If you vote 3rd party, you help Bush into office

[DFLer4edu]

Alright, I think that is pretty self-explanatory, but some of you disagree. If you disagree, I want to know why you don't think you're just throwing away your vote by voting for a third party candidate in the presidential election.

P.S. Speak up if your vote is not transferable to the nominee!

[kalian]

1. Ahhh yes....another: "let's piss into the wind" thread....

look, maybe what this country needs IS a SOLID third party. A party
that is FREE of corporate influence.
Maybe AFTER we vote a dem into the WH...if we're ALLOWED too...then
can we organize and vote for a "third" party...? :shrug:

[DFLer4edu]

7. Third Parties

On a national level, our system isn't set up for a third party. Topple the Republicans, than I will happily leave the Democratic party for a more liberal party! You still didn't answer the question, are you going to vote for the nominee, regardless of who it is?

[kalian]

8. I'm sick and tired of being backed into a wall.....

and that's how this comes across. I don't KNOW for WHOM I will
vote for when the time comes. I don't KNOW whether or not we'll
even HAVE elections. And, if we have elections, how FREE will they
be?

[FlashHarry]

2. Oh boy. Here we go again...

Prepare for flames and/or locking...

[creativelcro]

3. If kerry wins the nomination I'm voting 3d party most likely.

Still considering a Bush protest vote (won't matter, since MA will go D anyway).

[DFLer4edu]

9. I don't like him either

I think Kerry is a turncoat. He played both sides on the war in Iraq. I don't like him, but he is the lesser of the two evils. What is the virtue of the alternative?

[Lobo_13]

31. If Kerry is the nominee, I write in Dean

Wouldn't even a 1% write-in for Dean in November send a solid message to the Dems?

BTW, Rove and Bush can call Kerry and thank him for turning off the swing vote AND the inactive voters who will probably go away if Dean is not the nominee.

[plurality]

4. Because some things are more important than cheering for the home team.

Tell me, if I have friends and relatives in prison because they decided to smoke a harmless plant, will it make any difference to them or me whether Bush or a establishment Dems is in office?

Or let's say, I would prefer a government that doesn't let Israel do whatever the hell it wants to the Palestinians, will it matter whether Bush or an establishment Dem is in office?

Or let's say I think Iraq was a war crime, and that the people responsible for that crime should not only be out of office, but prosecuted, who should I vote for?

How about the millions of homeless and unemployed with no health-care, should their health be dependant on their ability to pay for insurance when noone will employ them. Will it matter to them whether the president is Bush or corporate Dem?

And if I happen to disagree with our trade policies that make slaves out of third-world laborers, will it make one single bit of difference if the president is Bush or DLC ass-licker?

Sorry, if the Democratic party wants my vote, it must EARN it, and that means it must do something about the issues that matter to me. Because when the Democrats and Republicans have the same positions on the issues that matter to me, then there is no difference in my mind.

[DFLer4edu]

10. Lesser of two evils!

What is your alternative to voting dem?

[plurality]

11. Any number of parties that actually listen to me

And lesser of two evils doesn't work for me, because BOTH parties are just as evil when it comes to my issues as they both think EXACTLY the same on those issues.

[DFLer4edu]

13. Are those the only issues you care about?

[plurality]

14. pretty much

I do have other concerns, like civil liberties and such, but the Democrats have done as much Constitution shredding as the Republicans, so once again, no difference.

[Ready4Change]

15. Yes, there is a difference.

"Tell me, if I have friends and relatives in prison because they decided to smoke a harmless plant, will it make any difference to them or me whether Bush or a establishment Dems is in office?"

Yes, there will be a difference. Dems nor Repubs admittedly aren't likely to legalize pot. However, THIS administration is moving in the direction of declaring you an terrorist supporter and locking you away forever without charges or legal recourse for merely stating your pro-pot stance.

"Or let's say, I would prefer a government that doesn't let Israel do whatever the hell it wants to the Palestinians, will it matter whether Bush or an establishment Dem is in office?"

Yes. This administration is establishing a purely US base in Iraq, so that it can directly control Middle East oil. Israel/Palistine is a merely a side issue to them, not worthy of direct attention. A Dem or Repub administration won't be as interested in stirring up the ME hornets nest with direct military intervention.

"Or let's say I think Iraq was a war crime, and that the people responsible for that crime should not only be out of office, but prosecuted, who should I vote for?"

Your chances of getting the currect administration prosecuted are certainly higher if you can get Dems in the White house, congress and senate. The chances of getting 3rd party control of more than the White House are non-existant. (At least in 2004.)

"How about the millions of homeless and unemployed with no health-care, should their health be dependant on their ability to pay for insurance when noone will employ them. Will it matter to them whether the president is Bush or corporate Dem?"

The current administration is leading a direct war against workers on the part of corporations profits. If it gets another 4 years I guarantee there will be more homeless, unemployed and no health care citizens in this country.

"And if I happen to disagree with our trade policies that make slaves out of third-world laborers, will it make one single bit of difference if the president is Bush or DLC ass-licker?"

Again the difference is that you KNOW this administration is taking overt action in these directions you find objectionable. Can a new Dem administration do any worse?

My contention in all of the above reponses is that this administration is far worse than anything the Dems would put in place, and is actually worse than what a truly REPUBLICAN administration would do. This administration is not Republican in nature. It is corporate supportive fascism. It is actively waging war against the nations workers, actively waging war against the citizens civil rights, actively waging war against the separation of church and state, and actively waging war against the rest of the world.

Get this administration out of office and I'll easily support your bid for a viable 3rd party. I personally like the idea. But this particular administration is far too poisonous to risk leaving it in power.

I'm a registered Republican, and I'm going to vote for whoever the Dems nominate. This is not a time for bi/tripartisan bickering.

[plurality]

22. sorry no

Yes, there will be a difference. Dems nor Repubs admittedly aren't likely to legalize pot. However, THIS administration is moving in the direction of declaring you an terrorist supporter and locking you away forever without charges or legal recourse for merely stating your pro-pot stance.

First of many of the Democratic front runners used to USE pot. And looking at their positions on the subject, little is likely to change. They are utter hypocrites, imprisoning people for what they themselves did. Remember Clinton, "I never inhaled." Pot imprisonment exploded under Clinton.

Yes. This administration is establishing a purely US base in Iraq, so that it can directly control Middle East oil. Israel/Palistine is a merely a side issue to them, not worthy of direct attention. A Dem or Repub administration won't be as interested in stirring up the ME hornets nest with direct military intervention.

All the Democratic front runners have been criticizing Bush for being too HARSH on Israel, and for reigning it in too much. Dean actually had the gall to say he'd be even-handed and he was bashed by everyone and quickly changed his position back to Israel right or wrong. As far as Iraq goes, most of these bastards VOTED for it, and all but the "fringe" candidates plan on continuing the colonization, so again, what difference?

Your chances of getting the currect administration prosecuted are certainly higher if you can get Dems in the White house, congress and senate. The chances of getting 3rd party control of more than the White House are non-existant. (At least in 2004.)

Again, many of the acceptable candidates HELPED Bush get his war on. If they were going to prosecute Bush they'd open themselves up to prosecution as well, not likely.

The current administration is leading a direct war against workers on the part of corporations profits. If it gets another 4 years I guarantee there will be more homeless, unemployed and no health care citizens in this country.

All but Kucinich and Sharpton want to provide health INSURANCE to everyone, which means, that one must be employed, and be able to afford it to recieve it. What good are tax cuts to some guy living in a bus stop because he can't get health care?

Again the difference is that you KNOW this administration is taking overt action in these directions you find objectionable. Can a new Dem administration do any worse?

Again, the difference is that I KNOW a corporate Dem administration would be no different. Granted they'll soften the approach a little to try and give the appearance of a difference to those who don't look too hard or that don't demand much, but once again, for the people that it REALLY matters to, there is NO DIFFERENCE between a Repub. and a Corporate Dem administration.

[Ready4Change]

28. My main point is this.

The current Bush adminstration is far, far worse than anything merely Democratic or Republican. Arguing for a 3rd party vs Dem or Repub parties misses the point. The current administration is none of the above.

It's like arguing over who gets the most comfy deck chair while ignoring the Martians who have taken control of the ship and are drilling holes in the hull.

This administration is actively sinking our nation.

I voted for Perot. I support the idea of viable 3rd parties. But I recognize that we must choose which battles to fight, lest we loose everything for which we fight.

Even Republicans are realizing this. In the Republican NH primary, 5% of them WROTE IN KERRY? Can Republicans really be less blind to the dangers of this administration than the 3rd parties?

[plurality]

30. I don't disagree that our government is dangerous, but...

Which Dem will reverse the encroachment on our liberties? -None but Kucinich or Sharpton, all others voted to restrict our liberties and have put forth plans to restrict them even more.

Which Dem will end this war that will kill thousands of our citizens and suck-up all our debt? -None but Kucinich and Sharpton. Every other candidate offers a plan of action that is the same as Bush, except that they promise to not BE Bush, how is that going to change anything?

Which Dem will stop capitol flight? -None but Kucinich or Sharpton because none of them will touch NAFTA/CAFTA/FTAA/WTO.

Which Dem will end the rampant militarism that sucks up all the money that could be used to solve some of these problems? -None but Kucinich or Sharpton, because noone DARE oppose the MIC or they go down in flames.

Face it, yes our nation is indeed in great peril, however, changing the captain and not the course will do nothing to save us. I see the iceberg ahead, I've been yelling full to port for years, yet none will hear. They insist that all is well, while getting the first class passengers into the life boats.

I see the writing on the wall,
the empire's about to fall,
something a vote's not going to stall.

[Terwilliger]

25. Then, can I say that Republicans who vote for Bush are terrorists?

Can I? huh? Can I?

[Ready4Change]

29. Um, sure?

'Fraid I don't quite understand your post. Could you explain it a bit?

[HFishbine]

17. Well put!

I agree.

[Iverson]

5. If you choose vanilla, you're a french vanilla apologist.

Why would any rational person consider any other ice cream? I demand an explanation!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Instead of blaming the 3rd party voters, try blaming the party bosses.

The ones who give us pablum candidates who vote with the 'puglies at the drop of a poll.

The Democrats are supposed to be in opposition to bush and his policies, not voting for them.

My vote may or may not be transferrable to the nominee depending on whether nominee's Democrat vote was transferrable to bush for the IWR.

[DFLer4edu]

12. I hate his record on the war in Iraq too!

I rant about it daily, but what good is it going to do you to not vote for him?

[mohc]

16. This is just getting silly

To the pragmatists: This is a free country, and people have every right to vote for whomever they choose. Most likely they are well aware that if they do not vote for the lesser of two evils, that the greater of two evils could win. So long as that is a conscious choice, then pragmatists simply have to learn to deal with that. It becomes part of the strategy, maximize dissent in the other party, minimize it in your own.

To the 3rd party supporters: America, as I am sure you are aware, uses the First-Past-The-Post system of electing candidates. Mathematically speaking, that forces us into a 2 party system. One of the major issues for 3rd parties is changing this system by switching to IRV, proportional representation, or weighted voting. But so long as FPTP is being used, the only way for a 3rd party to accomplish this is to get the 2 parties to support it, which obviously they are not going to want to do because it would lose them a lot of support. And that goes for a lot of the other issues 3rd parties support. They need to concentrate on getting the major party closest to them ideologically to move toward their position. Usually it seems the way they attempt to do this is to protest vote, and then say if you had only supported my issue you might have won an election. This antagonistic approach rarely works. An attempt needs to be made to instead join up with major parties getting small concessions in return for support. Over time, this will move the party in the direction you want. Obviously, if its an issue you believe can not wait, its understandable you would hesitate at this approach. But it will be an even longer time if the major party farthest from you wins elections.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

18. You make a claim, and want someone else to prove the negative?

I don't think it works that way.

[Terwilliger]

19. man, I NEVER thought of that!

Thanks SO much for your contribution! :freak:

[JVS]

20. If you vote 3rd party neither of the two major parties' counts are altered

[CTLawGuy]

21. I refuse to reward John Kerry

for his utterly spineless voting record for the past three years. I for one will not be ignored for 3 years and forgive because I am afraid of the other guy. That is a ticket to permanent marginalization within my own party.

[Ready4Change]

23. Normally, I'm very supportive of "N"th parties.

I'm one of the few who voted for Perot, in fact. I think having (at least potentially) strong 3rd parties helps to keep the leading 2 parties honest. I think locking Nader out of the 2000 presidential debates was a travesty of 2 party system control.

That's how I defended voting 3rd party in the past. I do NOT hold that opinion with the current administration in office. This admin is far too damaging to our nation to daly about with any issue other than ousting it.

[freetempe]

24. Its really the principle of the thing for me.

I will vote for the Dem nominee as long as its not Kerry. I could spend an hour writing a post as to why I will not vote for Kerry but I'll boil it down to a few reasons.

1) His votes on the Iraq War Resolution and his apparent support for the war when it was going well, now that its not popular to support the war, he's against it. That kind of flip-flop does not sit well with me, in fact its about as hypocritical as you can get.

2) His attacks on Dean while at the same time co-opting Dean's message. Kerry was going nowhere until he started railing against the "special interests" that have funded every single one of his campaigns since the eighties.

3) He is the establishment's and media's choice. We've practically seen a coronation after only 1 primary and 1 caucus. This primary season is just like the GOPs in 2000 where Dean plays McCain and Kerry plays Bush even down to the dirty tricks that Bush played on McCain that are very similar to the Robocalling to Dean supporters and the fliers in NH.

4) The Kerry supporters on this board. I know it shouldn't affect me, but because of the way they have behaved, like coming in and attacking Dean on pro-Dean threads and threads for Dean supporters only, I like the man even less.

5) I am tired of always having to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. I almost voted for Nader in 2000 but voted for Gore because I knew it was going to be close. Now, we are on the verge of nominating someone 100 times worse than Al Gore. I won't hold my nose in order to vote again. I'd rather vote my heart.

And by the way, not voting for Kerry isn't voting for Bush. It's a vote for your principles and your convictions. My vote, should the nominee be Kerry, will most likely be Green or a write in for Dean. I am perfectly happy with that. At least I know I voted my conscience.
And I'll still vote Dem. down the ticket.

[OhioStateProgressive]

26. not true

I vote for what I believe in, not what YOU believe in

my vote ensures my voice is heard

don't be so bold as to presume my voice is the same as yours or any others

[corporatewhore]

27. what a lameass excuse

People are already saying that if we arent all ABB bush will lose rarely do i here if we dont run a strong cannidate who will stand up to bush verbally and record wise we will lose. Ultimately if a weaker bushlite cannidate is run it will be his fault for not winning.Not the Greens.Not Nader.We have the right to vote FOR somebody.No more lame ass excuses such as nader will challenge the dems nominees progressiveness (sniffle sniffle) its all his fault if he dont get it.