Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If you really want CHANGE- Vote 3rd party?

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Recently, I've subscribed to this notion that the bipartisanship of this country is the reason why it's in terrible shape. However, I wonder if a strong third or even fourth party would actually provide any solutions. I'm begininng to think that instead of splitting the country into two, it'll get divided into thirds!
edit on 21-9-2012 by Absoluttruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Just look at England if you want to see where it leads. I'm all for a 3rd party, but it's not the "be all end all" for politics. Electing people who aren't corrupt would be a start, but that won't happen. They've modified the Constitution too much, and have stripped State's Rights.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
if a significant number of voters voted 3rd party it would at least show that the 2 party system did not have the peoples mandate.

It would be more about making a statement than actual victory, it could give the parties pause as to what their platform is as well as giving a third party push for the following election.

The problem is none of the existing party's have the backing needed to pull it off, baring better leadership there, or a formation of an entirely new party I just don't see it happening

That being said I still will never vote any of the 2 major parties, ever again.

More from principle than anything else.
edit on 21-9-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 

Voting for the two parties isn't the problem. It's having two parties worth voting FOR that is the problem. After all, Ron Paul was and is an unapologetic Republican and of the Reagan variety. Kennedy was as deep blue Democrat as they came in his day.

I'd HAPPILY vote for either of those men, that represented either of the sides before it all became so extreme on everything that nothing worked anymore. People have to care, first....

Presidential Election Voter Turn Out // All Election Year Turn Out %'s

The Presidential years are bad enough but look...well... At least some people try. Look at the second set of numbers showing the off year........and keep in mind, our lives are run by the little people like City Council, State Representatives and Governors. All kinds of people run in those off years, too.


People have to at least try using the system before declaring it's broken.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by benrl
 

Voting for the two parties isn't the problem. It's having two parties worth voting FOR that is the problem. After all, Ron Paul was and is an unapologetic Republican and of the Reagan variety. Kennedy was as deep blue Democrat as they came in his day.

I'd HAPPILY vote for either of those men, that represented either of the sides before it all became so extreme on everything that nothing worked anymore. People have to care, first....

Presidential Election Voter Turn Out // All Election Year Turn Out %'s

The Presidential years are bad enough but look...well... At least some people try. Look at the second set of numbers showing the off year........and keep in mind, our lives are run by the little people like City Council, State Representatives and Governors. All kinds of people run in those off years, too.


People have to at least try using the system before declaring it's broken.


The two party system is broken, not the election system of a Representative democracy, the parties do not hold the public interest any longer.

In the absence of proper representation from the parties a third party is needed, no where did I advocate changing the systems, just changing dogs in the race.

That is however a big problem the 70% of eligible voters that sit on their ass and do not vote, the end result is the two party pandering to extremest on both ends.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by benrl
 

Voting for the two parties isn't the problem. It's having two parties worth voting FOR that is the problem. After all, Ron Paul was and is an unapologetic Republican and of the Reagan variety. Kennedy was as deep blue Democrat as they came in his day.

I'd HAPPILY vote for either of those men, that represented either of the sides before it all became so extreme on everything that nothing worked anymore. People have to care, first....

Presidential Election Voter Turn Out // All Election Year Turn Out %'s

The Presidential years are bad enough but look...well... At least some people try. Look at the second set of numbers showing the off year........and keep in mind, our lives are run by the little people like City Council, State Representatives and Governors. All kinds of people run in those off years, too.


People have to at least try using the system before declaring it's broken.


The two party system is broken, not the election system of a Representative democracy, the parties do not hold the public interest any longer.

In the absence of proper representation from the parties a third party is needed, no where did I advocate changing the systems, just changing dogs in the race.

That is however a big problem the 70% of eligible voters that sit on their ass and do not vote, the end result is the two party pandering to extremest on both ends.


“If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible reason to stay at home doing one-hitters and watching MTV on primary day. By all means stay home if you want, but don't bull# yourself that you're not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote.”


― David Foster Wallace, Up, Simba!
edit on 21-9-2012 by Absoluttruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Members of the Libertarian (3rd) party have an average IQ of 110. The average IQ of an American is 99. It is expected to go up to 110 within the next 200 years. That means its too early to vote third party. Give it another 100 years, then a third party becomes viable and people will be ready for Libertarianism.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Absoluttruth
 


Let's say for the sake of discussion that we the people did elect someone outside of the two party system.......

Would they actually be able to change ANYTHING? Let's say, they addressed the nation and told us how the elitest bankers and corporations have bought out the politicians of the world.......

Would anyone believe him/her?

Do you think the puppet masters who currently control the world, will just sit back and say, "Whoops! We are screwed now!"? Or do you think they would eliminate the threat to their well planned takeover?

Just look at how many people currently buy into the two party system. No matter how much information and facts they get to show how corrupt both side actually are and how much they are the same, people in droves still buy into the programming of how things should and WILL be! I see a lot of people waking up to the fact that our government is playing us against each other, but yet, at the same time, it amazes me as to how many people just won't allow their logical thinking to over ride their programming...(cognitive disonance).

It is an US versus THEM scenario, and even if we do get an honest politician who cannot be swayed to the criminal side of the elitest agenda, how long do you think it would last?

Who has the power of the military? (NATO) It surely isn't us serfs who are being put in the position of fighting for our lives is it?

Too many people are still trapped in the left/right paradigm for a third party to come close to working, as well as the power structure of those in charge of world affairs to make any damn difference in this feudalistic nightmare.

For ANY government to work, I would first say, that people need to awaken from their slumber and realize that as long as we are divided, the game of the elitests will just continue on..............................



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 

That's what I mean though. I'm almost 40 and never understood at a functional level, how the system really worked. It took the Ron Paul movement and that whole thing to step out, get the caucus 'training' session by the Paul people, as it happened, and then see it function to understand how it does operate and how easily we COULD change things.

Few, if anyone bothers to show up at a thing like a Caucus.....though that, right there, is where the decisions start that shape everything after. That is also the weakest part of the entire system from the insider's point of view for citizen numbers being the defining factor......and isn't it odd? ...it's the part most obscured and left to mystery for people to wonder about but NOT be a part of. Paul's campaign was the first to even encourage people to learn more than the name of the process......and EVERYONE should know how it works.


The parties suck because people.....regular people....stopped doing anything beyond showing up to punch a ballot once every 2-4 years, and even there, it's as low as 1/3rd and no higher than the 50's for % showing up then.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Its beyond being broken, its blatantly controlled by the same elite who advance the same agenda regardless of the puppet in office.

The problem is bigger than the 2-headed 1-Party system, its the individuals in the Party.

You have Ron Paul who comes along once every hundred years. A man who is incorruptible, who cant be influenced, who cant be pressured and who cant be bought. He has such a deep understanding of the issues, that hes been accurately warning about/predicting events for the last 30 years.

Problem with almost everyone else, if they dont "play ball" they will simply be replaced by someone who will.

First of all Ron Paul was a Medical Doctor, politics was not his career. Secondly, he had enough support from his district to guarantee that TPTB couldnt replace him.

Ron Paul was a God send (and I dont even really believe in God).

edit on 21-9-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


Unfortunately, there are too many new episodes of "The Kardashians", it's going to be a while before Americans wake up, and when they eventually do it may be too late.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by benrl
 

That's what I mean though. I'm almost 40 and never understood at a functional level, how the system really worked. It took the Ron Paul movement and that whole thing to step out, get the caucus 'training' session by the Paul people, as it happened, and then see it function to understand how it does operate and how easily we COULD change things.

Few, if anyone bothers to show up at a thing like a Caucus.....though that, right there, is where the decisions start that shape everything after. That is also the weakest part of the entire system from the insider's point of view for citizen numbers being the defining factor......and isn't it odd? ...it's the part most obscured and left to mystery for people to wonder about but NOT be a part of. Paul's campaign was the first to even encourage people to learn more than the name of the process......and EVERYONE should know how it works.


The parties suck because people.....regular people....stopped doing anything beyond showing up to punch a ballot once every 2-4 years, and even there, it's as low as 1/3rd and no higher than the 50's for % showing up then.




It's easier to complain than to actually try to do something about a problem.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Abolishing the Electoral College would be a step in the right direction. Voting third party only gives the incumbent the election at this point.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
First: We The People are Pissed! Gary Johnson 2012

That said, we have two choices essentially:

We can take the position that voting 3rd party is pointless and just go along with the status quo as they fully expect we will. And BTW, NOT voting is still voting status quo whether you like to believe that or not.

Or, we can vote tghird party in large enough numbers to essentially 'fire a shot across their bow' and place the corrupt 'evil twins' on notice.


Both parties have been engaged in a systematic, concerted effort to dismantle our Constitutional rights. Rather than DO anything about it, the majority spend their energy attacking/defending the very criminal, treasonous parties that are selling them out. Clueless or what?

We HAVE to do SOMETHING before it's too late.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 
The electoral college is the only thing keeping the Presidential election even half way honest and decent...and Half way really is stretching things.

If we do away with the electoral college and go by popular vote, we may as well just save the insanity and cost of the election process entirely for President and just see him appointed by the Senate or elected by them in a representation of the people. That is the NEXT closest thing to fair we could have.

Otherwise, the top 5-6 states for population are the only states a Presidential candidate need ever bother with. Get those voting rates to the 70-80% once seen in this country, long ago...and those few states would by popular vote, totally crush the opinions (and pure opinion is all it would be) of the smaller states. That's why the system was created way back at the start of the nation... Popular vote is mob rule in a Union of states....not Representative Government.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Even IF you vote 3rd party...it will change nothing. A few million voters for it is not enough to get rid of the status quo. And actually? It we speak for you and your opinion...but wont get counted...it will be a "lost" vote.

Of course voting 3rd party will make a statement...but your wrong to say "If you really want CHANGE..."..because it STILL wont make a difference between the 2 prevailing parties. None. Zip.

They will still prevail....its only how much and from whom (OBAMA-ROMNEY)..that we get screwed.
By all means tho...if its your way of protesting or bring knowledge to this...go ahead......but it still will be a "lost" vote...oh, a STATEMENT of displeasure in the other two sure....bu still wont change anything.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Wait for Jesse Venture 2016



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
It doesn't matter who you vote for, be it 3rd, 4th, 5th, 100th, etc, the corrupt PTB will ensure their man succeeds.

The corruption needs to be wiped out for ANY votes to make a difference.

Until then, it is pointless voting.





new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join