NationStates Jolt Archive

"A vote for Nader is a vote for [Bush]/[Kerry]/[Terrorists]"

Remember that shit? I do. I got lots of flak for even defending the concept that a person should be ABLE to vote for a third party candidate. Why? Because apparently, some people believe that you shouldn't vote for the candidate you feel best represents you, but rather the candidate most likely to win.

Is it just about winning? Doesn't matter about "democracy" or "representation," the goal of an election is to have voted for the winning side? And doing anything else is a waste?

Is this country really so vapidly competitive that to us, elections are nothing more than betting at the horse race?

Is voting for a third party, just the same as voting for the Reps or Dems? Should people not even vote for a third party candidate or even a less popular primary party candidate? Was a vote for Nader literally a vote for Bush?

Well, what do you think?

In my opinion you should campaign for the candidate who most closely represents your ideals among all options, but vote for the candidate who most closely represents your ideals among those who have a reasonable chance of winning. Otherwise you are essentially throwing away your vote. The idea that it's as good as voting for the opposition is clearly absurd, but the effect on the outcome of the election is the same as if you had not voted at all.

I think the value of voting for a 3rd party lies in the fact that it sends a message.

You're not "throwing your vote away" at all. You're sending a message. Every person who voted for Ross Perot was telling the Republicans that their candidate wasn't good enough. That sends a message. Every person who voted for Nader was sending the same message to the Democrats. Every person who voted for Buchanan sent the message to Republicans.

And so on and so on... What's the value of voting for a candidate who doesn't represent you? It forces the people to conform to the ideals of the candidates, rather than vice versa.

I think it's a great and wonderful thing that we're seeing so many non-mainstream candidates in these last few elections. May it continue forever.

Well, what do you think?
Kang: What are you going to do? You have a two-party system. You'll have to elect one of us [aliens that are going to enslave you].
Citizen: I'll just vote for a third party then!
Kodus: Sure, if you want to throw your vote away! *Chuckles*
...

Yeah, that Treehouse of Horror episode spelled it out real well.

Vote third party, one day one of them will be big enough to disrupt the whole system and force the american people to do something about our inflexible election process.

Oh and leaders make a difference by fostering change. Reps and Dems only protect themselves by holding change back.

The size of the bribe... I mean gift basket...

TO OP: It's all about pragmatism. I think your name is a reference to Trotsky, one of the cooler dudes history has produced. If it is and if you're a fan of Mr T, you should have a better understanding of pragmatism than most.

I mean, sure, you SHOULD be able to vote for a third party. But, realistically, it just takes a vote away from the mainstream candidate who is CLOSER to representing you. It's *incredibly* flawed, but we really need to work WITH the system rather than against it if we want to keep people like Bush or even Cameron out of office.

Horrendous, but hey, democracy aint the be all and end all.

And I realise I didn't properly answer the question, I just went for the general area I think you're talking about.

if you want to vote for someone who would be a good president, no 3rd party candidate is worth voting for no matter what their platform.

why?

a president with zero support in congress--because congress is made up of republicans and democrats only--doesnt have the power necessary to get congress to send him legislation that reflects his platform. his administration woud be a disaster.

you vote for a 3rd party to build the party or to send a message. you vote for a 3rd party when you would never vote for either major party candidate anyway. you vote for a 3rd party when you dont care which of the major party candidates actually wins.

you dont vote for a 3rd party because "ralph nader" would make a great president. he wouldnt.

you vote for a 3rd party to build the party or to send a message.

though it would be helpful if the damn dems would actually get the message...

And so on and so on... What's the value of voting for a candidate who doesn't represent you? It forces the people to conform to the ideals of the candidates, rather than vice versa.


Very well put.

I don't vote for people. I vote for parties.

Very well put.

Thank you. :)

I don't vote for people. I vote for parties.

Formal Dinner, or Costume?

Formal Dinner, or Costume?

Nobel, bitch.

I vote for whoever I think will clash with Congress the most. My idea of good government is gridlocked government, so if the majority party in Congress is one party, then I vote for the other (or third party if I really can't stomach the major party's candidate).

I vote for the political party that represents my views best. I don't care they're never in the government, the parties that are suck anyway and have the wrong priorities.

if you want to vote for someone who would be a good president, no 3rd party candidate is worth voting for no matter what their platform.

why?

a president with zero support in congress--because congress is made up of republicans and democrats only--doesnt have the power necessary to get congress to send him legislation that reflects his platform. his administration woud be a disaster.

you vote for a 3rd party to build the party or to send a message. you vote for a 3rd party when you would never vote for either major party candidate anyway. you vote for a 3rd party when you dont care which of the major party candidates actually wins.

you dont vote for a 3rd party because "ralph nader" would make a great president. he wouldnt.Couldn't Nader just veto the fuck out of everything that doesn't go with his platform while spelling out to congress what he would like to see. There would be a period where nothing gets done, but that is going to bite congress in the ass too, as they would face relection sooner. Eventually, congress would have to make legislation that appeals to Nader less it looks like dead weight.

Couldn't Nader just veto the fuck out of everything that doesn't go with his platform while spelling out to congress what he would like to see. There would be a period where nothing gets done, but that is going to bite congress in the ass too, as they would face relection sooner. Eventually, congress would have to make legislation that appeals to Nader less it looks like dead weight.

Congress can override the veto. And seeing as Nader would have next to nil support in congress, it wouldn't be too hard to overturn his vetoes.

I think the value of voting for a 3rd party lies in the fact that it sends a message.

You're not "throwing your vote away" at all. You're sending a message.


Ermm....

Congress can override the veto. And seeing as Nader would have next to nil support in congress, it wouldn't be too hard to overturn his vetoes.

don't be so sure. after all, as a third party candidate, he (or whomever) could actually get support from both sides since neither one could say "he's pushing a Rep/Dem agenda."


Me, I don't want a candidate with my values. mainly because I don't want my country run with my values. I would people live by my values because they want to, not because they have to.


So I vote for a candidate with ideals and values I can live with.

if you want to vote for someone who would be a good president, no 3rd party candidate is worth voting for no matter what their platform.

why?

a president with zero support in congress--because congress is made up of republicans and democrats only--doesnt have the power necessary to get congress to send him legislation that reflects his platform. his administration woud be a disaster.

you vote for a 3rd party to build the party or to send a message. you vote for a 3rd party when you would never vote for either major party candidate anyway. you vote for a 3rd party when you dont care which of the major party candidates actually wins.

you dont vote for a 3rd party because "ralph nader" would make a great president. he wouldnt.

I suspect members of Congress would line up behind predictable lines. Republicans would tend to work with a Constitution party President, Democrats would t end to work with a Green party President.

Now if you REALLY want to screw with Congress, elect yerself a nice Libertarian and watch them scramble...

If they eat babies, then its a good start. If they take it up the pooper, its even better. If they hate America, freedom, and love commie terrorist, then they have won my heart..

But seriously, I don't think I want to even vote anymore. I used to be so excited for voting, and then I realized that all politicians want are our votes, and they only favor certain positions that they think will give them the most votes. There is NO ONE willing to stand up for our views. There never was, and there never will be. And really, the issues are second place anymore. What matters the most is how popular, good looking, or wealthy a candidate is. I mean think about it, in the debates they are asking things like "what is your favorite show" or something. What the hell doe is have to do with the issues that are at stake? I don't give a damn what they do in their personal time, so long as they will go and be a great public SERVANT. But it is obvious that none of them are willing to do that. I'm really heading for the road of political apathy, which is sad, considering I am a political science major, who has been involved in politics since I was a wee little man.

Congress can override the veto. And seeing as Nader would have next to nil support in congress, it wouldn't be too hard to overturn his vetoes.Then why the fuck do you have a president?

Then why the fuck do you have a president?

So we can blame stuff on him. Here in the U.S. its *always* someone's fault.

In my opinion you should campaign for the candidate who most closely represents your ideals among all options, but vote for the candidate who most closely represents your ideals among those who have a reasonable chance of winning. Otherwise you are essentially throwing away your vote. The idea that it's as good as voting for the opposition is clearly absurd, but the effect on the outcome of the election is the same as if you had not voted at all.

Well put. The thing about a protest vote is that it does make an enormous amount of difference which party is in power. Not just the White House or Congress, but the power to control the entire Executive Branch and to make appointments to the Judiciary.

I think the value of voting for a 3rd party lies in the fact that it sends a message.

You're not "throwing your vote away" at all. You're sending a message. Every person who voted for Ross Perot was telling the Republicans that their candidate wasn't good enough. That sends a message. Every person who voted for Nader was sending the same message to the Democrats. Every person who voted for Buchanan sent the message to Republicans.

And so on and so on... What's the value of voting for a candidate who doesn't represent you? It forces the people to conform to the ideals of the candidates, rather than vice versa.

I think it's a great and wonderful thing that we're seeing so many non-mainstream candidates in these last few elections. May it continue forever.

So a Nader voter really should be more happy with Bush in the White House than Al Gore. I think that the things that Ralph Nader stood for suffered more under Bush than they would have under Gore. The Gore/Bush/Nader election is an excellent example of why one shouldn't waste ones vote on silly "protests" because it can cause a candidate you dislike the most to win the election.

if you want to vote for someone who would be a good president, no 3rd party candidate is worth voting for no matter what their platform.

why?

a president with zero support in congress--because congress is made up of republicans and democrats only--doesnt have the power necessary to get congress to send him legislation that reflects his platform. his administration woud be a disaster.

you vote for a 3rd party to build the party or to send a message. you vote for a 3rd party when you would never vote for either major party candidate anyway. you vote for a 3rd party when you dont care which of the major party candidates actually wins.

you dont vote for a 3rd party because "ralph nader" would make a great president. he wouldnt.

Excellent points.

Couldn't Nader just veto the fuck out of everything that doesn't go with his platform while spelling out to congress what he would like to see. There would be a period where nothing gets done, but that is going to bite congress in the ass too, as they would face relection sooner. Eventually, congress would have to make legislation that appeals to Nader less it looks like dead weight.

Nader would so do this, followed by confusing speeches of the significance of the constitutional right to the choice of veto, and why his legislation should be put to the floor instead, and what the hell is wrong with the progressive congress, and blah blah blah, all wrapped up with some dystopian remarks about corporations and consumerism.

So a Nader voter really should be more happy with Bush in the White House than Al Gore. I think that the things that Ralph Nader stood for suffered more under Bush than they would have under Gore. The Gore/Bush/Nader election is an excellent example of why one shouldn't waste ones vote on silly "protests" because it can cause a candidate you dislike the most to win the election.



Meh. You're just mad because your guy lost.

Would you make the same claims about Ross Perot in 1992?

The fact is, voting outside your beliefs to strategize someone into the White House is exactly the form of party politics that have put us in this rut in the first place. If (and I know this is idealistic) everybody actually DID vote their conscience, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Then why the fuck do you have a president?

Veto overriding is not as simply as Genoa paints it. It requires a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate, which normally doesn't happen. Presumably Genoa is saying that in this case it would happen more often because the two parties would gladly unite against a common enemy.

Of course I think that's bullshit. The two parties spend so much time fighting one another I don't think they even know how to work together anymore.

Well put. The thing about a protest vote is that it does make an enormous amount of difference which party is in power. Not just the White House or Congress, but the power to control the entire Executive Branch and to make appointments to the Judiciary.



So a Nader voter really should be more happy with Bush in the White House than Al Gore. I think that the things that Ralph Nader stood for suffered more under Bush than they would have under Gore. The Gore/Bush/Nader election is an excellent example of why one shouldn't waste ones vote on silly "protests" because it can cause a candidate you dislike the most to win the election.

The idea that one can "waste" a vote is ridiculous, you've only wasted it if you didn't go vote or voted for someone whose views you don't agree with. Did you equally waste your vote by voting for the status quo candidate even though he was going to win or lose without you? I think so, if his views didn't agree with your own. I think you can never waste your vote as long as you vote for who you think reflects your views best.

TO OP: It's all about pragmatism. I think your name is a reference to Trotsky, one of the cooler dudes history has produced. If it is and if you're a fan of Mr T, you should have a better understanding of pragmatism than most.

That's the first time anyone pointed out a connection between "Trostia" and Trotsky! Kind of makes me worried now. No, I'm not of his sociopolitical leanings at all. Pragmatism is good too, but...

I mean, sure, you SHOULD be able to vote for a third party. But, realistically, it just takes a vote away from the mainstream candidate who is CLOSER to representing you. It's *incredibly* flawed, but we really need to work WITH the system rather than against it if we want to keep people like Bush or even Cameron out of office.

The only reason the candidates are "mainstream" is because everyone thinks they are. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy and a vicious circle. The only way to break it is by NOT voting for "second best" or "somewhat less fucking evil," but for who you think represents you MOST. If everyone did that, we might get actual representatives.

Bush is out of office anyway though. I mean unless the conspiracy theorists are right and he pulls a Musharraf...

When I vote, I'll vote for the party/candidate that best suits my ideals, most likely Greens, regardless of what chance they have of winning. If every1 got rid of the "3rd party candidates don't stand a chance" mentality then they would stand a chance and there would fairer elections which better represented public opinion. if you want to vote for someone who would be a good president, no 3rd party candidate is worth voting for no matter what their platform.

why?

a president with zero support in congress--because congress is made up of republicans and democrats only--doesnt have the power necessary to get congress to send him legislation that reflects his platform. his administration woud be a disaster.

you vote for a 3rd party to build the party or to send a message. you vote for a 3rd party when you would never vote for either major party candidate anyway. you vote for a 3rd party when you dont care which of the major party candidates actually wins.

you dont vote for a 3rd party because "ralph nader" would make a great president. he wouldnt.But if people voted for 3rd party candidates in the Congress as well, then that wouldn't be a problem, would it?

Kang: What are you going to do? You have a two-party system. You'll have to elect one of us [aliens that are going to enslave you].
Citizen: I'll just vote for a third party then!
Kodus: Sure, if you want to throw your vote away! *Chuckles*
...

Yeah, that Treehouse of Horror episode spelled it out real well.too true

Veto overriding is not as simply as Genoa paints it. It requires a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate, which normally doesn't happen. Presumably Genoa is saying that in this case it would happen more often because the two parties would gladly unite against a common enemy.

Of course I think that's bullshit. The two parties spend so much time fighting one another I don't think they even know how to work together anymore.Arg. Your system is stupider than ours.

the NZ labour party had an election slogan a while back that went something like "make your vote count". I was absolutely appalled by the number of idiots who voted labour because they felt like their vote was wasted by voting for anyone but who was most likely to win.

Reason number 2,579 why democracy is nothing but rule by the slime who best confuses the idiots.

Honest people dont stand a chance of getting elected because the idiots cant seem to understand when someone is just pandering to them, or just playing on their ignorance. When was the last time a significant politician actually stood up for good economics?

Candidates just pander to the biases, misconceptions, and general ignorance of the voting public - just pander, pander, pander. Just face it people - democracy doesnt work. All men are created equal before the law, that doesnt mean all men are equally capable of making reasonable policy decisions. The 17th amendment was a dumb idea for this very reason - instead of having capable senators focused on good policy, we have senators spending all their time trying for good publicity and fundraising. Decisions are based more on potential campaign contributions and votes than good policy.

/rant

Arg. Your system is stupider than ours.

Well, I have to say that government-handpicked senators isn't a particularly bright idea. However, we have the electoral college, so we've made more than our fair share of silly decisions.

"Winning" and "Positions" are not the only considerations. There's also "Quality of the person you're electing." Example: I agree most of all the candidates with McCain on policy and feel he can win but frankly can't stand the man when he's speaking and don't feel like he really has any objective besides becoming the next POTUS. He was an officer of exceptional quality in Vietnam, but somehow he just doesn't seem to be that inspired today or something has been lost along the way. I'm sorry if anybody out there is fond of McCain, but I just can't help but sense something lacking when he speaks, and I think that which he is lacking is vision, real long-term vision.

Arg. Your system is stupider than ours.

It's not great, no, but then it was made over two hundred years ago and has barely changed at all since. It needs to modernize, really.

But if people voted for 3rd party candidates in the Congress as well, then that wouldn't be a problem, would it?


it certainly would. or wouldnt. whatever means that i agree with your point.

but no 3rd party is running anywhere near a full slate of congressional candidates. a few states here and there have one or sometimes 2 3rd party candidates for congress. until they reach out on the congressional level instead of just a presidential level they will continue to be irrelevant in US politics.

That's the first time anyone pointed out a connection between "Trostia" and Trotsky! Kind of makes me worried now. No, I'm not of his sociopolitical leanings at all.

Sorry, my mistake!
I had gathered that you were quite the Lefty (correct me if I'm wrong, I may have you confused with someone else) during my lurking time here, and, well, the shapes of the words are pretty similar, so I jumped to conclusions. :p


The only reason the candidates are "mainstream" is because everyone thinks they are. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy and a vicious circle. The only way to break it is by NOT voting for "second best" or "somewhat less fucking evil," but for who you think represents you MOST. If everyone did that, we might get actual representatives.

But the thing is, that's not really going to happen under the current flawed system. The entire political culture isn't going to change, there'd have to be a revolution (this is where you know who would come into things...) or huge event for that to happen.

So its taking a moral stand that'll lead to immoral results. Plus, there occasionally sizeable differences between the mainstream candidates- Gore v. Bush for example. I do believe that the world would be much better of had Ralph Nader not ran for the presidency, even if Mr Nader is someone I have alot of respect for.

See where I'm coming from?

Well, I have to say that government-handpicked senators isn't a particularly bright idea. However, we have the electoral college, so we've made more than our fair share of silly decisions.The point was to have the senators not be reduced to vote buying like the house. Maybe not the best implementation, but it is a rather minor issue. I was more talking about plurality in a system with strict party politics system. We keep plurality in order to have local representation, but your local rep has to vote with the party. Doesn't make sense at all.
It's not great, no, but then it was made over two hundred years ago and has barely changed at all since. It needs to modernize, really.I think most systems need modernization.

If the choice is between a candidate who totally agrees with me, but has no chance of winning, a candidate who mostly agrees with me who stands a good chance of winning, or a candidate who disagrees with me who stands a good chance of winning, I will vote for the second.

I'd rather get someone I like at least a little bit than vote for the candidate I like best and use up a vote that could have been used to prevent the guy I can't stand from winning.

Really, I'd like to have a proportionally representative Parliament instead of a first past the post congress. But I didn't design the system, I just have to deal with it.

I vote for whoever I think will clash with Congress the most. My idea of good government is gridlocked government, so if the majority party in Congress is one party, then I vote for the other (or third party if I really can't stomach the major party's candidate).

Now that you mention it, I like that idea too, beckause that way, it's harder for them to shove asinine laws down our throats.

lol :D

But seriously, I don't think I want to even vote anymore. I used to be so excited for voting, and then I realized that all politicians want are our votes, and they only favor certain positions that they think will give them the most votes. There is NO ONE willing to stand up for our views. There never was, and there never will be. And really, the issues are second place anymore. What matters the most is how popular, good looking, or wealthy a candidate is. I mean think about it, in the debates they are asking things like "what is your favorite show" or something. What the hell doe is have to do with the issues that are at stake? I don't give a damn what they do in their personal time, so long as they will go and be a great public SERVANT. But it is obvious that none of them are willing to do that. I'm really heading for the road of political apathy, which is sad, considering I am a political science major, who has been involved in politics since I was a wee little man.

/thread

Now that you mention it, I like that idea too, beckause that way, it's harder for them to shove asinine laws down our throats.

lol :D

But also harder to repeal asinine laws already in place!

I vote for the guy who is a Republican, and doesn't think it's a good idea to let people kill babies.

The point was to have the senators not be reduced to vote buying like the house. Maybe not the best implementation, but it is a rather minor issue. I was more talking about plurality in a system with strict party politics system. We keep plurality in order to have local representation, but your local rep has to vote with the party. Doesn't make sense at all.

I was under the impression that the legislatively-elected senators was to giver the states a voice in the federal government. After all, this is supposed to be a "federal" government. The lower divisions need a way to have a voice in the higher divisions.

Is voting for a third party, just the same as voting for the Reps or Dems? Should people not even vote for a third party candidate or even a less popular primary party candidate? Was a vote for Nader literally a vote for Bush?

Well, what do you think?

I already decided that I'm not voting for a Democrat or a Republican until they get their shit together...

...something tells me I'll be waiting a while. :rolleyes: :(

People who try to vote for the 'winning side' are missing the point. If everybody voted for the party that best represented their own views, rather than voting for the guy they thought was most likely to win (or most likely to usurp the guy who was most likely to win) or for the party that was most socially 'acceptable' (i.e. the one that your friends and family don't make fun of/get angry about), the political scene would be a lot more diverse and - hopefully - fairer.

it certainly would. or wouldnt. whatever means that i agree with your point.

but no 3rd party is running anywhere near a full slate of congressional candidates. a few states here and there have one or sometimes 2 3rd party candidates for congress. until they reach out on the congressional level instead of just a presidential level they will continue to be irrelevant in US politics.If people would start to vote more appropriate to their actual beliefs, hopefully they would also join parties more appropriate to their actual beliefs. Thus, if people gave up such a mentality, it would only be 4 years later max that you'd get a more diverse government. Unfortunately, the first clause of that sentence probly won't come about too soon.

I vote for the guy who is a Republican, and doesn't think it's a good idea to let people kill babies.I don't think there's many people who support the random murder of infants which is what I initially interpreted that as. However, I later realised you meant aborting foetuses which is a rather different matter.

But also harder to repeal asinine laws already in place!

How often does a bad law get repealed compared to bad laws being passed? I suggest that its very rare that a law is repealed, but another law is simply passed to counteract a portion of the first law. Then that new law is chocked full of riders and ammendments and other BS, making the whole deal actually worse. Nope, I like my government at an angry, finger-pointing standstill.

If everyone just voted for who they thought was most likely to win you'd eventually end up with only one viable political party.

The point was to have the senators not be reduced to vote buying like the house. Maybe not the best implementation, but it is a rather minor issue. I was more talking about plurality in a system with strict party politics system. We keep plurality in order to have local representation, but your local rep has to vote with the party. Doesn't make sense at all.
I think most systems need modernization.

I don't get it.