Hate both candidates?

[kraor024]

Here is the solution vote 3rd party
:I started this thread because some idiot started one telling people to vote other(like thats an option)
Don't tell me your throwing your vote away, like voting for someone you don't want in office is better. I know a third party candidate is not going to win but if 10% voted other than republican or democrat it would scare the shit out of the main parties forceing them to do there damn job instead of just competing with one other person every 4 years
Here is a list of political parties for those of you who don't know any (or sadly that there were any)

I am a Libertarian mainly because I am
Anti-gun control
Pro choice
Pro drug legalization

If you belong to a third party I'd like to see you make a case for it here.

[TehChahlesh]

America has a two-party system.

The unfortunate truth is this: if you hate both candidates, vote for the one you hate the least.
Because all voting for a 2rd party will do is take away votes from the candidate closest to you politically. (Look at Ralph Nader)

[kraor024]

Neither of the candidates are close to what the average person believes I hate the don't throw your vote away argument it's stupid and it's self perpetuating

Please don't post to tell others not to throw their vote away Like I said voting for a candidate you believe is a Horrible choice but a better choice than the other guy is stupid If neither deserves your vote that means neither deserves your vote

Is not the lesser evil STILL evil

[Earfetish]

I'd just not vote. The only way to waste your vote, is to use it.

You've got a hardcore 2 party system over there though and I'd be inclined to vote for the lesser of two evils in your particular country. With 3 parties, you feel like it's alright to vote for anyone else, but with two parties you're like 'every little helps'.

[kraor024]

At 9/23/08 06:54 PM, Earfetish wrote: I'd just not vote. The only way to waste your vote, is to use it.

You've got a hardcore 2 party system over there though and I'd be inclined to vote for the lesser of two evils in your particular country. With 3 parties, you feel like it's alright to vote for anyone else, but with two parties you're like 'every little helps'.

NOT VOTING IS WASTING YOUR VOTE, and you don't have to vote for one of the two major parties we have dozens of parties and voting for someone who is in truth no better or only very slightly better is a wast of your vote. When you do this your pretty much telling the politicians you don't have to do a good job you just have to be slightly better than one person who is trying to get the same position.

WE DON"T HAVE TO CONTINUE THIS FOOLISH SYSTEM!!!!!

[BrianEtrius]

Try telling that to 99% of America.

In the 2004 election alone, only 1% of the country voted independent. Only 411,304 people. Compare that to the 121,068,715 who voted for the two major political parties. SOURCE.

Furthermore, since Obama has been getting the support from younger voters, the number of people voting for the major parties are only going to go up.

[TheKlown]

Younger voters are fucking morons, they should make a new law that says you need to be 21 years or older to vote. Since 18 year olds are so stupid that they vote for someone just because there friends are voting for that person, they can't even make up there own minds.

[BrianEtrius]

At 9/23/08 07:43 PM, TheKlown wrote: Younger voters are fucking morons, they should make a new law that says you need to be 21 years or older to vote. Since 18 year olds are so stupid that they vote for someone just because there friends are voting for that person, they can't even make up there own minds.

So what are your views on the economy? The energy policy? The environment? Poverty? Faith? Foreign policy?

Yes, many don't have a clue, but do you? What makes you smarter than someone that is 4 years younger than yourself?

[Saruman200]

At 9/23/08 08:32 AM, kraor024 wrote: Here is the solution vote 3rd party
I started this thread because some idiot started one telling people to vote other(like thats an option)

Uh, it is. You can write in people.

Don't tell me your throwing your vote away, like voting for someone you don't want in office is better. I know a third party candidate is not going to win but if 10% voted other than republican or democrat it would scare the shit out of the main parties forceing them to do there damn job instead of just competing with one other person every 4 years

Well, the thing I hate about this is you assume that if you don't like the two major party candiates, you fit with one of the third parties.

Here is a list of political parties for those of you who don't know any (or sadly that there were any)

You see, I don't fit with ANY of those political parties. Basically there are facists, libertarians, neo-nazis, fundamentalists, socialists, communists, and enviormentalists. All of those are radical, often insane political ideologies (besides maybe Libertarianism). Even if I was dissatisfied with the two major party canidates, I wouldn't be caught dead voting for any of those parties.

I am a Libertarian mainly because I am
Anti-gun control
Pro choice
Pro drug legalization

Okay, I agree with you on all those issues (well, maybe not the first one, my views on that topic are...complicated), but I won't waste time talking to you about them, that isn't really what this thread is about.

I disagree with you. As I've already pointed out, this thread is based on a false assumption. Secondly, it is throwing away your vote. I'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils, because if I don't the greater of two evils may win, than waste my vote. None of those third parties will ever be able to get a major percentage of the vote. Why? Because, 10% of the population doesn't belong to any of those political ideologies. I generally vote Democrat (though I'm not a member of that party), but Republicans are way more sensible, even though many of them have opposite political views than me, than most third party people. I might consider a "Centrist Party" because I'm quite moderate on certain issues, but there is no "Centrist Party". No, only some wacko enviormentalists, delusional fundamentalists, naive socialists/communists, and racist Neo-Nazis/facists. I'll give you this: I like the Libertarian Party better than the rest of those third parties, and it's the only one I'd even consider voting for, but many elements of the party are quite radical, and let's face it, Bob Barr is just a conservative wearing a Libertarians suit. As Barack Obama put it: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

[kraor024]

At 9/23/08 07:49 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

:.................

Well, the thing I hate about this is you assume that if you don't like the two major party candiates, you fit with one of the third parties.

You see, I don't fit with ANY of those political parties. Basically there are facists, libertarians, neo-nazis, fundamentalists, socialists, communists, and enviormentalists. All of those are radical, often insane political ideologies (besides maybe Libertarianism). Even if I was dissatisfied with the two major party canidates, I wouldn't be caught dead voting for any of those parties.

DO you fit the Republican or Democratic party better? I don't assume you fit one of these parties perfectly but you might fit one better than the one you currently affiliate yourself with.(If you believe that the best choice or even a good choice is a Rep. or Dem. by all means vote for them if you don't, then don't)

....................Secondly, it is throwing away your vote. I'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils, because if I don't the greater of two evils may win, than waste my vote. None of those third parties will ever be able to get a major percentage of the vote. Why? Because, 10% of the population doesn't belong to any of those political ideologies. I generally vote Democrat (though I'm not a member of that party), but Republicans are way more sensible, even though many of them have opposite political views than me, than most third party people. I might consider a "Centrist Party" because I'm quite moderate on certain issues, but there is no "Centrist Party". No, only some wacko enviormentalists, delusional fundamentalists, naive socialists/communists, and racist Neo-Nazis/facists.......................

..........................

OK well first that is not a complete list, there is a Centrist Party I don't know of any candidates of theirs but you could at least join the party.
Second
I doubt 10% of the country actually believes (Fully) in one of the two main parties ideologies.
And finally
If on one side of the scale you have someone who is 95% evil and the other side 96% evil how is it logical to vote for the lesser of the two when you could pick someone who is 50% evil (even if they don't win how can you justify chosing the greater evil than them).

I am only suggesting that if you don't want either of these candidates near the oval office don't vote for them, vote for someone your closer to ideologically.

[Saruman200]

At 9/23/08 08:38 PM, kraor024 wrote:

At 9/23/08 07:49 PM, Saruman200 wrote: .................
Well, the thing I hate about this is you assume that if you don't like the two major party candiates, you fit with one of the third parties.

You see, I don't fit with ANY of those political parties. Basically there are facists, libertarians, neo-nazis, fundamentalists, socialists, communists, and enviormentalists. All of those are radical, often insane political ideologies (besides maybe Libertarianism). Even if I was dissatisfied with the two major party canidates, I wouldn't be caught dead voting for any of those parties.

DO you fit the Republican or Democratic party better? I don't assume you fit one of these parties perfectly but you might fit one better than the one you currently affiliate yourself with.(If you believe that the best choice or even a good choice is a Rep. or Dem. by all means vote for them if you don't, then don't)

Well, okay then, but I dislike that you assume that just because someone isn't a Rep. or Dem. they MUST be ideology close to one of the various third parties, all of which, or almost all of which, are quite radical.

....................Secondly, it is throwing away your vote. I'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils, because if I don't the greater of two evils may win, than waste my vote. None of those third parties will ever be able to get a major percentage of the vote. Why? Because, 10% of the population doesn't belong to any of those political ideologies. I generally vote Democrat (though I'm not a member of that party), but Republicans are way more sensible, even though many of them have opposite political views than me, than most third party people. I might consider a "Centrist Party" because I'm quite moderate on certain issues, but there is no "Centrist Party". No, only some wacko enviormentalists, delusional fundamentalists, naive socialists/communists, and racist Neo-Nazis/facists.......................

..........................

OK well first that is not a complete list, there is a Centrist Party I don't know of any candidates of theirs but you could at least join the party.

That link doesn't work, and I was kinda refering to a party that you can actually, y'know, vote for.

Second
I doubt 10% of the country actually believes (Fully) in one of the two main parties ideologies.

Of course they don't. But a good 95% of the population is probably closer to the Republicans or the Democrats than they are all those third parties.

And finally
If on one side of the scale you have someone who is 95% evil and the other side 96% evil how is it logical to vote for the lesser of the two when you could pick someone who is 50% evil (even if they don't win how can you justify chosing the greater evil than them).

Because the person who is 50% evil could steal votes from the person who is 95% evil, and then we end up with the person that is 96% evil as president. Instead, you could of voted for the person that was 95% evil and helped them win. Not to mention how exaggerated your making it. My least favorite politician ever is probably Mike Huckabee or some other Christian Conservative, but I don't think there 96% evil (or even evil at all, afterall, what is "evil").

I am only suggesting that if you don't want either of these candidates near the oval office don't vote for them, vote for someone your closer to ideologically.

So if I don't like Barack Obama, and I hate John McCain, I'm automatically closer to the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Consitution Party, the Socialist Party, the Neo-Nazi Party, or one of those other third parties? Please explain the logic behind this? Instead of voting for some wackjob third party that will never win, shouldn't I just vote for Barack Obama, just because I dislike him less than John McCain?

[Pedochu]

I respect your opinion, but voting for a third party is not going to get them anywhere. In the 04 election, only 1% of the national vote went to independents.

[kraor024]

At 9/23/08 09:10 PM, Pedochu wrote: I respect your opinion, but voting for a third party is not going to get them anywhere. In the 04 election, only 1% of the national vote went to independents.

OK you got me there but just hear me out that same year over 11% of registered voters did not vote now let's assume that 1/4 (high estimate but just go with it) of those did not vote just had an angst against the current two party situation did as I have suggested that would bump it to 3% now let's assume that the eligible but unregistered were similarly jaded could make up another two percent That would make 5% & that would be a significant breakthrough in our political system.

Again I am not suggesting that if you can honestly say you are even 49% sure one candidate is better than the other that you not vote for them.

What I am saying is if you think neither candidate is a better choice vote third party, I do not just mean in this election but in future elections as well.
And I must reply to the fact that that it is not that voting for third parties that does not get them anywhere it is not voting for them.

Besides you have to ask if this system continues were will it take us?

[BrianEtrius]

At 9/23/08 10:15 PM, kraor024 wrote:

Besides you have to ask if this system continues were will it take us?

The same way it always will. A pretty steady lifestyle.

Look, I love how all the third party members bitch and moan about how the country is being messed up. Well, if you really think that it was the important Nader would of been in office by now. Well, news flash, he isn't. Most people side with the candidate the sames the majority of their views. End of story.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Or you could just right in what candidate you want to, since it won't even matter either way.

For example, I'm a Republican. I'm not a huge supporter of McCain. I live in Massachusetts, my vote doesn't really matter.
Add in to the fact that I like Romney more, well I'm just going to write his name in.

[kraor024]

At 9/23/08 11:14 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

Look, I love how all the third party members bitch and moan about how the country is being messed up. Well, if you really think that it was the important Nader would of been in office by now. Well, news flash, he isn't. Most people side with the candidate the sames the majority of their views. End of story.

WRONG most people vote for the candidate of the two major parties that shares the majority of their views; there is a great difference between choosing the one you agree with most and voting for the one you disagree with the least.
Also I was not of voting age in 04 so that does not mean that I don't care & Nader was not trying to win the election he was trying to win federal funding & finaly to this it is not if we realy cared it is if you really cared we would not have the same choice between two choices noone actually agrees with.

Since No one wants to discuss third parties at all and just want to tell me to give up on the idea Like I am an idiot for not wanting a horrible president . Yea you think they will be slightly better than the alternative. I don't think that either would be better in this election so I am voteing for another party.

I guess I fear failure to achieve a victory more than I fear defeat.

So Just one last question Why should I choose between 2 people who I hate I know will not (have not) keep to their word and I wouldn't believe if they told me the sky was blue(dramatization)
Just because you are all afraid to have someone mildly worse than the candidate you want, When I could vote for someone better??

ONE final statement the ONLY reason we have a 2 party system is because everyone keeps buying into the fear that their candidate will lose to some one who is in all fairness is not any better or worse.

Oh well have fun holding our country back.

[BrianEtrius]

At 9/24/08 12:22 AM, kraor024 wrote:

Oh well have fun holding our country back.

Holding our country back.........funny, last time I checked, third parties were on the losing end of the battle.

Look, third parties exist so that people (such as yourself) don't have such a guilt trip when voting. Whether you like it of not, the fact of the matter is that every 4 years some candidate from either the democrats or the republicans are going to win. Third parties would be lucky to get 2% of the total.

[InsertKickassAlias]

Elections are nothing more than popularity contests much like American Idol.

[Saruman200]

At 9/24/08 12:22 AM, kraor024 wrote:
WRONG most people vote for the candidate of the two major parties that shares the majority of their views; there is a great difference between choosing the one you agree with most and voting for the one you disagree with the least.

What, and somehow you have a magic sixth sense that tells you that the two party system is evil and that most people don't like either of the two parties, and also that if you don't like the Reps and Dems you therefore must fit perfectly with a third party ideology? Stop pretending you know so much about what "most people" think. If anything, "most people" like the two party system, because "most people" vote for one of the two main parties. You have nothing to back up your arguement but your own personal opinions and assumptions.

Also I was not of voting age in 04 so that does not mean that I don't care & Nader was not trying to win the election he was trying to win federal funding & finaly to this it is not if we realy cared it is if you really cared we would not have the same choice between two choices noone actually agrees with.

Okay, so none of those third party candiates are trying to win an election either, thus why should we vote for them. Same logic buddy. And how do you know "noone actually agrees with" the two major party candiates. 99% of America disagrees buddy.

Since No one wants to discuss third parties at all and just want to tell me to give up on the idea Like I am an idiot for not wanting a horrible president . Yea you think they will be slightly better than the alternative. I don't think that either would be better in this election so I am voteing for another party.

Again, you argue one your personal opinion that the Reps and Dems are "horrible presidents". That's your personal opinion, so now we should all vote for a third party, because you don't like the two party system.

I guess I fear failure to achieve a victory more than I fear defeat.

Huh? Defeat is failure to achieve victory...

So Just one last question Why should I choose between 2 people who I hate I know will not (have not) keep to their word and I wouldn't believe if they told me the sky was blue(dramatization)
Just because you are all afraid to have someone mildly worse than the candidate you want, When I could vote for someone better??

Because that someone who you believe personally is better (which does not automatically make it true) will never win.

Let's think about it like this:
You live in the battleground state of Ohio (this is a scenario, not real). Three candiates are one your ballot (again dramatization).

Generic Republican, who is polling at 49%.
Generic Democrat, who is polling at 49%.
Third Party, who is polling at 2%.

Your views are closer to Generic Democrat that they are to Generic Republican, even though you hate them both. But, Third Party is right on for you. Thus, you could do one of two things:

Option 1:
Vote for Generic Democrat. He actually has a chance of winning, and is closer to you then Generic Republican. Because this is a close election, and you live in a battleground state, your vote helps Generic Democrat win. You're not happy, but at least Generic Republican didn't win.

Option 2:
Vote for Third Party. He has no chance of winning, but is close to you politically. However, as I said before, your a perfect fit for Third Party, but are closer to Generic Democrat then Generic Republican. Thus, Generic Democrat and Third Party are closer politically then Third Party and Generic Republican. So, Third Party is stealing votes away from Generic Democrat when you and others vote for him. Because of this, Generic Republican wins, and your stuck with the worst choice of the three as president.

ONE final statement the ONLY reason we have a 2 party system is because everyone keeps buying into the fear that their candidate will lose to some one who is in all fairness is not any better or worse.

Bull. We have a two party system because there are way more conservatives and liberals than there are enviormentalists, libertarians, fundamentalists, socialists, communists, anarchists, facists, and Neo-Nazis.

Oh well have fun holding our country back.

Am the one holding the country back, or are you?

[kraor024]

FOR ANYT ONE WHO POSTED ON THIS THRED ALREADY for the last time

If you think one candidate is better then vote for them I am not triing to tell you not to.
What I was saying was vote for a third partie if you don't think either is better.

And I only say this becouse I know peoploe who in this situationg either don't vote or vote (on what they think) is thier parties candidate even though they do not believe they are any better.

I did bnot want this to become a disscusion on the falts of voting on third parties but that is what happend so.

[Saruman200]

At 9/25/08 08:22 AM, kraor024 wrote: FOR ANYT ONE WHO POSTED ON THIS THRED ALREADY for the last time

If you think one candidate is better then vote for them I am not triing to tell you not to.
What I was saying was vote for a third partie if you don't think either is better.

Again, you come back to your ignorant assumption that if you don't like the two main parties, your automatically closer to a third party.

And I only say this becouse I know peoploe who in this situationg either don't vote or vote (on what they think) is thier parties candidate even though they do not believe they are any better.

Well, I don't see a problem with voting for your parties candiate.

I did bnot want this to become a disscusion on the falts of voting on third parties but that is what happend so.

What did you want it to become? You said to vote for third parties if you hate both candiates, what did you expect everyone to agree with you? The politics forum is ment for debate, people are trying to refute your argument and your defending it. I see no problem here. This isn't the place if you want everyone to just agree with you.

[kraor024]

I asked in the opening to debate third(Socialist Vs.Libertarian,Vs. Centralist) parties not weither or not to vote for them( A child knows the aurguments (only one) for that).
And I never asummed that you would be closer to a third paty I asked if you hated both candidates (I should have said equally) throw the underdog a bone .

While I also don't see a problem with voteing for your party's candadate, many people vote down the line(by which I mean the vote for their party's candidate out of loyalty only),and many people in all honesty just assumme they belong with a party based on a small handful of issues many of which are relatively unimportant. I should also point out that sometimes a party will elect someone who clearly does not represent the majoity of the partys views.

Finally I really didn't expect people to tell me to do exactly what I shouldn't do, vote for someone I believe is no better than the other just because my only other option is to to vote for someone who will not win(or not win). All I meant was if you don't think either candidate is better vote third party no one has given me a good reason not to except if I do I'll throw my vote away, which considering the two options isn't that bad of an idea,Afterall I won't be responsible for bringing a better president than the worse but the converse is true as well. So if I've got the choice between two equaly matched parties and an underdog I'm going to choose the underdog, I mean is it realy better to vote for one of two people you don't agree with at all isn't that throwing your vote away or even worse using your vote for something that will inevidably bite you in the ass?

You are right though I should have had the forsight to see this comming.

[Saruman200]

At 9/25/08 10:32 AM, kraor024 wrote: I asked in the opening to debate third(Socialist Vs.Libertarian,Vs. Centralist) parties not weither or not to vote for them( A child knows the aurguments (only one) for that).

Huh? Your opening post did not in any way say that. It said if you don't like the two main party candiates, vote third party, that's all. And what do you mean "A child knows the auguments (only one) for that)?

And I never asummed that you would be closer to a third paty I asked if you hated both candidates (I should have said equally) throw the underdog a bone .

Your posts strongly implied this.

While I also don't see a problem with voteing for your party's candadate, many people vote down the line(by which I mean the vote for their party's candidate out of loyalty only),and many people in all honesty just assumme they belong with a party based on a small handful of issues many of which are relatively unimportant. I should also point out that sometimes a party will elect someone who clearly does not represent the majoity of the partys views.

Well, I'm all for letting people vote on whatever issues they want, even if they are "relatively unimportant". This is a democracy (or a democratic republic if you want to get technical).

Finally I really didn't expect people to tell me to do exactly what I shouldn't do, vote for someone I believe is no better than the other just because my only other option is to to vote for someone who will not win(or not win). All I meant was if you don't think either candidate is better vote third party no one has given me a good reason not to except if I do I'll throw my vote away, which considering the two options isn't that bad of an idea,Afterall I won't be responsible for bringing a better president than the worse but the converse is true as well. So if I've got the choice between two equaly matched parties and an underdog I'm going to choose the underdog, I mean is it realy better to vote for one of two people you don't agree with at all isn't that throwing your vote away or even worse using your vote for something that will inevidably bite you in the ass?

Well, that's the point of a debate. What did you expect, us to all come in and say, "Yes, vote third party if you want to, we're close-minded and don't care." People are disagreeing with you. It's a fact of life.

You are right though I should have had the forsight to see this comming.

Or you could of just said this right off the bat, instead of waiting to say what you really ment days later...

[CaptainChip]

I VOTED FOR NADER, I HATE EVERYONE!

[ILovezoms]

At 9/23/08 05:35 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: America has a two-party system.

The unfortunate truth is this: if you hate both candidates, vote for the one you hate the least.
Because all voting for a 2rd party will do is take away votes from the candidate closest to you politically. (Look at Ralph Nader)

bystander effect somewhat

[Elfer]

Nobody votes for third parties because nobody votes for third parties. It's completely faulty logic, but you'll need to make some sort of significant societal change if you want people to start acting normally.

[XaosLegend]

They both intend to continue the amoral foreign policy that we have conducted throughout US history (same as most nations) and will do little to nothing to change the economic disparities and inefficient social structure of the society, so yeah im pretty unhappy with both, but i think mCcain is far more corrupt than Obama, and even worse on all of these issues, so I'll probably vote obama or write in a third party just to voice my dissent.

[XaosLegend]

At 9/23/08 08:32 AM, kraor024 wrote: Here is the solution vote 3rd party

I started this thread because some idiot started one telling people to vote other(like thats an option)

Don't tell me your throwing your vote away, like voting for someone you don't want in office is better. I know a third party candidate is not going to win but if 10% voted other than republican or democrat it would scare the shit out of the main parties forceing them to do there damn job instead of just competing with one other person every 4 years
Here is a list of political parties for those of you who don't know any (or sadly that there were any)

I am a Libertarian mainly because I am
Anti-gun control
Pro choice
Pro drug legalization

If you belong to a third party I'd like to see you make a case for it here.

If youre pro drug legalization you shouldn't be a libertarian. Without strong government to enforce the liberties you want in the private sector copanies will continue to drug test and discriminate for efficiency reasons, and libertarians will never tell a private company what they can and can't do with their employees. Also without strong government you won't have any options but to work for these companies as they will run everything. Then the companies will set up their own worker communities and if you want to work for them you'll have to submit to gun searches (can't have dangerous threats to the company) and their private gun bannings, as far as pro choice goes, well you may get that one, but it would depend on the area, and with the private industrie's love of using religion to control the population you may lose out on that as well.

[Dromedary]

Anti-gun control
Pro choice
Pro drug legalization

You realise how shite the world would be, if everyone had guns, and legal acess to Cocaine? It would mess up society, and you would get all your Agnsty teenagers voting for it, just so they could Chill out with a nice little Joint, not because of their political Preferences, or anything.

[TNT]

At 9/23/08 07:43 PM, TheKlown wrote: Younger voters are fucking morons, they should make a new law that says you need to be 21 years or older to vote. Since 18 year olds are so stupid that they vote for someone just because there friends are voting for that person, they can't even make up there own minds.

Nah, it is fine at eighteen. What I think is that the drinking age should be eighteen.

Since everything else that is "bad for children" can only legally do it at eighteen.