Adrian.McKnight on 9/11/2006 at 05:48
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
Unless you're in Ron Paul's district, voting libertarian seems less likely to work than seceding and voting with a bullet.
Funny... This idea seems the most attractive and least reasonable to me.. simultaneously.
But seriously, think about it. The only reason 3rd parties don't win, even though everybody identifies with them more than either of the collective douche factories that run the country now, is because of the widespread belief that 3rd parties don't win.
Not voting for something everybody agrees with because nobody is going to vote for it is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.
The fact of the matter is that the more votes people "throw away" on third party candidates, the more valuable those votes become.
------
Ed.
I don't personally identify with libertarians. I am defending the third party vote in general. Just wanted to clarify
BlackErtai on 9/11/2006 at 06:09
Quote:
That's funny, see, because if you think about it, people who vote for the lesser of two evils just because other people are going to do it are the real fucking morons here.
It's people like you who voted for Nader in 2000 and got us into this mess to begin with. You lose.
On the overall topic: Yay 3rd parties, woo, woo, woo...whatever. Realistically speaking, trying to get a nationally elected third party representative (Senate, House, President) before having at least some semblance of a local party is crazy. I mean, really, start at the bottom and work your way up (and here I don't mean in 1 state. The Socialist Senator has so much company he's basically a Democrat, because his Socialist peers aren't anywhere near him in Washington. I wonder if a Libertarian who won would basically be counted as a Republican? Yes.). Don't get involved in the most important elections where you basically run as a spoiler for the majority party on your side in the important elections. Once you build up that local base, and have a reasonably successful nation-wide local party (i.e., you have more than 1 or 2 state legislators in each each state, plus possibly a Gov.-ship),
THEN you take a stab at national politics, beginning with Senate races, and once you've won afew of those, maybe a shot at a Presidential nomination. Otherwise, you're just wasting time & money.
Rug Burn Junky on 9/11/2006 at 06:10
Quote Posted by Adrian.McKnight
Funny... This idea seems the most attractive and least reasonable to me.. simultaneously.
But seriously, think about it. The only reason 3rd parties don't win, even though everybody identifies with them more than either of the collective douche factories that run the country now, is because of the widespread belief that 3rd parties don't win.
Not voting for something everybody agrees with because nobody is going to vote for it is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.
The fact of the matter is that the more votes people "throw away" on third party candidates, the more valuable those votes become.
------
Ed.
I don't personally identify with libertarians. I am defending the third party vote in general. Just wanted to clarify
(1) that's far from the only reason. (
see (2), infra)
(2) not everybody agrees with them (
see your own disclaimer, supra)
(3) in the past six years, only one of the douche factories has run anything. It is in that context that the third party voters are being criticized here. You need to have a viable second party before you worry about a third.
aguywhoplaysthief on 9/11/2006 at 07:02
The only reason I vote for third parties is because I want to contribute to pushing the percentage point up when the results come around. Hopefully, if enough people do the same, it will put enough pressure to let them into a debate, or get some media attention.
The only non-third party I voted for was McClintock for Lt. Governor (outside other small local elections), but that's because he's as close to my views as Republicans get, and he actually had a real chance to get elected this time
As far as politicians go, he a stand-up, principled guy. Every time that guy goes up for some sort of election in California, and every time he pushes for the same principles that totally don't reflect California at all, and every time he looses and goes back to his assembly or senate seat. Then, two years later, he's back again. Fucking fantastic - I love this guy more than any other politician.
demagogue on 9/11/2006 at 15:39
Quote Posted by Adrian.McKnight
The only reason 3rd parties don't win,
For the record, the theory of why third parties (almost) never win is (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law) Duverger's law.
- Single member for single district, plurality voting, Congress = 2 parties.
- Proportional seating by % vote, Parlaiment = multiple parties.
The reasoning is a mix of some psychological and some flat-out statistical barriers.
Sypha Nadon on 9/11/2006 at 16:39
Well, I can respect the idea of a third party, and I do think the system as it is now has flaws. And, though I'm registered as a democrat, I still classify myself politically as an independent (a fairly left-wing one at that). However, I'm also a realist. The fact of the matter is, this country needed to move past the Republican rule that has pretty much run it into the ground these last few years. We needed a change, and the third party just wasn't in a position to do that.
A co-worker and I were having a conversation on the elections yesterday and he told me that he was going to go back to voting Independent in 2008, once Bush is out of office. In some ways it reminded me of the ethical conflict I felt during the 2004 presedential election. I usually vote Green Party, but that year I picked John Kerry... Not because I liked the guy, not because I thought he'd do a real good job, mainly because I knew that if he got elected it would piss off all those annoying right-wing radio hosts/TV talking heads (a group of people which seems to have mushroomed in the last ten years or so). In some ways, I didn't have to worry about who to vote for this time, as Rhode Island had barely any independent candidates at all, so the choice was easy.
Anyway, yeah, I'm fairly pleased with how the election turned out. If anything, it's one in the eye for all those irritating smug right-wing writers who've been gloating the last few years about how the Republican party will be in control of the country permanently, how they're "painting the country red". These personalities would have you believe that the Democrats are out of touch with what the American people want... But it now appears that the majority of American People are sick and tired of what the Republicans have done to the country. So really, now it seems as if the Republicans are out of touch with America, and thus the tables have been turned. Which I find VERY satisfying. :cheeky:
TheGreatGodPan on 9/11/2006 at 19:20
Quote Posted by Stitch
Yeah, no worries there. I identify with many of the basic tenets of Libertarian philosophy but everyone I've ever actually met who labels themselves as one was batshit crazy, and their politicians are no exception.
What about Ron Paul? He ran for President as a Libertarian, and even though he's technically a republican he gets the "Ron Paul exception", which means the party doesn't even bother trying to get him to get him to vote in line with them.
*Zaccheus* on 9/11/2006 at 20:45
Democrats seal US Senate victory
:)
Jennie&Tim on 10/11/2006 at 02:32
Apparently the under-30's made a big difference in this election, turning out in high numbers for their group: (
http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN08342322.html)
Given that the young voters are more liberal on social issues, I think that's a sign for future times too.
aguywhoplaysthief on 10/11/2006 at 04:00
Yeah, but young people are always goofier than older voters. Sure, we can probably look forward to legalized gay marriage and pot in twenty years, but I wouldn't venture any futher than that with confidence.
