Is voting for a third party even worth it?

I'll be honest, I'm sick of all the "Republican vs Democrat" malarky. It's not even about who will best run the country anymore, it's about whether that person is a Donkey or an Elephant. Now, how can we solve this problem? Easily, we have many other parties out there to vote for. I don't think the US was intended to have only two parties and thats it, but that's what it comes down to right now.

My question is: Is it even worth it to vote for a third party candidate? Is a vote for Nader, or the candidates from parties like the Constitution or Libertarian parties a wasted vote? I'm trying to figure that out right now. Neither of the candidates from the main parties look too good in my opinion. I want to vote for who I think will be the best for our country, and it seems that neither Bush nor Kerry are that person. So, I can vote for a third party candidate. But, a third party candidate will most probably not become president, so am I throwing my vote away?

I would say no, because I'm voting with my heart, and I'm using what American politics allows me to do. If we were intended to have only two parties, there would not even be other choices, so I think it's good that people look outside the box.

Do other people feel the same as me? Disagree? Is a vote for a third party candidate a waste of time? Or does it serve to uphold the politics and variety that make this country so great?

Another question that comes to mind is: Would it be better to not even vote at all?

Please don't let this thread turn into "Reps rule, Dems suck." I want to encourage intelligent discussion, not party bashing.

[Edited on 1-6-2004 by Faisca]

Originally posted by Faisca
I would say no, because I'm voting with my heart

That's right, and that's the best reason to do it. You're selling yourself out if you don't vote your heart or your conscious just because you think they won't win. A vote for a third party candidate is no more wasted than if you voted for the loser of the race. The more people that vote 3rd party, the more serious those candidates will be taken in the future.

Not voting isn't the answer either. Its true what they say "If you don't vote, then you voted for whoever won." If you feel strongly about not wanting a candidate to win, then you should vote for whoever is their competition, third party if you don't like either of them.

I am voting for a third party. I am voting for Michael Badnarik. The libertarian presidential canidate.

Do not simply vote for the lesser of two evils, when you do, you still have evil. And try to tell me that our country, in it's current state of health, is not looking evil.

I was also thinking about voting for Badnarik. The only thing is, I can't seem to find out specifics on how he plans to handle Iraq and the war on terror... But I guess more info about him will become available as time goes on.

Because I want George Walker Bush to win, I urge all left-wingers to vote for Nader or any other alternative. Thank you in advance.

Originally posted by 2012
Because I want George Walker Bush to win, I urge all left-wingers to vote for Nader or any other alternative. Thank you in advance.

Well it works the other way too... I've read a couple of articles that predict a lot of conservatives will vote for the Libertarian candidate instead of Bush, maybe enough to cause Kerry to win.

But see, this guy brings up a good point even if he didn't mean to. Is a vote for a third party candidate actually only a vote for Bush or Kerry? I like to think not, but it might be. I'm content with the fact that I placed my vote for the man I wanted to win, and if anyone else wins, I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Originally posted by Faisca
Is a vote for a third party candidate actually only a vote for Bush or Kerry?

That's assuming that you would have voted for the one you found least repugnant. The margin of victory will never be so close that if you had voted for one or the other it would have tipped the scales. Your idea of voting with your heart is the best way to go. By not voting for one of the two parties, you're expressing your voice against both of them. Voting for Kerry to spite Bush or vice versa is a wasted vote if you don't like the alternative either.

[Edited on 1-6-2004 by el_topo]

i'd vote third party too, simply to make a point that my vote matters. I don't think Bush or Kerry deserves my vote, so I'll go for Nader, and wasted vote or not, I'll be able to sleep at night knowing I made the best choice I could from the available lot.

maybe if enough people actually did it, more eyes will open for the future.

We've been living in a two party system since the mid-1800's, third parties are designed so they can't win. All they can really do is bring about some change in policies or laws, not much else.

Your vote isn't wasted, it's rather going to changes in governmental policies.

Originally posted by MrJingles
We've been living in a two party system since the mid-1800's, third parties are designed so they can't win.

Well that's a sad thought, isn't it? So much for having the American dream, and believing that anyone could be president. I know that it's not possible for just anyone to become president, based on money, prestige, power, secret societies, etc. But I don't like to think that it was "designed" that way...

I will be changing to the Liberatarian party. I have had enough of the 2 majors parties. Neither is doing much for the country or her citizens.
But I thought about this for a long time, before I came to this conclusion. I was worried about my vote being wasted. I really,really do not want Kerry to get anywhere near the Whitehouse,not even on the driveway. Unless he is being run over. So I was worried that if I vote Liberatarian it will take a vote away from Bush. But then I decided it is time for a change. Change will not happen over night. I think what needs to start happening is more people need to vote 3rd party. And either wake up the democrats and republicians,or do away with them. Maybe in the next ten years or so,we can reap the rewards of what we start today.

Reality being what it is, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush and a vote for Badnarik is a vote for Kerry - kinda bass-akwards in its own way.

I like the Libertarian platform but the votes are not there yet for national office so I am concentrating on electing local and state libertarians so a base can be built as well as a track record.

Originally posted by Phoenix
Reality being what it is, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush and a vote for Badnarik is a vote for Kerry - kinda bass-akwards in its own way.

I like the Libertarian platform but the votes are not there yet for national office so I am concentrating on electing local and state libertarians so a base can be built as well as a track record.

Yep, more than likely that is what I will do. Vote Liberatarian on everything except for the President. See how Liberatarins do with politics at the local. If they do well now,I see no reason why they cannot be a force in the future.

No, not in this election at the presidential level. Local? You have hands on opportunity to touch, hear &question the small fish - do so & do so frequently and with all candidates.
After the cancer is cut from America, we can get to the need for a 4th, 5th & 6th parties. But not with the Fundamentalists hold sway.

Originally posted by nyeff
I really,really do not want Kerry to get anywhere near the Whitehouse,not even on the driveway. Unless he is being run over.

So I was worried that if I vote Liberatarian it will take a vote away from Bush. But then I decided it is time for a change.

May I mention, WHO CARES IF KERRY WINS?

We'll have a Republican-controlled House, most likely Senate too, and a Democratic President.

A.K.A. Nothing will get done, and people think that's a bad thing?

The partisanship issue is overblown IMO.

We had Reagen Democrats and Clinton Republicans in droves. In fact, each party helped get the other elected in 80 and 92.

And don't say no Republicans voted for Clinton. They did. Many Free Trade fans still claim him as the best Republican President we've ever had.

Libertarians are a mixed bag in my opinion though. The ideology is great on an intellectual level. Fiscal responsibility and Civil Liberties! It's like the ACLU-Conservative party.

Sounds great, but I've not been impressed with it's most vocal proponents. Call them fanatical moderates if you will. More dangerous than any right or left winger. Many don't seem to have come to the party because it's right or has a vision or solution, but because of something they hate in their own party.

It's an angry party. A party that hates welfare and loves guns! Not exactly progressive. Not even about accomplishing anything. It's a party of ideology IMO. An anti-party.

What's the approriate tax rate to a Libertarian? LOWER. Whatever it is...LOWER. No forethought. No planning. All emotion. Grrrr.

That's fine as a statement vote. But as for anyone considering indy Nadar? I will hunt you down and kill you. Not kidding.

I just hate to see the splintering overall. I don't want either Kerry or Bush to win with less than 51% of the vote, which one will because of Nadar. It's not right.

I want a majority either way. The losers can shut up then for a change.

Sure I back Kerry, but I'm not looking for a win with 45 or 47%. I want a slam dunk. And I'd hope the same for Bush if he wins. Some form of consensus and unity by a majority party leading this nation. No more stealing the White House by default of abstainers and statement voters.

Originally posted by RANT
Libertarians are a mixed bag in my opinion though. The ideology is great on an intellectual level. Fiscal responsibility and Civil Liberties! It's like the ACLU-Conservative party.

Well as a Party member, thank you for the complement.

It's an angry party. A party that hates welfare and loves guns!

Not exactly progressive. Not even about accomplishing anything. It's a party of ideology IMO.

We proudly claim to be "the party of principle", but you have to admit, compared to the Demopublicans at least we stand for more then the almighty dollar.

What's the approriate tax rate to a Libertarian? LOWER. Whatever it is...LOWER. No forethought. No planning. All emotion. Grrrr.

Let me help show you the way...
by looking here.

I just hate to see the splintering overall. I don't want either Kerry or Bush to win with less than 51% of the vote, which one will because of Nadar. It's not right.

I want a majority either way. The losers can shut up then for a change.

Sure I back Kerry, but I'm not looking for a win with 45 or 47%. I want a slam dunk. And I'd hope the same for Bush if he wins. Some form of consensus and unity by a majority party leading this nation. No more stealing the White House by default of abstainers and statement voters.

Just a reminder, popular vote tally doesn't matter, it's called the Electoral College.

Any know where I can get Badnarik's platform? It's not on his presidential site.

Thanks

Two party systems, if you think about it, are inherently corrupt, since they must depend on deal-making, bribary, etc., to get anything done - and always with the same people. Dictatorships have one-party systems. Hidden dictatorships have two-party systems.

A three-party system is the first level that contains some hope of liberty for the people, since a healthy three-party systems tends to restrict legislation that is not broadly favored. Preferably there should be as many parties as possible, but citizens must be given a method by which their vote can actually be used the way they entended, rather than wasted in the current winner-take-all wastebasket.

The Constitution, a contract between those who wish to be the government and the citizens who hire them, has been broken too many times to count. Once any part of a contract is broken, it is ALL broken, and consequently the U.S. has no legal central government at all. Theoretically, the people must then legitimize those claiming to be the government by voting in their elections.

Unfortunately, NOT voting has lost its value. There are enough people now refusing to vote that it is absurd to say we have a legal government via any democratic process. Nonetheless, the monsters have not gone away.

Since it is not a football game upon which you have wagered money, there is certainly no point in trying to vote for "the winner". This buys you nothing, and the winner certainly is not going to do anything for you in return. You win nothing.

The only vote that has any meaning is a vote that accurately reflects your own personal conscience. Anything else is a waste of time, and not voting is simply silencing your own voice. Vote for any candidate that truthfully seems to support your own views. Even if he only gets your one single vote.



[Edited on 1-6-2004 by Strider]

I have been voting for the lesser partys for years now.......I USUALLY vote for the Green party.

I have not found a rep. or a dem. in 20 years I thought was worth MY vote.

YES YES.... I am harped on by friends and family, telling me I am just tossing my vote to the wind......BUT......I THINK IT MATTERS! I think it really matters, to have OTHER parties available to choose from, so I will be brave and cast my votes for them. They NEED more recognition, and the ONLY way to give them that, is by voting for them