It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is a Nader vote a wasted vote?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Okay, So I am having this debate with myself. I have never voted before, and I can't decide if a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a complete waste. I know I am not alone in saying that I am not particularly thrilled by John Kerry or George Bush. I hate the fact that there are only 2 realistic candidates. So I wonder what other people's thoughts are on the subject of third party candidates. Is it a waste of a vote or an important expression of discontent? Is it better to vote for the candidate you hate the least? Is it better not to vote at all?




posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 12:13 AM
link   
If you vote for nader of course it's wasting a vote he has no chance. The independents like you are gonna be the deciding factor in this election. Look at last election and how bush won by such a small percentage and gore would have won if not for nader. Those polled after voting for nader said they would have voted for gore if nader hadn't ran.

Who knows what naders up to anyways. I think hes secretly wanting bush to win or something. WHo knows.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Of course you should vote 3rd party, or just not vote at all. The way i see it, if you care about actually establishing a 3rd party for this polito-crap (which i dont, but this is hypothetical), you have an obligation to support the 3rd party regardless of how close the election could have been if you hadnt. Perhaps the democrats and republicans will field someone less repugnant (read: moderate) once they catch on that they are losing sway over a growing majority of the populance.

If you don't care about building a 3rd party, then you should vote for your preference. Let me put extra emphasis on this: you should vote for your preference. If people start giving their votes to a candidate just to punish the bigger ~ass, there is no incentive to be a bonified genuine candidate of the people. The only motivation is to become the lesser of two ~assholes in a competition of the CEO position of Slavery INC.

Maybe this is too idealistic, but frankly, both these guys are jokes.

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Cascadego]

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Cascadego]



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Simply put, we've endured undo duress with the Bush regime in power. Every indication clearly shows it to worsen.
While the American selection system needs to accomodate many more shades of gray than the founding fathers could have imagined, now is not the time to table that needed and ernest debate. Now is the time for the cancer to be removed, have sensible domestic & world policy brought back to American stewardship and come together so realistic dialouge is again the standard in our government apperatus - not the partisan thuggery favored by Republicans these days.
Rest assured, none of the above will occur in another Bush term, and splintering off 3rd party votes will ensure that second term. Again, vote Kerry.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   
While it's good to send the message, by voting for 3rd party candidates, and I agree with Cascadego's comments, this election will be close... Ask yourself one question, "Will I be kicking myself, if I vote for Nader, and Bush is just barely re-elected?" If the answer is yes, then I guess you know who you should vote for....

I'd wager that Bush money has gone to support the Nader effort (likely completely unknown to Nader). In fact, Bush would almost be a fool (yeah, I know), NOT to funnel money to the Nader campaign...



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   
They're all wasted votes...


Authority is an illusion in the mind of govenors - Lao Tse

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Voice_of Doom]



[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Voice_of Doom]



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I agree with Gazrok - if it's going to be as close as 4 years ago, voting for Nader will help ensure 4 more years of Halliburton...I mean Bush...

Also bear in mind that Rehnquist & O'Connor aren't
getting any younger...



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrStupid
I agree with Gazrok - if it's going to be as close as 4 years ago, voting for Nader will help ensure 4 more years of Halliburton...I mean Bush...


...You mean Skull and Bones, right? No matter who you vote for the same control force will be in the White House. I'm movin out of america, got any suggestions on where to go?



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Waisted vote? Depends on what you want. Is it more important to you that Nader is in office or that Bush is out of it?



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Vote Kerry or don't vote at all. Nader is a wasted vote. I know it. You know it. And most of all, Nader knows it. He is just doing this based on ego. If you vote Nader, you're actually voting Bush b/c he'll win if you vote Nader.

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Colonel]



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Vote who you want to win. It is not a waste of a vote to vote for Nader if you want Nader to win. Voting for someone because you think they have a better chance of winning is a bad reason to vote for that person. You should vote for the person you truly want to win.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Don't buy into that bull# about wasting a vote...if you agree with more of Nader's issues than Kerry or Bush, then vote Nader. You should vote for the candidate who best represents you, simple as that.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Vote your heart.

I wouldnt vote Nader but its just because I dont like his stand on most issues. The big two thrive on the lie that if you dont vote for one of them you waste your vote if enough people quit voting for the two THEN we might see some change if we just keep voting for one of the two peas in a pod that they offer us it will NEVER change.

As much as I would like to see Bush out of office in the long run we HAVE to break the monopoily that they have over the system or IMO we are doomed.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ilovepizza
Vote who you want to win. It is not a waste of a vote to vote for Nader if you want Nader to win. Voting for someone because you think they have a better chance of winning is a bad reason to vote for that person. You should vote for the person you truly want to win.




Anything else wouldnt be Democracy.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I am with Gazrok and Colonel, if you don't want Bush, vote Kerry, not Nader.

I agree that we need more than two dominant parties, but there is too much at stake at the moment. I really don't want to see Bush making any more decisions based on bad intelligence in the next term.

My little brother is in Iraq right now and I should not have to wonder everyday if the "intelligence" that sent him there was accurate or "sexed up."



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
The only wasted vote is a vote not cast.

There are way too many people who do not care, take the media for what they are worth, and don't vote to worry about the people voting for Nadder.



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Mind your principles and don't ever let anyone say you are wasting your vote. If you like Nader, he could use your help. I would hate to live in a county where only two people were allowed to run for president, even if 3rd parties are for the most part unsuccessful, I'm still glad they're there. No such thing as a wasted vote if they count it.
However, we really need Bush out, so that can wait for 2008. Vote Kerry.



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I certainly think that the "every vote counts" mentality has gone to # in this country.

The idea one man can make a difference is gone.

Anyone who tells you not to vote for someone who represents you, is asking you to defile your rights in lue of political vomit slogans like ABB (anybody but bush).

Anybody is not a #ing solution you twits.

What we need is a limit on government positions so we can get new blood in instead of these old crusty asshats we have become accustomed to.

I think the real problem, is that we have created a culture of "the lesser of two evils", and it has permeated our elections and our foreign policy for far too long.



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   
"Okay, So I am having this debate with myself. I have never voted before, and I can't decide if a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a complete waste. I know I am not alone in saying that I am not particularly thrilled by John Kerry or George Bush. I hate the fact that there are only 2 realistic candidates. So I wonder what other people's thoughts are on the subject of third party candidates. Is it a waste of a vote or an important expression of discontent? Is it better to vote for the candidate you hate the least? Is it better not to vote at all?"

You should always vote your true feelings. If you do anything less, you should be ashamed. If you think Ralph Nader is the best choice then absolutely you should vote for him. BTW, I hope you live in FL!



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
If the Democrats message is SO good, and the Bush administration is SO bad, then why are some of you guys insisting people not vote Nader, and vote for Kerry instead? Nader, who isn't running as a Green, will probably get less votes this time around, probably the same amount as Buchanan got in the last election.

So, I have to wonder, what are the democrats afraid of? I mean, I thought Bush sucks. Vote for whom ever you would like.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join