One of the reasons I posted the following (even though religion isn't mentioned) is that some of the 3rd party candidates truly do believe in the separation of church and state--something we used to be able to count on from the Democrats. Now they still say they believe in separation of church and state, but Obama wants to expand the faith-based initiatives. Something doesn't mesh there. Another reason for this post is that it has seemed that the vast majority of us who have a naturalistic worldview have bought into mainstream media's sell-job that there are only two parties. If any group of people should know better than to buy into what everyone else believes, it should be us.

Why Vote Third-Party?
Posted on January 7, 2008 by John Uebersax

Why Vote Third-party?

My goal here is to convince you to vote for a third-party candidate — ANY third-party candidate — in the 2008 presidential election.

The reasoning is simple:

First, it should be evident to all that the Democratic and Republican parties are 'in cahoots'. There's not much real difference between them. They distract public attention by arguing about superficial differences, obscuring the fact that they actually agree on nearly all the important things, like:

(a) the BIG GOVERNMENT model is the only option
(b) America needs a huge military budget
(c) war is not insane
(d) term limits are not practical

Then why not just vote third-party? Here's the reason people give: "If I vote for a third party, I just throw my vote away."

Let's dispel that myth once and for all. First, if one thing is plain, it's that you have thrown your vote away if you vote for the Democrat or Republican candidate. The two parties are basically the same, and regardless of which party is in power, things don't improve. Recall that it was both the Democrats and the Republicans who rushed into the Iraq war, waving the flag, without a plan.

The truth is, the Republicrat party has arranged so that we have a Democrat for one or two terms, then a Republican, and then back again. It's a sweet system where both parties win. Neither is out of power for very long.

Consider also how both parties together have succeeded in making you feel you have to vote against someone. In 2000, for example, you may not have liked Bush much, but felt you needed to vote against Al Gore, or vice versa. That, I propose, is precisely what the two parties want. They have, by picking the right issues, managed to completely polarize the American public into two camps, split almost 50/50. Further, they've set the tone of American politics as one of constant acrimony and argument. Far too much attention is spent criticizing the other camp, and not enough on presenting new, positive ideas. It's a divide and conquer strategy. By polarizing the American public, the Republicrat power coalition has kept people too busy fighting with each other to see what the real problem is. It's the old case of 'let's you and him fight'.

This makes each person think, "My vote is essential to prevent the other party from winning; I can't afford to vote for a third-party candidate, or someone with original ideas." But considering the dearth of good ideas among the current Republican and Democrat candidates, it's evident that, whichever wins, we'll be stuck with another bad president for at least another four years.

This November, then, you'll have two choices:

1. Vote for the Democrat or Republican candidate, in which case you truly will throw your vote away, or
2. Vote for a third party candidate.

In the second case, it's true your candidate will not likely win. But you haven't thrown your vote away. If enough people do this, then the Democrats and Republicans will get the message. By the time the next elections come around, they will be thinking about adopting some of the ideas from the third parties. Further, any vote for a third party encourages the founding of new third parties, with valuable new ideas.

The potential for positive change in America exists. What we must do is create a climate in which these ideas will come to the fore in public discussion, and find implementation as social policy. Third parties can meet this vital need.

Therefore, here are two suggestions for you to consider:

1. Investigate the current third party candidates. Read their platforms and identify any promising ideas they have. In just doing this you will have broken free from the mind-conditioning of the two-party system. You will be actively contributing to making American a true democracy. Then, just consider voting for the candidate whom you would like to be president, not worrying about the issue of 'throwing your vote away.'

2. Most of all — though this is really a separate issue — approach the election with a positive attitude. This shouldn't be about whom you dislike or disagree with. It should be about developing positive vision of the future. Pay particular attention to noticing how the big-party candidates (and their buddies, the news media) try to manipulate public consciousness by eliciting anger and hatred — and then don't oblige them.

Be the change you want see in the world!

Tags: 3rd, Democrat, Republican, candidates, election, party, politics, president, religion

Views: 12

Replies to This Discussion

Voting for a third party candidate won't change anything. What will change this clear problem is is voting for third parties in local and state elections, especially those who support instant runoff voting.

The system we have now is what I like to call 'voter terrorism,' where we feel forced to vote for an unacceptable candidate because the other is more unacceptable. If we vote for a third party, we are not fighting the worse of the two 'evils,' so to speak. So we are forced to give in to the fear of the worse candidate.

Instant runoff voting would allow us to vote for those who we truly believe would be best in office, but without losing the opportunity to express our opinion regarding the two final candidates.

Because states have control over their own voting methods, state-level activism is the highest level at which we can enact this meaningful change. Fortunately it is also easier for third-party candidates to win positions at state and local levels. What makes the situation more interesting is that the more local position being voted on, the fewer voters make it to the poles. This is a perfect opportunity to convince voters of the importance of local elections. Get people out to vote for third party township, county, and state officials and maybe we'll start seeing more colors than red and blue on the TV in future presidential elections.
Some places like here in San Francisco have Instant Runoff. It works pretty well. The candidates generally aren't as negative each other as often because it ends up being a waste of time. Spoilers are no longer an excuse not to vote for somebody.
Instant Runoff, also known as Rank Choice, is a system where you get a ballot that allows you can vote to indicate what choice you wanted to count first, and get to have another choice counted should your first choice not win.

A ballot looks similar to this.

http://www.indyweek.com/pdf/CaryBallot.jpg

In most places that offer it, you are given up to three choices, but sometimes you may have more choices. The people who voted for the candidate that won the least amount of first choice votes will automatically get there 2nd vote counted, and then then the people who voted for the next to last get counted for the next until either the top vote getter gets 50% + 1 wins, or until the votes have been exhausted.

One of the problems that San Francisco had prior to IRV was that there were runoffs where the next election would attract fewer voters, causing the election to be slanted, and more costly.

Now given that I sometimes garble my explaination where is a video demo:

I will vote for Nader, only to indicate that I didn't forget to vote. But yeah, I had come to the conclusion that the two partys are two perpetual reactionary party's that people vote for so the other doesn't take it. So they really don't have much of an incentive to really make much of a change.

Real changes really aren't because people voted a certain way, but because of stabilization of the population. The '30s were a time when many people would consider a revolution and already had the USSR as a model. The Civil Rights Act and its accompanying laws and the Great Society, were because there were uprisings in the black community, and the Vietnam War was partially ended because younger people had strongly questioned the validity of the US status quo, because of the draft and war.

We are also getting into some pretty scary times ahead, and we haven't seen anything yet.
I hear ya, Jess. A revolution is just what we need. Voting third party is exactly what had Jesse Ventura win the Governorship in Minnesota. If people are sick and tired of the Republocrat's crap, we may just get our country back. I notice 10% of independents are voting Nader in Ohio where Bush cheated in the last election and who knows how disgruntled Florida is and what is happening there. If 50% were to vote third party, maybe not this election, but the next, the Republocrats will have to take notice. The fact that they won't allow third party candidates debate, tells us they're crooks in cahoots. I'm voting Nader. Here's Jesse:

“We’ve actually had numerous third parties in the history of our republic, everything from the anti-Masonics to the Know-Nothings to the Populists and Progressives, on up to the Dixiecrats and the Libertarians In my lifetime alone, I’ve seen a number of them come and go. In the early 1970s, George Wallace was a third-party candidate. In the early 1980s, along came John Anderson. In the 1990s, there was Ross Perot. And of course, Ralph Nader in the 2000s.

I’ve always advocated that anyone qualified, who so desires, can run for office. For people who say it’s Nader’s fault that Bush got elected, I say that’s baloney. You’re not picking the winner of a horse race. People voted for Nader because they wanted him to be come president. When we start saying someone like Nader shouldn’t run because he’ll take votes away from a Democrat or Republican, then that’s not a democracy either. Free elections mean voting your heart and conscience.”-Jesse Ventura from Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me


“If you’re made to pick the lesser of two evils, you’re still pickin’ evil.” –Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead
I notice some folks around who apathetically think their voice means nothing as their civil liberties are slowly being stolen from under them. This bothers me as apathy at the removal of civil liberties unfortunately led to the rise of Hitler's power in NAZI Germany. He slowly took away civil liberties much like Bush and the two corporate parties have done. People who think the Democrats will save them don't seem to notice the fact that the Democratic Congress continued to fund Bush's illegal war, they did nothing as he took Habeus Corpus, and they voted for the bailout. Obama also voted for FISA, which gave Bush immunity for illegal wire tapping and continued spying on American people. But we can change things one person at a time:

I Am Only One Person



I am only one person. What can one person do?



Rosa Parks was just one person. She said one word. She said it on a bus. To the bus driver. On the Cleveland Street bus in Montgomery.



The bus driver said, “Stand up, Nigger woman, and give up your seat to that white man!”



Rosa Parks, one person, said one word. The word was “NO!”



Rosa Parks, one person, said one word and a nation blushed!”



One woman said one word and a world talked!



One woman said one word and the Supreme Court acted!



One woman said one word and the buses were desegregated.



I am only one person. What can one person do?

-------- Jefferson L. Humphrey and Frank L. Nasca



I Am Only One Person



I am only one person. What can one person do?



Rosa Parks was just one person. She said one word. She said it on a bus. To the bus driver. On the Cleveland Street bus in Montgomery.



The bus driver said, “Stand up, Nigger woman, and give up your seat to that white man!”



Rosa Parks, one person, said one word. The word was “NO!”



Rosa Parks, one person, said one word and a nation blushed!”



One woman said one word and a world talked!



One woman said one word and the Supreme Court acted!



One woman said one word and the buses were desegregated.



I am only one person. What can one person do?

-------- Jefferson L. Humphrey and Frank L. Nasca

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

Cyn X posted a blog post
35 minutes ago
Loren Miller posted a status
"Back from an AMAZING Cars & Coffee event. Tons of amazing machines and some neat folks to talk to!"
36 minutes ago
Loren Miller posted a status
"Back from an AMAZING Cars & Coffee event. Tons of amazing machines and some neat folks to talk to!"
36 minutes ago
Loren Miller posted a status
"Back from an AMAZING Cars & Coffee event. Tons of amazing machines and some neat folks to talk to!"
36 minutes ago
Patricia commented on Sentient Biped's group Food!
1 hour ago
sk8eycat commented on Sentient Biped's group Food!
1 hour ago
BIPLAB DAS commented on BIPLAB DAS's blog post A 9 year old girl was mentally tortured after being accused as witch.
1 hour ago
BIPLAB DAS commented on BIPLAB DAS's blog post A 9 year old girl was mentally tortured after being accused as witch.
1 hour ago
sk8eycat commented on Sentient Biped's group Food!
1 hour ago
Luara replied to Joan Denoo's discussion The Ethics of Atheism - A Conversation between Stefan Molyneux with Dr Peter Boghossian
1 hour ago
Luara replied to Joan Denoo's discussion The Ethics of Atheism - A Conversation between Stefan Molyneux with Dr Peter Boghossian
1 hour ago
Loren Miller replied to Joan Denoo's discussion The Ethics of Atheism - A Conversation between Stefan Molyneux with Dr Peter Boghossian
1 hour ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service