Under what circumstances would you vote for a third-party candidate?
Posted at 5:00 AM on January 19, 2012
by Eric Ringham
(45 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government
An influential Republican pundit suggested Tuesday that the GOP would be better off if Ron Paul left to mount a third-party challenge for the presidency. Today's Question: Under what circumstances would you vote for a third-party candidate?
Comments (45)
On the other hand, Lance, if property rights are absolute, that undermines freedom, too, as wealth-power gets concentrated in the hands of ever fewer people.
Glenn,
People have personal property rights. You are entitled to the fruits of your labor. That is an essential basis point of a free society.
The two are inseparable.
PERHAPS- The person doen't matter....
As voters we are considering individuals for political office. Personally, I consider each on thier political party. I realize the way it works- like it or not!!
One major party represents people.
One major party represents property.
All the rest is details.
Glenn
My idealism will continue to lose to pragmatism until we have ranked choice voting. I often prefer a third party candidate (and did vote for Hutchinson for gov ensuring a Pawlenty 2nd term, much to my chagrin), but won't do that again until I know my vote will count even if my first choice is eliminated.
And on the subject of RCV (and 3rd parties), I do believe that this system will lead to more civil elections, less extreme candidates, and elected officials who do have the support of a majority of voters, even if it is second choice support.
"Joanie Jet":
Your claim to be a "life long Democrat" (with a captial D, as in the political party) strains credulity, given the right wing propaganda you've been spewing here. I would take your word for it if you were to claim that once, long ago, you used to vote Democratic, but "life long" implies that you still are, or were until very recently.
I see our old friend Joanie Jet, aka kimMN, aka Roul, et. al. is back to it's old tricks. This time with one of the most ridiculous lies ever propagated by the wall street journal, fox news, glen beck, news corp, etc propagandist. The loan to Brazil has been discredited by several reputable sources. And in fact is was georgy peorgie bush that that implemented the drilling ban of the Florida coast.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/03/21/how-the-wall-street-journal-set-off-a-firestorm-against-petrobras/
Lies, lies, lies joanie, and not even current ones. This was BS spewed by news corp 6 years ago. Maybe your puppet master needs to update their play book joanie...
Everyone here has voiced their unhappiness with the 2-party system, an opinion I believe is predominent in our country. Yet our elected officials ignore the issue, showing that they do not have our best interests, nor that of America's, at heart. The parties are working together to destroy the Constitution and drive the country into the arms (corporations have arms, right?) of the 1%, which means we'll be mere slaves. Our politicians are all fighting and clawing to get into that 1%; they have no interest in the voters except as tools to help them rise to the top.
A 3 or 4 party system would change everything. With more people vying for the vote we'd be able to find someone who truly cares about serving the common people, not just the wealthy. It is up to us to work toward that end before change is impossible--a line we may already have crossed. We must yammer and hammer at party doors until they fall down and 3rd-party candidates are legitimate contenders. It worked once in Minnesota ("we shocked the world") and it can happen again. George Washington had it right about "influence and corruption" (above) and the downfall of this democracy.
As a life long Democrat I would vote for a Third party candidate under these conditions:
1. The candidate is not a Progressive radical.
The Democrat Party has been completely hijacked by the radical Progressives. President BHO is a prime example.
Back in 2008 he said he would increase the economic strength of Brazil. He signed a multi billion dollar loan to
Brazil's state owned Petrobras Oil for deep water oil drilling even though George Soros, the largest Progressive hedge fund man,
had a huge personal stock stake in Petrobras. meanwhile he curtailed our own American deep water oil drilling. More lost jobs.
Today we find BHO admin gave a defense contract for a $ billion to another Brazil company,
outsourcing our defense that will cost us 1,200 jobs at America's own Beech Craft manufacturing.
2. That the candidate is not paid and bought by the Unions and other far left wing groups.
How many jobs are not created by stopping the Keystone pipeline project? Canada's oil will go to China, not us.
Last week BHO said at a speech he wants the label, "Made in America" to mean something. Really? Sounds good but
apparently, unless the product is controlled by big union mob boss', he would rather support Brazil, known to have close ties with Iran.
3. That the candidate is not a Progressive owned "Democrat" as the Obama movement seems to be. Democrats do not want to become
another socialist European country with a debt to GDP ratio nearing 100% and with our enemies laughing at us. Does it count that Iran sent BHO a small model of the stealth drone they refused to return to us? Yes, they are laughing at the weakness of our Progressive leadership.
Democrats need to stand up and demand a real Democrat and not a radical Progressive candidate for 2012.
I voted for Perot. It was part of me growing out of my liberal youth. I just couldn't get myself to vote Republican.
Working on straight commission, getting married, buying a house, having a child, (all in that order, what a concept) changed my voting preferences.
The two major parties won't support ranked choice voting bacause it would threaten their status. Ranked choice voting would ensure that a competent 3rd party candidate would have a chance of being elected. Other commenters here have said the same thing. I would have voted for independent candidate Tom Horner for Governor in 2010 if I thought he had a chance to win. However, I didn't want one of the major candidates to be elected, so I essentially voted for a major party candidate against the other major party candidate instead of for the most competent candidate, which I felt was the third party candidate. Many others have told me the same.
// "... just think: Obama versus Romney versus Paul, or Obama versus Gingrich versus Bloomberg. That has to be a lot more fun than a straight two-way race, doesn’t it?"... Posted by Emery //
Emery, an election isn't a game. It's not about FUN.
Voting for a 3rd party candidate is a complete waste unless we reform our election system and implement Ranked Choice Voting.
I will continue to vote 3rd party until Democrats and Republicans start to care more about our country than themselves and their respective parties.
I will vote 3rd party or independent when I am really disgusted by the major party choices.
Which means in 2012 for sure and likely again and again after that, until one of the current major parties gets its act together or until a 3rd party is considered a major party.
I think we need to get rid of ALL party labels, and run strictly non-partisan elections. Ranked-choice voting seems to be a viable option, and it lends itself well to making non-partisan elections truly representative of the wishes of the electorate.
When I look back on it, I can't believe I voted for Ross Perot. I was young and inexperienced in the ways of politics. The siren song of the "crazy right " has fooled many young men. Thankfully we can learn from our mistakes.
I voted third party in the Norm Coleman/Al Franken race because I couldn't stand either of them and I thought the incumbent independent might have a prayer of winning. I was tempted in the gubernatorial race to vote for Horner, but had already learned my lesson.
I'll vote third party when we have ranked choice voting.
I think I would be more likely to vote 3rd party in Congressional races, in an attempt to build a viable 3rd party. I hate the term "wasted vote" but for now would consider a vote for a 3rd party candidate in the presidential race a "protest vote" and would need to feel pretty strongly about the race to vote that way.
The fact that people like Kristol are still considered influential scares me.
"[The party spirit] serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
When ever I see a NADAR/LADUKE bumper sticker in a parking lot and the person is getting in and out of the car, I personally thank them.
They usually curse at me.
I voted for John Anderson in 1980...was one of 6 or 8 in North Dakota to do so in abject defiance of the Regan Revolution.
Third-party, fourth party, umteenth-party - what's the difference? Just vote for whom you think is best. If you believe in true democracy you might just elect the person that the majority of people wanted, not what some party dictates.
I always vote for the candidate who best represents my views. I think the only truly wasted vote is a vote for someone who isn't your first choice. I agree that the system is stacked such that it's hard for a third party candidate to win but if you buy into the party propaganda about "wasted votes", you're guaranteeing it. We really need to revamp the system. What we've got now is a train wreck that doesn't serve the people AT ALL. I don't think it's what the founders had in mind. In fact, if the Tea Party folk check their copies of the constitution, I'm quite sure political parties aren't mentioned. They should have been. They should have been forbidden! I'd support a constitutional amendment to that effect.
None, third (or fourth or fifth) party candidates can't win a majority, only take needed votes away from the others. And, for all those who call themselves independents, they aren't....when they cast their vote, they then indicate which party most fits their way of thinking and living. I don't feel there is any way of being an independent....people are either or, not inbetween.
I love the *idea* of third parties and would like to see more members of Congress and the Minnesota legislature come from third parties - if that were to happen, I would take third party candidates for president or governor seriously.
Until then, it is a wasted vote for those offices. Nothing against the candidates, but as we saw in Minnesota when Ventura was elected, once he was in office - aside from support from Republicans to deplete the surplus - both parties turned their backs and we had gridlock. And our current politicians are far less willing to work toward the common good than represent party interests (read: corporate influence) than ever.
Until the current two-party system is dismantled or severely changed, there is no chance for a third party candidate to do much of anything if elected to an executive position, IMO.
Better to try to change either major party from within. Wish it were different, though.
If I could rank my choices, I'd vote first for the best candidate, then second for the best VIABLE candidate. I'd vote in every election, and I wouldnt fool myself that voting only independent would do anything but insure the election of the worst option on the ballot. We've seen that again and again. People vote Nader, Bush is elected. I really want a system where everyone with 5 percent or more votes gets represented in the government, but we don't have that system and getting it will be a battle like female suffrage, so don't put your head in the sand and pretend it exists. Ralph Nader had ZERO election chances, and yet people threw away votes on him.
If a centrist, good-governance party put a high quality candidate in a local race I would vote for them. If such a party gained traction over a decade or two, I would consider their candidates for higher office.
Unfortunately, because the two major parties offer an established path to power, they generally attract the better young minds (which they quickly immerse in their control structure.)
in addition to what Rich in Duluth says, I would add
a candidate that would promote publicly funded elections
a candidate that would promote realignment of voting districts to census and geological data by a neutral or non-aligned group. In other words end Gerrymandering.
a candidate that has a history of promoting education, not just says he is going to...
However, none of this can happen until our single party system, with 2 names ends.
woe is us....
I would vote for a third party candidate if:
1. Their stated policies showed that they would benefit the middle to low income American more than the wealthy.
2. Their policies are inclusive of all minority groups such as poor, gay, and non-religious.
3. They are open to compromise.
4. Polls showed that they had a chance to win
In November of 2010 I voted for Tom Horner for governor as he received the editorial endorsement of every major newspaper in the area. In my opinion he was the best candidate on the ballot but he came in a distant third behind the major party candidates. After the election was over and I saw how close the election was, I decided that I should never "waste" my vote again realizing how terrible I would have felt if Tom Emmer had become governor because of people like myself.
I still vote federalist every chance I get....
When we have ranked choice voting.
I had a political science professor who claimed “the main purpose of Democrats and Republics is to assure the continued election of Democrats and Republicans.” And after voting for failed 3rd party candidates several times in the past, I have to say, it is a true statement. The deck is completely stacked against any 3rd party candidate and a vote for them really is a wasted vote. As I see it the main reason for 3rd party candidates, with very few exceptions, at this time, is to siphon off votes from either the Democrat or Republican.
I would vote 3rd party any time means NOT voting rebublican or democrat.
This two party system will be the downfall of America. Believe or not, politicians hold personal opinions on a range of issues, but the party system completely stifles these opinions and we end up with someone in office for all the wrong reasons. I would personally like to see the parties dismantled in my lifetime.
This would require that voters can get past the wasted vote syndrome. Even so, just think: Obama versus Romney versus Paul, or Obama versus Gingrich versus Bloomberg. That has to be a lot more fun than a straight two-way race, doesn’t it?
Third parties will only have a viable chance when the American public stops eating the pre-digested media melange of talking heads, over-managed campaign messages and marketing blitzes. Ron Paul isn't a solution ... he's that over-puffed ballon of ideas that can lift a foursome up to 500 feet for nice view with the wine and cheese ... but that is about his maximum capacity. Instead of fireside chats .. water-cooler rants. Think back over his long career ... what major non-traditional initiative did he move into law ... yeah .. that's what a I thought. I definitley don't want the guy who can't get anyone to work with him.
If I like the candidate better than the major party candidates. Duh. :-)
I will for the candidate that best represents my principles. The party that candidate belongs to doesnt matter to me.
The GOP establishment is doing a really good job of encouraging Ron Paul supporters to leave the party. Which, if that situation arises and we do, they're looking at about a 25% decrease in their base-ultimately resulting in the GOP losing the presidency.
If I always vote on principle and the GOP endorsed candidate doesnt get my vote that's a problem with the endorsed candidate, not my principles.
I would vote for a third party candidate at such point where climate change causes hell to freeze over.
I would vote third party if Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination, Because Ron Paul is the only candidate not willing to tear up the Constitution (from any party), that is a solid reason to vote third party.
I'll vote 3rd party or write in "Ron Paul" if he doesn't get the Republican nomination. I hate feeling dirty after I vote.
I'll be voting 3rd party if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination.
Ill vote third party if Ron Paul does not win the republican nomination.
| January 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock