It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Is voting for a third party even worth it?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 11:33 PM

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


Sorry, I didn't make it quite clear on my post above yours. It's the, "by clicking here." link.

Badnarik's platform and opinions

posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 11:50 PM
The fact that the Libertarians are the Party of Principle is one reason the two socialist parties have fought such a long and vicious battle to destroy them. Following principle is pure blasphemy to socialists. Power can not be truly enjoyed if there are any external standards of behavior that must be observed, particularly the ultimate power which is to be free to murder at will.

The U.S. Government today is nothing but a vehicle for corruption of all types, and it his been that way for most of the last century. Imagine what it would be like to have lawmakers and executives that are bound by their personal beliefs to follow original American principles and say NO to anything that falls short!

Unfortunately, we are bound by a very basic natural law:

People always have the government they DESERVE.

If they ever get to the point where they deserve something else...

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 12:05 AM
I say... get rid of the party systems altogether. Why can't we vote for the best person to run for president? I'm sick of all these cliques, because technically, thats all the party system is: a bunch of cliques. Get the best person for the job, screw the party system. I'll vote for myself before I vote for any of the crackheads running the government today.

In fact, is it still possible to vote for yourself? I know you must be at least 35 years of age to run for president (and you must be a natural born citizen), but what are they gonna do, arrest you because you voted for yourself? I think there is probably more to it then that, but I'm sure you'd be listed as an "also ran." With the e-voting system now though, I'm not sure you'd be able to vote for yourself.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 12:24 AM
EmbryonicEssence, I think you've put your finger on the right spot. The party system was fine for a generation or two, but it certainly has not served us well. The problem, though, is that we still need some form of representative system to make things work.

I've begun to wonder if candidates could be seated in congress because they had some minimum number of certified supporters. We certainly have the computer power and internet to create such a system with relative ease. It should be so easy, in fact, that voters could switch their support to some other person every thirty days or so. Misbehaving leaders or reps could be out on their ass in a hurry!

Rather than have thousands of congressment (each meeting the minumum support) perhaps we could use proportional voting similar to that used in corporate board rooms. The guys with lots of support get to cast more votes. Democracy is served better by a method which does not leave the losing voters out in the cold.

This way we could have hundreds of parties to pick from, knowing that if "our" boys get minumum support at least our voices will be heard.

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by Strider]

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 12:52 AM
Thats the problem with your system, your led to believe that if you dont for for someone who has a chance of winning your vote is wasted. This is wrong. Look how much Nader shook the last election up, if everyone voted with their heart it would shake your political system up. Even if Bush or Kerry win, imagine if the vote was 45-35-20 (the 20 being a third party), hoe much would that wake your country up and tell the people there are alternatives. A vote for a third party is not a wasted vote as you are strenghtening those parties with every vote they recieve. The more you strenghten them the better chance they have of being a major player next time around.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by nyeff
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.

Isn't it really bad when people's votes are being steered by voting in a way to keep someone they don't want in the whitehouse out of there, instead of voting to get a person they want in the white house?

Or is it just me?

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 03:32 PM
LOL.....Yeah I guess it is backwards thinking. But in this case I can justify it. I do like a lot of the Liberatarian platforms. I don't think for a minute that most of what they say will really happen,but I could make for nice middle ground to work with. I just can't see any form of government abolishing taxes, but I bet they could get a flat tax. Same with the legalization of drugs,not likely they will be able too do away with all the anti drug laws, but it might speed up legalizing pot.
I would be happy with just a few positive changes in Washington. I feel like we have been running in circles for years now, and I am tired of my head spinning.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 01:12 PM
The only way a third-party system could truly function properly is
if there was, on any ballot, two votes:
one vote for the candidate of your choice,
and one vote against the candidate you really don't want to win.

This would open up the voting system to the point
where third-parties would be more than just a sideshow.

People like the Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik would stand a chance to make
a big difference in the status quo.

The Bush-Kerry ticket would no longer be the default outcome of an election.


new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in