Does it annoy you when people threaten to vote third party?

[LoZoccolo]

Poll question: Does it annoy you when people threaten to vote third party?

Not necessarily just on here, but in general?

[tk2kewl]

1. I voted yes...

but I really do wish we could have a viable third party

[Selatius]

4. Not in your life.

Duverger's law basically says if you have a system of representation where a district is represented by one seat, you end up with generally two parties becoming viable. There can be exceptions, but generally speaking, only two parties become viable Third and fourth parties invariably act as spoilers.

Proportional representation or a mixed system generally avoids this, and this is why most newer representative democracies adopted proportional representation or a mixed system of representation over the American system.

If you want to vote for third parties, the short answer is you can amend the Constitution (which will likely take a lifetime) or move to a different country that does have a multi-party system of representation.

[Alcibiades]

19. I hereby certify that you are a member of the liberal elite

Maurice Duverger was French and a sociologist. Two strikes. Besides, a non-elite-type would have cited Riker. Three. Plus, you can spel.

[saltpoint]

2. Our 08 field is awesome. Plenty of talent, deep bench.

No reason to vote elsewhere.

If we fielded a field like the Thugs, then sure, I could see the case for abandonment.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

50. There's no antiwar candidate with a real shot

kucinich is a great guy and i'll vote for him.

but where is the howard dean type for us anti-hillary folks to rally around?
after the 2006 victories, the lefdt deserves some options this time

[wyldwolf]

3. when the threat is electoral extortion, yes.

[Mrspeeker]

5. The counting of the votes or lack of...

annoys me!!

[the other one]

6. Third parties are extremely important.

They raise issues which the major parties ignore. When a third party becomes large enough, the major parties will co-opt their issues. Civil Rights was a third party issue until it reached a critical mass that could not be ignored.

Also, most third party voters wouldn't vote for a major party candidate anyway, so its not like the Dems are losing votes at someone else's expense.

Nader didn't cause the Dems to lose Florida. The Pukes stole it. Nader brought a new voter base into politics, and many of them switched to Dem later on.

[hijinx87]

37. I totally disagree with you. nader got 97,000 votes in florida in 2000

if he had stayed at home, florida would have gone to gore
on a scale that would have made it impossible to steal.

you can dress it up anyway you want, but the flat fact of
the matter is that if it was not for ralph nader, al gore
would have been president on 9/11, and we wouldn't be in
the huge mess that we find ourselves in today.

[ProudDad]

48. Here we go again

the anti-Nader's have shown up.

I'll repeat for the hearing impaired: GORE WON! The Times counted all the votes and GORE WON!

Ralph did NOT take it away from him.

[hijinx87]

53. I'm not necessarily anti-nader

I just hold him responsible for 2000.

and insisting that gore won is just missing the point,
it seems to me.

[ProudDad]

97. But you don't have a point!

Gore Won.

The pukes stole the election in 2000. There was a COUP. The raygun/bush installed supremes gave shrub the white house. 5 old fucks gave it to him.

Gore didn't put up much of a fight.

Ralph wasn't on the supreme court. Ralph didn't stop the vote count (that when done finally proved that Gore won in Florida). Ralph was exercising a fundamental right to run.

Other than your self, who would you like to appoint to the comisariat that determines who can run for office and who can't?

[Dean Martin]

52. How do you know?

If Gore was so great, why did those 97,000 vote for Nader? And how do you know they would not have voted for Bush had Nader not been running? Nothing says that just because they voted for Nader, they'd automatically vote for Gore if Nader hadn't been around.

[hijinx87]

54. are you seriously suggesting

that nader voters would have voted for * ?

[Dean Martin]

55. They more likely would have not voted at all

Still losing Gore the 97,000 votes. I did not vote for either Gore or Bush, neither one said anything at the time that impressed me any. I like Gore today, but I didn't back then. I voted for Nader. At the time his answers on the issues made more sense to me than either of the other two.

Didn't matter in my case, Indiana went overwhelmingly for Bush.

[hijinx87]

56. I am positive that gore would have found the 500 votes

that he ostensibly lost by.

[Dean Martin]

57. Not if the GW camp rigged the election

If the Florida election was truly rigged as it's been suggested, Gore would have "lost" the state no matter what, and if they were crooked enough to throw Florida, they could throw other states.

JFK for example won the 1960 election when the Mafia rigged Illinois.

[hijinx87]

58. there is a margin big enough to be cheat proof

although I'm not sure what it is.

[Dumak]

46. plurality voting system

3rd parties cannot work as long as we have this horrible plurality voting system.
3rd parties SHOULD have a place, but not until we can replace this voting system with a better one.
Until we can do that, 3rd parties should be symbolic, and in the general election their members should support one of the top 2 candidates (assuming the 3rd party candidate has little chance to win.)

[Clark2008]

67. But what if you really HATE your party's nominee?

And your really HATE the other party's nominee.

Then what?

[Hippo_Tron]

83. In almost every circumstance if you look hard enough there's reason to vote for one over the other

For example, every single Democrat running for the nomination right now will put better Supreme Court justices in office than any Republican.

I know it sounds sad but when it comes down to election day I consider it my responsibility as an educated voter to try and influence the outcome of the election by voting for the lesser evil if the two candidates are indeed both evil. Voting for a third party, IMO, does nothing to advance the agenda of getting a viable third party or to move the two major parties.

[cool user name]

7. No. If we won't have an opposition party, then we'll have to find one. n/t

[yurbud]

8. How is having only two parties different from having a handful of oil or media conglomerates?

Isn't collusion and fixing by wealthy interested parties a lot easier?

There are good, progressive democrats, and there are sincerely wrong Republicans. But both parties are easily subverted by corporate interests, and often we are left with a choice of one corporate party with religious nuts, and one without.

Or in the current debate, those who pretend to reluctantly kill babies for corporate profit and those who gleefully eat their entrails and make necklaces of the arms and legs.

Here in California, we had an eminently beatable Republican governor who had pissed off most people his first term. The democrats let a bland bureaucrat be their candidate, and most of the big guns and celebrity activists lay low. More national level democrats were visible on ads for one of our ballot measures.

I would prefer a true multi-party system, where you knew what you were getting when you voted for a party label, and they have to patch together a majority coalition to take power.

[spooky3]

9. Is having Bush as pResident annoying?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[welshTerrier2]

11. what annoys me is that ...

Democrats are not able to win the votes of those who vote third party ... perhaps the best path is to truly listen to the message these voters are presenting and determine whether there's a way to incorporate some of their ideas into our party platform ... maybe there is; maybe there is not ...

most of the focus i see from third party voters "on the left" is on issues of war and peace, the environment, and the corporate and big money excesses in our government. i see no reason for the Democratic Party not to seek common ground on any of these issues.

third party voters i speak to often use jargon like the "military-industrial complex" and corporatocracy and publically financed campaigns and some variety of instant runoff voting. Does the Democratic Party see these as valid concerns? if they do, they should say so and reach out to progressive third party voters. if they don't, i certainly see no reason to be annoyed when someone refuses to buy in to the Democrats' message.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. but it's a constant balancing act

for both parties.

You can't risk losing 10% of the vote in the middle in order to satisfy the 2% in the extreme.

[welshTerrier2]

15. electoral politics is one balancing act

what's best for the country is another.

neither can be ignored.

the mission should NOT ONLY be to win elections but ALSO to do the right thing for the country and its citizens. i would define an EFFECTIVE STRATEGY for the Democratic Party that 1. gets candidates elected and 2. moves the country forward.

the thing i think the Party has yet to learn is that the two objectives are NOT mutually exclusive. we need to start telling the American people the truth about the corruptions in our governmental institutions. we need to do a better job explaining WHY bush went to war instead of only criticizing his tactics. we need to explain how corporate America has strangled real democracy. we don't need to use the inflammatory words that i would choose but we do need to teach the voters about what's going on out of public view. we are very, very far from the ideals the country's founders envisioned. Democrats should point that out and lead the way back.

my belief is, that when we do that, we will not only save our country from a very dark future but we will be politically rewarded for doing so.

[Telly Savalas]

64. Perhaps.

But if one is going to look at it that way, then one shouldn't whine and complain about the 2% in the extreme not falling in line if the strategic decision is made to not satisfy them and instead go after that 10% in the middle.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Not if they are republicans. nt

[sampsonblk]

14. Its their right...

after all, we are not Republicans.

[AtomicKitten]

16. doesn't bother me

It's a bit odd to read on a website entitled "Democratic" Underground. However, the announcement here sometimes reminds me of a child threatening to hold their breath and turn blue if they don't get their way. I don't know if they are begging to be challenged or trolling for folks to take with them in that endeavor. If you're going to do it, just do it.

[Vickers]

18. 'It's a bit odd to read on a website entitled "Democratic" Underground.'

God, I love you. You make such sense.

[Cameron27]

23. You've got that right,

and I'd really like to know what sterling qualities these 3rd party candidates possess that would persuade anyone to desert the Democratic Party. The only one who I valued was Gene McCarthy.

Who else?

[incapsulated]

43. They are anybody else, I guess

And that is why I voted Yes, they annoy me. That kind of "action" is useless.

[Forkboy]

17. Nope

People should vote for who THEY think is best,not who someone else thinks is best.Pretty basic concept really.If the two main parties aren't striking a chord with someone so be it.Welcome to a democracy. :shrug:

What does annoy me is people who don't vote at all.

[Greyhound]

20. Not at all, it is their right to vote any way they wish. What does annoy me is

those that do not vote at all. I don't care if they vote re:puke: Green, Communist, or amerikan nazi, as long as they vote for what they believe.

[hijinx87]

21. absolutely.

it's annoying and unproductive.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. There is nothing in the Constitution that mentions political parties

All political parties have the right to present their case to the public. If the majors lose votes to the minor parties, they shouldn't whine and pout but try to figure out what message the voters are giving them.

[Doondoo]

24. I have voted third party

[Milo_Bloom]

25. What DOES annoy me

is when Democrats (On this and other boards) DEMAND that you vote straight D, but then fault GOPers for doing the same.

I know several people who didn't agree with bush on many issues, but still voted for him because they view themselves as a "republican", I think that is exactly as idiotic as someone demanding that a democrat vote for Hilary Clinton, despite not believing in her or many of her chosen positions.

[sutz12]

26. If I consider myself a true democrat (small d democrat)

Then I can't criticize someone for voting the way they feel. Obviously I would prefer that everyone support Democratic Party candidates, but such is life. :shrug:

[Seldona]

27. I voted yes.

The way I see it any vote not cast for a democrat is a vote for the GOP. That will change in the future once we rid ourselves of these madmen. But for now I do not support ANYTHING that might keep these people in power even one second longer.

Besides I would rather see a movement within the party to address progressive issues, particularly now that we have the ability to set the agenda. Whether or not that happens remains to be seen.

[paulk]

28. yes,

which is not to say that I dislike the notion of third parties. Third parties have a place in our system, insofar as getting alternative ideas out there. Voting, however, at least in our system where there is only one winner, is a different matter.

Threatening to vote for a third party is, as AK posts upthread, like threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue.

Actually doing it, after what has transpired these last six years, is beyond comprehension for me. It's stupid and, ultimately, selfish. That's a combination I have a hard time with.

[Clark2008]

68. While I agree with Atomic Kitten to a degree: if you're

not going to vote for the Democratic nominee, then you shouldn't be here once that person is chosen, I still don't consider it as vile as some here have alleged.

I WILL vote third party (or write in) if the Democrats nominate someone who I think will do as much harm to the country as any Republican.

That said, I'm hoping that person doesn't get nominated and I don't have to worry about it. I've got a year to see where he falls in the pile.

[Cameron27]

80. Since I know the personal reason

why you can't support this candidate, I can't say I blame you. I'm sure that it's not an easy decision for you, and I respect you for following your conscience in this particular situation. I really hope it doesn't come to that though, I'd miss your voice if you were gone.:(

[paulk]

81. on a local level I could understand voting against someone

for personal reasons - in fact I've done it. Not third party, even - I voted for a Republican in a city race, because I knew some things (on a personal level) about the Democratic candidate that led me to believe he shouldn't be in office.

It would be a lot harder (for me at least) to do that in a Presidential race, because I feel the party affiliation, at that level, is more important. I have faith that the rest of the party would be able to limit the damage a really bad President could do. I don't think Democrats would go along in lockstep (like the Republicans have with Bush) just because the President was a Democrat. Also, I wouldn't want the Republican to get in - if only because of the Supreme Court picks that a Republican would make.

[POAS]

29. I vote no, each to his own but I do try to dissuade them,

[manic expression]

30. Not to me

since the Democrats are capitalist and bourgeois to the bone.

Anyway, it's not like voting actually matters to people who live outside of Florida or Ohio (or maybe even PA). It sucks and people don't like it, but it's true.

[LoZoccolo]

31. And you hang out here because...? n/t

[manic expression]

32. This site is also for 'other progressives'

I fall under that title.

[LoZoccolo]

33. Did you read the sentence after that?

Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives.

OK...but then:

Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

[manic expression]

35. I support progressive ideals

and I think Kucinich is a good candidate.

[Jagger69]

36. It's a contradiction

How can someone be an "other" progressive (a.k.a. non-Democrat) yet be expected to automatically support Democratic candidates for political office??? Just a question from a newbie here.

:shrug:

[manic expression]

38. Very good point n/t

[tnlefty]

87. Welcome to DU, Jagger69!

:hi:

[ProudDad]

49. I support progressive Democrats

when one appears...

I ALWAYS support progressive values.

On edit: when I joined the "democratic" in Democratic Underground was understood to mean this:

Democratic:

characterized by or advocating or based upon the principles of democracy or social equality; "democratic government"; "a democratic country"; "a democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords"- George du Maurier

"The term democracy indicates a form of government where all the state's decisions are exercised directly or indirectly by a majority of its citizenry through a fair elective process."

Someday, I hope the United States can get there...

[martymar64]

42. I agree

Another point. Only about 49% of the US population that is voting age are even registered to vote. That means that a majority of people in the US don't even bother to vote. Why is that? Maybe it's because the two parties don't represent the views of the majority of the people. If the Democratic Party was to actually adopt some truly progressive policies like universal single payer health care, ending the war on drugs, restoring relations with Cuba, getting out of Iraq now, enacting true electoral reform, etc., then they would attract more new voters and their would never be a Republican president or congress ever again.

Of course they would rather play it safe and parroting a slightly more liberal message than their Repug compatriots, thus making every election a choice between Far Right Wing and Not So Far Right Wing kind of an almost Center Right.

[Jagger69]

34. Who else will admit....

....that they have indeed VOTED for a third party at some point like I have??

[Bullet1987]

39. People have been threatening to vote 3rd Party...

...since the anti-slavery Liberty Party days of the mid-1800's.

[ProudDad]

51. I have

and BOY IT FELT GOOD!!!!

[NoPasaran]

65. I voted for Gene McCarthy (Ind) in 1976

And I still think he was a better choice than Jimmy Carter back then.

Also voted Raza Unida in some state races while they were around.

[Clark2008]

69. I have.

I am still a registered Independent, although I have voted exclusively for Democrats since Bush took office.

[Milo_Bloom]

74. Many Many Times

And will continue to do so in the future if a candidate doesn't represent the things I want them to.

Kerry was my first and LAST vote for any candidate who voted for the IWR.

[LeftishBrit]

112. Yes; and not just 'at some point' - but the situation is very different in the UK

[ulysses]

126. sure.

That's no secret here. :)

[meldroc]

40. Depends.

If another Ross Perot type comes along and poaches votes from the Republicans, I certainly won't object... :evilgrin:

[rep the dems]

41. Yes. In times like these people need to put aside the whole both

parties are corrupt, controlled by corporations, and exactly the same philosophy. It doesn't do anyone any good to vote for candidates that have no chance of winning rather than Democrats. I plan on really stressing that point to my friends next year.

[Spirochete]

44. A little bit

but I get the feeling that a lot of the people who are sulkily threatening to vote third party, will actually vote for Democrats in the actual elections, for no other reason than fear of Republicans, while still rightfully lamenting the lack of options.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. The mentally ill should be pitied, not be seen as an annoyance

[Clark2008]

70. Oh that's helpful.

Listen to hate radio much?

[Freddie Stubbs]

71. I am listening to WZZO right now

I don't live in their broadcast area, but the stram online at their website www.wzzo.com

[Clark2008]

72. No - I meant that you shouldn't call folks mentally retarded

if they don't agree with you.

It sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would do.

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. I didn't call anyone (or suggest that they were) mentally retarded

Mental illness is not synonymous with mental retardation.

[Pushed To The Left]

47. I voted Yes, but I need to clarify..

It's annoying when normally Democratic/progressive voters threaten to vote 3rd party, but it's actually pretty nice when Republicans threaten to stay home or vote 3rd party (even though I'd much rather they protest by voting Democratic!)

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

59. I vote no.

I notice a lot of hate for Nader, but if the 3rd party had a conservative leaning and was taking votes away from the republican you'd like them I guess?

[MadHound]

60. No, I'm annoyed by Democrats who continue to blame all of their problems on third parties

As a way of not having to look with or deal with the many serious problems in their own party. Party becoming increasingly controlled by corporate America? Blame third parties! Party members continuing to support an illegal, immoral war? Blame third parties! Party moving ever more to the right? Blame third parties!

In fact certain party members have honed this bait 'n switch down to a fine art, blaming any and all party ills on those dastardly Greens or, horrors, Ralph Nader. And rather than actually doing something productive to correct these party problems, they seem to focus ever more single mindedly on third parties, to the point where it becomes absurd. In fact for many people this has become an obsession, putting up post after post demonizing third parties for all ills, public and private. They also engage in this strange duality of thinking. On the one hand these people argue that third parties throw elections, forestall legislation and are an immense evil force in this country. On the other hand, they ridicule third parties as being scarcely populated with a few cranks and misanthropes whose numbers are of no significance. That such dichotomis thinking can all be held in one head without exploding is absolutely amazing.

Oh, and lest we not forget, these are the same people who were praising third parties to high heave, namely Perot's run, back in '92 when he helped Clinton win the election. IE, third parties good if they help Dems, but if they harm Dems, third parties are demonspawn from hell. And when called on this hypocrisy, these people stutter, mumble, or don't deign to speak on the matter at all.

No, third parties don't annoy me. Hypocritical, undemocratic, uncritical thinking among Democrats is what truly annoys me.

[robcon]

61. I think it's perfectly ok to threaten, or to vote, 3rd party

I understand those who hold their nose, and vote strategically for the Democrat.

I understand those who won't do that on principle.

Either position is defensible. Neither position 'annoys' me.

[Vinca]

62. Anyone can vote for anybody, but if I had voted for a third

party in the last couple of elections I wouldn't be feeling too good about myself. A third part in 2008 might deliver Rudy or Sam or Duncan Hunter (in which case you'll find me north of the border).

[NoPasaran]

63. I voted yes

I voted yes but only because I find crybabies annoying.

Want to vote third party, fine. Just don't stamp your feet and make a scene about it.

[hijinx87]

66. this poll brilliantly demonstrates

that we seldom agree on much of anything. :evilgrin:

it's split right down the middle.

[pat_k]

73. Without IRV a third party is a shot in the head.

The true will of the people is far less likely to be expressed when you have three or more candidates in a first-past-the-post election. (e.g., the "spoiler" effect actually "spoils" the expression of our will). "Winning" with less than 50% injects ambiguity that can only be eliminated by re-allocate votes for the candidate who receives the fewest to the voters second choice.

Voting our preference for each candidate (1st, 2nd. . . or "no 2nd") not only ensures our government officials are actually the people that a majority of the electorate wants, it gives voters leverage. (The winner knows exactly how many votes came from people who preferred candidate Y or Z. If they don't heed the message they risk losing the next election because they lose those critical "2nd choice" voters.)

Our goal is to elect officials that best represent our common interests. Injecting a third or fourth candidate into a general election increases the chances of putting power into the hands of the candidate that a majority of us rejected. We get the opposite of what we are seeking.

For the moment, we are stuck with first-past-the-post-primaries, but the consequences of the "wrong candidate" winning are far less (presumably, candidates from the same Party are far more similar than candidates from different Parties).

Until IRV becomes the norm, the most effective way to issue a wake up call to the derelict Members of Congress is through serious primary challengers -- people who know the meaning of an oath. The threat alone can be enough to wake up our so-called "leaders." (i.e., If you don't stop stonewalling with "investigations" and impeach NOW, you'll face X in the primary.)

If leadership of the 110th Congress won't impeach Bush&Cheney to defend the Constitution, perhaps they'll impeach to defend their political futures.

It is NOT about the labels.

To be effective, it is critical that we understand what we are actually up against in the fight to take back our country.

The divisions between Party X and Party Y or Party Z are just artifacts of the REAL divisions we are up against. The labels -- liberal, conservative, progressive, right, left -- have become so loaded they have lost all objective meaning. The divide between left v. right positions on "issues" is NOT our fundamental problem.

The forces we must contend with are fascists v. anti-fascists; insiders v. outsiders; weakness v. strength.

Insiders v. Outsiders

You may be too young to remember, but not very long ago, politics wasn't viewed as the exclusive purview of the "professionals." Countless communities had vital Democratic Clubs and other associations where Americans experienced "politics" first hand. It wasn't always pretty, but people socialized, chose leaders, made decisions, and took civic action.

Over the years, people have been pushed out of their own game. These days, the "professionals" run the show and they are VERY protective of their turf.

For the so-called "Democratic strategists" of the world, we are game pieces that they -- the "professionals" -- manipulate. Heaven forbid any of us actually get involved! They may not even know WHY they feel so threatened when folks like Dean or Hackett inspire citizens to act, but their fear has absolutely nothing to do with positions on issues or particular actions.

Weakness v. Strength

The BIGGEST problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak and unprincipled. We are as pissed off as we are because, instead of fulfilling their Congressional oath and challenging their wimpy image by impeaching Bush and Cheney, they are adding salt to the wound by appeasing the fascists with assurances that Impeachment is "off the table."

The beltway is a closed system. It is a social world driven by mundane social forces (e.g., their fear of "backlash" has little to do with public reaction -- what they really fear is being ostracized from the DC social scene.) It is a world dominated by Republican propaganda (Over the past couple decades, Republicans have had more years to do the appointing and the hiring, and they are far more ruthless than Dems when it comes to purging the ranks). Countless actions are unthinkable in their world, for reasons they don't even understand. As with any closed system, absurd insider assumptions are never challenged. Their created reality is drifting further and further into lunacy.

It's About Us -- Not the Party. Not our Leaders.

The bottom line is that the insiders are protecting their turf from us.

WE are the REAL danger to their insular world. We are everywhere. We can enter their world, challenge their lunacy, and inject reality.

We can complete change their risk/reward calcuations. We must threaten them with real consequences for failure (e.g., primary challenges). We can reward them when they fighting for our treasured principles -- as we rewarded Barbara Boxer for standing up on January 6th with a surge of support, dollars, and respect.

They may not like the idea of being frowned on at Sally Quinn's next event, their fear of the folks out here, the ones with the real power, can trump their fears of social consequences.

Our immediate goals are clear.

Impeach Bush and Cheney and reject the results of suspect elections. Actions large and small will make these goals a reality. As we move forward, we need to remember that, however they fail or anger us, we can't let it just be about them. Ultimately, it is about figuring out how to use our power to see that our will is done.

[More Than A Feeling]

76. I'll tell you what annoys me.

Lectures from people who presume to have the standing to tell me how to vote. It's authoritarian, and illegitimate. If you see any people like that, let them know.

[treestar]

77. Yes, because though we should keep to our ideals, we need

balance.

And Repukes are Repukes.

Society is the way it is, it won't change overnight. Gradually it may change, but not if Repukes stay in power, so a vote that would have otherwise gone to a Democrat that goes to an impossible-to-win third party merely helps the Repukes.

[Norquist Nemesis]

78. Absolutely! Some people are better at pushing buttons

of elected officials than they are at bringing results as elected officials. Nader comes to mind. While he's been effective at pushing buttons to bring about change, I just can't imagine him being able to get anything done as an elected official.

If he's free to bring the issues to bear, he can accomplish much more than if he was an elected official with his wrists bound every turn.

[TayTay]

79. No. The right to vote freely and according to conscience

is sacred in a democracy.

If people want more voters, then they need to work for it and not blame democracy itself when their candidates don't get elected.

[Madspirit]

82. Ex-Homeless and Hungry

Only people with food in their bellies, insurance, health care and a comfortable armchair from which to philosophize, can afford to vote third party.

WE suffer because of YOU.

Nader has blood on his hands.

THE most important thing is getting the Republicans out of the White House. Right now, as an uninsured, barely off the streets, poor person, I would vote for a chair if it was running as a Democrat.

It's not Noble and High-Minded to vote third party in the presidential election. It's unconscionable.
Lee

[MadHound]

84. Don't presume to speak for all of the homeless and hungry, OK

I lived for a number of years on the street, and during that time I voted third party simply due to the fact that I realized that we live under a two party/same corporate master system of government, and that it was the machinations of both political parties, at the behest of their corporate bosses, that was screwing the average American into the ground. Sure, the Democrats might give you a kiss beforehand, but they'll screw you just the same. Why? Because they wish to continue to please their corporate masters and keep that money stream flowing.

Oh, and Nader doesn't have a damn thing on his hands. He didn't cost anybody any elections, all he was simply doing is speaking truth to power and exercising his Constitutional right to run for any office in this land. What, you don't like our Constitution now?

And again, don't presume to speak for all the homeless or ex-homeless. We are not some monolithic block, nor are we all of the same viewpoint.

[Madspirit]

85. I still work with the homeless...

...the marginal and the disenfranchised. Do you? ...because I am speaking for the HUNDREDS I personally know. I KNOW we can't get mental health help because of the Republicans. I KNOW we can't get food stamps, medical care and insurance because of the Republicans. So getting the Republicans out of office is most certainly THE most important thing to me and to the HUNDREDS of homeless I know.

I don't think we would be in this war with Iraq if Gore had won. This was always Baby Bush's plan.
Nader does have blood dripping off his fingertips.

I know I live in the Real World not the "wouldn't it be nice if blah blah blah blah."

So, I will speak for the HUNDREDS of homeless people I know. I will speak for the poor and the unmedicated and the uninsured because I still am one.

Are you?
Lee

[MadHound]

95. Yes, actually I do work with the homeless, the poor, the disenfranchised

I do so because I feel that morally I have to help my fellow human being try to get out of the the hole I was once in. I'm fortunate, through some help and a whole lot of work, I've finally managed to get back into the middle class. Along the way of that twenty five year odyssey I have volunteered at homeless shelters, crisis counseling centers, suicide hotlines, animal shelters, womens' shelters(where oddly enough, as a guy, I was regularly called in as a translator for the deaf), worked with MR/DD children and adults, and was a volunteer firefighter. I've finally gotten myself into a position to afford a college degree, and am going into elementary teaching. I currently work as a tutor for poor and disadvantaged students and still continue to volunteer at the local homeless shelter when classwork isn't kicking my ass.

Yeah, I still give a damn and I still walk the walk, thank you very much.

As far as Nader goes, let me clue you in on a few things about the '00 election(God, I should write this all on some word doc somewhere so I can just copy and paste, I've done it that many times).

First, Gore screwed himself early and often in Florida. The most egregeous of these errors came on his stance of off shore drilling close in to Florida. His major petroleum sponsor, BP Oil, were heavily in favor of this, and Gore followed their lead. His pro drilling stance pissed off aprox. 600,000 voters who were either registered Dems or self described liberals. In fact they were so pissed that they double screwed Gore, and voted for Bush instead. Way to flush victory down the drain eh?

Second, Greg Palast handed Gore the entire Votescam mess, including names, numbers and plenty of leads right back to Bushco, on a silver platter, early on during the recount process. Now imagine that you're Gore, and you have just been handed the means with which to banish your opponent to the political wilderness forever and secure the highest office in the land all for yourself. All you have to do is to go public. What would you do? Well, as we see, Gore sat on that information, and let Bush waltz into office.

Third, after the '00 election a consortium of newspapers went in and did their own Florida recount. In a report that was released, interestingly enough on 9/11, it was found that actually Gore won the popular vote in Florida. Hmm.

Fourth, even Al From, the great DLC god, doesn't blame Nader. In fact he states that Gore did better in Florida with Nader in the race than if Nader hadn't been there, pulling in more Republican votes than Democratic ones "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race." <http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

And finally, if you had forgotten, there was that little matter of the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch, Clinton gave us welfare "reform" and cut food stamps along with cuts to mental health. And during his term in office, the gap between the rich and the rest of us widened to a record breaking chasm. Meanwhile, a new term came in to being to describe a new social phenomenon, the working poor.

No, as I said earlier, I am not poor, I'm somewhere betwen lower middle class and middle class. But I all too vividly remember where I came from and what I owe. Thus I give back what I can when I can. I don't walk past my homeless brother, politely ignoring him. I stop and see what I can do to help, for I know that he is a victim of our two party, same corporate master system of government, just like we all are.

[Madspirit]

96. Read my apology from Madspirit to MadHound n/t

[MadHound]

99. I did, and thank you

Peace:hi:

[Forkboy]

104. nevermind

deleted after reading posts below where it was all said by others :)

[Hosnon]

86. I voted yes.

But only to make it exactly 50%-50% (80).

:blush:

[Madspirit]

88. Apology to MadHound from Madspirit

Part of my post is new and part is from an old post of mine. The two have been stitched together:


You are right, actually and I apologize for my abrasive response. After all, it was Bill Clinton who fucked food stamps. The problem is, when I really compare the Democrats and the Republicans, I feel like committing suicide, literally.

I get tired of all The Leftist Talking Heads, sitting around, brainstorming about THE High and Mighty Principles and The Constitution and Noble Ideals, waaaaaay into the night, loving hating Bushy the Chimp, loving hating any Democratic candidate who isn't perfect. Such solidarity, designer beer or a nice Merlot, smoke something, if you care to, put on the music, gaze fondly at posters of Che and Clinton, with his crotch in everyone's face, a mellow Brie and a Nice Baguette or some wafer crackers with cracked pepper, some sun-dried tomato Hummus, all from Whole Foods Market, (and still, after all these fucking years man, no grapes, damn it) and Whoohoohoo, a frothing at the mouth High Liberal Time.

...and still, it hasn't put food in any bellies but their own because Wealthy Highly Educated Liberals walk past the Homeless, the Almost Homeless, The Walking Wounded, without even seeing them, exactly the same way Wealthy Highly Educated Conservatives do. Exactly. The Real Problems of These Real People are just as invisible to the Democrats In Office as they are to the Republicans In Office. I see a lot of people caring a lot about Iraqi children they don't even know and that's a good thing but they do it while stepping right over the homeless man lying on the sidewalk, two streets down from where they live. (I will spit if I hear anyone skewing what I said. CARING ABOUT IRAQI CHILDREN IS GOOD. THAT IS WHAT I SAID.)

The truth is, I feel buried alive and sad and angry. I am so so so so so tired of the issues of The Poor, The Homeless, The Marginal, The Walking Wounded, being shoved to the bottom, the Last on The List, buried, tamped down, some decorative gravel thrown on top, COMPLETELY FUCKING FORGOTTEN, AGAIN, so all the Brains can spar and debate and Play the Game.

Still though, as a poor, mentally ill, lesbian leftist I do, at least, feel safer when we have a Democrat for POTUS.

So go vote for Binky the Clown if you want to. Be all prinicipled. I don't care. Or at least, I give up.
Lee

[MadHound]

98. No apology necessary. I fully realize that I'm a heritical Democrat

And that what I say pisses off many people around here. The truth, especially political truths, tends to do that:shrug:

I understand your frustration with the high and mighty liberal elite, but friend, I'm not one of them. I'm a farmer, a future teacher, a husband, and somebody who gives back to the community. I hate merlot, my "designer beer" is the home brew my buddy makes(but it is pretty tasty), and the only whole foods market I patronize is my garden every year.

But I came to the realization long ago that if I didn't stand up for my principles, nobody else would. And maybe, just maybe, if enough of us like minded people got together we could effect change. Well, that hasn't changed in presidential politics, but there's a different story in local and state elections around the country. People who aren't beholden to either party, or to corporate America are getting into office and effecting real change. Meanwhile myself and others around the country are working on an issue that would indeed provide relief for these issues of lesser evils and corporate control, that is publicly financed elections. Take money out of the equation and that would free our leaders to do what they're supposed to do, be the represenative for their constituents, not corporations. This would also allow a greater variety of people, real people, to run for office and act on those real issues of which you speak of.

Yes, the poor and powerless are always at the back of the line. I've known, and still know the frustration that you feel. Perhaps I deal with it better because I've been dealing with it so long, I don't know. But I do know that if you let this frustration and anger subsume the rest of your life, you will eat yourself alive with anger and rage, and then what good would you be to others. One other thing that I know is that more of the same ol' same ol' that we've been throwing at the problem of the poor in this country won't work. The problem of poverty is a symptom of a much greater illness in our society, one that can't be cured without some very radical political action. Hence, my favoring of publicly financed elections and the occaisional third party candidate. I do these things not to be a Wealthy Highly Educated Liberal, but because quite frankly it is the only solution short of all out revolution that I can see possibly working.

But no apology necessary, believe me. Like I said, I'm a heritical Democrat around here and have had much worse said to me. I understand your rage and frustration, for it is mine also. But once in awhile you have to put it down and let it go lest you mad.

But hey, this year I will have grapes! I'm growing some as an experiment. More than likely the birds will get most of them, but that's alright, birds have got to live too.

Peace:hi:

[Dr Fate]

89. They annoy me as much as those in the DLC who supported Lieberman's 3rd party.

The traitors who were for that probably annoy me even more than the Naderites do- because they actually go around claiming to be loyal to Democrats- it's not saying much, but at least the Naderites never pretended to be loyal to DEMS.

I just wish that the Pro-Lieberman DLCers-(elected ones, bloggers-etc) who demand party loyalty had talked this way when it came to Lamont's run.

I see a double standard- on one hand, the DLC defends and makes excuses for the Lieberman (I)run-which cost the Dems an election, but froth at the mouth when other 3rd parties cost DEMS elections.

Disclaimer- This post is not a personal attack on any DUers-If you were never a Lieberman(I) supporter and were as disappointed as everyone else was when Lamont(D) lost, then no need to get angry or take any offense to this post.

[Madspirit]

90. Lieberman

Lieberman is worse than Nader. I loathe both but still, Lieberman is the worst.
Lee

[Dr Fate]

92. Lieberman (& supporters)& Nader (& supporters) are peas in a pod.

Both keep the Democrat from winning in favor of candidates who support Bush.

I dont know about the rest of us, but I could care less if the 3rd party in question has the ability to win or not- I want the DEM to win over the conservative- and Lieberman & his supporters kept that from happening just like the greenies do.

[Madspirit]

94. Dr. Fate

Read my post, "Apology to MadHound from Madspirit", just a couple up, if you want to know hwo I really feel. Ultimately, that's one of my more depressed posts and I certainly would NEVER vote third party but that post is how I feel in my heart.
Lee

[skipos]

91. Running 3rd party (Lieberman) voting third party (some DUers) is equally bad

for America IMO. But hey, they can do whatever they want.

[Dr Fate]

93. Not just Joe's "running"- but those who supported & defended him too.

So it is not just an issue of Lieberman running- we also have to look at his traitorous supporters who go around claiming to be Loyal DEMS.

I would imagine those folks dont have a problem with Nader running or his supporters & defenders either, unless they are hypocrites.

[Geek_Girl]

100. No I sometimes think about voting third party

I never have voted third party but I've seriously considered it.

[Dr Fate]

101. Lieberman & his DLC supporters did not just "think" about it- they DID it.

I would hope that you would not follow in their foot-steps on that one, but it's a free country-you can support 3rd parties that keep DEMS from being elected if you want- just ask the DLC.

[Cuauhtla]

102. Inside-outside, push-pull

I voted no in the poll. Third parties can help influence the major parties on policy and focus. The PDA among others have discussed the importance of an inside-outside progressive strategy, otherwise it's just us saying "We'll take whatever you'll give us" rather than "Here's what we want".

That said, after 25 years as a libertarian (heavy on the personal liberty, ignoring the laissez faire economics), Bush convinced me that Republicans and Democrats aren't Tweedledee and Tweedledum. It'd take a really bad candidate (like when Cruz Bustamonte ran for Insurance Commish here in California in 2006) to make me vote anything but Democratic (I voted Green Party rather than Cruz Bustamonte).

[LeftishBrit]

103. No; they have the right to vote as they choose

I might promote a particular candidate or party; campaign for it; argue with people if it came up - but I would only be actively annoyed by someone if (a) they didn't bother to vote at all; (b) they voted for a fascist/ racist party such as the BNP; (c) they voted on the grounds of bigotry (e.g. against a female or black candidate just because of their sex or race, or for anyone on the grounds that 'they'll keep all those evil immigrants out).

Whether it's wise to vote third party, depends on the context. If the election is likely to be very close, and the right-wing candidate is very dangerous, then no.

In the British context I would agree with anyone who can't stomach Blair and votes Lib Dem or Green. In fact, I have never voted for Blair. I would disagree with them if they vote UKIP, but it's still their right.

In the American context, I would recommend NOT voting third-party as long as the election is likely to be as close as the last two; but of course it's even less my business how another individual votes in another country than in my own. But I am sure that ANY likely Dem candidate would be MUCH better than any likely GOP candidate.

[LostInAnomie]

105. Depends on the context

If it's meant as electoral extortion, then yes.

If it isn't an election year and they are voicing frustration with the state of American politics, then no.

I, for one, wish that we would have a powerful third, fourth, and fifth party out there to vote for. It would force our politicians to actually take real stances instead of looking for a watered down middle ground. A democracy should have real options. The problem is that, with our political system, the winner takes all and splitting our vote means a death sentence for our world view.

[flaminbats]

106. yes and no, I mean no and yes...

I mean maybe or maybe not, and possibly a third option like neither or both. I mean Perot and Nader were great guys, but what about a fourth or even a fifth dark shadow possibility? :rofl:

[CRH]

107. To not vote for one of the two major parties ...

is to exercise your right to search for what will 'most likely effect your safety and happiness'. Anyone who is annoyed by political diversity, should wonder what form governments would illustrate at present, if past diverse opinions had never challenged the status quo.

Neither political party 150 years ago wanted women to vote, or for blacks to have civil rights.

Today many people feel the money politics of corporate democracy will only be countered by third or fourth parties bargaining their influence and support, to effect a voice or a change in the platform in one of the major parties.

Those who fear third parties need to think more about democracies that use coalition governments. In many respects they can be more representitive of the society as a whole, than choose either A or B.

[cobaindrain]

108. yes, definitely

[election_2004]

109. NO!!!! Absolutely not!!!

What part of democracy don't you people understand?

It's "vote for who you believe in the most," not "vote for who we tell you to because they happen to belong to our party."

Obviously, those of us in the blue states have more of a privilege when it comes to the presidential race, since the Democrat is sure to win regardless of my piddly little presidential vote. It also means we have a special responsibility in the blue states to make sure our candidates (usually Democrats) remain clean. In the downticket races, there's a much closer margin, so it's more important to closely scrutinize both the Republican and Democratic candidates.

In the purple/red states that are competitive "battleground" or "swing states," each individual's vote makes a greater difference in terms of the Electoral College, so often times the decision can be a lot more difficult for purple and red state voters, depending on who the candidates are.

I was a Wisconsinite for a majority of my life (before moving to California), and in the last presidential election I certainly didn't think John Kerry was a perfect candidate. But I gave him my full and whole-hearted support because I felt he possessed an extremely high level of integrity, his positions were pretty decent on the issues that mattered the most to me, and I felt he would have good judgment in a crisis. Obviously, his judicial nominees would be far superior to Bush's.

I voted for Feingold for similar reasons, because he was even better in those areas than Kerry (in terms of U.S. Senate record)...and Tim Michels was a destructive moron.

I voted for Ron Kind for U.S. Congrss because, even though he wasn't a particularly standout candidate, he'd done a fair job as our U.S. Congressman, and his Republican challenger, Dale Schultz, was potentially dangerous.

In the last election, I voted for Angelides, Feinstein, and Brad Sherman. In Feinstein's case, although I've been disappointed in much of her public rhetoric, I didn't see any real standout qualities in any of her U.S. Senate opponents. Brad Sherman's Republican challenger, Peter Hankwitz, actually wasn't that bad (and I would have voted for Hankwitz over a conservative Dem such as, say, Lincoln Davis or Collin Pederson)...but I looked at Sherman's record as the incumbent and decided that he was doing a decent job in the U.S. House. Now that may could in the future, depending on Sherman's future actions.

I voted AGAINST Cruz Bustamante and Bill Lockyer (for Larry Cafiero and Mehul Thakker, the Green candidates, respectively) because I viewed both Bustamante and Lockyer as corrupt, and preferred Cafiero's and Thakker's messages. I voted for Michael Wyman over Jerry Brown because, even though I liked Brown's positions, I liked Wyman's positions even better.

Just a few examples of how I made my decisions, as both a purple state voter and blue state voter, in the last two major national elections.

[skipos]

110. I disagree

If I thought I should "vote for who I believe in the most," I'd be writing myself in for everything.

I vote for the best candidate who has at least somewhat of a chance in obtaining the office. So far, it has never been me, and is usually a Democrat.

[election_2004]

111. Well, were you ever running, yourself, in any of those elections?

And did you have any real, legitimate desire to serve in any of those offices?

Because if not, then your argument is simply a red herring.

[skipos]

113. I have more of a "real, legitmiate" desire than Ralph Nader

and many other 3rd party candidates. So sorry, it's not a red herring.

[flaminbats]

114. I agree..

it isn't voting for a third party that bugs me, just those who repeat it and repeat it..and endlessly rub it in!

if someone is willing to tell me why they plan to vote for a third party candidate and why I should vote for one..then I will listen. Just hearing more rage and bitterness against Gore or Kerry is a red herring, but hearing how supporting a third party candidate can help is not a red herring.

[election_2004]

116. Just keep in mind.....

You're not always going to like what you hear, when some of us explain why we choose to vote for a third-party candidate in a given circumstance.

You certainly don't have to agree or vote the same way as us...but those people who ask why people vote third-party just because they're looking for a rhetorical fight to make themselves feel morally-superior, are gonna get one!

And you might be bugged by those who vote third-party and "repeat it and repeat it...and endlessly rub it in" - - - but I'm majorly bugged by people who scoff at anyone who doesn't loudly and proudly identify as a "Democrat" as supposedly being "arrogant" and "thinking they're better than everyone else." And then those people will turn right around and bully people by telling them they're "traitors" if they don't vote Democratic in every circumstance.

So I guess we're even.

[flaminbats]

117. does it make us even?

kick me in the face, and I'll do the same to you! :spank:

Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were both candidates I considered voting for. I voted for Clinton in 96, mainly because he did most of the things Perot promised to do! I also voted for Clinton because he kept fighting the Republicans for healthcare reform, even as Democrats in Congress wimped out on that issue.

I didn't vote for Nader mainly because he wasn't on the ballot in my state, but also because I knew that electing Bush would put us on the path that we are suffering through today! Nothing that Nader or you have said ever made me angry. Those things were just not enough to win my support.

Most Democrats I know don't view Nader voters as traitors, and most Nader voters I know don't view Democrats as bullies or egotists. So I think we can agree on this, and work together to unite Greens and Democrats while bringing our country some benefits..like universal healthcare. :hippie:

[election_2004]

121. Well, it means you know some civil people in RL

Here on DU, I've seen quite a bit of the opposite. But maybe cyberspace brings out the worst in people?

By the way, I'm not a Green, but I do agree that it's beneficial to find more Democratic candidates who will inspire some crossover Greens.

[election_2004]

115. Yes it is. Here is your original argument:

If I thought I should "vote for who I believe in the most," I'd be writing myself in for everything.

This is what you said. It is also beside the point. Most voters don't even consider writing themselves in on their ballot, but many of us do look at multiple candidates other than the Democrat and the Republican (granted, many times I end up voting for the Democrat, but for me that depends on the individual who's running).

I don't give a fuck about Ralph Nader or his arrogance. I didn't vote for him in any of the past presidential elections, and I won't be voting for him if he runs again in 2008.

But in other (non-Nader) races, it's completely valid for voters to weigh the virtues of third-party candidates against major party candidates who happen to have moral/ethical/character drawbacks.

By focusing on Ralph Nader and the "you-might-as-well-vote-for-yourself" straw man, you are muddying the issue.

You're free to use whatever criteria you feel is best, when deciding how you're going to vote. But not all of us are going to fall in line with that way of thinking.

[skipos]

118. Uh... no.

Here is YOUR orignial statement, which you erroneously presented as some sort of fact.

"It's "vote for who you believe in the most'"

And no, that isn't what "it" is, otherwise people would be voting for friends, family and themselves.

What "it" is for me and you can be two entirely different things, and there is nothing wrong with that. And for the record, while it doesn't bother me that a incredibly large majority of Americans don't have the slightest interest in 3rd party candidates, it also doesn't bother me when people vote for them.

It is unfortunate that America has had to learn the hard way that Nader's "Gore=Bush" was an absolute lie. However, I don't blame him for running, I just blame him for not being intelligent enough to realize how wrong he was.

[election_2004]

122. Maybe I should have been more clear?

When I said "vote for who you believe in the most," I was speaking in the context of all the names on the ballot for a given race.

I guess I thought that was implicit in my statement, and didn't think anyone would take what I said to the absolute literal.

[Demo_Cracker]

119. Democrats cannot win if they play the blame game.

:shrug:

[election_2004]

123. That's right!

And the Yellow Dog Partisans still haven't learned!

[Katherine Brengle]

120. Neither. This is not a black and white issue.

It is irresponsible, I think, in places where there is a very slim margin between the candidates from the 2 main parties and the voter identifies as a Democrat but votes against the Democratic candidate.

However, if an individual fully identifies with a third party, then said voter should vote his/her conscience. Or, if the margin is so wide than said individual's vote can be better spent voting, essentially, for funding for a third party, then by all means.

[Vidar]

124. Not at all.

[ulysses]

125. no.

I try not to get into the habit of telling other liberals how to vote.