almost always vote for the candidate I think is best, third-party or not. The only exceptions were 2000, 2002, 2004 when I voted almost straight Dem to try and stop the neocon menace.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: daniel49
depends on what his/her platform was. To just vote 3rd party for the sake of voting 3rd party is intellectually bankrupt in my opinion.

I wasn't suggesting that you do it just for the sake of voting third party; I'm more asking whether you believed in the platform of a candidate in the last election such that you would have preferred to vote third party at that time.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I did vote third party last election. I'm actually surprised the Libertarian Party Senatorial candidate Bruce Guthrie didn't get more votes here. Considering how liberal Washington is, you'd think people would pass on Cantwell considering how close her positions were to the Republican candidate (pro-Iraq war, pro-Patriot Act, etc.). Unfortunately Mr. Guthrie only got roughly 1% of the vote.

Same candidate I was talking about. I couldn't vote the Republican ticket because of his all out support stance on the patriot act.

 

[robphelan]

I voted Kinky

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I only see third parties becoming viable one way, if a vote system is adopted which allows ranking of candidates.

Under that system, your second choice vote still counts if the first choice vote doesn't win.

It lets you vote for who you want most, without having to 'waste' a vote. It would greatly increase the vote for third parties.

Without that, all third parties can pretty much do is split the vote and elect the other side, like Ralph Nader did in one of the greatest crimes against humanity in decades.

OMFG, you have like a thousand posts and this is the 1st one I agree completely with you. Oh wait, I just saw the "greatest crimes against humanity in decades" remark. OK, aside from that I agree with you. And for the reasons you articulate I have always been very reluctant to vote 3rd party, no matter how much I liked them.

With this two-party system I guess it would be fair to say that I vote "against" someone prolly more than I vote "for" someone. I.e., rarely get excited about candidate, so vote the lesser of two evils. Sad, really.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

I think this is an issue the right and I can perhaps agree on (Jaskalas and Fern are a good indication), since it's expanding democracy itself, whether you realize the truth about what policies are good for the nation or not.

I greatly regret having to say, by the way, that I made the huge mistake of voting for Nader over Gore in 2000. I'm just glad my state went for Gore anyway. We learn. I happily support Gore in 2008, though, at this point.

 

[dullard]

I've voted D, R, and 3rd party. But virtually all of my votes are for Ds. Why? Because none of them match my ideals perfectly. Even if you do vote 3rd party, you aren't voting for all of your principals because the 3rd party canidate will differ from you on at least some issues. I might as well vote for the one that most closely matches them AND can actually win.

The only real way to get someone in office that matches you perfectly is to run for office yourself. The next best bet is to choose the person who can win that will be as close to you as possible. The third place (and in a far distant 3rd) is to vote for someone close to you but who cannot win. In last place, don't vote.

 

[Vic]

For state office, I did vote for a 3rd party candidate this past election.