Nixon! Wallace! Perot! Nader! Romney!

[rablrouzer]

I'm new to posting here, but not new to politics.

Today I've read several posts on "progressive blogs" advocating a vote a third party.

Ugh.

The argument goes something like, "there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans."

What a crock.

Third parties can influence elections!

George Wallace carried five states in 1968. Did he help or hurt Tricky Dick?

Remember Ross Perot and his "giant sucking sound" in 1992? He sucked away 19% of what would probably have been Republican votes from 1992's teabagger equivaents, and thus surely helped elect Bill Clinton.

Then there's 2000 when the official tally in Florida (for what it was worth) showed Al Gore "losing" by 537 votes and Ralph Nader with 97,421 votes. Maybe those folks would have stayed home instead of voting for Al Gore, but they weren't likely voters for Dubya. And on those votes turned the election.

1. Go VOTE. Pull the Democratic lever. It matters.

2. If you hear advocates for the Greens or any other third party, consider them agent provocateurs for the Republicans.

Nixon. Dubya Bush. Romney.

It matters.

We need Barack Obama. We need to recapture the House, and enough state governments to turn back the increased Republican efforts to simply steal elections by blocking votes in "Democratic" areas.

Nixon was terrible. I'm pretty sure slimy Romney would be worse ---

[libdem4life]

1. The Electoral College is what makes a 3rd party vote a useless act, IMHO

[YOHABLO]

2. Well Living In A Solid Red State .. it doesn't matter for me...

my vote for Obama will go towards Romney anyway .. might as well vote third party.

[rablrouzer]

3. I live in Oklahoma, and my vote for Obama Matters, so does yours

Presuming the President wins, the Repugnants are going to challenge his "legitimacy."

Sure, they're hypocrites. They outright stole the 2000 election --- and Bush didn't win the popular vote.

But they claimed he was legitimate.

Every vote for Obama supports his election---and his ability to govern.

Every vote for third party diminishes it and enhances the teabaggers.

[JoeyT]

9. I live in a solid red state too,

probably one redder than yours (Alabama) and I'm voting for Obama.

Our votes count toward the popular vote, and the more of the popular vote he wins the more we can use it as a bludgeon. Plus we'll never get our states to turn blue if we don't vote for Democrats.

[grantcart]

4. welcome to DU

[philly_bob]

5. Supporters of third party are "agent provocateurs" for the Republicans?

You may disagree with them. But name-calling and distortion of their position doesn't help things.

Third party is a respectable stream of progressive political thought.

I'll be voting for Obama, incidentally, and driving people to the polls.

[rablrouzer]

6. It has crossed my mind

That some "avowed" progressives supporting third party candidates could be closeted Republicans.

There's been lots of third parties in "recent" US history.

And the purpose of most, from Teddy's Bull Moose forward, has been to deny the Presidency to someone the third party's founder doesn't like.

Teddy destroyed Taft's Republican campaign and elected Wilson.

Strom Thurmond's Dixicerats tried to destroy Truman.

I'm not sure exactly what George Wallace expected, but Wikipedia suggests his 1968 goal was to force the Presidential election into the House.

Perot had it in for George 1.

Nader? How to know. But the effect was real.

As would a vote "Not Obama" now.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. +1

[Poiuyt]

7. Instant runoff voting would be a good answer to 3rd party candidates.

[rablrouzer]

8. "Instant Runoff"

I presume you refer to one of the balloting systems where, e.g., voters rank their preference.

Obama #1
Green Candidate # 2
Republican Candidate "When Astronauts Land on Kolob"

With respect to which, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem demolishes the "fairness" of that voting structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

Woodrow Wilson advocated junking the "separation of powers, checks and balances" system of the US Constitution and installing a Parliamentary system. He believed it is was more "fair" and "democratic." A Parliamentary System definitely offers more opportunity for "third" ( and fourth, fifth, and sixtth !) parties.

Had Wilson's views been implemented, our 2010 election would have turned the entire US Government ( Parliament! Executive! ) over to the teabaggers.

As it did in England when the Tories and David Cameron swept to power and began acting out the teabaggers' most audacious austerity fantasies. [ Hasn't been working too well, and Cameron is currently facing a revolt from within his own party ]