Crashing the Party

Posted by: squareman

Crashing the Party - 10/01/04 07:47 PM

Just watched this on PBS: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>CRASHING THE PARTIES 2004<br>†The 2004 presidential election is expected to be one of the closest in history, with the outcome possibly influenced by so-called "spoilers" on the sidelines. Meet America's third party candidates, who demand that voters have alternative choices to the Democrats and Republicans. (Stereo )<p><hr></blockquote><p>And it reinforced my beliefs in voting outside the two-party system. Nothing is going to change unless you make a choice, not a concession; if your true choice is one of the two parties, so be itóbut don't waste a vote on them any more if they are not who you want. Let's put it this way, my vote for a third party candidate is not throwing my vote away because they "can't win," it's using my vote to encourage outside candidates to continue fighting to gain a voice and an influence. <br><br>As one (albeit somewhat weak) metaphor one of the Libertarian candidates used put it: If you were in prison and you were given a 50% chance of being put to death by injection, 45% chance of being put to death by electrocution and a 5% chance of release, you wouldn't avoid life because your chances were slim... And voting for the same politics-as-usual candidates is the same as political suicide. <br><br>So who was presented?<br><br>Michael Badnarik, Libertarian<br>Ralph Nader, Independent<br>Michael Peroutka, Constitution<br>and David Cobb, Green<br><br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Crashing the Party - 10/02/04 01:08 AM

I like what I read about Badnarik. I'm tempted.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Crashing the Party - 10/02/04 02:09 AM

while i agree that things aren't likely to change if you vote for one of the two major parties, i am also of the belief that people just like you have been saying the same things for a very long time and these 3rd parties are going to continue to max out at a very, very, very small percentage of the vote. in fact, no 3rd party will get a single electoral vote in this year's election. ralph nader actually made a difference in 2000 and that didn't change the two parties at all. not a bit. 3rd parties haven't gained a single inch of ground because of the 2000 election. if anything was going to force them to take notice, it was 2000.<br><br>now, i think a 3rd party candidate may come along some time and actually make some inroads (e.g., ross perot), but it will be a flash in the pan (e.g., ross perot) and probably won't win. then again, ross perot did make some moves and the two parties then changed some rules so 3rd parties wouldn't be included in the debates and that pretty much seals their fate. jesse ventura won in minnesota and then people saw through him and realized he ended up being just another politician . . . so, he decided not to run for reelection. our 2 party system isn't going to be broke by an individual winning the presidency. the bottom line is you should vote for anyone you want to vote for (duh, eh?). and, i really wish that i could honestly vote for the person who best represents my views, but the two party system means that i'd feel like i am throwing away my vote, which wouldn't matter if i wasn't in a swing state. perhaps a year when dubya isn't running for the office might be different. but, i want to have a say in our next supreme court justices -- i want to have a say in who will be deciding the next woman's right to choose case and who might be deciding the fate of my civil liberties in the future. this is too important for me now than doing something more idealistic. obviously, your mileage varies considerably. more power to you.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: squareman

Re: Crashing the Party - 10/02/04 03:29 AM

Go look at the debate I posted in the other thread between Badnarik and Cobbs.<br><br>
Posted by: squareman

Re: Crashing the Party - 10/02/04 03:52 AM

Well, there was a lot of pre-commentary as well as commentary by the debaters in the Green/Libertarian debate that gives plenty of good arguments why you should still vote for who you like. If you like Kerry, great, vote for himóthat's the way it's supposed to work.<br><br>