BF2S Forums voting for a 3rd party candidate

FEOS wrote:

You could try researching how the system actually works for yourself.

I did that in high school. It was a mandatory class for graduation.

FEOS wrote:

And don't worry about what other people think or why they vote the way they do. It's YOUR vote, not theirs.

If people took the attitude you do (and apparently many do, based on voter turnout numbers), no one would cast their vote.

"I'm just one of 200+ million eligible voters...my vote doesn't count in the grand scheme of things."

I couldn't care less about what people think of me or my decisions.  But since I don't pay enough attention to what the candidates' policies are, I don't deserve to vote for one of them. In my eyes this also applies to everyone that doesn't pay attention.

FEOS wrote:

There is no illusion: This is a democracy. Where your vote counts as much as mine and as much as the Presidential candidates themselves. That's the great thing about participating in the democratic process. The process stops being democratic when people stop living up to their responsibilities as citizens and stop giving their inputs via their vote.

Sure this government can be considered a democracy according to definition, but it isn't when compared to the original form of democracy. But, a real democracy would only make the government even more inefficient than it already is. 

If everyone's vote is equal why do we even need the electoral college? Don't they have to count the votes to supposedly determine who the EC will vote for? What if someone wins the popular vote but isn't elected because of the EC?

At least we can agree that democracy stops working when the people don't vote, but it shouldn't be a person's responsibility to vote. It should be a person's responsibility to learn as much as possible about the candidates before voting. I don't vote because I lose interest in the candidates after the constant slander campaigns that accompany every form of election. It's not about who will do the better job, it's about making your opponent look like a criminal and claiming that you will give people more money than your opponent will. I am willing to vote, but I won't vote for a politician.

I'm curious.  I have heard a lot of dissatisfied people complaining about the Presidential Candidates.  Who here is actually going to vote for one?

If you are considering it, can you please inform us as to whom and why you are voting for them?

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=110099

I will be voting anything but republican in all categories no matter what the contest as a protest.

I will write in Ron Paul for president.
I will vote against any bonds, taxes, fee increases and spending bills I have a chance.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Australia also has compulsory voting laws, does it not?

Only if you first register. After that point if you do not vote you will be fined. But registration (eligible once you turn 18) is entirely optional.

It comes down to different cultural factors, but in Australia your right to vote is held very highly and it's very uncommon to find someone who has not registered.

Because it is compulsory to register.

AEC wrote:

Compulsory voting means that every Australian citizen (18 years or older) is required by law to enrol and vote. If a person does not vote and is unable to provide a "valid and sufficient" reason, a penalty is imposed.

AEC wrote:

*  Compulsory enrolment for federal elections was introduced in 1911
    * Compulsory voting at federal elections was introduced in 1924.

Oh, and I am voting for Bob Barr, and I'm not throwing my vote away.  In my opinion, the ony vote that's thrown away is one that's cast for a candidate whose policies you support less than another candidate's.

FEOS wrote:

For all those Euros who say we only have a two-party system:

I got in my absentee ballot. There are three tickets on the Presidential section of the ballot (Rep, Dem, and Lib). You can even vote straight party Libertarian.

Around here we have about 50 tickets for the Presidential section. Still, essentially a two-party system though. Only 2 candidates with real potential for the position.

Last edited by oug (2008-10-05 06:30:35)

The bottomline is that it's not a two-party system. It's a multi-party system that is dominated by two parties. Strangely similar to most other countries in the world...

First past the post is crap, you're basically voting against the least desirable candidate of the top two, not for the person you most want to win.

There are plenty of systems which work at least a little better and give a parliament which represents a cross-section of the votes, not total domination by one party with the second party totally powerless but still blocking out any third party.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The bottomline is that it's not a two-party system. It's a multi-party system that is dominated by two parties. Strangely similar to most other countries in the world...

First past the post is crap, you're basically voting against the least desirable candidate of the top two, not for the person you most want to win.

It's certainly not crap. It's fact. The quality of the candidates (admittedly poor) has nothing to do with the number of parties available. It has everything to do with them being career politicians, every one of them.

Dilbert_X wrote:

There are plenty of systems which work at least a little better and give a parliament which represents a cross-section of the votes, not total domination by one party with the second party totally powerless but still blocking out any third party.

This is not a parliamentary system, and it's not dominated by one party...even when one party has a majority. See Kmarion's posts about the minority keeping bills from leaving committee due to filibusters.

And it's not a matter of the other two blocking any third (or fourth or fifth) parties. It's a matter of those third parties not having a message that resonates with the voters. If it did, they would be elected.

Dilbert_X wrote:

It's certainly not crap. It's fact. The quality of the candidates (admittedly poor) has nothing to do with the number of parties available. It has everything to do with them being career politicians, every one of them.

A more representative system would make candidates think more carefully about more than one set of opposition policies, and it does occasionally allow in non-maistream candidates.
Some systems do allow parties which came third, fourth, fifth to still take seats in 'parliaments', which I think its a good thing as parliament then more closely represents the views of the people.
A two-party sitation almost inevitably leads to crap candidates, as the people who are best at climbing the greasy pole of internal party politics emerge as the candidates.

This. Is. Not. A. Two. Party. System.

Dilbert_X wrote:

This is not a parliamentary system, and it's not dominated by one party...even when one party has a majority. See Kmarion's posts about the minority keeping bills from leaving committee due to filibusters.

If one party holds the House and the Senate the other party has no chance.
When there are three or more parties unless the leading party holds an outright majority then there has to be negotiation, usually the third holding the balance of power -> its worthwhile voting for a third or fourth party.

There has to be negotiation with anything beyond a single party. Did you not watch the news on the bailout package?

Dilbert_X wrote:

And it's not a matter of the other two blocking any third (or fourth or fifth) parties. It's a matter of those third parties not having a message that resonates with the voters. If it did, they would be elected.

Strange that no third party has resonated with the voters in the last however many years of the US.
The system in the US inevitably leads to a two party state, as born out by history.
Once a two party state is reached both parties achieve a critical financial mass and become impossible to challenge.

Look up Ross Perot. Look up Jesse Ventura. There is a Libertarian ticket on the ballot this year for Pres/VP.

The success of the two parties is due to them adjusting their platforms to address the majority of peoples' concerns. As such, many of the "third party" planks get incorporated from election to election, making the big differences between the two major parties and the minor parties more of the fringe issues...which do not win elections.

Success of the two major parties does not mean that the other parties don't exist...only that the two major parties are more successful.

This. Is. Not. A. Two. Party. System.

Effectively it is. Republicons get about half the seats, Dumbocrats get roughly the other half.
Others get anything from zero to one.
Its the same in other countries, so for once its not a critcism of just the US.
In the UK one party can get less than half of the popular vote but still gain an outright majority in Parliament.

Ross Perot - 18.9% of people who voted voted for him, yet their votes count for zero, they are unrepresented.
Shame he didn't win looking back, he had some good policies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_sucking_sound

Success of the two major parties does not mean that the other parties don't exist...only that the two major parties are more successful.

But the unsuccessful parties get no 'campaign donations' either in the first place or second time around, so they wither and die.

RAIMIUS wrote:

The more votes a 3rd party gets, the more the Dems and Reps will have to cater to those views to stay in power.
If a 3rd party gets 20% of an election (yeah, big number for the sake of argument), you can be sure the major parties will incorporate much of that 3rd party's stance into their next platform.

I'd rather they had some representation right away, preferably holding the whip of the balance of power.

There has to be negotiation with anything beyond a single party. Did you not watch the news on the bailout package?

Because the Dummocrats currently have a majority in whichever house they currently hold a majority. If they didn't they wouldn't be involved.

The quality of the candidates (admittedly poor) has nothing to do with the number of parties available. It has everything to do with them being career politicians, every one of them.

Also apparently an inevitable consequence of the current system, in many countries.

Vote Wiggum. Kang and Kodos are yesterday's men.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-10-06 05:41:13)

Effectively, it is a multi-party system that is dominated by two parties.

Close enough - we agree.

They most certainly were represented.

Except not in any form of government representation.

That is a function of their message not resonating with the donating public. Nothing more, nothing less.

Its also a function of not achieving critical mass. Would Exxon donate $50m to the Libertarians? No they're too small, they will never be elected hence no donation and so it goes on.

Your comment makes no sense.

Its not bothered me so far.