2012 US Presidential Election Superthread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Voting for a third party candidate in the presidential election is as bad as not voting at all. Both are complete cop outs.

God, why is third party voting so faux pas? What, are we all morally obligated to pick between two pre-determined candidates?

How is this a cop out? I'm ditching my responsibility to vote for someone I don't want to vote for? I want to vote for Gary Johnson. I want a Libertarian to be president. I want a third party candidate to be taken seriously some time in my lifetime, and hopefully a Libertarian one.

Come on...
 
God, why is third party voting so faux pas? What, are we all morally obligated to pick between two pre-determined candidates?

How is this a cop out? I'm ditching my responsibility to vote for someone I don't want to vote for? I want to vote for Gary Johnson. I want a Libertarian to be president. I want a third party candidate to be taken seriously some time in my lifetime, and hopefully a Libertarian one.

Come on...
But Gary Johnson isn't going to be president. It's the equivalent of voting for yourself for president.

The presidential election is this: who do you think is better, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? Gary Johnson is not a part of that equation. You are thinking much too idealistically.
 
What do outsider candidates think about the night before the election? What goes through their heads? Do they give a shit? Are they elated if they receive more than 3% of the popular vote in their home state?
 
INDY500 said:
His words.


Citation?

Then other night I was driving (something I don't often do, being an elitist who rides communist public transportation usually) and I came across a station that was playing famous political speeches, an I caught Reagan's 1964 convention speech in support of Goldwater.

It's a brilliantly crafted an delivered oratory. From a technical standpoint, it's extremely effective.

It's also rather tame by today's standards (he supports social security so the elderly dont live in poverty!) and is clearly to the left of Paul Ryan.

He also manages to demagogue universal health care. Since it was apparently going to bankrupt France.

Nothing new here. Obama simply realized what has been the dream of many for the past 50 years. Nothing radical about it.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
God, why is third party voting so faux pas? What, are we all morally obligated to pick between two pre-determined candidates?

How is this a cop out? I'm ditching my responsibility to vote for someone I don't want to vote for? I want to vote for Gary Johnson. I want a Libertarian to be president. I want a third party candidate to be taken seriously some time in my lifetime, and hopefully a Libertarian one.

Come on...


In an election supposedly this close and in a winner-take-all system I have an issue with it.

To me, it's as much about keeping the GOP out of the Oval Office.

On a Congressional level, I agree with you. And I'd like to see more parties represented in Congress.

The presidency is too big to make a point.
 
One advantage of being on the west coast is that I can keep my head down and work through the day, and by the time I get home, stuff'll be happening.

I'm torn on the ideals behind voting for a third party candidate. I completely understand the desire to try and make your vote for a third party candidate be a statement of "this two party bullshit is no longer cool."

On the other hand, I don't know that this is the way to implement change - can you do it by trying to change it at the top level? Are the people who are so passionate about introducing other voices and parties working to make change at the grassroots level, or just making everyone else worry that they're going to screw up the election?

Honestly, I am not confident that either of these guys can do a damned thing about the economy. On that level, I tend to think that we're screwed either way. So I go with the social issues. And those are important enough to me that we NOT end up with President Romney, and I can't bring myself to vote for anyone other than Obama.

Also, to call back to what Penny said a page or two ago re the amount of money spent to become president in the two parties: it's obscene and, frankly, shameful.






So who's bringing the booze tomorrow night?
 
I'm torn on the ideals behind voting for a third party candidate. I completely understand the desire to try and make your vote for a third party candidate be a statement of "this two party bullshit is no longer cool."

I agree completely. But I also agree with others that voting for the third-party barely makes a difference. I think in order to get the third - and fourth and even fifth - party movement going is to focus on the Congressional and local elections. Start there to build momentum.
 
But Gary Johnson isn't going to be president. It's the equivalent of voting for yourself for president.

The presidential election is this: who do you think is better, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? Gary Johnson is not a part of that equation. You are thinking much too idealistically.
exactly. the only way we can ever have a third party candidate ever have a snowball's chance in hell of having a shot at being president is to completely change our voting system. first-past-the-post, aka what we have, begs for a two-party system. it just does. if we switched to something else, another party might have a shot. whether that would be libertarian, green, or whatever i don't know. it might still come down to republican vs. democrats but others might get more than a token 2% in many states and not even be on some states' ballots.

but just because i happen to agree more with the green party doesn't mean i'm going to vote for them. i live in a red state, so if i want any possibility of my state to even potentially turn blue, i've got to vote blue (and i did). not green or pink or anything else.

i'd rather us switch to a voting system where people don't have to feel they have to vote for the most popular, less offensive pick (be it red or blue) for them rather than who they want, which is basically strategic voting rather than voting for who you truly believe in. and third party voting is a wasted vote. the whole process is stupid. but until they change it which will likely never happen, it's what we're stuck with. the republicans and democrats surely love this process as they're the ones who keep getting elected, it's only the little guys who get screwed. so i don't see it changing any time soon.
 
If a third party candidate gets 5% of the popular vote (which Johnson does have a chance of doing), they get equal ballot access and part of the presidential election campaign fund, that is really their goal right now.

For the voters, they may also hope it enacts change within one or both of the big two parties. Like if he costs Romney the election, maybe it could spur Republicans to elect a candidate who won't become divisive on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc as an example.
 
For the voters, they may also hope it enacts change within one or both of the big two parties. Like if he costs Romney the election, maybe it could spur Republicans to elect a candidate who won't become divisive on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc as an example.

It'd be a pretty amazing miracle if that were to happen.

I'd love it if that were the case, mind, it'd be really refreshing, but with the way the party's acting now I'm not holding my breath for that to be a reality anytime soon.
 
But Gary Johnson isn't going to be president. It's the equivalent of voting for yourself for president.

The presidential election is this: who do you think is better, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? Gary Johnson is not a part of that equation. You are thinking much too idealistically.

If there's a significant third party showing it enables growth and allows the movement to continue.

There's so many things to say here, and I can't believe you're letting everything be painted so black and white. It's the defiance and unwillingness to change that is what keeps us stuck in a two-party system where nothing gets accomplished justly.

Gary Johnson is party of the equation, whether you like it or not. In fact, so is Roseanne Barr.
 
In an election supposedly this close and in a winner-take-all system I have an issue with it.

To me, it's as much about keeping the GOP out of the Oval Office.

On a Congressional level, I agree with you. And I'd like to see more parties represented in Congress.

The presidency is too big to make a point.

Well that's easy for you to say, considering you have an initiative towards keeping the GOP out of the Oval Office.

I DO NOT.

Much like cori, I do not believe either candidate will do shit for our economy, mainly because I figure that's something that is part of a grander picture. I also agree with her that I would then place social issues at a higher point. In fact, I place them above economic issues to begin with. But not just specific social issues. Freedom as a whole. Every social issue. While the Democrats certainly offer more, they do not offer enough to make it worthwhile.

Furthermore, in the event that the GOP takes the office, I have faith that whatever platform Romney will be pushing against civil rights, social freedoms, etc., will be repelled by the people and the congress. Either that, or he'll flat out forget about them because quite honestly I get the impression that Mitt Romney doesn't give a shit about that stuff. He's a businessman, smooth talker, and a liar. Not a religious nut.
 
If there's a significant third party showing it enables growth and allows the movement to continue.

There's so many things to say here, and I can't believe you're letting everything be painted so black and white. It's the defiance and unwillingness to change that is what keeps us stuck in a two-party system where nothing gets accomplished justly.

Gary Johnson is party of the equation, whether you like it or not. In fact, so is Roseanne Barr.
Oh, bullshit. I'm not painting it black-and-white. I'm saying that, the day before the election, it's plain as day that this is not the year where a third party candidate is making a difference. I'm not saying it can't ever happen (though there need to be fundamental changes to the system for it to ever happen). I'm just saying that voting for a third party candidate in this election is a complete and total waste of a vote.

If Gary Johnson had a chance to make a dent in this election, you would know it by now. It's November 5th. He's out. Voting for Johnson is taking a vote away from whoever you think is better, whether that be Romney or Obama.

As Irvine said, third party voting is part of what created the George W. Bush presidency.

Idealism is great. But it's not practical in every situation. This is one of those times.
 
Furthermore, in the event that the GOP takes the office, I have faith that whatever platform Romney will be pushing against civil rights, social freedoms, etc., will be repelled by the people and the congress. Either that, or he'll flat out forget about them because quite honestly I get the impression that Mitt Romney doesn't give a shit about that stuff. He's a businessman, smooth talker, and a liar. Not a religious nut.

I think you're right on your description of Romney, and I also do think most Americans would ultimately reject such extremes.

Thing is, though, I'm not all that convinced Congress would necessarily reject that stuff. Romney may not be a fundamentalist nut, but the party he represents has a lot of that going on and if they don't think he's going far enough, they'll push him or push themselves harder into the fray.

Even if they don't succeed, the idea of them even at least trying to implement the policies is still pretty troubling.
 
Oh, bullshit. I'm not painting it black-and-white. I'm saying that, the day before the election, it's plain as day that this is not the year where a third party candidate is making a difference. I'm not saying it can't ever happen (though there need to be fundamental changes to the system for it to ever happen). I'm just saying that voting for a third party candidate in this election is a complete and total waste of a vote.

If Gary Johnson had a chance to make a dent in this election, you would know it by now. It's November 5th. He's out. Voting for Johnson is taking a vote away from whoever you think is better, whether that be Romney or Obama.

As Irvine said, third party voting is part of what created the George W. Bush presidency.

Idealism is great. But it's not practical in every situation. This is one of those times.

How are you not? You're telling me I have two options, and that I'm a 'cop out' if I don't vote for my favorite color being red or blue when I don't like either color, nor do I favor one over the other.

I don't like mayo and I don't like mustard. I wont eat the sandwich if they're on it. I'll eat it if it has ketchup. Nobody else wants ketchup? I don't care.

You do realize by putting your doubts in a third party, that's the very reason they'll never achieve majority status? Do you understand how 'making a difference' works with a third party candidate? As stated before, if the Libertarians can get 5% of the vote, that will grant them $90 million worth of campaign money in the next election and equal ballot access.

Call it a waste of a vote, whatever. To me that just means you don't quite understand where I'm coming from with this vote, nor do you understand what the implications of it are.

As Irvine failed to note, the Electoral College created the GWB presidency. In a state too close to count, someone pulled straws and the system won GWB presidency when in fact the people chose Al Gore. You can throw ifs and buts and whatever all around, but in reality you're just as good getting mad at the stupid system as you are getting mad at a tiny fraction of a percentage of the nations voters, because ultimately there will always be both, but one idea is certainly much more fundamentally flawed.

Why you've still got this notion of 'voting for who you think is better' I still do not understand. I do not think either selection is better. I think voting for either is a waste of my vote. I can vote for Obama, and I can be the 1 vote difference that makes Obama POTUS once again, or I could be the 1 vote difference that makes Mitt Romney POTUS, and guess what? I wouldn't give a shit. Neither of them represent me, and I do not favor either. My vote will have been wasted because you or others want me to vote red or blue, and I don't want to.
 
And for what it's worth, on the 2000 Election, I think digitize brought up a very fair point. Voting Jill Stein (or Ralph Nader for that matter) is almost equally voting Democrat. Voting Libertarian is voting on a whole different level of fundamentals.
 
In the US Libertarians are people too embarrassed to admit they are Republicans.
;)

I see third party candidates for President as little more than attention whores. They don't have the infrastructure in place to actually accomplish anything -- they just want to spout off their ideas. That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't DO anything except give one person who loves the sound of his or her own voice a podium. If that floats your boat, go for it. I'm too pragmatic to vote for a third party candidate.
 
Not really my place but I'd side with LN7 on this one. It's one vote, and I'm sure in the USA one vote isn't going to make a fucking difference. If LN7 votes Libertarian that's not going to be the difference between Romney and Obama. You might as well use your vote on whoever represents your views most closely, even though that party won't win. That's what I'll be doing next Australian election. I don't see how it's a cop-out. Everyone goes "fuck it I'll pick between two" and you're going to be stuck between the same two choices for eternity. I've always been a realist but if you're unhappy you might as well make your voice heard. Particularly given it's not compulsory. A third party gets an extra 0.5% every election and eventually people will pay a little more notice.
 
Hard to compare with Australia given we're enlightened enough to have preferential voting. Nobody in Australia voting Green or Democrat or Fundies First is throwing away their vote in the final Labour/Liberal race.

I don't see the big deal in voting third party in the US in a state where the outcome is obvious, since the national popular vote outcome is totally irrelevant, but if you're in a swing state, I'm more sympathetic to the argument that you're wasting your vote if you vote third party. (I'm most sympathetic to the argument that you're wasting your vote if you don't vote Obama.)
 
Axver said:
Hard to compare with Australia given we're enlightened enough to have preferential voting. Nobody in Australia voting Green or Democrat or Fundies First is throwing away their vote in the final Labour/Liberal race.

Ahh, but our Constitution was Divinely Inspired, so our absur... err, perfect presidential election system must be preserved forever.

How about this compromise to make everyone happy: the Republican Party is eliminated and the Libertarian Party magically takes its place. That would get rid of all of the social issue absurdity coming from the right. It would also do much better things for foreign affairs. If Gary Johnson were the primary challenger to Barack Obama, I don't think Obama would get away with his drone strikes (my biggest complaint about this administration) so easily. Finally, I would really enjoy an economic debate between ideologically-consistent Keynesians and ideologically-consistent Classicists (borderline Austrians?).
 
Obama is an ideologically-consistent Keynesian now? Okay...
 
Obama is an ideologically-consistent Keynesian now? Okay...

He's not. I should explain more. I think that, if there was an ideologically consistent "other side", the Democrats would be somewhat more likely to hold down a consistent position. I think. Or maybe not.
 
phanan said:
The fact that Obama did so well in two northern NH towns that usually go GOP is an ominous sign for Romney.

You mean Dixville Notch? What's the other one? Dixville was 5/5 Romney /Obama.

As for Elizabeth Warren all polls have that one very close. I would love to see MA have our first female Senator and that would be a QUALIFIED one. And I think she's qualified. Scott Brown touts himself as the second most bipartisan Senator but I just don't see it. If Obama is reelected that won't matter, one guy up against all that. Same if Romney is elected, don't think Brown will go all Democrat on us. One guy just can't create bipartisanship in that mess. That's why people like Olympia Snowe are getting out. And his voting record seems sort of fuzzy in that regard.

Come on, we have Republicans criticizing Christie for being too complimentary of Obama re Hurricane Sandy. That's the situation we're in. The story came out this week that Christie was Mitt's first choice for VP, but he did things to tick them off.

About third party -like I said in the other thread, if you're comfortable with the idea of possibly helping Mitt win then that's fine. But you're not going to change the system by voting that way today. I get and admire the desire to change it.
 
Not really my place but I'd side with LN7 on this one. It's one vote, and I'm sure in the USA one vote isn't going to make a fucking difference.

Keep in mind that in 2000 the election was decided by a less than 600 vote difference in Florida. That's only a few people saying that one vote won't make a difference. :)
 
Popmartijn said:
Keep in mind that in 2000 the election was decided by a less than 600 vote difference in Florida. That's only a few people saying that one vote won't make a difference. :)



Exactly.

I am about to go vote in VA (likely for the last time, we'll probably move back into DC itself in the next few months) and I really do feel like my vote counts.

It's very energizing. Was hard to sleep last night.

Vote for third parties all you want. But don't be surprised when you get blamed for 2000. At least defend that rather than pass it off on something else. Just let us know that it was more important to try to get a candidate to 5% of the vote than it was to prevent the worst president in all our lifetimes to win the office in 2000.

At least own that.
 
Yes. If you don't have a problem with what happened in the 8 years under Bush. You do have to think about that.

I always think my vote counts. Especially as a woman. We had to work to even have the right to vote. I never take that for granted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom