voting for third parties, splitting votes or wasting them? Options

[Retrogressive]

As a few of us have discussed, the differences between Kerry and Bush we have come to the conclusion (well some of us I guess) that a third party would probibly be a better choice. But we have become undecided (damnit) in wether voting for said party would just split votes and take them away from the main focus (democrat party, republican party) or is it a waste of vote because they don't really matter? I stumbled upon this (as usual) here is some information. And since the topic is pretty valid lets discuss it shall we?

The Third Parties

Conventional assumptions about the electorate as polarized Republican and Democratic camps misses the trend of the last three presidential elections — third-party candidates are tipping the outcome of presidential elections.
— Lawrence R. Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute
PBS's ONLINE NEWSHOUR reports that the United States is home to more than 54 political parties, 37 of which have had candidates run for President. Although only a handful of third-party candidates have received more than 10% of the vote in all the years since 1860, third parties are often thought to have a major influence on U.S. policy and political debate.

Third parties often raise issues that major-party presidential candidates neglect, sometimes leading to substantial change in the public dialogue. Ross Perot, running on a platform that advocated reducing the federal budget deficit, received 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election. The fact that Perot's key issue has been an important question in almost every campaign since is seen as somewhat of a victory for the Reform Party, even though their candidate lost the election.

In 2000, what might have been seen as the next high point for third parties was marred by controversy. Ralph Nader gained more than two million votes as the Green Party candidate, but some Democrats blamed Nader for causing candidate Al Gore's defeat by attracting votes that might have otherwise gone to Gore. But it is rare that third parties garner enough votes to warrant this kind of complaint. More often, third parties struggle to raise the millions necessary to run a presidential campaign, and have a hard time getting a fraction of the media exposure the Republican and Democratic candidates receive. (Read about how third-party candidates are regularly excluded from the televised presidential debates.)

In the end, some voters who might support a third-party candidate's platform worry that their votes will be "wasted" on a candidate who is unlikely to win. Because of the way the United States electoral system works, only the candidate who wins the majority of popular votes in most states receives any electoral votes. (Learn more about the electoral college system.)

Despite these challenges, third parties continue to endorse candidates for the presidency. Each election year, dozens of people decide to run for the presidency. In October 2004, with the election less than a month away, Ballot Access News reports five third-party candidates will appear on a significant number of state ballots, an accomplishment in itself. Although there are few requirements for eligibility, a significant amount of paperwork is required to become a viable candidate. Each state has its own ballot laws, each one requiring that a party obtain a different number of signatures to get on that state's ballot. This is why third-party candidates are seldom listed on every state ballot.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported in September 2004 that third-party candidates in this election are as much or more of a threat to President George W. Bush than they are to his challenger John Kerry. Libertarian presidential hopeful Michael Badnarik told the TIMES, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for. For example, Republicans have traditionally stood for smaller government, but this president has not adhered to that standard." Badnarik is currently on the ballot in 49 states. Find a state-by-state breakdown at Ballot Access News.

Learn about some of the third-party candidates and platforms playing a role in Election 2004.

information from: Bill Moyers

[*CrackedRearView*]

I don't remember where I heard it, but one of the parties asked Nader not to run, and he did out of spite..

But that's hearsay...don't take my word for it.

[ComradeRed]

Yes, the Green Party asked Nader not to run. They ended up nominating David Cobb, and his now officially disendorsed Nader.

There are two things we should do to fix our political system immediately:

1) Abolish all campaign finance laws. Campaign finance laws are merely incumbent protection. Bush or Kerry can go up to one of their friends, who is CEO of a company or a partner of a law firm, and say "Hey, tell each of your employees to give us the $2,000 maximum contribution limit". Thus, they instantly have a huge campaign fund. A third party candidate can't do that. If you look at the third party candidates who have done well -- Ralph Nader is a very wealthy man, who spent millions on advertising in his campaign in 2000. Or forget Ralph Nader, the last Third Party candidate to make a huge difference was Ross Perot in 1992. At one point, Ross Perot was LEADING in the polls -- had he not dropped out of the campaign adn come back later, it is entirely possible that he would have beaten Clinton and Bush. I also would have voted for him. But the reason Perot did so well is because he was a Multibillionaire, and he used his vast personal fortune to buy up air time every night in every state and use his pie charts to tell the American people what is so screwed up about their country -- in a way the other two candidates didn't dare to do. If we keep campaign finance laws like McCain-Feingold, politics will continue to be restricted to the very wealthy and the Republicrats. By abolishing them, we will allow Americans to influence politics more directly, and give popular third parties a chance at media attention, regardless of how much money their nominee has stashed away in the Caymans.

2) Change our system to Four- or Three- Choice Instant Runoff Voting (The City of San Fransisco has already adopted this system for municipal elections, and there is a referendum on the ballot to do this for the entire state of California). Under our current system, you can only vote for one president. Under IRV, you would be allowed to rank presidents (I support ranking your top 4 candidates). If a candidate wins a majority of the first place votes, he wins. Otherwise, the candidate with the lowest number of first place votes is eliminated, and the people who voted for him's votes are allocated based on their second choice, etc.

So it works like this: If, in say Ohio:
3,200,000 people vote for Bush
3,100,000 people vote for Kerry
100,000 people vote for Badnarik
50,000 people vote for Nader

Nader would be eliminated, and his votes would go to the other candidates. Let's say that 10,000 of Nader's voters put Badnarik as htier second choice and the other 40,000 put Kerry as their second choice. Thus, we now get:

3,140,000 for Kerry
3,200,000 for Bush
110,000 for Badnarik

Now of Badnarik's supporters, 50,000 are for Bush second, 30,000 are for Nader second (these people are for Kerry third), 20,000 are for Kerry second, and the other 10,000 were former Nader votesr who are now for Kerry third.

The vote is now:

3,250,000 for Bush
3,200,000 for Kerry

The same person wins -- but this way the third party voice is heard so no one's vote is wasted. In some situations (like if you do the exact same thing only there were another 75,000 Kerry voters), the first place guy is NOT the guy that people perfer. Under IRV, the guy that people perfer would win -- and there would then be no such thing as a wasted vote. It's the fair way to do things.

[Retrogressive]

Why aren't people speaking up against these things? Or are we just not hearing it because of lack of media coverage?

[ComradeRed]

There is not enough media coverage.

The reason behind that is explained in my previous post -- Third parties don't have enough money because of arcane finance laws that bsaically only let rich people run for office.

[Retrogressive]

*innocent eyes* isn't that how it's supposed to work? Rich yale and havord graduates telling the working man what's best for him? Does it work any other way?

[ComradeRed]

No, I don't mean rich Yale and Harvard graduate.

When I say rich, I don't mean someone grossing $500k a year. That's rich -- but a lot of people have reached that point.

When I say rich, I mean RICH, like Ross Perot rich.

Anyone who has less than $200 million to spend cannot run as a third party candidate and do well because of campaign finance laws that should be repealed as soon as possible.

The Republicrats will always have the bigger campaign budget because they are more well-connected to law firms, businesses, and political action commitees. To challenge the corrupt system, you need money ... But we are passing laws preventing others from giving you the money you need. How is that a democracy?

Campaign finance laws are probably THE single biggest threat to American democracy.

"A capitalist fights with his wallet. An anarchist fights with his opponent's wallet."
--Proverb

[Retrogressive]

Campaign finance laws-- if they were abolished how would that effect third parties? I guess I am just not familiar with the laws.

[ComradeRed]

Under new campaign finance laws, you cannot donate more than $2,000 to a political candidate.

By abolishing these laws, we would allow more people to donate more money so that third parties can afford more media time, which would greatly increase the public recognition of them.

Everyone already knows about the Republicrats -- so now they prevent people from donating so that people won't be able to hear about alternative parties.

Micahel Badnarik, the Libertarian nominee this year, had to rely on donations to get to Atlanta to recieve his nomination -- because he is very poor. There are very many wealthy libertarians who would gladly donate more than $2,000 to spread the word of liberty, but they are prohibited by law from doing so.

This prevents poor candidates like Badnarik from having any meaningful impact upon the system -- short of walking up with 800 protestors into St. Louis and getting arrested, which he actually did.

Ralph Nader ran for President in 1996 -- but almost no one knew of him then. Then in 2000 he decided to spend his own money -- and consequently, he changed American politics forever, I would argue for the better.

[Retrogressive]

It's almost like 1984 (orwell) because it doesn't matter how hard you try, it's who you know and who you are born as.

[ComradeRed]

Yes -- but we can still change that before it is too late.

[Retrogressive]

Not unless one of those third partiers will become president.

[ComradeRed]

No -- there are many members of the major party, especially the Republcians, who believe that the two-party dictatorship is detrimental. If we work on electing more of those, we can overturn McCain Feingold and give third parties a chance.

[Retrogressive]

It's to late.

[*tweeak*]

its a waste. as good as voting libertarian could potentially be, theres really no point, its just taking votes away from the losing canidate

[ComradeRed]

That's not true... When you vote for a third party, you send a clear message to the main parties that you are tired of their bullshit, and if they want your vote, they better change.

In 1992, Ross Perot did not win, but he defined the issues. Before he ran and got 20% of the vote, no one cared about the national debt. But now they do. Similarly, it took Ralph Nader to get the Democrats to start paying attention to the neglected environmentalist faction.