OT: Why not side-step Robama and vote 3rd party candidate?

[kaennorsing]

If you believe in neither the democratic or republican party solving the problems they caused why not skip the the presidential debate tonight and look into Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate who's the only one not corrupted by the political system and who's actually been successful in doing what he promised as governor of New Mexico? I think if you're a responsible US citizen you should at least look into him.

[jdeluise]

This post isn't intended to judge Gary Johnson, only to explain why he won't
be elected. It boils down to a few factors, unfortunately:

- No clout
- Shallow pockets
- Very few think a third-party will be elected, so very little incentive to
"throw away your vote"

[Joe Ramirez]

On Oct 3, 2:11 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you believe in neither the democratic or republican party solving the problems they caused why not skip the the presidential debate tonight and look into Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate who's the only one not corrupted by the political system and who's actually been successful in doing what he promised as governor of New Mexico? I think if you're a responsible US citizen you should at least look into him.

The electoral vote system in U.S. presidential elections makes it
virtually impossible for a third-party candidate to be elected. And
because voting for president is completely separate from voting for
members of Congress, the amount of support for a third-party
presidential candidate will have zero impact on the makeup of
Congress. No "coalition-building" can possibly occur unless there are
lots of credible third-party congressional candidates. In short, there
is really no good reason to vote for a third-party presidential
candidate. It becomes a pure protest vote.

[Pelle Svanslös]

In light of what's going to be, why not start now? There should be a
commie candidate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/young-people-socialism_n_1175218.html

--
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x30-1998.jpg

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 3 oktober 2012 20:11:22 UTC+2 schreef kaennorsing het volgende:

> If you believe in neither the democratic or republican party solving the problems they caused why not skip the the presidential debate tonight and look into Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate who's the only one not corrupted by the political system and who's actually been successful in doing what he promised as governor of New Mexico? I think if you're a responsible US citizen you should at least look into him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Why Gary Johnson wasn't invited for the presidential debate;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztpK4ZvPPno

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 3 oktober 2012 20:22:40 UTC+2 schreef jdeluise het volgende:

I don't think it's a throw away vote, but a vote that can make a step in the right direction. Even if it'll take more than one or two elections. I'm not a US citizen, so I can't vote there but I did vote for the libertarian party in Holland for the same reason. It's hoping to change the debate into a more honest one, to get the ideas out.

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 3 oktober 2012 20:31:40 UTC+2 schreef Joe Ramirez het volgende:

I certainly don't think he'll be elected obviously, but even a protest vote can be a start if there's enough of them to at least start to change public opinion. If Johnson gets a surprising number of votes it opens the door to a more diverse congress in the future. It should undermine the corrupting hegemony of the two party-system.

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 3 oktober 2012 20:43:03 UTC+2 schreef kaennorsing het volgende:

In fact, the only throw away vote is actually the 3rd party vote when considering the similar policies between the republicrats. Their only real difference is purely rhetorical.

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 3 oktober 2012 21:04:04 UTC+2 schreef kaennorsing het volgende:

Of course I meant the only "non-throw away vote" or "vote that counts for anything substantially different".

[Joe Ramirez]

On Oct 3, 3:04 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In fact, the only throw away vote is actually the 3rd party vote when considering the similar policies between the republicrats. Their only real difference is purely rhetorical.

That last statement is clearly wrong, but if I have to explain exactly
why it's wrong, the situation is hopeless (and you're not a voter
anyway). Suffice it to say that important issues exist besides the
"government capture" and monetary policy ones that captivate you. The
libertarian lens is extremely narrow.

[drew]

On Oct 3, 2:11 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If you believe in neither the democratic or republican party solving the problems they caused why not skip the the presidential debate tonight and look into Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate who's the only one not corrupted by the political system and who's actually been successful in doing what he promised as governor of New Mexico? I think if you're a responsible US citizen you should at least look into him.

Whenever I didn't like any of the candidates, I declined my
ballot...but they don't count declined ballots now...they count them
as 'spoiled' ballots in Canada...that is not the right way to count a
declined ballot. I'm not spoiling my ballot or 'wasting' it...I'm
expressing an opinion. So much for electoral tradition.

This idea that a vote is 'wasted' if the candidate doesn't have a
chance of winning is so self-defeating IMO. It reminds me of this
idiot I used to work with. He would determine who he thought would
win the particular election he was to vote in....and back that guy
because he didn't want to be a 'loser'. So he'd come to work the next
day and brag about how his man won.

The other mentality was the idea that you should do anything you can
to get an MP from the party that would win....otherwise your riding
wouldn't get any government
largesse thrown your way.

There are all sorts of ways of wasting a vote but IMO voting for the
person you feel would do the best job is the only way to go. Anything
else is a waste of a vote IMO.

[TT]

3.10.2012 22:43, drew kirjoitti:
> On Oct 3, 2:11 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If you believe in neither the democratic or republican party solving the problems they caused why not skip the the presidential debate tonight and look into Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate who's the only one not corrupted by the political system and who's actually been successful in doing what he promised as governor of New Mexico? I think if you're a responsible US citizen you should at least look into him.
>
> Whenever I didn't like any of the candidates, I declined my
> ballot...but they don't count declined ballots now...they count them
> as 'spoiled' ballots in Canada...that is not the right way to count a
> declined ballot. I'm not spoiling my ballot or 'wasting' it...I'm
> expressing an opinion. So much for electoral tradition.
>
> This idea that a vote is 'wasted' if the candidate doesn't have a
> chance of winning is so self-defeating IMO. It reminds me of this
> idiot I used to work with. He would determine who he thought would
> win the particular election he was to vote in....and back that guy
> because he didn't want to be a 'loser'. So he'd come to work the next
> day and brag about how his man won.
>

Same principle might apply on subconscious level... and on conscious
level as in people not voting their candidate because of what polls say,
not bothering as the candidate will probably not win anyway.

That's how polls can decide elections.

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 3 oktober 2012 21:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Joe Ramirez het volgende:

It's only narrow from the perspective of government power. From a neutral perspective a libertarian lens is extremely broad as well as clear.