Are you a Democrat or Republican?

[Moxon4]

How can they take votes away if the votes weren't intended for said party?

Because most people who vote always vote, regardless. It's like how Perot being in the race in '92 cost H. Bush votes because if Perot wasn't running, they would have voted for H. Bush since a majority of them would have voted anyway

 

[kbate]

Are you serious? It's obvious that third parties always take votes away from another party. Voting isn't zero sum, but it's close because people who vote are likely to vote again, and it's rare that people go from not voting for many years to voting.

The way to effect the big two parties is to get involved in primaries and in through the convention process, the grassroots level is wide open, and it's really easy to get involved.

It's only obvious in your mind - assuming that I would vote for a Republican if no Libertarian was on the ticket. Or democrat if no Green or Independent is running.

I would write in NONE OF THE ABOVE before I threw away my say in government by voting for a major party candidate who I do not want to win.

By voting major party - when you do not want them - you are in effect endorsing the policys of that party even if you are at odds with them. You serve no purpose other than confirming that only Major party people matter.

You have been trained by the press to believe these things. Step outside and ask why the 2 majors demand that ballots remain exclusive? Because they are the only valid political theories? Or because of fear that the people might relegate the 2 majors to the trash heap if given an open third option.

 

[kbate]

Because most people who vote always vote, regardless. It's like how Perot being in the race in '92 cost H. Bush votes because if Perot wasn't running, they would have voted for H. Bush since a majority of them would have voted anyway

So it is not possible that those people actually wanted Perot to win? They were only expressing dissatisfaction with Clinton and Bush? Get real.

 

[Moxon4]

So it is not possible that those people actually wanted Perot to win? They were only expressing dissatisfaction with Clinton and Bush? Get real.

Did I say that? Because what I said was that many the people who were voting for Perot would probably have voted for H. Bush if Perot wasn't running because they agree with Perot, but given only 2 options, would have voted for H. Bush.

 

[Lost Cause]

"How can they take votes away if the votes weren't intended for said party?"

The assumption is that a vote would go either to the Republicrats or Demmunists...

From the 2000 Election:
<snip>
Let's pick apart this elaborate rationalization (for that's what it is) one point at a time:

* It assumes that all of Browne's votes come from Bush.
* It assumes that Bush has first claim on these votes.
* It assumes the outcome of the election.
* It assumes away any counterbalancing effects of votes for other candidates.
* It assumes that a vote would make a difference for Bush, but not for Browne.
* It assumes that Browne's supporters all vote in a block.
* It assumes that a vote is valuable only if cast for a winner.
* It assumes that Bush cares what you think.
* It assumes that Gore voters can't change their minds and are not responsible for their actions.
* It applies just as well in reverse.
* It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
<snip>

http://www.freedomkeys.com/myvcwaste.htm

I've never missed a major election since turning 18.....as a Libertarian..

http://www.cato.org/

 

[unregistered]

 

[EternalWinter]

Did I say that? Because what I said was that many the people who were voting for Perot would probably have voted for H. Bush if Perot wasn't running because they agree with Perot, but given only 2 options, would have voted for H. Bush.

Good thing they had more than two options then.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Meat Whistler]

*** pretty much resolved to the fact that Id never date one.

You're missing out on some hot fucking. I used to say I'd never fuck a republican, but then I discovered how hot it could get after a heated debate.

 

[Moxon4]

It's only obvious in your mind - assuming that I would vote for a Republican if no Libertarian was on the ticket. Or democrat if no Green or Independent is running.

I would write in NONE OF THE ABOVE before I threw away my say in government by voting for a major party candidate who I do not want to win.

By voting major party - when you do not want them - you are in effect endorsing the policys of that party even if you are at odds with them. You serve no purpose other than confirming that only Major party people matter.

You have been trained by the press to believe these things. Step outside and ask why the 2 majors demand that ballots remain exclusive? Because they are the only valid political theories? Or because of fear that the people might relegate the 2 majors to the trash heap if given an open third option.

Wait, you mean voting for a Party means you endorse what they've done? Why has no one told me this before?

Since when are ballots exclusive? There are 2 independents running for Governor in Texas, everytime I've voted there are always a bunch of candidates for every slot from a bunch of parties, most of which I hadn't heard of.


It's great that you think that 3rd parties have a chance of winning, but only two parties have the structure in place to win. If you don't think either Party represents you then stop complaining and get involved, it's easy to whine and bitch, it's hard to do the things needed to change, if you're this outraged, get off your ass.

 

[MisterEdMe]

Oh - you mean your edited context?

Give me a break. Every time I use someone's words against them, they claim I "misconstrue" them. You plagiarized and got caught by more than one person. Quit whining.



The premise of this thread is shortsighted, yes.

But KS is also right (much as I hate to admit it) about some cookie-cutter Conservatives giving themselves more desirable labels. Especially right now.

Coming from RoryN, this is so fucking rich.!

 

[alabama]

Because most people who vote always vote, regardless. It's like how Perot being in the race in '92 cost H. Bush votes because if Perot wasn't running, they would have voted for H. Bush since a majority of them would have voted anyway

That argument doesn't hold water. You don't know who the people voted for or would have voted for had Perot not run. It is not wasting a vote. It is just casting yout vote the way you choose. Some people may not have voted cause they thought Cinton had the election wrapped up or vice versa. Some people might have only voted cause Perot was running. You don't know why people chose to vote the way they have.

Votes are never wasted.

 

[Moxon4]

Good thing they had more than two options then.

I'm a Republican, and I totally agree with getting rid of H. Bush

 

[Moxon4]

That argument doesn't hold water. You don't know who the people voted for or would have voted for had Perot not run. It is not wasting a vote. It is just casting yout vote the way you choose. Some people may not have voted cause they thought Cinton had the election wrapped up or vice versa. Some people might have only voted cause Perot was running. You don't know why people chose to vote the way they have.

Votes are never wasted.

Well I know that when Perot dropped out for a few weeks in '92 that suddenly H. Bush's poll numbers jumped up, wonder why that happened?

 

[alabama]

Well I know that when Perot dropped out for a few weeks in '92 that suddenly H. Bush's poll numbers jumped up, wonder why that happened?

You would base your entire argument on just that?

 

[EternalWinter]

Anybody ever see that Halloween episode of the Simpsons where Dole and Clinton are replaced by aliens and either way the aliens win because it's a two party system? That's pretty much how I see the two party system operating. Vote for whichever one you want, it doesn't matter. Either way you end up enslaved to build a death ray to point at some planet you've never heard of mumbling, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."

 

[Moxon4]

You would base your entire argument on just that?

There are a ton more examples throughout history than that, Wallace in 68, Roosevelt in 1912, etc....

 

[kbate]

Wait, you mean voting for a Party means you endorse what they've done? Why has no one told me this before?

Since when are ballots exclusive? There are 2 independents running for Governor in Texas, everytime I've voted there are always a bunch of candidates for every slot from a bunch of parties, most of which I hadn't heard of.

It's great that you think that 3rd parties have a chance of winning, but only two parties have the structure in place to win. If you don't think either Party represents you then stop complaining and get involved, it's easy to whine and bitch, it's hard to do the things needed to change, if you're this outraged, get off your ass.

So, because only two parties have the national structure. we should only vote for them? That is the essense of your argument.

And yes - voting for them means you are supporting their platform. When you pick a candidate you endorse his party, why else is there a party system? Do you truly think George H.W. Bush thinks, Oh, moxon voted for me, but he really thinks republicans should be more centrist.

Try getting on the presidential ballot. Major party candidates are automatic - others must gather 5% of the state's registered voters on petitions in order even to be on the state ballot. That is exclusionary - in effect stating that only major parties can truly represent the people properly.

What on earth makes you think I'm on my ass as far as politics go? Where the hell did you read that?

You cannot change a political party by voting for it. Like it or not - they consider your vote to mean your endorsement of their candidacy.

 

[alabama]

There are a ton more examples throughout history than that, Wallace in 68, Roosevelt in 1912, etc....

It still doesn't fly. Sorry.

 

[kbate]

Anybody ever see that Halloween episode of the Simpsons where Dole and Clinton are replaced by aliens and either way the aliens win because it's a two party system? That's pretty much how I see the two party system operating. Vote for whichever one you want, it doesn't matter. Either way you end up enslaved to build a death ray to point at some planet you've never heard of mumbling, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."

I heart you. you know that. don't you. :emoticon:

 

[skeaky]

"Publican...Glab Bammy got the fight she was looking for.


Tampons...isle 5

 

[Fabala]

Would the elimination of the electoral college have a positive effect on the viability of 3rd parties?

 

[alabama]

"Publican...Glab Bammy got the fight she was looking for.


Tampons...isle 5

HEY

I am not looking for a fight! I am not looking for tampons either....way to go.

 

[EternalWinter]

I heart you. you know that. don't you. :emoticon:

Yes, I know.

Somewhere, deep within me, I've always known.

...


Who are you again?

 

[skeaky]

HEY

I am not looking for a fight! I am not looking for tampons either....way to go.

Did you leave you sense of humor in bed this morning?