Third-Party Candidates Are Not Poisonous Mushrooms

[Chris]

Don't believe the BS of establishment party types, votes for who you think best represents your values.

Third-Party Candidates Are Not Poisonous Mushrooms (http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/03/third-party-candidates-are-not-poisonous-mushrooms/)


...America has a third-party problem. Every time a non-Republican or a non-Democrat gets put on a substantive ballot somewhere, the tremulous op-eds and agonal analysis pieces start popping up from the Left and the Right, pundits on both sides wondering whether the third-party candidate will “take” votes from their guy and “hand the election” to the other guy. Practically speaking, this true of all candidates in every election: politicians “take” votes from each other to get elected. As a metaphor, though, it stinks: in a free republic such as ours, votes are given, not taken, and the decider of who gets the vote is the voter, not the candidate.

...There is a deeply fatalistic streak to much of our politics, the notion that Republicans and Democrats will always be at the top of the ballot not merely as a matter of procedural circumstance but seemingly as a matter of immutable reality, like scientific fact; I suppose, if you believe this, then it’s understandable why you might eschew “fringe voting” for—uh, well—“mainstream voting.” But of course it’s entirely possible for things to change.

...We’re often told that voting for a third-party candidate is tantamount to “wasting” or “throwing away” one’s vote, the implication being that votes are only valuable if they go towards either Democrats or Republicans. But your vote has intrinsic worth outside of its contributing to the election of your preferred candidate; it’s your civic prerogative and belongs to nobody but you, for instance, and it is a right hard-won after hundreds of years of struggle and hard work and progress. If you believe a candidate for office reflects your values and your political desires, you should vote for him. Don’t be discouraged by talks of “throwing your vote away;” this is a scare tactic people use to get you to vote for their candidate, and there’s no point in falling for it.

[donttread]

Don't believe the BS of establishment party types, votes for who you think best represents your values.

Third-Party Candidates Are Not Poisonous Mushrooms (http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/03/third-party-candidates-are-not-poisonous-mushrooms/)


When they lay that bullshit on me and they do, I simply say GOOD any vote not cast for a Donkephant is a good vote. They don't seem to see that I can think things through for myself and logically blame both "major problems ' equally for 4 decades of failure turned into abject failure under Bushbama.

[kilgram]

Don't believe the BS of establishment party types, votes for who you think best represents your values.

Third-Party Candidates Are Not Poisonous Mushrooms (http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/03/third-party-candidates-are-not-poisonous-mushrooms/)
It is typical in today's occidental countries. The same arguments are given by the mainstream parties in Spain. Exactly the same, a copy. Same words just they say it in Spanish instead English.

[Adelaide]

It is typical in today's occidental countries. The same arguments are given by the mainstream parties in Spain. Exactly the same, a copy. Same words just they say it in Spanish instead English.

Same here. With multiple "left-wing" parties they spout that they're stealing votes from each other and handing elections to the Conservative Party. It's not just a problem in a two-party system, in fact it's probably much worse in systems like ours. I will admit that I usually end up voting strategically in my riding/electoral district because of the NDP and Liberals standing for a lot of the same values but splitting the left. While I find it annoying, I wouldn't want them to merge to form one mega left-wing party that would win probably every election. It would make our system too much like that of the US, with two major parties rather than 3 major parties and 2 somewhat serious parties (Bloc, Green) and then all of the weird parties that pop up now and again.

[Common Sense]

Same here. With multiple "left-wing" parties they spout that they're stealing votes from each other and handing elections to the Conservative Party. It's not just a problem in a two-party system, in fact it's probably much worse in systems like ours. I will admit that I usually end up voting strategically in my riding/electoral district because of the NDP and Liberals standing for a lot of the same values but splitting the left. While I find it annoying, I wouldn't want them to merge to form one mega left-wing party that would win probably every election. It would make our system too much like that of the US, with two major parties rather than 3 major parties and 2 somewhat serious parties (Bloc, Green) and then all of the weird parties that pop up now and again.

I agree. Our parliamentary system is far from perfect, but I think it's more conducive to third parties and actual representation.

[Adelaide]

I agree. Our parliamentary system is far from perfect, but I think it's more conducive to third parties and actual representation.

The last election definitely proved that the winds can change in our system. The Liberals became the 3rd party for the first time in history, the NDP became the official opposition for the first time in history, and the Bloc lost so badly they lost their status as an official party. That's insane, but it shows how Canadians don't just keep voting for the same two parties (Cons, Libs) while ignoring other options. That's largely because the other options are more readily available to us, in the debates and the media.

[kilgram]

The last election definitely proved that the winds can change in our system. The Liberals became the 3rd party for the first time in history, the NDP became the official opposition for the first time in history, and the Bloc lost so badly they lost their status as an official party. That's insane, but it shows how Canadians don't just keep voting for the same two parties (Cons, Libs) while ignoring other options. That's largely because the other options are more readily available to us, in the debates and the media.
In Spain with the European elections looks that something changed.

Until now the structure was this: PSOE/PP turning in government. United Left (IU) as third party at national level and later we had regional parties with parlamentary representation like CiU (Catalonia) and PNV (Basque COuntry) and some other parties.

With the European elections PSOE/PP have lost a lot of voters and it continues. IU has lost many voters for Podemos (the new party with an assembleary structure). Also a Spanish nationalist party was born in these last years UPyD and at national level was the 4th, but another party is taking voters from them coming from Catalonia, Ciutadadans that has similar ideas.

In regional level we have in some regions a problem with the leftist parties. Because at that level there are parties that took the voters that now is taking Podemos at national level. Therefore in that regions they will have to share/divide their voters harming both options. But going in a coalition also would harm both.

And now it seems that Podemos is becoming the third force outplacing IU and being very close to the second force, PSOE (progressives) and if this tendency continues maybe PSOE will be surpassed by Podemos.

The national media and traditional parties after the European results are in campaign against Podemos because they have seen in danger their power positions.

[Peter1469]

I am torn on the concept of a parliamentary system. One the one hand it creates accountability. On the other, it makes it too easy to pass legislation.

[kilgram]

I am torn on the concept of a parliamentary system. One the one hand it creates accountability. On the other, it makes it too easy to pass legislation.
It is easy to pass legislation if the governing party is in absolute majority. And they can do many disasters.

[Chris]

Agree. I think a parliamentary system leads to the possibility of better representation, but because of political wrangling and shifting alliances also leads to the possibly of more legislation.

[Chris]

Gary Johnson: Allowing Liberty on the Debate Stage (http://www.voicesofliberty.com/article/allowing-liberty-on-the-debate-stage/):


...The most recently reported results of that polling showed that, in 2013, 42% of Americans are political independents. Only 25% called themselves Republicans and 31% Democrats....

Likewise, a Rasmussen survey earlier this year found that a majority, 53%, of voters believe that NEITHER party in Congress “represents the American people.”

Yet, in 2012, when voters tuned in to watch or listen to the general election presidential debates, there were only two candidates on the stage: The Democrat nominee and the Republican nominee. There was no one in the debates representing the political independents who today comprise the largest block of American voters. No one.

Why is that? In the 2012 presidential election, there were FOUR candidates — not just two — whose names appeared on enough states’ ballots to potentially be elected in the Electoral College. Those candidates were President Obama, Mitt Romney, Jill Stein and myself. But only the Democrat and the Republican were allowed to debate. That has been the case for the past 20 years.

The reason that only the Democrat and Republican nominees are allowed to debate is simple: The debates are entirely controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties. They own them—literally....

...What the vast majority of those voters DON’T know is the CPD is a private organization created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic National Parties for the express purpose of seizing control of the presidential debates.

Here’s how it works: This “Commission”, made up almost entirely of Republican and Democrat partisans, solicits funding for its activities from corporations and special interests. It requires the campaigns of the Republican and Democrat nominees for president to sign an agreement that they will ONLY participate in those debates sponsored by the CPD, thus foreclosing the possibility of any other organization sponsoring a debate that will actually be televised nationally. And…the CPD sets the rules not only for the debate formats, but for inclusion. In short, the Republican and Democrat Parties decide who is allowed to debate.

They do so by including a requirement that a candidate must achieve at least 15% support in five different national polls. And of course, the CPD chooses the five polls.

...With a majority of Americans now believing that neither of the two major parties represents them, this arbitrary and blatant exclusion of independent and third party candidates is simply wrong....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2QPPJuRke0

...