[eriknugent]

Pretty much as the title say. Why do so many people only vote demacrat or republican? There are third parties as much as they may not win they just might if we all voted honestly.

[sGt HarDKorE]

In my honest opinion, people are simply to lazy to look up information on candidates. If the democrats and republicans weren't on the news every day then no one would know who they were. People want the easy way to things, which is why people believe the lies the republicans have been making about obama. People are to lazy or too busy to look up the facts. If a 3rd party was rich and could make commericals and such, then they would be in the race just as much as the republicans/democrats.

[smearcase]

With the present structure, it is just a waste of a vote. At best, it will take votes from the other candidates. It may be different some day in the future but the time for other parties is not here.

[eriknugent]

See this is one of the most common excuses I ever get on this. What structure are you talking about? Can you explain what could change this and how voting for a third party is a wasted vote if you do not agree with either of the 2 main candidates. If I would not vote dem or repub. And that was my only option I would not vote.

[derobert]

Suppose you have three candidates, A, B, and C. You prefer A, would be OK with B, and hate C. What you'd like to do is, of course, vote for A.

Now, with out simple majority system, you also have to make a strategic decision: Can A win? If:
- A isn't likely to win
- B and C are nearly equally likely to win
Then you make the strategic decision to vote for B instead of A, because that is more likely to result in an acceptable (to you) outcome.

[tomder55]

This is what happens . 3rd parties introduce platform ideas that the major parties coopt and reintroduce in a less radical form . Social Security was originally a 3rd party idea that the Democrats eventually adopted and were able to implement .Had it been up to the 3rd parties alone it never would've happened. 3rd parties are useful in bringing fresh ideas into the process ,but for the most part their candidates only act as spoilers.

Use 2000 as an example . Lets say you are more liberal leaning . In your view someone like Ralph Nader would be a better President based on his positions. But a vote for him takes a vote away from Al Gore ;who has many similar views on policy although he is more moderate and in some cases supports some things you don't agree with . Who do you vote for ?
In 2000 it can be argued that the Nader vote was the difference in swinging the vote to President Bush. If that is true ,then it would've been better for the Nader vote to "settle " for Gore ;warts and all.

[eriknugent]

If I wanted to vote for under certain ideas I would if no one was running that fit what I wanted I would not vote. If I could I would vote as the senate could present. Just to send the message that I do not have an option that works for me.