We're told that if we vote for an Independent party, we've wasted our vote. We only have two parties and are stuck with choosing between two people in a country of over 300 million. That's why we usually vote for a candidate who is the 'lesser of two evils' instead of one we actually believe will be great for our country. We certainly wouldn't want to 'waste' our vote.

If I vote Libertarian because I believe in the values they express but they are not one of the two main parties, I'm 'taking my vote away from the main candidate'. (wasting my vote)

But then how do the majority of voters even know there are other parties, or what they stand for when the Media completely shuts them out in favor of the wealthy who vie for office? When they are prevented from appearing in debates and get no TV or newspaper attention it's pretty hard for voters to commit to an idea they are serious contenders.

If 75,000 other voters decide to vote Libertarian, would that party receive any votes from the Electoral college or would those 75,000 votes just be scrubbed? (wasted votes)

If that's the case, you may as well vote for your brother or sister - or little Stewie. Better I waste my own vote on someone I really like and trust than to waste it on someone I believe to be dishonest, mean, arrogant, or not the brightest bulb on the tree, wouldn't that be a wasted vote too? Maybe even the biggest waste because I'd continue to give power to those who not only don't serve us but actually harm us.

Would you vote for a third party if you don't believe in the candidates we have been given? Why?. why not?

I have voted for third party candidates over the years. All your suppositions are correct. Unless a third party candidate receives a majority vote, the electoral college votes will go en masse to the majority winner.

Which means the person you voted for won't win. I accepted this long ago.

But in fact, this is no different than voting for a candidate in one of the two main parties and the OTHER guy winning your state. It's exactly the same thing. Period.

If someone other than whom you voted for wins a majority, all the other votes, whomever they were for, appear/feel wasted.

But they're not. Losing is part of life. Speaking truthfully at the ballot box is critical.

You cannot go through life, nor teach your kids to do so, only standing up for the things you can "beat the other" guy on. You stand by your beliefs. You vote your conscience, then get on with life.

HI Wings!

I may have voted for John Anderson in 1980(was it), but I don't remember! :D

I would like to add something to your post... you said you wanted to vote for someone with the same values as you have; I think if politics you really want to vote for issues. It is issues that determine how our foreign policy and domestic policy works. Issues now are the War in Iraq and withdrawing; illegal immigrants, what to do about them; our economy and how to protect the middle class and prevent a meltdown in the stock market... on and on for issues.

Values are if you are for or against homosexual marriage... etc.

Anyway, I don't remember Ron Paul's positions on the issues, nor Ralph Nader's positions. I should look them up soon.


Best wishes,

Mary Sue

Let me see, I have voted for Wallace, Carter and Nixon, and Bush guess I have wasted a lot of votes.

This is more than I ever wanted to know about the process, hope it provides a lot of help
U. S. Electoral College

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBeaucaire

Losing is part of life. Speaking truthfully at the ballot box is critical.

---

I'm with you on this one, JB. The only wasted vote is one that misrepresents your true values and principles. Winning or losing is beside the point.

I have done it twice .But you should do it with the understanding that the person you vote for will not win .We have a 2 party system all these years because it has worked well .Your premise is not quite accurate . We are not choosing between 2 people .There has been a long process of weeding out candidates that has been ongoing since at least last summer . Also; it is not wasting a vote to vote 3rd party. I said in another posting that it plays primarily a spoiler role .But that doesn't make it a wasted vote .
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politi...es-214558.html

In the posting I pointed out the irony the unintended consequences of a Nader run in 2000 helping GW Bush even though he clearly had more in common with Gore .Simularily I believe that the Libertarian vote for Bob Barr will almost assuredly give the election to Obama in a close general election . Again ;if you compared issue by issue I am sure Bob Barr is closer to McCain than Obama.

Btw ; in every election cycle since 1980 at least ,the minor party candidates have been involved in the debates . They have also received extensive coverage by the media. The fact that their campaigns have not resonated with the public should not be blamed on some kind of conspiracy to shut them out of the process. Do I think that the Libertarian Party convention should've received the same coverage as the major party conventions will ? No . The fact is that the Libertarian convention would've been a non-rating event had they broadcast it on the major networks this weekend. As it is ; only political junkies like me bothered to tune into it at all. It was quite a boring affair .They made no attempt at all to make the process attractive to the viewing audience.

As I also pointed out . The most successful 3rd Party run was by Teddy Roosevelt ;a very popular American ,and a previous 2 term President. If there was going to be any success by a 3rd Party run that was it. But his run only received 27 percent of the vote .As is typical of 3rd party runs ,all he really accomplished is splitting like minded voters and giving the election to Woodrow Wilson on a silver platter .

The Anderson run in 1980 made the results of the contest closer than it should've been . But Ronald Reagan still was able to garner enough support to beat Carter .No 3rd Party candidate has been able to even win a single state since George Wallace's 2 runs gave him the majorities in some of the Southern States . But Wallace had no impact on the general election .
Ross Perot arguably may have been responsible for the 2 Clinton wins in the 1990s .He did not win a state either .

Thanks Tom. I have always respected your political knowledge. However, you're wrong about third party candidates being given media attention. They do not get that. What has anyone heard about Barr or Nader? Nada! Ron Paul was once invited on Fox to participate in the presidential debate but on the day of the debate, he was asked not to come because they didn't have 'room' for him.

If they don't have the money to pay big media to give them exposure and they don't get it. Some people are still asking who is Ron Paul, while on the internet he garnered $6 million on one weekend from a rally held by his followers. There are many other examples of this being ignored or played down by media.

Ron Paul got a very vocal ,dedicated and very small core of supporters . He participated in many of the Republican debates ;got national exposure, and still garnered single digit support in the primaries . Fox made a decision, after many of the debates had occurred ,to remove from the format the ones that were not getting any traction ,so that the remaining candidates could get a decent hearing in the debate format. You have to admit that nothing of substance happens when there are 7 and more candidates trying the get their message out in a 1and a half hour forum.

With all due respect ,Ralph Nader was and is a well known political figure .He had ample opportunity to convince the electorate that he could be a major player.
Bob Barr only recently announced his candidacy and his name recognition was enough to gain the Libertarian nomination even though there were plenty of other candidates from within the ranks of the party. The Libertarian party is fringe. The reason they have not gained more prominence as I explained in previous postings is that the major parties have for years cherry-picked the issues from the 3rd parties and incorporated them into their broader platforms. That system has worked well for the country . We have generally avoided electing extremists as a result.

I say we all vote for Alan Greenspan. It's bound to help the economy.

I almost always vote third-party.

But... that's for several reasons, the primary of which is that I *believe* that a two-party system doesn't represent the people.

So... I'm not "wasting" my vote. I'm casting my vote, every time, against the two-party system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Thanks Tom. I have always respected your political knowledge. However, you're wrong about third party candidates being given media attention. They do not get that. What has anyone heard about Barr or Nader? Nada! Ron Paul was once invited on Fox to participate in the presidential debate but on the day of the debate, he was asked not to come because they didn't have 'room' for him.

If they don't have the money to pay big media to give them exposure and they don't get it. Some people are still asking who is Ron Paul, while on the internet he garnered $6 million on one weekend from a rally held by his followers. There are many other examples of this being ignored or played down by media.

---

If you're saying that media exposure is the main thing that matters, I disagree. You give the media too much credit. The reason third party candidates haven't had much success is that too few people have voted for them. Vote for them if you support their platform and, win or lose, your vote is not wasted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Thanks Tom. I have always respected your political knowledge. However, you're wrong about third party candidates being given media attention. They do not get that. What has anyone heard about Barr or Nader? Nada! Ron Paul was once invited on Fox to participate in the presidential debate but on the day of the debate, he was asked not to come because they didn't have 'room' for him.

If they don't have the money to pay big media to give them exposure and they don't get it. Some people are still asking who is Ron Paul, while on the internet he garnered $6 million on one weekend from a rally held by his followers. There are many other examples of this being ignored or played down by media.

---

The MSM does not as strong an influence as it use to.

Information can be had if one is willing to search it out. These days with talk radio, internet search engines, social networking sites, links it is easy to get some information on almost anything.

I do agree that it takes an unconscionable amount of $$$$$$$ to run for the presidency.

Sorry, I forgot that the Libertarian Party is running a candidate and it is not Ron Paul. I think Ralph Nader is still running on the Green Party, as of the last I heard.

Nope the Greens don't want him anymore either (except for some who are running a draft Nader campaign) .He is running as an independent with someone named Matt Gonzalez as his Veep .

Thanks, Tom.

Do any of you think it was a mistake to change the way the President was selected originally? There were no public campaigns, huge expenditures, etc. A moot question, of course.

Quote:

---

Do any of you think it was a mistake to change the way the President was selected originally? There were no public campaigns, huge expenditures, etc. A moot question, of course.

---

There was pretty much a two party system and campaigns after Washington left office. The system has not changed much since 1800 except for the 12th amendment which eliminated the problem of the VP being the runner up ;and later the 22nd Amendment that put a term limit on the Presidency.

The campaigns in 1796 and 1800 between primarily John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were quite nasty affairs. Anyone who thinks the mud and slander is bad today should read up on those elections.

Yes there was little open campaigning by the principles. But their surrogates did the dirty work. Newspapers were set up(the internet of their day) for the sole purpose of discrediting the opposition. The candidates and their surrogates owned the media so there was less need to use expenditures to get their message out.

Thank you for your response, but I disagree with you as well. Media exposure is EVERYTHING when it comes to the election. Media determines who will win the election. They expose who they have chosen as a winner with good coverage and that usually wins hands down.

Ron Paul has a huge following and no exposure because he doesn't have the money to pay out to media, or the desire to 'buddy up' with the status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

If you're saying that media exposure is the main thing that matters, I disagree. You give the media too much credit. The reason third party candidates haven't had much success is that too few people have voted for them. Vote for them if you support their platform and, win or lose, your vote is not wasted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Media determines who will win the election. They expose who they have chosen as a winner with good coverage and that usually wins hands down.

---

If this is true, they sure seem to be having trouble making up their mind this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Ron Paul has a huge following and no exposure because he doesn't have the money to pay out to media, or the desire to 'buddy up' with the status quo.

---

Ron Paul is a fringe candidate because his policy positions are extreme.

PW

Ron Paul was the top fund raiser in the GOP field. Even now with his campaign defunct and not soliciting he has a war chest of $5 million unspent dollars .Howard Dean was the top fund raiser in 2004 before the NH primary . There are 2 recent examples where the money available did not equate to electoral success.
Ron Paul does not have a huge following .He has a small very vocal and dedicated following . Despite the snub at the FOX debate he had plenty of media exposure . He was a frequent guest on the cable broadcasts and appeared on the radio talk shows as much as any of the other canidates .

Like Hillary's minions now; the last cry of despair in these elections is the charge of unfair biased media coverage.
YouTube - McAuliffe Praises FNC

Quote:

---

"what percentage of the mainstream media is in the tank for Barack Obama?"

"Oh, 90 percent," .... "I mean, from day one. It is what it is -- we're not complaining, we have to deal with the hand we're dealt with...''



"It doesn't do you any good," ...."You know what - every independent study has said that this is the most biased coverage they have ever seen in a presidential campaign. Clearly it has been a biased media, no question about it. I have said this - Fox has been one of the most responsible in this presidential campaign -- I have said that all along.''

---