Would you vote third party if you thought they could win?

Do any of you think it is a wasted vote, especially in the state our country is in right now? Bush or Kerry is going to win, there's no doubt about that. And the state of the world and our country right now is quite shaky. So should we be focused on voting who will better protect our country now, or who will best protect our country in the future? This is the only dilemma I have when I think about voting for a third party. Do I vote for a guy who is definitely not going to win, but eventually his party will become bigger? Or do I vote for a guy who has a good chance of winning and protecting us right now?

Originally posted by Faisca
Do I vote for a guy who is definitely not going to win, but eventually his party will become bigger? Or do I vote for a guy who has a good chance of winning and protecting us right now?

Let me answer that question with another question: do you think it really matters whether Bush or Kerry gets elected? Sure, there will be some minor changes domestically, but in the grand scheme, it doesn't matter. We'll stay in Iraq, we'll stay in Afghanistan, DHS will get bigger, intelligence agencies will still have issues, and this country will move forward on pretty shaky ground. Vote your principles; if you don't, THEN you are wasting your vote.

I think at the core of most of us in the US lies the burning desire of true democracy, something we don't have and people on the left and right are trying to find those words that will speak to their hearts... Why should you have to search when it's right in front of your face?? The answer lies in the third party.

The third party that will most likely become mainstream is libertarian.
Our basic desires lie within that party. It's everything the dnc and gop pretend to be and in the big picture their both the same.

The libertarian leader isn't getting much press, he's not getting corporate funding or rich people to boost him up, he's been doing it on his own, there is a thread in ats I think intelgurl posted it back a month ago about the libertarian party.

That's as honest as it gets, then populist but thats another party that hasn't got many heads turning.
Libertarian needs to shown to more people, and more people need to see that many Americans believe in that party over dnc and gop leaders.
That's where our hearts belong... I'm pretty sure of that.

[edit on 28-7-2004 by TrueLies]

I'm sure many will think it is a wasted vote, but I can't in good concience vote for either the Republicans or the Democrats anymore. All they stand for when you look deep is their own power, their own control and the effort to propigate it.

I'd still vote for Bush over Kerry if they were the only choices, but I'm voting for Michael Badnarick, instead.

Just some info on Badnark here click

If you click the blue lines it will talk about libertarian party ect...

Anyways his issues are on there...

Very interesting...

I just love how they are traditional freedom fighters..

Many reject libertarian party over the drug stance... like my husband... grr, but anyway, if you are to have freedom of speech, truly free civil liberties then you must also believe the drug thing goes hand in hand with true freedom.
It's a double standard if you don't. I don't like druggies, but if they aren't knocking on my door or bringing it around me i'm fine, just keep it to yourself like the gays do in their bedrooms.. I'm all for it...

I stayed away from the Libertarians because of the prostitution and drug stances for a long time.

But, Michael Badnarick has me up in arms. I love him so far. I am reserving judgement on who I will vote for, but Mike is looking to be the best so far.

I hope he will be on the ballet here in Va.

It's odd, I'm a disenfranchised Republican and I might vote Libertarian. I know Amuk will want to kiss me...



Maybe not.

Let me show you something about 3rd parties.

Ed Thompson, in 2002 ran for Wisconsin Governor, polls bearly had him listed, he had several radio ads, but not as much as a DemoPublican of course.

Ed Thompson was defeated by the polls, plain and simple, people didn't think he could win so they voted else where (the race was supposedly a dead heat between Democrats and Republicans) And even after that, he had roughly 11% of the popular vote. For detailed info read the post-election polls.

So to answer the question is, yes, I would vote for third-party candidate if they could win; however, i'm going to do it either way.

VOTE IN 2004!

Hey Jethro

I told you you were a closet Libertarian.....

I have another thread where Bill O"Reilly refuses to debate him

www.badnarik.org...


The media REFUSES to give the Libertarians a reasonable share of coverage.

You can sign your name for this petition here: opendebates.org...

Hope this gets the ball rolling their's already 8358 who signed it

We believe that the presidential debates should serve the American people first, not political parties. We support replacing the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates with the nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission, so that inspiring formats can be employed, pressing national issues can be addressed, and popular independent and third party candidates can be included.


Badnark's website: www.badnarik.org...

[edit on 28-7-2004 by TrueLies]

Also AMUK

Looks like he's going to Arkansas!TOMORROW ... Better get your butt over there, here's his calender of events!

www.badnarik.org...

[edit on 28-7-2004 by TrueLies]

Although I'm very new around here, I must say that I'm tickled to find so many Libertarians, to whom I'll most likely be giving my support to this year.

I've voted Third Party in the last 2 presidential elections, and probably would have voted for Perot in '92 if he hadn't dropped out and rejoined late in the game. Perot was an amazing success story in terms of 3rd party politics. If only there was a chance Badnark could connect with the larger population in the same way Perot did.

Bring out the pie charts!

Originally posted by TrueLies
Also AMUK

Looks like he's going to Arkansas!TOMORROW ... Better get your butt over there, here's his calender of events!

www.badnarik.org...

[edit on 28-7-2004 by TrueLies]

I know but as luck would have it I work that day

Originally posted by Amuk


I know but as luck would have it I work that day

Two words, sick day.

I've emailed the campaign manager to come to MI, I don't know if they would but with the ats meet up near detroit I told him I would send leaflets out around my county and around the detroit area to grab people's attention and maybe just maybe they could come to the area.
who knows... I also sent him a link to this thread so that they could see there are many people out there supporting LP.

Though far less hypothetical, would you vote for a third party if you KNEW that meant Bush would win, three new neo-con Supreme Court justices would be appointed for life, abortion and stem cell research would be kissed away for decades to come, and your vote of concious made women seeking soverignty over their bodies criminals and ensured the continued unnecessary suffering of milions of diseased Americans?

Originally posted by RANT
Though far less hypothetical, would you vote for a third party if you KNEW that meant Bush would win, three new neo-con Supreme Court justices would be appointed for life, abortion and stem cell research would be kissed away for decades to come, and your vote of concious made women seeking soverignty over their bodies criminals and ensured the continued unnecessary suffering of milions of diseased Americans?

Yes, when knowing seeing my vote and the votes of our other Libertarians would encourage more to stand up and take back our country. If I have to give up an immedite BS quick fix for a long term solution then

Yes I would

I dont see Kerry as any better both are just two sides to the same coin.

Both offer band-aids to gushing wounds if you know what I mean, the ONLY way you are gonna see any REAL change is to vote BOTH parties out of office.

Originally posted by RANT
Though far less hypothetical, would you vote for a third party if you KNEW that meant Bush would win, three new neo-con Supreme Court justices would be appointed for life, abortion and stem cell research would be kissed away for decades to come, and your vote of concious made women seeking soverignty over their bodies criminals and ensured the continued unnecessary suffering of milions of diseased Americans?

Rant, that is the thinking that is keeping your country in the dark ages of politics. That is also the thinking that keeps people from voting their conscience. 3rd parties are already disadvantaged, they have little access to public air time. It's set up that way so that Big Business, no matter who gets in, will still have a "pal" in gov't.

Originally posted by RANT
Though far less hypothetical, would you vote for a third party if you KNEW that meant Bush would win, three new neo-con Supreme Court justices would be appointed for life, abortion and stem cell research would be kissed away for decades to come, and your vote of concious made women seeking soverignty over their bodies criminals and ensured the continued unnecessary suffering of milions of diseased Americans?

Yes. But only because i live in Massachusettes, and even if the 49 other states were red on that map, I would bet my life that we would still be painted blue.

That being said, i'm voting Libertarian for my first election in November.

This year after seeing the corporate war in Iraq.. I will be voting for Socialist party.

It does indeed put a message saying that not everyone will vote for the komedy krew known as Democrat/Republicans who never discuss the real issues which affect people. All they do is bash the candidates and talk about there personal lives but never about issues that affect the citizens.

[edit on 28-7-2004 by RedOctober90]

Originally posted by TheLiLBeam

Originally posted by RANT
Though far less hypothetical, would you vote for a third party if you KNEW that meant Bush would win, three new neo-con Supreme Court justices would be appointed for life, abortion and stem cell research would be kissed away for decades to come, and your vote of concious made women seeking soverignty over their bodies criminals and ensured the continued unnecessary suffering of milions of diseased Americans?

Yes. But only because i live in Massachusettes, and even if the 49 other states were red on that map, I would bet my life that we would still be painted blue.

That being said, i'm voting Libertarian for my first election in November.

An excellent point! It does matter where you live (unfortunatley). Nader (for example) has even asked that people in battle ground states vote for Kerry (though he says alot of things).

There are 18 battle grounds that will decide everything. It would be nice if people considered that when they vote. Sadly, my vote is already moot being in NC. I could vote for anyone, but my delegate will still vote Bush.

Hmmm, I wish trading votes was more organized between states. I could vote Badnerick or Nader and not help Bush. But somewhere else it will.