Voting Independently: why does it seem like such a foreign concept?
Options
Mister B.
Members, Writer Posts: 16,172 ✭✭✭✭✭
Seriously, if people are stating thing like "Obama and Romney are one in the same", and "nothing's going to change, Repubs or Dems", then why not vote for someone who has no alliance to EITHER side, regardless of if you think they'll win or not?
Comments
-
Its good in theory and in a real democracy that would be an option but a vote for an independent at this point is like not voting at all.
If you vote for Jill Stein for instance, that pretty much means your a liberal that didn't vote for Obama , so that HELPS Romney in the long run.
If we had some type of system that guaranteed equal opportunity to everyone who runs on any platform that would be a lot better. -
I'll vote independent this election, most likely for the Green Party, if more people voted independent there would be real change in this country. At least I would hope so, the main problem is big business runs this country. And big dollars are very influential. Also, most people don't think for themselves and listen to the people with the biggest hold in the media.
-
Its good in theory and in a real democracy that would be an option but a vote for an independent at this point is like not voting at all.
If you vote for Jill Stein for instance, that pretty much means your a liberal that didn't vote for Obama , so that HELPS Romney in the long run.
If we had some type of system that guaranteed equal opportunity to everyone who runs on any platform that would be a lot better.
I feel you but to make change in the long term, independent parties have to be given a chance. Democrats are better than Republicans in my eyes but they still think too backward when it comes to foreign policy and the economy. If we keep voting Democrat without giving independents a chance to shine, than it's just gona be the same old story again and again. Yeah it could cost elections when the alternative is worst but I'm willing to punish candidates who aren't doing enough to help create change as a lessen to others who wana disappoint as well. -
Ideology & Philosophy are treated, in America, like religions.
Everybody (including the religious) deep down know it's ? . But they arent going to dare say it out loud because many can not even admit it to themselves.
For people to vote independently they must first be taught that independent thought is acceptable in society. And as we all know, politics, like religion can get your ass outcasted if you state the wrong opinion in your social setting.
Eventually you just get institutionalized and start to believe that you actually arrived at that political opinion/philosophy on your own when really a lot of passive aggressive intimidation and sort of unintentional intimidation came along with it.
Social conditioning is stronger than any statistic, reasoned argument or common-sensical solution could ever be. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Its good in theory and in a real democracy that would be an option but a vote for an independent at this point is like not voting at all.
If you vote for Jill Stein for instance, that pretty much means your a liberal that didn't vote for Obama , so that HELPS Romney in the long run.
If we had some type of system that guaranteed equal opportunity to everyone who runs on any platform that would be a lot better.
I feel you but to make change in the long term, independent parties have to be given a chance. Democrats are better than Republicans in my eyes but they still think too backward when it comes to foreign policy and the economy. If we keep voting Democrat without giving independents a chance to shine, than it's just gona be the same old story again and again. Yeah it could cost elections when the alternative is worst but I'm willing to punish candidates who aren't doing enough to help create change as a lessen to others who wana disappoint as well.
The only way they are going to have a chance is to get them on TV and getting them to be apart of the debates, you know all that type of stuff. Cats getting 4-5% of the vote aint changing nada as long as you can win with gettin 40+%. -
Ha what an idealistic group...
Voting independently, whilst knowing 10000% that your candidate will not win, is admitting that your 'vote' is nothig g more than symbolism. Now, if you're cool with that, an its just a way for you to excercise your rights/voice displeasure, cool.
But dont be one of those people bytching about how things need to change, nobody is doing anything right, etc, and then esentialy throw your vote away by voting for the ever cliche Ron Paul, for example. -
You people got it all wrong. Voting for Obamney IS A WASTED VOTE. Period. If Obamney is going to win no matter what, why waste your vote endorsing evil and having no impact when voting for Gary Johnson makes a strong statement to the status quo establishment.
-
Yeah, I agree with a lot that's been said. Our self proclaimed "two party system" is very systematic indeed unfortunately. 200 years ago, George Washington (imo our greatest president) predicted this exact mess that has been caused by the intense and often idiotic rivalry between our political parties. We should've heeded his warning, but apparently we never learn.Ha what an idealistic group...
Voting independently, whilst knowing 10000% that your candidate will not win, is admitting that your 'vote' is nothig g more than symbolism. Now, if you're cool with that, an its just a way for you to excercise your rights/voice displeasure, cool.
But dont be one of those people bytching about how things need to change, nobody is doing anything right, etc, and then esentialy throw your vote away by voting for the ever cliche Ron Paul, for example.
I think that I fall in your former group. I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries, not because I'm trying to be rebellious or edgy but because I genuinely believe in him and his policies and consider him to clearly be the best option for America. It was the Republican primaries, and he was having some success, so it wasn't like I thought he had no chance. I still believe that the general opposition towards him from the government, the media, and the Republican party ended any chances of him succeeding unfortunately.
Would I vote for him as an independent in the presidential elections if I could? Yes, and I would commend anyone for doing so. It's about principle, and never about compromise. Plus, "symoblism" can have powerful and practical effects, even if it takes a while for them to appear. So I don't agree with your "throwing away your vote" argument. If someone doesn't like either Democrat or Republican candidate, he shouldn't have to choose between them to make his vote "count."
-
...or we could not blame people who don't want to vote for Major Party Choice A and Major Party Choice B for getting the guy we don't like elected. if you don't like Obama or Romney, who cares if you "help Romney in the long run?"If you vote for Jill Stein for instance, that pretty much means your a liberal that didn't vote for Obama , so that HELPS Romney in the long run. If we had some type of system that guaranteed equal opportunity to everyone who runs on any platform that would be a lot better.
i demand proof of this "voting independent"kingblaze84 wrote: »I'll vote independent this election, most likely for the Green Party, if more people voted independent there would be real change in this country. At least I would hope so, the main problem is big business runs this country. And big dollars are very influential. Also, most people don't think for themselves and listen to the people with the biggest hold in the media. -
Ha what an idealistic group...
Voting independently, whilst knowing 10000% that your candidate will not win, is admitting that your 'vote' is nothig g more than symbolism. Now, if you're cool with that, an its just a way for you to excercise your rights/voice displeasure, cool.
But dont be one of those people bytching about how things need to change, nobody is doing anything right, etc, and then esentialy throw your vote away by voting for the ever cliche Ron Paul, for example.
So pretty much what u are saying is if the candidate u deem to be the most qualified doesnt stand any given chance which will in turn force u to settle between "the lesser of two evils", of which u had no intention of voting for either to begin with, and they start doing things u disapprove of, u cant complain? if that is the case that says alot more about the current system than anything else. -
Obama and Romney are nothing alike and this ? y'all spreading is a Republican tactic to make Independents stay home. Voting third party has never worked in this system and even when a third party comes about, it ends up merging with another and two exist yet again. Third party candidates aren't even that different from the main party candidate and you had plenty of choice to not choose Obama the first time around. Don't get but hurt because no body wants to nominate an extreme candidate that doesn't want to work things out and only wants it their way.
It's an unrealistic approach no matter who you choose because even if they got elected, they wouldn't be able to do anything with opposing parties from both sides. Also, third parties don't differ that greatly from either the right or left because they lean either right or left anyway. Ron Paul caucuses with the Republicans and runs as one, so how is he being third party all that different other then being more overt, and less willing to compromise. Vote local and work the proper candidate up. That's how Obama got in in the first place. Other then that, get most of the country to agree to new voting rules. -
...or we could not blame people who don't want to vote for Major Party Choice A and Major Party Choice B for getting the guy we don't like elected. if you don't like Obama or Romney, who cares if you "help Romney in the long run?"If you vote for Jill Stein for instance, that pretty much means your a liberal that didn't vote for Obama , so that HELPS Romney in the long run. If we had some type of system that guaranteed equal opportunity to everyone who runs on any platform that would be a lot better.
I don't care who other people vote for or if they don't vote, so I don't "blame" anyone but "symbolic" voting is useless. Like I said you might as well not vote, the big parties don't care either way because one of them is going to win.
Nobody remembers 3rd place unless that 3rd place person caused someone else to lose by splitting the vote.
Change the system, we will have a different conversation. -
Yeah, I agree with a lot that's been said. Our self proclaimed "two party system" is very systematic indeed unfortunately. 200 years ago, George Washington (imo our greatest president) predicted this exact mess that has been caused by the intense and often idiotic rivalry between our political parties. We should've heeded his warning, but apparently we never learn.Ha what an idealistic group...
Voting independently, whilst knowing 10000% that your candidate will not win, is admitting that your 'vote' is nothig g more than symbolism. Now, if you're cool with that, an its just a way for you to excercise your rights/voice displeasure, cool.
But dont be one of those people bytching about how things need to change, nobody is doing anything right, etc, and then esentialy throw your vote away by voting for the ever cliche Ron Paul, for example.
I think that I fall in your former group. I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries, not because I'm trying to be rebellious or edgy but because I genuinely believe in him and his policies and consider him to clearly be the best option for America. It was the Republican primaries, and he was having some success, so it wasn't like I thought he had no chance. I still believe that the general opposition towards him from the government, the media, and the Republican party ended any chances of him succeeding unfortunately.
Would I vote for him as an independent in the presidential elections if I could? Yes, and I would commend anyone for doing so. It's about principle, and never about compromise. Plus, "symoblism" can have powerful and practical effects, even if it takes a while for them to appear. So I don't agree with your "throwing away your vote" argument. If someone doesn't like either Democrat or Republican candidate, he shouldn't have to choose between them to make his vote "count."
Like i said, if you're cool with it being a symbolic gesture (or as you said, the principle of it), more power to you. Just keep it 100 and realize that the needle is not moving at all.
Furthermore, i find it disingenous, comical, and, quite frankly, a GIMIC to even think IF an independent candidate took office he'd be able to do his own thing and be a maverick, implementng wholesale changes, while having Rep and Dem congress and constituents to appease. PLEASE
They know they have no chnace of winning! Thats why they can afford to throw out bullshyt principles that SOUND good in practice, but simply would not fly. And yall sop that ? up like biscuits hahaha Ooh, Ron Paul would change EVERYTHANG! Haha
I liken it to what happens in business all the time: a gimic company comes in and low-? the entire industry, but has no long-term sustainability b/c they dont undertsand everything that goes on and doenst need to answer to it.
-
^^^In a nutshell, let an Independent candidate REALLY have a shot...then have to please everybody, like major candidates do. Then we'll see how much yall love em
-
So y'all really think Obama and Romney are one in the same? SMH.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »Obama and Romney are nothing alike
I will admit that Obama and Romney are not one in the same, but I will also disagree that Obama and Romney are nothing alike. Those two statements represent the extremes of either end.
I think that the truth is that both are very much alike in some respects. After all, we are talking about politicians right? Politicians who pander to the masses. I think that if you look at Obama closely, you can see a lot of conservativism or semi-conservativism. After all, Obama is an appeaser. Congress might have forced him into that position, though he has made the point of being for America as opposed to being exclusively partisan. Obama's foreign policy resembles that of many conservatives. And hasn't he extended some of Bush's policies? I think that it would be more accurate to say that Obama is like Romney rather than Romney is like Obama or Romney and Obama are alike.
I'm not entirely knowledgeable about this stuff, so correct me if I'm wrong.FuriousOne wrote: »and this ? y'all spreading is a Republican tactic to make Independents stay home.
I think that you're giving Republicans too much credit, they're not that smart, j/k. Honestly, I don't think that Republicans care about independents. Like I previously mentioned, I think that the reason that the similarities between Obama and Romney are being brought up is simply because there are similarities between Obama and Romney.FuriousOne wrote: »Voting third party has never worked in this system
I agree and disagree.
My disagreements: Many independent candidates have been successful throughout history. Of course, George Washington (whom I would like to again declare the greatest American president) was "independent" in both of his terms and avoided the partisan conflict that his colleagues, Jefferson and Adams, instigated. Past and present history has witnessed success from Socialist, Populist, Progressive, Green, and Libertarian parties. Today, the governor of Rhode Island is independent, and we have two independent senators. I think that at least a fourth of Americans identify themselves as neither Republican nor Democrat.
My agreements: Most likely, you were referring only to presidents, and that much is obvious. We technically have had no independent president, though it might be argued that we have had an independent vice president. But that's neither here nor there. The point that I was trying to make in the above paragraph is that an independent president is not impossible. Very difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. It takes a nation of millions. Patience, activism, and resolve won't hurt either. -
FuriousOne wrote: »and even when a third party comes about, it ends up merging with another and two exist yet again.
I would rather say that when a third party comes about, sometimes one of the major two parties adopts or assimilates that third party's major platform. What this does is essentially render that third party irrelevant since it's major policy is now shared by a bigger and more popular party, tempting its potential followers to abandon ship in favor of a major party. Regardless, a third party can still maintain a unique identity, especially if it preserves other distinctive yet less major policies.FuriousOne wrote: »Third party candidates aren't even that different from the main party candidate
This is a very vague statement, so I'm not sure how to respond other than to say that this can be true at times but can be false at other times.
It is true that many independents are former Democrats and Republicans. But think about it. Why did they leave? Most likely because they had major disagreements with their major parties. That alone should tell you that there are independents who are very different, sometimes at odds, with their former major parties.
I think that it is a mistake to think that Democrats and Republicans represent the only legitimate political platforms in the United States. As if any other platform or party is simply a Democrat or Republican copy.FuriousOne wrote: »and you had plenty of choice to not choose Obama the first time around. Don't get but hurt because no body wants to nominate an extreme candidate that doesn't want to work things out and only wants it their way.
I'm having a hard time understanding just what you're saying here. And I don't think that this was directed at me, but I'll answer it just for the ? of it. I must admit that I did vote for Obama, though I wasn't part of the Obama fever that was going around at the time. I don't regret voting for him, but I do wish that I was more informed during the time so that I could've made a more informed decision. I'm not saying that I wouldn't have still voted for Obama given the circumstances. I just think that I wasn't as informed as I could've been.
I'm not butthurt at all. Plus, just because a candidate is independent doesnt mean that he is extreme, right? And you yourself said that independents aren't even that different from major party candidates. So are you saying that main party candidates are extreme too?
Also, I consider Ron Paul an independent, even though he recently ran as a Republican (a true Republican imho). I never once perceived him as extreme or not wanting to work things out (whatever that means) and only wanting it his way. ? , the man's a libertarian. He wants it so that everyone can generally have it his/her own way. -
FuriousOne wrote: »It's an unrealistic approach no matter who you choose because even if they got elected, they wouldn't be able to do anything with opposing parties from both sides.
Hmm, that reminds me of what is happening to Obama now, and Obama is not third party. The problem isn't about being third party. That's just the surface. The root of the problem is the petty bickering between all parties who continue to remain stubborn and prejudiced in their partisan ways.FuriousOne wrote: »Also, third parties don't differ that greatly from either the right or left because they lean either right or left anyway.
I think that I already offered my rebuttal to this, but I will say that "left" and "right" is an incredibly complex and diverse spectrum, not an "this or that" dial. Again, you seem to believe that democrats and republicans represent this universal and all encompassing constituency, and this is not true imo.
This is not the best example to demonstrate the complexity of "left and right", but fascism (right) is commonly contrasted with communism (left). Yet both can have many similarities, including adhering to authoritariansim. The Nazis actually were very "socialist" in many regards and even started out as such. It might be more accurate to rethink the political spectrum line as a political specturm circle in which fascism and communism/socialism are right by each other at a given point on the circle. This would certainly make left and right much more complicated and subjective.FuriousOne wrote: »Ron Paul caucuses with the Republicans and runs as one, so how is he being third party all that different other then being more overt, and less willing to compromise.
I think that I already explained my disagreement here.FuriousOne wrote: »Vote local and work the proper candidate up. That's how Obama got in in the first place. Other then that, get most of the country to agree to new voting rules.
We seem to finally agree here, which is odd because here you don't seem to be saying that it would be wrong or pointless to vote for a local independent to rise to the status of presidency. Can an independent be a "proper candidate?"
Oh and if by "new voting rules" you mean "new voting system", then I agree.
-
I don't care who other people vote for or if they don't vote, so I don't "blame" anyone
but didn't you just make the point that voting third party is pointless at best and detrimental at worst? you might respect other people's decisions, and you might be in favor of letting people do themselves, but you obviously "care" enough to try to inform or persaude voters.but "symbolic" voting is useless.
I disagree. The short term effect may not be much. But short term effects do exist, like exercising your right to make a genuine vote even if your candidate doesn't win. That's a personal achievement, but other short term effects might also include not contributing to a major party (or major parties) and thus giving it (or them) less votes and thus less of a chance and influence for success. Think if independents were to do this in increasing numbers each election, as major parties would see drastic decreases in thier voter turnouts.
And this leads me to the possible long term effects "symoblic" voting can have. Very few major transformations see significant results within, say, ten years. A change in this situation may take several decades, but it's certainly possible to have practical and realistic effects in the long run. If Americans were disillusioned, the process would've been sped up decades ago. You underestimate the power of "symbolism."Like I said you might as well not vote
People say the same thing to voters when they point out that an individual's single vote is nothing compared to the tens of millions of votes needed to vote a candidate to presidency. People say the same thing to Republican voters when they point out that Romney has no chance. If Romney loses, does that in effect make all of his votes pointless? The fact that third party candidates do so poorly is not because they are poor candidates. It is because Americans are sheep for a system that's inefficient. The potential is there, we just ? it in the cradle by saying things like "you might as well not vote."the big parties don't care either way because one of them is going to win.
I agree. That's what I told FuriousOne, but he seems to think otherwise, even though all in all you both seem to be on the same side of the argument.Nobody remembers 3rd place unless that 3rd place person caused someone else to lose by splitting the vote.
Or unless that 3rd place got an unusually high number of votes, even if it was less than 10% of the winner's votes. Tiny seeds can grow into huge trees. Like I said, the potential to effect long term, pratical goals is possible. It's just up to us.
Like I told Furious, a third party isn't necessarily a splinter group of a major party. We need to stop this line of thinking. Are you (I'm not specifically talking to you btw since you may not believe this) telling me that third party voters cannot be independent from either major party? That a third party voter must be an "extension" of either the Democrats or Republicans, as if these two are the only legitimate parties in existence? You can see how this line of reasoning perpetuates our "two-party" system right?Change the system, we will have a different conversation.
That's what it all comes down to. Reforming this incompetent system. But my problem and confusion is that people are against voting third party, but they are advocating changing the system at the same time? Some of these so called "revolutionaries" that want to change the system are even calling for people to vote within this two-party system. How does that make any sense?! Change the system from within? I don't see that happening, at least in that way.
-
but you don't think this affects conservatives or liberals who find the candidates too moderate? come on, let's not pretend they're two wildly different candidates. either way i look, i see a millionaire who don't give a ? about me. although i must admit i am a little salty about this election.FuriousOne wrote: »Obama and Romney are nothing alike and this ? y'all spreading is a Republican tactic to make Independents stay home.
what's odd, though, is that you seem to be acknowledging that third parties DO happen and HAVE worked (see also: Republicans) and yet claiming that it's never worked.FuriousOne wrote: »Voting third party has never worked in this system and even when a third party comes about, it ends up merging with another and two exist yet again.
i have a theory that Green/Libertarian candidates are more different than Obama/Romney than Obama and Romney are from each other.FuriousOne wrote: »Third party candidates aren't even that different from the main party candidate and you had plenty of choice to not choose Obama the first time around.
granted, however, that it's not like some third party president is going to win and then dominant the two parties' reps in Congress.
considering that you're advancing the theory that voting third party helps Romney, you DO care who people vote for. please don't pretend otherwise.I don't care who other people vote for-
you know what's changed the system in the past? the rise of new political parties. the other thing is that you're presenting changing the political system wholesale as EASIER than pushing a serious third party option. this is a bit ridiculous, to say the least.Change the system, we will have a different conversation. -
Like i said, if you're cool with it being a symbolic gesture (or as you said, the principle of it), more power to you. Just keep it 100 and realize that the needle is not moving at all.
I disagree. I explained my reasonings in detail already, but I'll try to summarize. The needle can move. Saying that it can't move is a defeatist and self-fulfilling prophecy that is unfortunately getting the best of us - "us" as in we who want this change.
I can't tell how many times that I've had discussions with friends and strangers alike in which we have all agreed that the current system is wack and we want/need change. It's very obvious and clear to us because we are educated and knowledgeable about these kinds of things. But the vast majority of Americans aren't. Still, there are many of us who are. But half of us actually don't do anything because we see the situation as hopeless (i.e., "we might as well not vote at all"). The other half, even though this half eventually loses hope as well, does do something about it: educating the masses, spreading the word, uniting together. We do much more than just cast our third party vote. That vote is merely a final process in an ongoing series of "activism." The complete process throughout time is what moves the needle.Furthermore, i find it disingenous, comical, and, quite frankly, a GIMIC to even think IF an independent candidate took office he'd be able to do his own thing and be a maverick, implementng wholesale changes, while having Rep and Dem congress and constituents to appease. PLEASE
Lol, I think that FuriousOne said the same thing, and I agree partially. Like I told him, Obama is dealing with the same bs. This a problem with partisan stubborness.
But of course, in order to effect change, all of us must be educated, especially about American politics. There's no use in being a warrior when it comes to the presidential election and then taking a nap when the midterm elections come around.
What you said doesn't necessarily imply that voting independents to Congress (which is far more successful than voting independents to presidency) is impossible. And I think that it is very possible. After all, voting independents to Congress has been far more "successful" than voting independents to presidency. So it is possible for an independent president to have the support in Congress to be an effective president. Voting independent across the board would just be an imperative part of the process.
What you said just points out the obvious fact that Americans might be ignorant when it comes to thier own politics. I honestly might not blame them though. I was ignorant for a long time as well. Before 2006 (I couldn't vote at the time), I had no idea that we don't really vote for the president. The concept of an electoral college was a foreign and unecessarily complicated idea to me.
-
They know they have no chnace of winning! Thats why they can afford to throw out bullshyt principles that SOUND good in practice, but simply would not fly. And yall sop that ? up like biscuits hahaha Ooh, Ron Paul would change EVERYTHANG! Haha
*Sigh* I think that you're completely missing the point. You also seem pretty prejudiced which would explain why you missed the point.
I think that I've already explained my reasonings, but I will say that there actually are third parties that have a good amount of support and that actually have genuine and practical policies that not only sound "good" but also would actually "fly." None of these parties go in thinking they are completely irrelevant. And I would be very surprised if these parties ever thought that successes would come quickly. Like I've said, changes of this magnitude take time. Unfortnutely, people want change fast, but that's impractical. It's not about "winning." It's about influence. A great man can "fail" and die, but can also inspire a generation centuries later.
I still genuinely support Ron Paul and support most of his policies. There are people who support independents because it's popular or edgy, but at the same time, there are people who support major parties because it's traditional or comfortable. Support comes in its flimsy forms across the board in all situations, but to imply that support for independents consists mostly of naive sheep would be a mistake imo. I would think that most of the naive sheep that sop ? up like biscuits would be Republicans and Democrats, but meh. Anyways, not all independents belong to the "Rent Is Too Damn High Party", (no disrepect to those who actually do). We/they come in different shapes in sizes, which is more than what I can say for Republicans and Democrats.I liken it to what happens in business all the time: a gimic company comes in and low-? the entire industry, but has no long-term sustainability b/c they dont undertsand everything that goes on and doenst need to answer to it.
meh?^^^In a nutshell, let an Independent candidate REALLY have a shot...then have to please everybody, like major candidates do. Then we'll see how much yall love em
"Please" is such a strong word. Unfortunately, I think that an independent, like any other president, might have to make "compromises" here and there. Just look at Obama. After all, we are talking about American politics. It's only practical. Anyone who gets butthurt because of this should either stop being naive or continue to fight the system for the better. Regardless, a president, whatever his affiliation, should never violate his integrity or ethics.
-
but you don't think this affects conservatives or liberals who find the candidates too moderate? come on, let's not pretend they're two wildly different candidates. either way i look, i see a millionaire who don't give a ? about me. although i must admit i am a little salty about this election.FuriousOne wrote: »Obama and Romney are nothing alike and this ? y'all spreading is a Republican tactic to make Independents stay home.
what's odd, though, is that you seem to be acknowledging that third parties DO happen and HAVE worked (see also: Republicans) and yet claiming that it's never worked.FuriousOne wrote: »Voting third party has never worked in this system and even when a third party comes about, it ends up merging with another and two exist yet again.
i have a theory that Green/Libertarian candidates are more different than Obama/Romney than Obama and Romney are from each other.FuriousOne wrote: »Third party candidates aren't even that different from the main party candidate and you had plenty of choice to not choose Obama the first time around.
granted, however, that it's not like some third party president is going to win and then dominant the two parties' reps in Congress.
considering that you're advancing the theory that voting third party helps Romney, you DO care who people vote for. please don't pretend otherwise.I don't care who other people vote for-
Its called an "example" I'm sure you've heard of examples, right?
you know what's changed the system in the past? the rise of new political parties. the other thing is that you're presenting changing the political system wholesale as EASIER than pushing a serious third party option. this is a bit ridiculous, to say the least.[/quote]Change the system, we will have a different conversation.
Really? New political parties "changed the system", When was this?
I never said changing the system would be easy, I'm saying symbolic voting won't change the system. -
Because many people who vote 3rd party are usually former liberals/ Democrats. Which helps these stubborn, ignorant Republicans with their stagnated base.
-
I don't care who other people vote for or if they don't vote, so I don't "blame" anyone
but didn't you just make the point that voting third party is pointless at best and detrimental at worst? you might respect other people's decisions, and you might be in favor of letting people do themselves, but you obviously "care" enough to try to inform or persaude voters.
I'm not stumping for anyone, I'm telling an inconvenient truth. Voting 3rd party gets you nowhere. That's a fact.but "symbolic" voting is useless.
I disagree. The short term effect may not be much. But short term effects do exist, like exercising your right to make a genuine vote even if your candidate doesn't win. That's a personal achievement, but other short term effects might also include not contributing to a major party (or major parties) and thus giving it (or them) less votes and thus less of a chance and influence for success. Think if independents were to do this in increasing numbers each election, as major parties would see drastic decreases in thier voter turnouts.[/Quote]
If your voting 3rd party for your own "personal achievement" that's fine but let's not act as if it will change anything at present. The best a 3rd party will do is spoil one of the other parties. Of course I'm speaking on national elections in most states, there are instances where 3rd parties can be more impactful on the local level.And this leads me to the possible long term effects "symoblic" voting can have. Very few major transformations see significant results within, say, ten years. A change in this situation may take several decades, but it's certainly possible to have practical and realistic effects in the long run. If Americans were disillusioned, the process would've been sped up decades ago. You underestimate the power of "symbolism."
I am under the impression its already been decades and both parties are still becoming more entrenched in the power structure.Like I said you might as well not vote
People say the same thing to voters when they point out that an individual's single vote is nothing compared to the tens of millions of votes needed to vote a candidate to presidency. People say the same thing to Republican voters when they point out that Romney has no chance. If Romney loses, does that in effect make all of his votes pointless? The fact that third party candidates do so poorly is not because they are poor candidates. It is because Americans are sheep for a system that's inefficient. The potential is there, we just ? it in the cradle by saying things like "you might as well not vote."
[/Quote]
"Insufficient" is putting it mildly lol. I partially agree with the "sheep" comment. I think people vote for the person that "best represents" them even if they don't like him. Conservatives and Republicans were ? on Romney during the primaries but are consolidated behind him now for the sole purpose of defeating Obama. People who wouldn't normally vote for Romney will vote for him now because they dislike Obama. It shouldn't come to any surprise that they are.the big parties don't care either way because one of them is going to win.
I agree. That's what I told FuriousOne, but he seems to think otherwise, even though all in all you both seem to be on the same side of the argument.Nobody remembers 3rd place unless that 3rd place person caused someone else to lose by splitting the vote.
Or unless that 3rd place got an unusually high number of votes, even if it was less than 10% of the winner's votes. Tiny seeds can grow into huge trees. Like I said, the potential to effect long term, pratical goals is possible. It's just up to us.
Like I told Furious, a third party isn't necessarily a splinter group of a major party. We need to stop this line of thinking. Are you (I'm not specifically talking to you btw since you may not believe this) telling me that third party voters cannot be independent from either major party? That a third party voter must be an "extension" of either the Democrats or Republicans, as if these two are the only legitimate parties in existence? You can see how this line of reasoning perpetuates our "two-party" system right?
Yes. But people tend to group like objects with like objects. A Constitutional Party voter will share a lot of the same messages as a Republican voter, by grouping like items the Constitutional Party looks like another wing of Republicans. Whether that is true or false doesn't matter, its all about voter perception and if you are perceived to be a Liberal, even if you're an anti-Obama progressive, to a Conservative you might as well be a Democrat.Change the system, we will have a different conversation.
That's what it all comes down to. Reforming this incompetent system. But my problem and confusion is that people are against voting third party, but they are advocating changing the system at the same time? Some of these so called "revolutionaries" that want to change the system are even calling for people to vote within this two-party system. How does that make any sense?! Change the system from within? I don't see that happening, at least in that way.
[/quote]
Fair criticism but by that same token a 3rd party candidate can't change the system from within either because it will be so few of them.
Its quite the conundrum, to which there's no simple answer because you have obstructionists in both parties that are wholly interested in keeping themselves and their party relevant. I've been reading up on proportional representation and campaign finance reform information but I'm certain you can't get proportion representation but campaign finance reform may be possible with some pressure.
