No third party candidate is going to win, why throw away your vote on one one?

Why throw away your vote? Do you want change in this country? Here's why to vote for a third party candidate. And, why not to be registered/devoted to a certain party. If everyone were to say, I'm for Bush or I'm for Kerry right now. Then we will be stuck with the change that it on the table. Which in my opinion isn't much. The America I see possible, is going to take more then just window dressing to get there. It is going to take radical positive changes, and we aren't even close yet.

So if 100% of the people made their decision at this point. There would be no point, in the candidate making any more campaign promises to the voters. Why commit yourself to something, you may not acheive, and be called a failure? It's not in their best interests. It is in their best interests to promise as little as possible, to sway the maximum amount of voters. That's why we have a two party monopoly. They have taken alot of the major issues already. (Though there are a few, they are afraid to touch like marijuana legalization.)

So for us as voters, it is in our best interests to stay non commited to either of the two major parties right now. It's our bargaining power, as we the people. "We aren't going to vote for you, until you do this for us".

As far as waisting a vote. Native Americans have a saying that was quoted in a song by Asia titled: Day's Like These (I feel Like I Can Change The World) Fitting I think, considering what we are talking about here. ;-) The saying is "true wisdom, only comes through pain." My point is, the only way to change the two party monopoly, is to vote third party. Follow the thought process here. We are at a unique point in history right now. Never before has your vote as an individual counted or meant more. Never before have the two parties been as fractured internally as they are right now. I.E. This is THE BEST time to vote for a third party candidate.

I for one, question the polls. I can not fathom, how they are even close to accurate. With the increase in minority voters reaching voting age, increase in legal naturalized immigrants able to vote. All of the different groups, that Bush has ticked off in his own party. The "fall out" of some of the religious right. Not to mention voters, or should I say sheeple, that have gotten a rude wake up call from this president. Their will definately be an increase in voters, that didn't vote before. They tend to be more liberal in nature as well. So can anyone explain, how this could possibly be a 50/50 split? Or even close to it? I think it is a flat out lie.

I also would debate weither people voting for third party candidates, lean towards Democrats. There are alot of Republicans, that are fed up with their party right now. The fiscal conservatives to name one. They probably aren't very happy with Bush either. They may vote third party as well. My last point would be this. The only way we are going to make major changes in this country. Is if we force it to happen. I choose to force it peacefully, through my vote.

What would happen, if 10% of voters voted for various third party candidates in this election? Bush could win, or Kerry may win. Right now I don't think there is a guarentee either way. It's like playing 52 card pick up the way it is right now. Fiscal conservatives aren't being represented by their party. Liberals aren't being represented by the Democrats. No one has an anti war stance of the two major parties. So there are alot of people out there, that have been abandoned by their own party right now. There are ALOT of votes out there, up for grabs. How any poll come close to predicting this election, is beyond me.

So I question wheither it actually is a waisted vote. I can guarentee if Bush wins again. That the Democrats will have to represent more people, in their party platform next time around. Is it our fault if Bush wins, or is it the Democrats fault? They could adopt a larger party platform today, tomorrow, next month. The point is, it is their choice not to represent these voters. So why should these groups, award Kerry or Bush with their vote? He chose not to represent them, not the other way around. If he is choosing not to represent them, why are they obligated to supoport him?

They aren't, and the only way for us (we the people). To force change in this country, is make the politicians represent us. The only way we can make them do that. Is NOT to give them our vote for nothing in return.
(Here's a random thought for your amusement. Polls to me right now, are more like gambling odds. It's a 50/50 chance for Kerry or Bush to win. Not that the people are split 50/50.)

What if a candidate like Bush or Kerry said they were going to leaglize marijuana for instance. Don't you think that would tip the scales just a tad? I can guarentee neither will make that choice, unless they had to. And, they don't have to, when everyone commits their vote to them. So we are screwing ourselves, by letting this continue to be a two party monopoly with our votes. Why do you think they are floating ideas like getting rid of the IRS etc.? It's to see how people respond. It's strategy to see if they pick up this platform, would it sway the elections in their favor.

Sorry, but I don't agree that it's a waisted vote. I see it as the possible solution to the problem,
Tom Sawyer

I see your point as well, however, it has to begin at the local elections, when we start putting these people into office and support (vote) them to higher positions.

A good majority of people are going to sit at home and ignore the election and just leave it up to fate (and responsible voters) and accept who wins.

Not all people are filled with the same passion you have to want a change.
They are not even slightly motivated and you can't get the voters out for the local elections. This is a sad thing.

For the most part, I agree with you.

To have an alternative party (not Republican/Democratic) gain momentum and become an equal player (in this election) would offer a chance for desperately needed changes to be a possibility.

On the other hand, it's really too late to try and educate the uneducatable to the extent where they are going to vote responsibly/their concious, much less get out of their funk and go vote.

Most candidates who eventually move up to the federal level start on city councels, as county commissioners, then state sentators or representatives. If you want to get a third party candidate into the federal system, you've got to move them up through the ranks.

I vote in every election. Whether it's for president or a school bond issue. I vote.

A wasted vote is one not cast.

I can't help but think that by going the 'lesser of two evils' path now that it will be a permenant scar on the 3rd parties who could one day make a difference here in america.

Ordinarilly, I'd agree, but I want Dubya out more than I want any other particular one in...even if it means putting a man like Kerry in there... I simply don't want Bush to have 4 more years to further his agenda....this election is too important to just count as a protest vote...

Originally posted by nathraq
[2. If a person nearly freezes to death walking 3.5 miles uphill in the snow both ways to work, then they either need to a) move, or b) sit in their house and feel sorry for themselves.

Now not once did I say anything about walking downhill or uphill, the walk home was by far the easiest it was mostly downhill.
Now let me get this straight, because I was willing to work and wanted to work and used one instance where I did nearly freeze to death due to no car and having to walk home in really bad weather (to point out so much for human charity, can't count on it) your suggestion is I should leave the home I have and owned almost at that time except for a few years payments and move, where to? If you read my post you would have saw that the whole country was in a recession and there were few jobs to be had. And why would I sat on my couch and take money from welfare, thats something my family has never done. I would prefer to work even if it means walking 3.5 miles to work and back home everyday rather than take money like that when I know by my doing so I am cutting the benefits of the elderly and the people who really are in dire straights.

Originally posted by goose

Now not once did I say anything about walking downhill or uphill, the walk home was by far the easiest it was mostly downhill.
Now let me get this straight, because I was willing to work and wanted to work and used one instance where I did nearly freeze to death due to no car and having to walk home in really bad weather (to point out so much for human charity, can't count on it) your suggestion is I should leave the home I have and owned almost at that time except for a few years payments and move, where to? If you read my post you would have saw that the whole country was in a recession and there were few jobs to be had. And why would I sat on my couch and take money from welfare, thats something my family has never done. I would prefer to work even if it means walking 3.5 miles to work and back home everyday rather than take money like that when I know by my doing so I am cutting the benefits of the elderly and the people who really are in dire straights.

I was being sarcastic about the uphill both way thing.

Even if the country is in a recession, there are always jobs to be had. If my family is hurting for food, money or shelter, by God I'll move to where I can find employment. Any major metro area has jobs available. Do day work, for heavens sake. Do odd jobs for cash money. Come to my beloved city of Chicago. You can find a job anywhere. What it pays, now that is another story. But it's work. And we have a transit system, so no more 3.5 mile road marches in negative 15 degree weather either.

Also, taking charity is not the same as welfare. People give to charities because they fell it is the right thing to do. I give to charities because I feel the little extra change that I might have left over after a hard weeks work, would do better for some homeless kid than for myself. There is no dishonor in taking charity. I would feel like more of a gump by taking welfare money.

You say you own your house? I still have 28 more years on my mortgage. If I feel that I get to the point financially, that I can no longer afford it, I'm putting it up for sale. It would be sad, but that is what I would do. I would take whatever little profits I could, and I would move into an apartment. If I lost my job, and couldn't find one in my area, I would move to where the jobs were. Wasn't that a trend in the 18 and early 19 hundreds? Didn't millions of foreigners leave their homelands for a better life, i.e more job opprotunities?

Mako0956,
It's hard to speak contrary, to a stunning Avitar such as you. ;-) I must say though, that I do not share your negative point of view. :-( So let's see if we can reach a middle ground here. I'll give you 25% of the non voting populous. We can call them the apathetic ones. You know, the ones that wouldn't vote if their lives depended on it. If you give me the other 25% of the non voting populous. I'll call them the dis-enfranchised. The ones who would vote, if someone would represent what was important to them. Until then, they are content with their protest non-vote. Fair enough? I don't buy that 100% of the non-voting populous, wouldn't vote period.

I have seen a big increase over the last 3 years, of people that didn't care about politics. Now taking an interest in international affairs, the election etc.. I believe it is because of all the political hot potatoes of the past. That are now in play in this election. Gay marraige, partial birth abortions, marijuana, IRS, you name it. The issues being discussed in the public, have never been so broad, far reaching, and out in the open. I will personally be shocked, if this election isn't bigger then any other election, or sporting event in our history for that matter. As far as how many people will be paying attention to the outcome, voter turnout etc..

I still need someone to convince me, that Bush isn't in BIG trouble. Is there anyone in the Republican party that he hasn't ticked off, besides the neocons? How many people were led astray by the evangelicals in 2000, that have now woken up. How many gay people are going to stick with Bush? Don't you think Cheney's public position on it, is to prevent them from abandoning the party? The fiscal concervatives are upset, you can go on and on. How could this possibly be a 50/50 split? My opinion, is that they want us to believe it is a 50/50 split, so we won't vote for a third party.

Can anyone give me a logical explaination, how this really is a horse race between Bush and Kerry. I would love to understand your point of view! How it is possible for Bush to actually get 50% of the vote. With all of the people in his own party ticked at him. Plus the growing voter ranks, that tend to vote liberal.

Tom Sawyer

Originally posted by TomSawyer
Mako0956,


Can anyone give me a logical explaination, how this really is a horse race between Bush and Kerry. I would love to understand your point of view! How it is possible for Bush to actually get 50% of the vote. With all of the people in his own party ticked at him. Plus the growing voter ranks, that tend to vote liberal.

Tom Sawyer

Polls if they can believed says they are pretty much running neck to neck.

I'm interested, but not really motivated to hunt down the stats for registered voters versus actual voter turnout at the moment.

The point I was trying to make was alot of people are disllusioned/disinterested and don't vote.

For alot of those who can vote, they do it to follow their party regardless of their "parties" stance on specific issues. I know, I work with people like this, they're out there. They are voting their party because they "have always been that party and their parents were that party". You can't tell them anything because they know it all. Therefore, they are uneducatable, stuck in their funk.

Originally posted by nathraq

Originally posted by goose

Now not once did I say anything about walking downhill or uphill, the walk home was by far the easiest it was mostly downhill.
Now let me get this straight, because I was willing to work and wanted to work and used one instance where I did nearly freeze to death due to no car and having to walk home in really bad weather (to point out so much for human charity, can't count on it) your suggestion is I should leave the home I have and owned almost at that time except for a few years payments and move, where to? If you read my post you would have saw that the whole country was in a recession and there were few jobs to be had. And why would I sat on my couch and take money from welfare, thats something my family has never done. I would prefer to work even if it means walking 3.5 miles to work and back home everyday rather than take money like that when I know by my doing so I am cutting the benefits of the elderly and the people who really are in dire straights.

I was being sarcastic about the uphill both way thing.

Even if the country is in a recession, there are always jobs to be had. If my family is hurting for food, money or shelter, by God I'll move to where I can find employment. Any major metro area has jobs available. Do day work, for heavens sake. Do odd jobs for cash money. Come to my beloved city of Chicago. You can find a job anywhere. What it pays, now that is another story. But it's work. And we have a transit system, so no more 3.5 mile road marches in negative 15 degree weather either.

Also, taking charity is not the same as welfare. People give to charities because they fell it is the right thing to do. I give to charities because I feel the little extra change that I might have left over after a hard weeks work, would do better for some homeless kid than for myself. There is no dishonor in taking charity. I would feel like more of a gump by taking welfare money.

You say you own your house? I still have 28 more years on my mortgage. If I feel that I get to the point financially, that I can no longer afford it, I'm putting it up for sale. It would be sad, but that is what I would do. I would take whatever little profits I could, and I would move into an apartment. If I lost my job, and couldn't find one in my area, I would move to where the jobs were. Wasn't that a trend in the 18 and early 19 hundreds? Didn't millions of foreigners leave their homelands for a better life, i.e more job opprotunities?

In my first post I was speaking of a recession way back in the dark ages. I no longer work due to ill health, hubby and son both work. We live in the country and can't imagine living in Chicago , thanks for the invite, the transit system sounds great. Why do you have a 28 year mortgage? If you have it redone and change it to a 15 year mortage it will only go up a little bit but you will save yourself thousands of dollars plus own the property 15 years sooner. Even if you think I'm crazy call and check on it, we once had a banker who showed us for 75.00 more a month we would own it quicker and save ourselves 15 years of payments. Hope you don't mind the info on the mortgage you probably already know it but thought I would add it in case you did not.

Originally posted by goose

In my first post I was speaking of a recession way back in the dark ages. I no longer work due to ill health, hubby and son both work. We live in the country and can't imagine living in Chicago , thanks for the invite, the transit system sounds great. Why do you have a 28 year mortgage? If you have it redone and change it to a 15 year mortage it will only go up a little bit but you will save yourself thousands of dollars plus own the property 15 years sooner. Even if you think I'm crazy call and check on it, we once had a banker who showed us for 75.00 more a month we would own it quicker and save ourselves 15 years of payments. Hope you don't mind the info on the mortgage you probably already know it but thought I would add it in case you did not.

Thanks for the info. I have a 30 year mortgage, but I have 28 years left on it. I looked into refinancing for a 15 year mortgage, and am still considering it.

You seem really nice, and sorry for being so sarcastic with you.

Originally posted by mako0956
Endorsing a third party for "future Presidential Election Campaign Funds" isn't rectifying the situation of this country's quagmire right now or helping bring our guys home safely from Iraq.

Neither is voting for tweedle dumb or tweedle dumber

Voting for either of them is TRULY wasting your vote because NOTHING will change.

But yall go ahead and believe the con the rest of us will fight for a real change even if its 10-20 years down the road.

Every year will be "not the time" we have them running scared or they would not be forcing people not to mention the Libertarian Party on the oriley show, etc

Maybe not today

But the greatest journey starts with a single step not someone sitting on the couch pissing and moaning that they will never make it

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by mako0956
Endorsing a third party for "future Presidential Election Campaign Funds" isn't rectifying the situation of this country's quagmire right now or helping bring our guys home safely from Iraq.

Neither is voting for tweedle dumb or tweedle dumber

Voting for either of them is TRULY wasting your vote because NOTHING will change.

But yall go ahead and believe the con the rest of us will fight for a real change even if its 10-20 years down the road.

Every year will be "not the time" we have them running scared or they would not be forcing people not to mention the Libertarian Party on the oriley show, etc

Maybe not today

But the greatest journey starts with a single step not someone sitting on the couch pissing and moaning that they will never make it

Amuk~

You can't wait two or three months before an election and expect to get the majority of voters to be persuaded to vote for a candidate who would be willing to straighten things out and possibly, be the better elected official.

These two parties have had their stronghold on these elections for years.

They will continue to be the dominating parties until third party candidates are voted in local governments and become more numerous in number.

How do we accomplish this? By raising awareness and fighting ignorance & apathy on a daily basis, not just during an election year.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this isn't going to be in time for this election.


**Like Gazrok says, I want Bush out more than I want anyone else in.
According to the polls, Kerry is the man who stands the best chance of defeating Bush in November. Sorry you disagree.

mako

[edit on 27-8-2004 by mako0956]

Originally posted by nathraq

Originally posted by goose

In my first post I was speaking of a recession way back in the dark ages. I no longer work due to ill health, hubby and son both work. We live in the country and can't imagine living in Chicago , thanks for the invite, the transit system sounds great. Why do you have a 28 year mortgage? If you have it redone and change it to a 15 year mortage it will only go up a little bit but you will save yourself thousands of dollars plus own the property 15 years sooner. Even if you think I'm crazy call and check on it, we once had a banker who showed us for 75.00 more a month we would own it quicker and save ourselves 15 years of payments. Hope you don't mind the info on the mortgage you probably already know it but thought I would add it in case you did not.

Thanks for the info. I have a 30 year mortgage, but I have 28 years left on it. I looked into refinancing for a 15 year mortgage, and am still considering it.

You seem really nice, and sorry for being so sarcastic with you.

No problem, discussing politics can make us all a little sarcastic sometimes.

I dont expect it to.

But to be blunt I would rather wipe my ass with my vote than give it to either Kerry or Bush

That's your option.

I would rather vote Kerry IN and Bush OUT, than sit around wiping my @$$ with my vote! (Besides, those ballots cards are a little stiff)

Originally posted by mako0956
That's your option.

I would rather vote Kerry IN and Bush OUT, than sit around wiping my @$$ with my vote! (Besides, those ballots cards are a little stiff)

Badnarik vows to get softer ballots

Now, how can I turn down a man with soft ballots?

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by mako0956
Endorsing a third party for "future Presidential Election Campaign Funds" isn't rectifying the situation of this country's quagmire right now or helping bring our guys home safely from Iraq.

Neither is voting for tweedle dumb or tweedle dumber

Voting for either of them is TRULY wasting your vote because NOTHING will change.

But yall go ahead and believe the con the rest of us will fight for a real change even if its 10-20 years down the road.

Every year will be "not the time" we have them running scared or they would not be forcing people not to mention the Libertarian Party on the oriley show, etc

Maybe not today

But the greatest journey starts with a single step not someone sitting on the couch pissing and moaning that they will never make it

I'm not totally against some of the things listed by the libertarian party like legalizing drugs (especially marijuana, no I don't toke but if it were legal I might) and emptying out our prisons for people there on drug only charges. I could see doing this it would help our farmers have a legal cash crop and the money that we would reap in taxes would be enough probably to give us all a health care programs similar to Canada's. Right now there are I think 43 million of us American's without health care, the number of Americans living in poverty has went up in Bush's term 1.3 million. Someone once said we can remodel the house later, we have got to keep it long enough to remodel it or something like that. Bush is destroying our way of life, the dificit is outrageous do you know we owe China and Japan all this borrowed money, my point is, its not a question of changing the things the libertarian party wants its a question of the US being here the 20 years or so down the line to do it.

Originally posted by goose
Bush is destroying our way of life, the dificit is outrageous do you know we owe China and Japan all this borrowed money, my point is, its not a question of changing the things the libertarian party wants its a question of the US being here the 20 years or so down the line to do it.

And do you HONESTLY think Kerry is any different?

This is the con you are fed every 4 years, one side will rape you till you are sore enough to give the other side a turn.

The Joke is there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two