Third Party & Independents: Archives

How about Nader’s justification to vote for him. His mission is to break down the barriers to the Republocrat system that keeps elevating tweedle dee and tweedle dum as the only viable choices. A vote for Nader is a vote to end the monopolistic hold the Republocrats have on our electoral process, which prevents real choices from ever becoming viable choices.

jbv, I had a conversation with one of the Canadian Consulates in Atlanta a while back. He told me that Canadians expect much from the government and, thus, are frequently disappointed.

What do you expect from the President? What are your expectations of Government? Do you believe that whoever wins the Oval Office will have a dramatic impact on your life? I think the answers to these types of questions might help you with your dilemma. As an independent I find the political process very interesting, but in the end I want as little involvement as possible of these people in my life (via taxation, law, or regulation). But you might be looking for more.

Just food for thought

Since you are here in the Third Party collumn and have stated that you are undecided and don’t really like

Sorry for the incomplete stuff at the end :)

I very much agree that the people who say you are ‘throwing your vote away’ if you vote for Nadar or Badnarik or one of the others on the ballot. What if you live in Texas, are you throwing your vote away if you vote Democrat?

Your vote is noticed and counted. For example, the libertarian party is considered ‘inconsequantial’ because they only track 2-5% in the polls, therefore are not allowed in the debates, therefore are not heard, therefore are not tracked over 2-5%…

So, who should be allowed into the debates? Should it be where you poll? I personally feel that anyone who is mathematically capable of winning the election (on enough ballots to get 270 electoral votes if you won) should be allowed in the debates, and then anyone like Nadar who may or may not make that list but is going to have an impact on key states that could tip the election should be included too.

When we limit the debates to one on one like they are, you end up with a lot of “Vote for me because the other guy is a XXXX”. I’d rather see “Vote for me because I XXXXX” instead.

Ooops, the fist line was meant to be “I very much agree that those who say you’re throwing your vote away are ruining the election process.”

Sorry, tried the cancel button but I was too late!

Rhinehold said: “I personally feel that anyone who is mathematically capable of winning the election (on enough ballots to get 270 electoral votes if you won) should be allowed in the debates, and then anyone like Nadar who may or may not make that list but is going to have an impact on key states that could tip the election should be included too.”

Absolutely right on, Rhinehold! The debates are as important as ballot access, if not more so.

The first person I heard use the soft bigotry of low expectations phrase was Condoleeza Rice describing things that might have stopped her from getting ahead. That was a couple of years ago. Since Condi is so close to the Bush family, I am sure that is the source.

Jack, thanks for the source for that phrase “soft bigotry of low expectations.” I thought it was one of the key phrases of his speech, describing perfectly the mismanagement of American compassion.

I agree wholeheartedly with David (his first post). If you don’t like Bush or Kerry, why not vote for Nader?

> I personally feel that anyone who is
> mathematically capable of winning the election
> (on enough ballots to get 270 electoral votes
> if you won) should be allowed in the debates,
> and then anyone like Nadar who may or may not
> make that list but is going to have an impact
> on key states that could tip the election
> should be included too.

You had me there for a minute, but then you lost me. Basing the debate attendance on a measurable number on a definate date (electoral votes available) sounds very fair. An arbitrary choice as to what “key states” are and which are tippable is open to political influence.

-Cf

I love that quote, as a matter of fact. If you think about it, it really hits the target. I’m really not interested in who coined the phrase first. It is placing the responsibility of teaching not so much on the child, but on the TEACHER… where it belongs. I feel many of our educators settle for mediocracy because they are simply to lazy to find ways to improve upon their strategies… maybe even to make drastic changes in their approaches… and it gets worse and worse every year. If they would spend the same amount of energy on teaching as they do on striking, maybe their results would be beter. They DO need accountability.. the same accountability for their product, the students, as other workers need for theirs.

I would rather include more people than less. If we ENSURE that all mathematically possible people have to be invited, then we can add others if the League Of Women Voters feels that their side should be heard, which is no different than today’s arbitary inclusions. Remember, one presidential candidate was arrested in 1992 while being the first one on the ballot in all 50 states simply because he showed up at the debates to do a radio interview after not being invited to speak with Perot, Clinton and Bush. That is the appauling way our debate system is run now.

I’m open to changing it to a hard rule of only those mathematically possible, but I think that is a bit too rigid and disallows any flexibility. But requiring the inclusion of mathematical candidates IMO levels the playing field a bit and gives more reason for 3rd parties to attempt to get on the ballot in more states. I think if we did this then we would have a true 3rd party system within 3 election cycles.

Two home runs for day two!
There is another way you can tell you’re a Republican. You have faith in free enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people … and faith in the U.S. economy. To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy

You may as well vote for Bush or Kerry than to vote for a commie like Nader. For a real choice, vote Libertarian Badnarik!
www.badnarik.org