3rd Party

[tunaplanet 0]

If you had to vote 3rd party for the 2004 Presidential Election from the list above who would you choose?

Forty-two

[Jib 0]

Who?? Who TF are they?
(aside from Nader)

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[tunaplanet 0]

Found the list here.

Forty-two

[tunaplanet 0]

Holy shit!!!!! Did you know that the Vice President Candidate for Charles Jay and the Personal Choice Party is none other than Marilyn Chambers?!?!?!

Forty-two

[tunaplanet 0]

Well I'm NOT voting for Earl Dodge and the Prohibition Party!!!!!

Here's what they're against.

- Commercial gambling
- Commercial pornography
- Commercial sale of alcohol and other harmful drugs

Wow. You learn some interesting shit by visiting these 3rd party homepages and reading about what they represent.

Forty-two

[tunaplanet 0]

Ok...who in the hell voted for the Workers World Party.....

Forty-two

[Jib 0]

Quote

Ok...who in the hell voted for the Workers World Party.....

Hmmm, so far left they fell off the map... who could that be... It think it's beyond Kallend, Quade, et al combined!!

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

Hmmm, so far left they fell off the map... who could that be... It think it's beyond Kallend, Quade,

Hardly.

Forty-two

[Jimbo 0]

I would like to know, if you voted for the Libertarian party, did you even bother to research the others? Do you know what they represent? Why didn't you vote for another party?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[quade 4]

A vote for a 3rd party candidate in this election is a wasted vote.

True, you might be voting with your heart, but certainly not with your head. There are exactly 2 candidates, GWB and Kerry, that each have about a 50:50 chance at winning. None of the others comes close and "sending a message" will only deny your vote to the other two candidates, one of which -will- win. It would be a pity if the candidate you consider to be the greater of two evils should win simply because you were fighting a nobel but hopeless fight with your vote.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

A vote for a 3rd party candidate in this election is a wasted vote.

Not what this poll is about. Re-read my original post in this thread. You'll catch on.

Forty-two

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

A vote for a 3rd party candidate in this election is a wasted vote.

Quade, it is exactly this attitude that has left us with what is essentially a two party system. Voting for the person who best represents your views is hardly a wasted vote.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[tunaplanet 0]

Don't worry. He came into this thread wanting to argue instead of reading what it was about. I originally posted, "If you had to vote 3rd party for the 2004 Presidential Election from the list above who would you choose?"

I have no clue where he got the whole, "wasted vote" thing and so forth. Not remotely close to what this thread was about.

Forty-two

[headoverheels 334]

Where's the All Night Party?

[quade 4]

Quote

***
A vote for a 3rd party candidate in this election is a wasted vote.

Quade, it is exactly this attitude that has left us with what is essentially a two party system. Voting for the person who best represents your views is hardly a wasted vote.


No. Just re-read what you quoted; ". . . in this election . . .".

If somebody wanted to create a reasonable 3rd party alternative it could be done, but first they'd actually have to create one! NONE of these are 3rd parties, they are activist individuals and causes riding the free publicity of a presidential candidacy. They all knew they had no hope from day one.

At some point in the future (looking through the FutureCam™ now so this might be a bit off) the lower class will finally figure out that neither party is doing them many favors and eventually they'll rise up. With their numbers they'll defeat both standing parties. I further predict this will happen about the time hell freezes over.

The reality is . . . both parties are pretty good at keeping the masses in check. Hell, you can give a HUGE tax break to companies and the rich, give a miniscule $300 rebate check to the middle class and they'll think you did them a -favor- (all the while you've actually raised their real taxes). For the most part, nothing will happen until the majority of people wise up.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

No. Just re-read what you quoted; ". . . in this election . . .".

What will your excuse be in the next election? Should we only vote for third parties when the election isn't close, but rather tilted in favor of one candidate?

Quote

If somebody wanted to create a reasonable 3rd party alternative it could be done, but first they'd actually have to create one! NONE of these are 3rd parties, they are activist individuals and causes riding the free publicity of a presidential candidacy.

Reasonable by whose standards? Yours?

Quote

They all knew they had no hope from day one.

Maybe, but that hardly makes their position on issues that are important to them unreasonable. To them, and to those who would support them, they are anything BUT unreasonable.

Quote

At some point in the future (looking through the FutureCam™ now so this might be a bit off) the lower class will finally figure out that neither party is doing them many favors and eventually they'll rise up. With their numbers they'll defeat both standing parties. I further predict this will happen about the time hell freezes over.

I think I agree with you with regards to the hell freezing over comment, however, it will never happen as long as attitudes like the one you've displayed are prevelant. People complain about the two party system, but aren't willing to do anything to change it. That's wonderful.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Jimbo 0]

Tuna, you forgot one: Harry Bottoms.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[tunaplanet 0]

ROFLMAO!!!!!

That was excellent!

Forty-two

[bch7773 0]

I would vote for NetZero canidate. its better then any of these crappy parties

MB 3528, RB 1182

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

Well I'm NOT voting for Earl Dodge and the Prohibition Party!!!!!

Here's what they're against.

- Commercial gambling
- Commercial pornography
- Commercial sale of alcohol and other harmful drugs

Wow. You learn some interesting shit by visiting these 3rd party homepages and reading about what they represent.

G&%$#@%$D if we aren't on the same side!

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[Ron 10]

Quote

I would like to know, if you voted for the Libertarian party, did you even bother to research the others?

No, because I like the Libertarian party. I even thought about going to one of their meeting here in Tampa.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wmw999 2,574]

Quote

would be a pity if the candidate you consider to be the greater of two evils should win simply because you were fighting a nobel but hopeless fight with your vote.

Ah, but with the electoral college system, if you live in a state that both has an all-to-one system (i.e. whoever gets the most popular votes gets ALL of the electoral college votes) and is overwhelmingly for one of the candidates (e.g. Texas), then this is EXACTLY the time to send such a message.

A vote for Kerry in Texas is wasted. So is a vote for Badnarik or Cobb (the next two choices as far as I'm concerned, but both are too limited in the issues they address in a balanced manner), but at least if you vote for a third party you're sending a message that you're not that happy with the Dems or Republicans, and it beats the shit out of not voting at all.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[free_man 0]

*AMERICA'S TWO-PARTY SYSTEM IS A HOAX*



By Debbie O'Hara
September 15, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

Most of my responders state that the points I make in my columns about what is wrong with America are well taken. Where they sometimes take exception is when I suggest that one solution to our nation's problems is to vote for someone who my readers call "out of the mainstream" like presidential candidate Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. Such a move they say would be "ineffective". There is a strong feeling among many good conservatives that we must "be realistic" and work within the two-party system if we expect to make a difference. While I applaud those who are involved in the process and working hard to make their mark, it just might be that those who are working within the Republican Party are the ones who will be ineffective.

One of my readers directed me to Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld's "Why Conservatives Need to Back the Republican Party ". While I don't usually comment on a fellow author's column I thought it appropriate in this case because Blumenfeld brings up several key points that I often hear by my readers in defense of why they stay with the Republican Party. The most common defense is that "third" parties are unable to raise the money to win elections and winning elections is what politics is all about. That might be good logic for a non-Christian, but isn't that atheistic logic? Unfortunately there is hardly a one of us who has not been adversely affected in some area of our thinking by our secular humanist culture. We are thinking too much like the world. Just ask yourself, how often has God worked against evil on the side of the majority or on the side with the most money? Our duty is not to "win" elections. Like with every other aspect of our lives, even at election time, a Christian's main concern should be to bring glory to God - He will provide the results.

Another of Blumenfeld's comments that I often hear is that the Republican Party has a "lack of conservative backbone" that can be changed from within by electing dedicated conservatives. While we do have a handful of good people that have been elected to office on the Republican Ticket who are trying to do just that, the problem with the Republican Party is not their "backbone". The problem is that the party has been captured from within by "the enemy". Getting real pro-family people on the Republican Ticket is extremely difficult because the top brass in the party don't want them there. We had a great example of that last year in the race for governor here in California. Tom McClintock, a real pro-life, pro-family conservative, had an excellent chance of becoming our new governor, but the top brass in the Republican Party decided to throw their whole-hearted support behind pro-homosexual agenda, pro-abortion liberal, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The leaders of the party even pressured many of McClintock's supporters to switch their votes to Schwarzenegger. What the media didn't seem to want to report to the people was that a CNN poll posed a question about what would happen if Schwarzenegger dropped out of the race. The poll showed that McClintock would have beaten the "feared" Democrat Bustamante by 56 percent to 37 percent![1] So the reason Republican leadership didn't support McClintock against liberal Schwarzenegger had nothing to do with being afraid of losing the election to the Democrat. They obviously did not want a real pro-family conservative elected to office.

"Political purity" is not an option so we're told by many who defend the Republican Party. We must learn to compromise. While I'm not against compromise when there is no principle involved, clear violations of the U.S. Constitution and/or biblical principles cannot be tolerated on any level. When we allow those principles to be compromised we are virtually saying that there is no right or wrong. Evil and illegal compromises are made every day by members of both parties, but they know they have nothing to fear from the people because most Americans are more loyal to one of the two political parties than to any moral principles. Party loyalty has played a large part in both the moral and economic decline of our country. For a Christian there are definite rights and wrongs that are set in stone. It is not that people who vote for "third" parties are not willing to compromise when possible, but they find voting meaningless unless they have a chance to vote for a candidate of good character.



Neither of the major party contenders for president are men of strong moral character. Both Bush and Kerry look to an ever increasingly totalitarian anti-God socialist government as the answer to America's problems. How can it be that a man from the "left" and a man from the "right" can be so close in their ideology? (To see just how close, check out Chuck Baldwin's "The Bush Betrayal ")

"The two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shift in policy." Quote by Georgetown Professor, Carroll Quigley from his book "Tragedy and Hope" referring to the secret network that started the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), America's true ruling establishment (For more on the CFR see "Thirst For Justice ").

Professor Carroll Quigley was not some "right wing radical" who was trying to make the establishment look bad. A mentor of former president Bill Clinton, Quigley was in the know about how America was being intentionally transformed from a God-fearing free country to atheistic socialism by wealthy individuals working together behind the scenes of government. These individuals figured that if they could give the people two candidates with the same socialist goals but still call one a "Democrat" and one a "Republican", they could give the people the illusion of choice while keeping the country headed in the same direction no matter who was elected to office. We can see that the American people have fallen hook, line and sinker for this tactic, because at this moment we have a Republican president who has been able to push more social programs than many Democrats would have even dared, but he still receives the support of most "conservatives".

America's political system as set up by our Founding Fathers had no political parties or factions. It wasn't that they didn't know about political parties, but that they were unwelcome. When looking at the factions of Europe, our Founders didn't like what they saw - political intrigue, conspiracy, and hostile divisions. They were afraid that such a system would rip apart the Union. They hoped that in free elections it would be natural for the best men to rise to the top and be elected to office. That is why before the rise of political parties (which made necessary the Twelfth Amendment), the man with the most votes was president and the man with the second most was vice-president. While in a fallen world it might be a bit unrealistic to expect that factions would not appear among diverse peoples, what rule tells us that we must work within a two-party system rather than voting for the best individuals? We have been propagandized into believing that there are only two viable parties because it is much easier for the enemies of a free America to exercise control within a two-party system than to deal with individuals.

Americans have been propagandized into following a two-party system by certain wealthy elites who have not only captured our two major parties, but also control many of our large corporations, our entertainment industry, the mass media (that explains why we didn't hear about the CNN poll giving McClintock the win for governor) and government schools. These elite socialists are able to easily propagandize us through all such medium, especially the government schools where they are able to train our children from a very young age. The push is on to get to our children from birth.

I resoundingly agree with Dr. Blumenfeld's comment that the daunting problems facing conservatives are in a large part caused by the fact that "the vast majority of Christians still put their children in atheistic public schools, thus helping our secular-humanist monster create more dumbed-down brainless American adults." Most people I know that call themselves "conservative" are socialists and don't realize it. That's why they don't see how really far left the Republican Party has gone. The dumbing down process has been a great success.

The only way to be an effective voter is to vote for a man of principle. If he happens to be a member of one of the major parties, fine, but chances of that are very slim because control of both major parties is in the hands of an economic elite whose goal is atheistic socialism. If neither of the major party candidates have a godly moral standard or if they are not willing to uphold the U.S. Constitution, then it is not a wasted vote to go outside of the two parties! Don't fall for the hoax. You are far more likely to waste your vote inside the parties.

America was once a land of peoples who knew how to think independently. As we have become increasingly socialized and become dependent citizens, we have lost that capability. We must work at getting it back! Study the issues. Study the candidates. There is a lot at stake in the coming November elections. Don't be afraid to leave the herd. Make up your own mind. And most importantly don't fall for the two-party hoax!



* The Myth of the Wasted Vote*

*by Charles L. Hooper
by Charles L. Hooper*

Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site

Recently, I was surprised to see a long-term Libertarian's car sporting a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker. "What's with the Kerry bumper sticker?" I asked my friend. "Isn't it self-explanatory?" he replied sarcastically. "Okay, okay, I see that you’re going to vote for Kerry. I just want to know why. I thought you would be voting Libertarian."

He then proceeded to tell me that while he doesn't like Kerry, he simply despises George W. Bush. "You don't want to waste your vote on somebody that you fundamentally disagree with, do you?" I asked him. "I've been wasting my vote for years by voting Libertarian," he replied bitterly.

"Ah, but you/ will/ be wasting your vote this year because Kerry is almost assured to take California. One extra vote won't make a difference." I hadn't run the numbers, but I was sure that my friend's vote wasn't going to affect the California electoral vote and, therefore, had no chance of affecting the national result.

Since our conversation I have run the numbers, and they are mind-boggling. Based on these results, reasonable people may conclude that they should never vote. But if you do decide to cast your vote, as I have, you should vote for the best candidate and abandon any attempts to displace the disliked Kerrys, Bushes, Clintons, Reagans, Carters, and Gores of the world.

To run the numbers, I created a Monte Carlo computer simulation model and ran well over 300,000 simulations. My model has two pretty evenly matched main political parties and three smaller ones that fight over roughly ten percent of the vote total. I defined voting groups, each with probability distributions. With these groups defined, I ran multiple runs of the model at 5,000 iterations (5,000 elections) each while varying the number of total voters.

It turns out that your one vote, and mine too, has a probability of swinging any evenly-matched election based on the following formula: Probability equals 3.64 divided by N, where N is the total number of votes cast. So for a small election, say for a homeowners' association with 100 members, your probability of casting the vote that determines the outcome is about 3.64 percent (or 0.0364). Stated differently, you'd have to vote in 27.5 elections to determine a single one. As we move up to the state and national level, the odds fall dramatically. With 11 million voters in California, where my friend and I live, the probability drops to 3.3 x 10^-7 (0.00000033), which means that you'd have to vote in over three million presidential elections to determine the winner in California just once.

Of course, California isn't the whole country. California currently has 55 electoral votes out of a total of 538, with 270 needed to elect a president. Since 1852, when Californians first voted for U.S. president, California has been a key swing state in only two presidential elections. In 1876, California cast 6 electoral votes for Rutherford B. Hayes, who beat Samuel J. Tilden by the razor-thin margin of 185 to 184. In 1916, California cast 13 electoral votes for Woodrow Wilson, who beat Charles E. Hughes by 277 to 254. In either election, if California voters had gone the other direction, the national totals would have followed. In every other presidential election, however, the winner was determined regardless of how Californians voted. By acknowledging that California has been a swing state in only two of its 38 elections (5.3%), we can get to our final answer: A voter in California would have to vote in 57.5 million elections to determine one President of the United States.

This ignores voting error and fraud, but even with them, there is still a point at which the official vote total swings from candidate A to candidate B. The question is whether you will cast that key vote. And the answer is that it’s extremely unlikely.

What does this mean? Well, first of all it means that you'd have to vote for a very long time – 230 million years – to swing one election and all you'd have to show for it is a Bush in the White House instead of a Kerry (or visa versa). If you are like me and many other voters, you can't get very excited about either Bush or Kerry, so your final payoff would be lackluster, at best. For those who still think these odds look acceptable, consider the following comparisons. You are 12 times as likely to die from a dog attack, 34,000 times as likely to die in a motor vehicle accident, and 274 times as likely to die in a bathtub drowning as you are to swing a presidential election.

My friend thinks that his Libertarian votes have been wasted and that his vote for a Democrat will matter. This analysis shows that his vote for Kerry has a vanishingly small expected value. Even if he would be willing to pay $10,000 to determine the winner in November, the expected value (probability times value) of his vote for Kerry is only $0.00017. Americans won't even stoop to pick up a penny on the ground yet every four years they happily cast votes worth one fiftieth as much. Voting may still make sense, but the overall satisfaction of participating in a great democracy must be compared to the time and costs of voting. The expected vote-swinging outcome is rounding error. In fact, if you drive to your polling place, you are approximately ten times more likely to die in an accident on the way than you are to swing that presidential election.

Now, what if my friend votes for Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian candidate? Is that vote wasted? Well, it is clear that no third-party candidate will win the 2004 election, but my friend's support would certainly help his favorite political party stay in business and therefore get noticed. While it is in business, his party will help define election issues and could even get lucky and elect a president. Abraham Lincoln and Jesse Ventura are good examples of third-party candidates who were elected. Ross Perot in 1996 and 1992, American Independent George Wallace in 1968, and Progressive Robert LaFollette in 1924 were presidential candidates who got a large percentage of the popular vote. More likely, as any third party becomes successful, the Democrats and Republicans will simply adopt that party's platforms. The same thing happened with the Socialist party early in the 20th century. As Milton Friedman points out, the Socialists failed miserably with a popular vote total that peaked at only six percent in 1912. But they succeeded in the way that matters most. Dig below the surface and you'll find that virtually every economic plank of the Socialist's 1928 platform has since been written into law. The votes cast for these Socialists certainly weren't wasted from the point of view of those who cast them.

Your one vote has the same power to affect the results whether you vote for a major or minor candidate, but a vote for the candidate you respect and agree with gives you the expectation of a better outcome. If you are like me and do take the time and effort to vote, you should put your X beside the candidate you think will be the best president, not the one most likely to beat the guy you dislike. The myth of the wasted third-party vote is just that – a myth. If there is a wasted vote, it is the one cast futilely against the candidate you dislike in an attempt to swing the national election.

/September 21, 2004/

/Charles L. Hooper [send him mail ] is president of Objective Insights, a company that consults for pharmaceutical and biotech companies. His forthcoming book, coauthored with David R. Henderson, is /Thinking Works: Your Inside Track to Great Results/. Charley is a visiting fellow with the Hoover Institution.
/




* Why I Don't Vote*

*by Mark Reynolds
by Mark Reynolds *

Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site

Have you ever played a game with someone where they insisted on violating the rules of the game as laid down?

For instance, if you played Monopoly and one player just ignored the "Go To Jail" card or refused to pay the rent on Boardwalk, but the rest of the players followed the rules, who do you suppose would win the game if that player was allowed to violate all the rules?

Obviously, the rule breaker would be the winner at the end of that game.

Well, politics is like a big game. Only it is supposed to be a game of life that everyone is supposed to play out with certain rules.

We the people laid down some rules, back in 1776 that were followed for a few years. Those rules are called The United States Constitution and they are sworn to be upheld by everyone who is sworn in as a public official.

Well, if the game players swear to uphold it and then begin violating the rules right away, and they have all the guns at their disposal in the way of force, what can you expect the other players to do but to quit giving their support and take their pieces home from the game and quit?

As near as I can tell the major violations of the rules began with the war of Northern aggression against the peaceful Southern states who wanted out of the marriage contract due to gross violations of the agreements by the north.

The current President, Abe Lincoln, was very adept at making up his own rules as he went along with the game. Since Lincoln, every President, up and including our most recent, have violated the rules of the game.

If you read the "rule book," which is the United States Constitution, you will find that many provisions are being totally ignored and in many cases are so blatantly obvious that anyone with an elementary school education can see it.

Here are just a few of the hundreds of violations of the rules of the game...

1.

No where does the Constitution allow the creation of a central
bank so that fiat paper money can be issued.

2.

No where does the Constitution allow the use of anything other
than gold and silver coin for currency.

3.

No where does the Constitution allow for the creation of a
national police force, I.E. FBI, ATF, DEA, etc.

4.

No where does the Constitution allow for the President to declare
war and decide who or what nation to invade.

5.

No where does the Constitution allow for the federal government to
be involved in "education."

6.

No where does the Constitution allow for any license to have or
possess any certain type of firearm.

7.

No where does the Constitution allow for the government to do
background checks on firearms purchases.

8.

No where does the Constitution allow for a national forest service.

9.

No where does the Constitution allow for the federal government to
claim ownership of any land except as specified for forts, post
offices, or naval yards.

10.

No where does the Constitution allow for the DIRECT taxation of
wages. And this has been supported by numerous Supreme Court
decisions.

This list can go on and on...un-Constitutional war, un-Constructional taxes, un-Constitutional drafts, un-Constitutional control over the states...

So this is how I make my protest....I REFUSE TO PLAY THE GAME AND VOTE for someone who is going to totally ignore the rules that have been laid down for the game.

Why bother?

/September 22, 2004/

/Mark Reynolds [send him mail ] is a web site developer in Arkansas. He and his wife Kathy homeschool their four boys, and none of them vote./

Copyright © 2004 Tom Engelhardt


Two Choices for President

*by Mark Thornton **
by Mark Thornton*

Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site

People across America are frustrated, even infuriated with the choice between Bush and Kerry. Both politicians support war and economic policies that destroy prosperity. Both would push the country in the wrong direction. Is this situation hopeless? Wendy McElroy and Charles Hooper offer us two alternatives. McElroy make a great case for not participating in the democratic process by not voting at all. Hooper suggests that you should vote, but vote for a third party candidate like Michael Badnarik . Both represent principled positions, but neither one would put a good politician in the White House. Who is right? What do we do?

I believe that our situation is not hopeless, but that our hope lies not in the political process, but in convincing the people that the political process is the problem. To that end the Bush/Kerry dilemma is a good teaching tool: would Wal-Mart offer a choice between toothpaste that contained harmful bacteria and one that contained deadly parasites? That’s the choice between Bush and Kerry. Would Dell sell computers that didn’t work or that people couldn’t afford? That’s what government is – it doesn’t work and people can’t afford it. If we are to have hope for our future, we must turn our efforts to changing people’s minds , the battle between ideas , and the cause of liberty.

What about the choice between Bush and Kerry? Do we ignore voting as suggested by McElroy, or do we participate with a protest vote as suggested by Hooper? I actually think that they are both right and for the same reason. Not voting is a perfectly fine alternative for either reasons of principle, or if you simply have something better to do that day. Casting your protest vote for third parties allows you to declare your principles and has the practical effect of signaling the major parties important issues (like Ross Perot’s concern about the federal deficit spending and the national debt).

More than any of these reasons, they are both right because incumbent politicians and the major parties hate it when you either don’t vote or when you do vote for third parties and independents. As a former third party politician and political appointee I can tell you that these are the things they fear the most and work hardest to suppress. When people fail to participate in the political process by not voting it undermines their credibility and their authority. When you vote for third parties and independents you make your declaration that the incumbent platforms are failures and must be replaced.

**//**So if you really want to stick it to Bush or Kerry, or Bush and Kerry, adopt either one of these strategies. Not voting is easy, but make sure you tell all your friends, family members, and coworkers that you are not voting, and why. Voting isn’t that hard either. Vote for third party candidates and independents in races where they are running. Vote against all incumbents (there are a few exceptions ), and don’t vote in races where a candidate is running unopposed. Voters in swing states may want to consider voting for one of the major party candidates on the theory of voting against the incumbent (especially one who has done a really bad job), or on the theory that gridlock is a good thing for the people (e.g., a Democrat President and a Republican Congress) because less legislation will be passed. These are just optional strategies, as I would never "endorse" Kerry or Bush for anything, including dogcatcher.

/September 22, 2004/

/Mark Thornton [send him mail ] is an economist who lives in Auburn, Alabama. He is author of /The Economics of Prohibition /, is a senior fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute , and is the Book Review Editor for the /Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics /. He is co-author of /Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War /./

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

“…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.”
Bill Hicks, Relentless

[quade 4]

Try not to quote articles in their -entirety-. Really try to not do it with multiple lengthy articles in one post! The exception to this would be reports of accidents in the Incidents Forum.

Much better is to quote a meaningful representative paragraph and a link to the article.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

The article, "The Myth of the Wasted Vote" could have just as easily been titled "The Myth of Casting YOUR Vote". It misses the point.

While it is highly unlikely that your individual vote will swing the election. It is HIGHLY likely that if enough people decide that "voting with their hearts" is the right thing to do in a close election, the election -will- be swung in a way they probably did not intend with their individual vote.

Will Rogers used to say something to the effect of, "I'm not a member of any organized party . . . I'm a Democrat" and to me this is exactly what is wrong with the Democratic Party. In general; simply too many different factions all approaching the party from different directions. If you take some of those factions and then move them outside the party, like Nader has done, then you've really screwed things up as far as having a cohesive approach to ousting the incumbent.

Nader, in my opinion, if he really wanted to get something done, should have struck a deal with the Democrats. He should have said something like, "Ok, I won't run this time, but if you win you have to make me head of the CPSC."

The way he's done set things up this time around is just silly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver