why vote lp?

[bishop]

for those of us deeply angry with and fearful of the bush administration - why should we vote for the lp (or any other 3rd party) and risk handing bush a second term?

what is the practical and pragmatic reason why people should vote for someone who has absolutely no chance of winning?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Good Question. I am still struggling with this dillemma and its only 5 weeks away. I just recieved my Badnarik bumper sticker in the mail yesterday and I am torn between 2 candidates. Badnarik is the better man for the job. My mom brought up a good point this morning, "I have never seen him", she said. Why should I put this sticker on my truck? He has virtually no chance of winning. I will vote against Bush. That means, this election cycle, I will most likely vote for Kerry. Even though he seems uncomfortably too much like Bush. Badnarik has a better chance in 2008, running against a Republican for the top spot. Provided he gets his mug out htere in the media exposure. He cant be shy and he has to get into public debate. Get folks talking about him.
The biggest hurdle is the corporate controlled media, They pick our president, not us. I dont want to be so cynical, but I have to be honest.

[bugsbunny04]

Because the only thing worse than Bush:

John Kerry.

[Compugasm]

I heard Nader the other day. He said the same thing about corporate controlled presidency. D & R don't want you to see him. gr8fuldaniel, vote for either D or R in elections, and you never will see a third party, that's the perfect cycle they've created.

[bishop]

bugs... if that's the best rational a pro-lp person can give, then it's clear why so few people support them.


daniel... i agree with you for the most part. i think badnarik could be the better candidate of the lot - which isn't saying much because i think they're all largely full of shit and incompetent. also, while the media does cater to the status-quo, i don't believe they're as conspiratorial as some suggest. ross perot won lots of exposure when he ran against bush sr. and clinton. the difference between him and badnarik, other than money, was popular support.

[Gorgo]

The thing to remember is that if you want to get rid of Bush, you might be forced to vote for Kerry, but you don't have to contribute a dime or a second.

You can continue to contribute to the party of your choice, but vote for the party that doesn't care much about what you want.

We need Badnarik and Nader and Walt Brown (and others) to run and get their message out and build their organizations (if they have any, as in the case of Ralph), but I suppose this time, we may be forced to vote against Bush rather than for what we want.

My other problem is that I want to see our Republican rep go away, so I'll be working for the Democrat. While I think he's very bright, very hard-working and I can agree with much of what he says, I wonder if he'll still end up being a Democrat (read Republican) if elected.

[combatrhino]

from an entirely realistic perspective, there will most likely only be two parties. the major flaw with our democracy, as nader preaches at every stop, is that money controls everything. considering we live in an incredibly capitalistic society, many people want to hold onto their money. that will keep people from leaving the republicans and the democrats. i'm not incredibly knowledged on 18th and 19th century politics, but hasnt there always been two dominating parties?

i think the most effective thing that can happen is increase lobbyist pressure on candidates... Gorgo mentioned that we should support candidates from third parties but when it comes time to vote, go with the realistic vote. the problem with this is you are informing people to vote one way, and thus when they go to the polls, they wont vote like you... a presidential candidate who says "vote for me, but actually vote for X on voting day" probably wouldnt garner much support. if we have people like nader and badnarik speaking on a larger basis and trying to inform the public of their views, not in any sort of partisan way, we can have a much more educated united states and fewer people ignorantly engaged in politics. if america was actually smart, would george bush have won in 2000? oh wait a minute... america was smart enough to not give him the majority... which goes back to my point about money and oh you know the rest .. . my 2c

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Gorgo,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Gorgo,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The thing to remember is that if you want to get rid of Bush, you might be forced to vote for Kerry, but you don't have to contribute a dime or a second. You can continue to contribute to the party of your choice, but vote for the party that doesn't care much about what you want.[/b]

I agree, but its shameful that we are put in this predicament. More Americans would vote 3rd party as a second or even 1st choice, if they werent afraid of completely wasting their vote because they had to vote against a horrible incumbent.

<!--QuoteBegin-Gorgo
....but I suppose this time, we may be forced to vote against Bush rather than for what we want. [/quote] I am surprised Americans havent insisted on this form of election system: Preferential Election System
Heres another Link
This topic is debated here in Volconvo: Australian Electoral System: Dont we deserve this?

Maybe Badnarik or some Senator like Waxman or Ron Paul could work on pushing this through Congress. This may be the best (only?) way to get a 3rd party in The White House

[RickSp]

I will decide at the last moment whom I will for. If Kerry is likely to carry my state, I will vote Badnarick, just to show that I am really not happy with the choices given me by the two major parties.

If it is all close, I will hold my nose and vote for Kerry. Kerry is a mediocre, incompetent, rich white guy. Bush is threat to what's left of the republic.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by combatrhino,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (combatrhino,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>considering we live in an incredibly capitalistic society, many people want to hold onto their money.[/b]

And yet, vote for the two parties most interested in taking it.

Originally posted by combatrhino,@ i'm not incredibly knowledged on 18th and 19th century politics, but hasnt there always been two dominating parties?

Yeah, but you need three to have choice. This will sound silly, but ever notice there are 3 grades of gas? Ever buy mid-grade?

<!--QuoteBegin-combatrhino,
if america was actually smart, would george bush have won in 2000?[/quote]
He wouldn't have been a candidate. Neither would have the last 17 presidents, maybe even the last 45. The next candidate, will not bring about a golden age of enlightenment, despite the best efforts to make you belive so.

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by bishop, bugs... if that's the best rational a pro-lp person can give, then it's clear why so few people support them.

Actually, thats the reason I give for people in Battleground states NOT to vote Libertarian. I was responding to his "risk handing Bush a second term". Kerry is not losing any votes to Badnarik, if he is, my thought is, "???". Risk handing bush a second term? The only realistic alternative if Kerry, do you really think Kerry will be better for us? If you are a Libertarian I seriously doubt you are fond of Kerry, even if you are against Bush, KERRY WOULD BE WORSE!

I dont live in a Battleground state so I can vote my conscience, in non battle ground states, I argue "look, this state is already decided, who do YOU REALLY WANT?"

[Compugasm]

I just came up with Badnariks next campaign slogan. "Vote Badnarik, the mid-grade gasoline of Presidents."

[bishop]

If you are a Libertarian I seriously doubt you are fond of Kerry, even if you are against Bush, KERRY WOULD BE WORSE!

i'm an independent and a moderate.

can you explain, exactly how kerry would be worse (i.e. in what way(s) would he be worse?)?

and, unless you believe in polls, every state is a battleground state.

[The Dunedan]

The reason 3rd Party candidates don't win is because people say "Well, they never win, why should I vote for them?"
From a Libertarian perspective, Bush and Kerry are both equally horrible. They both steal people's money through taxes, support unconstitutional gun-control measures, surrender US sovreignty to the UN, and continue the US slide towards Socialism. Why should I vote for someone I find to be Evil?
People are always telling me "You have to vote for the lesser of two evils!" Sorry, no, I don't and I won't. Voting for a lesser Evil is still voting for Evil. If you're going to vote for Evil, why not write-in Ctulu or Satan and just get it over with?

Democrat = Evil ( gun control, surrender to UN, theft through taxes, "draft" progams of various kinds, USA Patriot act, ETC )
Republican = Evil ( gun control, surrender to UN, theft though taxes, "draft" programs of various kinda, USA Patriot act, etc )
Libertarian = Good ( No gun controls, get out of the UN, end coercive taxation, no draft of any kind, abolish USA Patriot act, end drug war, etc )

That's why I'm voting Libertarian. I will note vote for evil and sell my soul, as it were.

[Scribbler1]

I have been pushing the LP for over 15 years on various online forums, and I (almost) totally support them. But from a "practical and pragmatic" standpoint, they should get no votes at all. For me, it's a matter of being one atom in the makeup of a huge monster. I can't realistically do ANYTHING to mold the shape of the entity which controls my existence. BUT, I HAVE the one lousy vote and I'll do what I damn well please with it! I choose to show my support for the group which I believe can better run the aforementioned entity, knowing full well they stand zero chance of winning. It's purely ideological and not pragmatic. I realize the powers that be run the game, rented the hall and own the cards and the tables and chairs. Hell they even wrote the RULES for the game. For those reasons, I feel a Libertarian president (or Green, Reform, whatever) would be utterly useless. TPTB obviously would NOT want to share power and if a Libertarian won the White House I am convinced BOTH parties would act in unison to render a LP president impotent. To have any chance of being effective, ANY president needs party support and it is just not there for the LP, which is one of the arguments I've been making for years. We need Libertarians as a force in Congress long before we can have one in the White House.
The problem there is that we are usually hesitant to lose our favorite senator or representative. Gorgo doesn't want to lose his Republican representative, I don't want to lose Joe Biden and a LOT of people see it the same way. But we MUST do just that if a Libertarian president is to mean anything at all. The party here in Delaware is a joke and I've heard the same from others in other states, and this needs to be addressed before we attempt a meaningful presidential run. For me, I ALWAYS vote strictly Libertarian in local and state elections, but there are precious few of them to vote for.

That, plus the sheep have been electing people on image and slogans for as long as I have been alive makes a reasoned and thoughtful vote an exercise in futility, but I do it anyway. This election is also image and slogans (with a bucketful of lies thrown in) and the sheep are still following the pattern.

The bottom line is Bush simply scares me. Therefore, the only "practical and pragmatic" use of my lousy little vote is to throw it to Kerry and hope things are not so bad NEXT time I can resume voting strictly LP.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by bugsbunny04, Actually, thats the reason I give for people in Battleground states NOT to vote Libertarian. I was responding to his "risk handing Bush a second term". Kerry is not losing any votes to Badnarik, if he is, my thought is, "???".

But he WOULD lose votes to Badnarik, the same as Gore lost votes to Nader. I'm speaking realistically and not parroting the same old crap many losers whine about. It should be obvious that the Republicans have usually been a much more unified party than the Dems and that a lot of (if not most) "third party" candidates get disaffected Democrat votes.

Risk handing bush a second term? The only realistic alternative if Kerry, do you really think Kerry will be better for us? If you are a Libertarian I seriously doubt you are fond of Kerry, even if you are against Bush, KERRY WOULD BE WORSE!

I think its more, Kerry COULD be worse. We already know what we've got and for my money Kerry would really have to work at it to be any worse than Bush.

I dont live in a Battleground state so I can vote my conscience, in non battle ground states, I argue "look, this state is already decided, who do YOU REALLY WANT?"

I would usually agree but not this time. Look at Florida. If the few million votes Nader got had gone to Gore, I doubt any court would be so quick to give the election to Bush.

[bugsbunny04]

You are confusing Libertarians with Socialists. Saying Kerry will lose votes to Badnarik is more like saying BUSH lost votes to Nadar. Did he lose a couple? Probably, but most of the people who voted for Nadar would have otherwise voted for Gore. Will a few people who would otherwise vote Kerry vote Badnarik? Probably a few, but most Badnarik voters would otherwise vote Bush.

Kerry COULD be worse? Bush is an idiot, Kerry is a blatant liar. Which would you prefer?

Look at Florida? I said NON battleground states. less than 1000 votes difference in a population of several million is a god damn battleground. pay f***ing attention. In battleground states I say vote for the lesser of two evils.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by bugsbunny04, You are confusing Libertarians with Socialists. Saying Kerry will lose votes to Badnarik is more like saying BUSH lost votes to Nadar. Did he lose a couple? Probably, but most of the people who voted for Nadar would have otherwise voted for Gore.

That's what I said. Read it again.

Will a few people who would otherwise vote Kerry vote Badnarik? Probably a few, but most Badnarik voters would otherwise vote Bush.

A debateable point, but not a fact.

Kerry COULD be worse? Bush is an idiot, Kerry is a blatant liar. Which would you prefer?

Given that as the ONLY choice, I'll go with the liar.

Look at Florida? I said NON battleground states. less than 1000 votes difference in a population of several million is a god damn battleground. pay f***ing attention. In battleground states I say vote for the lesser of two evils.

If YOU were paying attention, you would see my point about Florida was to illustrate the closeness of the election and following your logic this could happen again. That chance is less likely if people who vote against Bush ALL vote Kerry. As I said before, THIS election is different and I think it's more patriotic to vote a dangerous man OUT of office than to vote for a guaranteed loser on principle. I don't make distinctions with a different criteria applying to "battleground" states over the rest of the country.

I'm registered Libertarian and have ALWAYS voted for the LP candidate in ANY election. It distresses me to have to vote for Kerry, but this time, with apologies to Badnarik, I have to vote for what I think is best for the country in the here and now.

[bishop]

i have a feeling we may be voting the same way scribbler... if there were competitive races in my district, i'd most likely vote third party as well. i did the last time i voted at least. i do wish that i voted for brown in 2000, although that wouldn't have influenced the election whatsoever. of course, the stakes were much different then.



to me, the most important issue right now is whether we choose to continue a policy of pre-emptive warfare, or whether we back off and return to a more multilateral posture. whichever of the two we end up with means A LOT as to how we'll conduct ourselves in the war on terror. it will mean our effectiveness in getting the terrorists, the expansion or shrinking of global terrorism as an ideology and our allies' (and opponents like china) readiness to work/communicate with us. right now, while bush is president, being seen as an ally to america is a political liability - that is not in our nation's interests.

as a side note: it seems that too many libertarians have no suggestion of ways to defend against global terrorism. i check out badnarik's website and what do i find about the subject? NOTHING. now, if you think that al qaeda's just given up, you have your head deep up your ass. i don't like the patriot act either, but i'm not about to play ostrich with al qaeda either.

[The Dunedan]

Bishop:
Removing our troops from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the UAE would go a long way. So would yanking the 15B/year we give to Israel. Better yet would be allowing people to be armed for self-defense, however they liked, wherever they liked. Nobody's gonna highjack a plane if they might get shot for their efforts, and nobody's gonna take a bunch of schoolkids hostage if the teachers are strapped. Why d'you think the Israelis havn't had a school-shooting or hijacking since the 70's?