Nader/Badnarik: Do They Have a Chance?

What is your opinion? It seems like a lot of people I talk to complain about lack of options or choosing between "the lesser of two evils" for the upcoming election. When I mention that they have two other choices, they seem to brush it off as though it wasn�t a realistic possibility.

Now, I doubt the Green or Libertarian party will win the upcoming presidential election. But my question is why? Do you think that people don�t realize they have a choice, don�t support their ideas, or just don�t think they stand a chance, so why waste their vote? I tend to believe that is the third option, and can admit that I have taken that stance at one time or another.

Personally, I will be voting for Bush, but I don�t see why so many people have resigned themselves to the two party system that seems to be the status quo.

EDIT: Republican -> for Bush

[edit on 9/16/04 by para]

The problem is that people have an "Anybody but Bush" or a "We can't let Kerry into office so we need to vote for Bush" philosophy. I am voting for Badnarik and I know he will not be elected. I just want my voice to be heard and enough jerks like me are out there maybe, just maybe, people will start giving these 3rd party candidates another chance.

Well, personally, I would vote for Badnarik, but a vote for Badnarik is a vote for Bush, and, no offense to you, but I disagree with Bush policy, and would feel a lot safer if he was out of power. However, if I knew that Kerry could win this election without my vote, I would vote for Badnarik.

If Candidate A beats B, and if B beats C, does that mean A beats C?

A vote for Badnarik is a vote for Bush...

Let's say Bush gets 45% of the votes, Kerry 30%, and Badnarik 25%.

Why does Bush win? Sure, he got 45% favorable, but 55% voted against him. The majority of people don't want him in office, yet he wins anyway.

I want Nader to win. Or Badnarik. But it will never happen in our society.

Originally posted by RockerDom
Well, personally, I would vote for Badnarik, but a vote for Badnarik is a vote for Bush, and, no offense to you, but I disagree with Bush policy, and would feel a lot safer if he was out of power. However, if I knew that Kerry could win this election without my vote, I would vote for Badnarik.

Actually it seems Badnarik is swaying numerous conservatives and some liberals as well to vote for him. So it seems, a vote for Badnarik is a vote for Badnarik.

I�ve never really bought the �a vote for x is just a vote for y� thing. To me, a vote for Badnarik is a vote for Badnarik. It seems to me that the independents are resigned to failure as long as people think like this.

However, soothsayer brings up a good point. If you divide the opposition, a minority vote can still win. But this line of thinking supposes that Bush or Kerry will win the election regardless. As I said, I doubt that either Nader or Badnarik will win. But by not voting for them (if one of them is who you want as president), you only ensure it.

Originally posted by para
However, soothsayer brings up a good point.

It doesn't happen very often, so I try to enjoy it when I can!

Other than that, with regards to the opposition, divide and conquer! Yes, it does assume that one of the Big Two will win, which will happen. They have higher numbers for registered party members.

Originally posted by para
I�ve never really bought the �a vote for x is just a vote for y� thing. To me, a vote for Badnarik is a vote for Badnarik. It seems to me that the independents are resigned to failure as long as people think like this.

DING DING DING! We have a winner

If you really hate Bush and people like him...and our all-powerful two party system - then the biggest slap in the face and the greatest way to voice your opinion is to vote third party...the more people who do it each year the more chance we have of over-powering the idiots who run this country

I actually think a vote for Badnarik is a vote for Kerry and Nader is a vote for Bush. Neither has a chance to win but each has a chance to influence the election. Look at the hard left turn Kerry took in the primaries. He had to cater to Deaniacs, then move back towards the center after he won the primaries. With Nader around Kerry will have to appeal to them. Badnarik will no doubt have some republicans voting for him so Bush will want to snatch those votes up. And lets not forget the 2000 election when Gore cost Nader the election Buchanan surely took a few votes away from Bush too. So, they don't have a chance to win the election this time around but they'll play a part, and possibly build on their successes which may give them a real chance down the road. The reform party did so well in the past that they had even qualified for federal campaign funds

Originally posted by soothsayer
Yes, it does assume that one of the Big Two will win, which will happen. They have higher numbers for registered party members.

Agreed, but why? It seems like a perpetual cycle to me. People think that the independents can�t win, so the go for one of the big two. The more people that register because they think the independents can�t win, the stronger the big two become which weakens the image of the independents, which in turn attracts more voters to the Democratic/Republican parties.

I just can�t believe that majority of the population�s views can be represented with two people.

Originally posted by RockerDom
Well, personally, I would vote for Badnarik, but a vote for Badnarik is a vote for Bush, and, no offense to you, but I disagree with Bush policy, and would feel a lot safer if he was out of power. However, if I knew that Kerry could win this election without my vote, I would vote for Badnarik.

Acutually the Dems activated badnarik as a counter to the activation of nader.... Badnarik steals more votes from republicans than democrats. Im voting for badnarik , but i would just as soon vote for nader. no vote stealing here at least.

As long as we get a viable third party to get enough votes, the other two will start pandering to it to steal the votes back. its a start......

I have voted for the Libertarian candidate since I joined the LP in 1979 and volunteered on the 1980 Ed Clark campaign.

I don't know if they will ever win an election, but my vote is too important to throw away.

I consider the "liberals" and "conservatives" (as they are defined now) as simply two different sides of the same corporate fascist, welfare-warfare statist coin.

For me, the most important thing about governance theory is the amount of personal freedoms the citizen has. I believe that most people fall into two categories: those who want to tell you how to run your life and how to spend your money -- which include the Greens, Democrats, and Republicans....

...And those who don't, who comprise the Liberatians. If I consider freedom important (and I do) then voting for a Democrat, Republican, Naderite, or Green for President would be contrary to everything I've stood for.

In the long run, the more people who choose freedom, the better chance there is of the old parties getting away from their anti-freedom stances.

I don't know if I will ever live to see a truly free America, but all I can do is to vote my conscience with a serene mind.

On top of getting you're party's ideology out to the public, if you can get 5% of the popular vote you're party is eligible for federal election funds in the next election. While using federal funds is a distinctly un-Libertarian idea, sometimes you have to use the machine to fight it.

To answer the question, no, I realize Badnarik won't win, but I'm real interested to see how well he does. Libertarians seem to have much more support this election then last.

Also, I wouldn't be voting if it weren't for Badnarik. My vote has been stolen from no one, and a lot of Libertarians are the same way.

Wait till you see the Australian federal Election in October. The whole preference system and who you vote for can get confusing. You might be voting for the Greens for example, but the Greens most probably will give some votes to the Labor party because they have some common ground somewhere and have made a deal.

The Prohibition Party? Looks like they�re only on the ballot in Colorado.

Maybe it�s a good thing the independents don�t stand much of a chance...

I think the truth is that Nader and Badnarik, really aren't popular to win the election. The only way something like that could happen, would be a reallignment of the major parties, which has happened before. Imagine a Nader Vs. Badnarik election. If the right pressures the Republican party hard enough, and the left successfully pressures the Democrats hard enough it could happen. However, the parties stay away from that, because they don't think that will win the election.

For instance, if enough people support the Libertarian party, they could conceivably come to replace the Republican party as the party of the right, if their ideas truly work. However, if their ideas failed, they'd probably just adopt Republican doctrines. The thing is you have to be willing to work for the long term, and be ready to give some ground in the short term. Although, if you truly believe the two parties are the same, vote for Badnarik or Nader.

Originally posted by para
The Prohibition Party? Looks like they�re only on the ballot in Colorado.

Maybe it�s a good thing the independents don�t stand much of a chance...

There's the beginning of the problem for third parties. If it is a national election every state should have the same candidates on the ballot. Not the case. So the candidates of third parties are not even being considered by the entire country since they aren't even an option in some places.

There's something basically wrong with this. I don't know if the solution would be that if a candidate succeeds in getting on the ballot in a certain amount of states that they must appear in all states, or if they don't make it to the ballot in all states, they shouldn't appear anywhere. Either way, I just don't think the current system makes any sense at all.

Originally posted by Relentless
There's the beginning of the problem for third parties. If it is a national election every state should have the same candidates on the ballot. Not the case. So the candidates of third parties are not even being considered by the entire country since they aren't even an option in some places.

I agree with you 100%. If you are the candidate of a legitimate political party, I think you should be on that ballot in every state.

Of course this leaves the possibility of abuse via the definition a legitimate political party, but you get the idea.