Can we wait? Alternatives to the Republican and Democratic Parties

M

marine

New member
Well most of us watched some of the debates, unsatisfied with either reps. What the heck is going on? Do we have to live with either of these candidates? What was interesting was the views given by the independant candidates after all the press gave their hype on "what sells news". The independants - They just may be coming of age. The Libertarians are opposed to any kind of gun control. But, when asked whether Michael Badnarik would consider bowing out of the race because He would be taking votes away from Republican Bush and possibly giving the election to Democrat Kerry, he said "no way". If it happens, it happens. But 4 years down the road will put the Libertarians in contention for many of the independant slots.
This - from http://www.lp.org/

Libertarian Michael Badnarik "poses a genuine threat to be the kingmaker" because he is polling at 3 percent in several battleground states, according to several political scientists and journalists. » Read the press release
 
Just because someone votes for Badnarik doesn't mean they'll automatically vote for Bush if he wasn't on the ballot. A goodly number of libertarians roundly despise both candidates, Kerry for his blue-blood tax-and-spend liberalism, and Bush for presiding over the largest increase in non-defense spending in decades.

The fallacy that providing more choices to voters will somehow result in a thwarting of the collective will was disproved in California - the dozens upon dozens of third-party and independent candidates in the race didn't get any more votes than usual, and the Demopublicans and Republicrats didn't get any fewer.
 
Very interesting, everyone tells use a vote for the third party is a wasted vote. Even Rush L. goes on about this, I would ask why not a third party?. It would have to START somewhere and SOMETIME. Could be viable for our kids or grandkids. I remember Perot and what they almost did. Seems like he got cold feet or something.
 
I believe that it is lead pipe cinch that either Kerry or Bush will be elected.

So the question is what is best for the nation? Whoever becomes president will appoint many federal judges, and some number of Supreme Court Justices. Therein lies the fate of this nation.
If you are going to have any influence in that matter, then a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote.

As for me, I plan to vote for GWB, as his views are closest to mine.
Jerry
 
It seems to me that the reason we don't have viable third parties is that people don't want them. Voters are, in very large measure, satisfied to be either Republicans or Democrats. Naturally, many people have problems even with their own parties, and that is especially true of folks like us, who have strong ideals and don't like to compromise. But by and large, if there was enough popular support for a third party that could be a contender, there would be one.

Tim
 
I disagree with President Bush's actions on many issues. Campaign Finance Reform, much of the Patriot Act, spending our nation into a HUGE deficit, etc. I disagree with Senator Kerry's actions and stances even more. AWB sunset, under-funding the military, repealing tax cuts, appeasing yellow-bellied euro-weenies, sucking-up to the UN, etc.

I'll vote for Bush because he shares my views on more issues than Kerry. There is *nobody* that shares my views exactly except for me, and I ain't a-runnin'.
 
I think there are several converging issues here.

People like black and white choices, Party A or Party B. I notice how even in multi-party countries, it tends to break down to two large parties. Coke or Pepsi, etc. People unfortunately don't like having to educate themselves too much on the issues. Options take knowledge to use correctly.

A vote for a third party is a wasted vote is an excuse for non-action. Ultimately it is an excuse to never act.

As mvpel states, a number of libertarians despise both candidates. I believe a number of people in both parties are unhappy with their candidates also. I caught more than a wiff of false joy and enthusiasm in both primaries. They merely comfort themselve with the idea that their candidate might be better, or at least believes in more of the things they do.

Funding - the two large parties have money, connections to people with money, and professional fundraisers to help get more money. The bigger you are and the more well known you are, the easier it is to get more money, which translates to advertising, getting the message out, and volunteers. This only leads to more party recognition, etc. A major problem that any third party has is that they are undercapitolized. It is like going against McDonalds with one or two storefronts. Sure you get some local buisness (reps in municipal and state levels), but that is about it. You don't even show up on the radar.
Name recoginition is tied into some of the above. People also simply like options they recognize. "Your with which party?"

Everybody likes to root for an underdog, but they bet on the sure winner. Oddly, voting doesn't cost anything and it is anonymous, but this factor is there.

Voting blocks - the big parties can offer cohesive voting blocks on certain issues and third parties can't. Not that it doesn't take some major arm twisting and closed door deals, but on main party issues, it gets done. So if part of the party's platform coincides with an individual voter's concerns, they believe that party can get more done for them. Third parties can't offer much even if they banded together.

I tend to agree with BCBR. The sooner we get started and try to build a viable option, the more choices our children will have. I am tired of voting for compromise candidates and candidates endorsed by the NRA because they aren't as anti-gun as the other candidate. It may be a dream, but it seems like a worthwhile one.
 
libertarian candidate on now

Coast to Coast radio host Art Bell has the candidate on right now that was arrested at the debate. :cool:
 
A third party candidate is never going to win in the United States or at least not in my lifetime anyway.

The majority of voters do not recognize anyone running except from the two preveliant parties, Republican or Democrat.

It (third party) is a wasted vote pure and simple. You can vote you heart or views but your pissin' in the wind. :mad:

And yes, I am one who says and believes, that a wasted vote (third party) is one that could have been cast for someone who counts like GWB.

I'm a registered voting Republican and will vote for George W. Bush as I did in 2000. Same for my wife and my three grown children and their spouces.

I may not agree or like everything he (GWB) stands for or has done but he's a hell of a lot better that that sleeze bag Kerry.

And BTW, one or the other is going to win and it will not be any of the other names floating around. :eek:
 
The notion that Libertarians opposed any kind of gun control is in error. The party is not 100% on that aspect and many do favor a lot of gun control issues. So the statement is a gross overgeneralization not reflective of reality.

Another salient point is that even if they were 100% pro gun, I don't know that I would necessarily agree with them on many other issues. Unlike a lot of folks I know, I am not a single issue voter. There are some moronic pro-gun folks who run for office that while pro gun, they have other agendas that are not suited to support my family or me and definitely not in our best interests.

I am amazed to read things on gun forums and hear the comments of pro gun folks who seem to vote solely on the single issue of guns and without consideration for other issues. Similarly, I know of folks who vote almost entirely on the basis of whether or not abortion is supported by the candidate or whether or not the candidate is for the death penalty. Political offices go way beyond single topics that often get more air time during the campaigning for office than the person commits to the issue while in office. At that point, the issue really becomes one of lip service rather than that of action.

I agree that there is no chance for any real political party change in my lifetime. We will not move to a three party system, at least not at the Presidential level and if we do get one as President, s/he won't have a majority in Congress. Libertarians do manage to occupy some offices across the country, but these seem to be primarily localized events where there is direct candidate and public interaction. Few ever make it to Congress, to governorships, etc.
 
It seems to me that the reason we don't have viable third parties is that people don't want them. Voters are, in very large measure, satisfied to be either Republicans or Democrats.
Click to expand...
A third party candidate is never going to win in the United States or at least not in my lifetime anyway.
Click to expand...

I think there are a huge number of people in the US that are not only unsatisfied, but feel disenfranchised by the ridiculously polarized options of the current right and left. This has happened several times in our history, and it will happen again. We started out with two parties, but NEITHER of those parties exist anymore. And Teddy Roosevelt swept the polls with the independant third party "Bull Moose" platform. We all recall Perot, but don't you all remember that the 1980 election debates had three candidates? Anderson didn't deeply affect the election, but the general public was well aware of a third choice.

As with the creation of the now common Republican and Democrat parties, enough of the nation just has to decide that the current parties are not offering what they want. And like in the past, a centrist party will rise out of the middle ground from the previous two, likely wrecking one of them. I would be unsurprised to see people like McCain become the rallying point for such a venture.

My personal opinion is that the low voter turnout in this country is at least partially the result of a very strict two party system.
 
A couple of the postings above prompt me to comment:

I am amazed to read things on gun forums and hear the comments of pro gun folks who seem to vote solely on the single issue of guns and without consideration for other issues.
Click to expand...

I am one of those single issue voters. If we the people have weapons, then we can guarantee our other rights. Otherwise, any thug can take life, liberty or property from us. And sometimes the thugs ARE the government, as in Germany under Hitler. When that happens, in the worst case scenario, the meek, weak and unarmed go to the ghettos, then the labor camps, then the gas chambers and ultimately the ovens.



My personal opinion is that the low voter turnout in this country is at least partially the result of a very strict two party system.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But I fail to see why low voter turnout is a problem. If people won't be troubled to vote, then they are probably too apathetic and ignorant to be good voters anyway. Personally, I think all able bodied voters should go to a polling place to vote or even to register to vote.
 
i agree about the 3rd party in our life time,I vote rep. the majority of the time as well.War on terror and tax cuts as Boortz says.
I believe in my soul the label would be Libertarian almost.I understand there is a lot of radicals in that national party.
I liked what Clinton said one year back about fixing health care,but i didnot vote for him.
 
There seems to be some confusion on the stance of the Libertarian Party when it comes to guns. They are definitely PRO-GUN no question about it:

"Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today." http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.html


I recently switched from the Republican Party to the Libertarian Party because I didn't feel my views were being represented best by Republicans. Yes, Republicans are pro-gun, and they SAY they are for smaller government and personal freedom - but actions speak louder than words and I haven't seen any of that with MOST Republicans.

Frankly, the two major parties are not that different from each other and I think the reason the Libertarian Party has been growing so rapidly is because citizens from both ends of the political spectrum are disillusioned with the current choices.

Libertarians are sometimes confused with "Liberals" but they are definitely not the same. Libertarians stand for personal responsibility, limited government, privacy and free markets. They want to abolish social security and welfare, reform the health care system and the educational system, reduce and eliminate taxes, and create free markets in just about all goods/services. Libertarians strictly interpret the constitution the way our founding fathers intended it. Nobel Laureate economists F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman are supporters as well.

Everyone has issues that are important to them - some of us are single-issue voters and others have a few issues they weigh when comparing candidates. Personally I have found my Third Party “Wasted Vote" balance - I will support my party (Libertarian) for every candidate EXCEPT the presidential election where I will vote for George W. No, I'm not being hypercritical. I believe that the LP party is the best party for me so I will support my party as much as logical. But we all know Bush or Kerry is going to be the next president so I will cast my vote accordingly so that Kerry ISN’T the next president. When there are enough Libertarians to support a presidential candidate then I will follow my party. That's my strategy and I can sleep well at night knowing that I support my gun rights and my personal freedom as much as possible through my voting action.
 
If we the people have weapons, then we can guarantee our other rights.
Click to expand...

In specific, which rights have ever been defended with guns?

I agree with the principle, but I'm having a hard time coming up with historic situations were liberties were actually increased by the use of the public's armed force. And really, the opposite has proved true. Equal rights in the US was accomplished without force, and against a motivated, armed populace.

The problem with single issue voting is that you may end up with ONLY that issue in your favor. The public isn't going to "rise up" to defend the freedom of the press, or the freedom to assemble. We would fight only if conditions were truly appalling and desperate: The wholesale loss of life and liberty.

Up until then, those guns have no influence on what sort of health care system we have, how we are taxed, what sort of education our children receive or how our borders are defended. And you should care about those things, because those issues WILL affect your life, but being enslaved by the gov't will likely never happen.


Being armed to the teeth does little for you when you can't get a job and you can't afford a doctor. I guess you could revolt then, after spending your life not giving a crap about other issues. True single issue voting is irresponsible madness.



I'm sure someone's going to gripe about this, so consider this example: Bush is okay on gun issues, but not great. Would you vote AGAINST Bush in favor of someone who guaranteed the repeal of the GCA, but also wanted to give in to terrorists?

A real "single issue voter" would.
 
Voting for a third party is NOT wasting a vote. Voting for a third party takes a vote away from both of the main two parties.
I am Libertarian, I will vote for Badnarik regardless, and yes, I despise both of the main parties.
I think the Republicans and Democrats are criminals. They have both violated the Constitution for decades and are guilty of treason, IMO.
 
Handy-

Responding to several of your most salient points one by one:

In specific, which rights have ever been defended with guns?
Click to expand...
Each and every one of the rights in the Bill of Rights were established by force of arms in the American Revolution. When the British marched from Boston to Lexington and Concord, intending to confiscate the colonists' weapons, the local militia resisted with gunfire. We Americans inflicted 273 casualties on the British that day. Never forget: the first skirmish in the American Revolution was about American resistance to gun control and nothing else.

. . .guns have no influence on what sort of health care system we have, how we are taxed, what sort of education our children receive or how our borders are defended. And you should care about those things, because those issues WILL affect your life, but being enslaved by the gov't will likely never happen.
Click to expand...
Actually, the health care system should be none of the government's business whatsoever. Were it not for government interference, health care might well be much more available and affordable today than it is. Education was, for most of our history, a strictly local concern. There was very little bureaucratic overhead in schools and, amazingly, children learned well. With respect to government enslavement, I point again to Nazi Germany. Germany in the early 20th century was a very civilized, liberal place. It did not take long for it to descend into a savagely evil dictatorship. Perhaps guns would have made no difference then. But they might have made a large difference down the road. Look at the Warsaw ghetto uprising and imagine how it would have been changed if more of those valiant resisters had been effectively armed.
 
Actually, the health care system should be none of the government's business whatsoever.
Click to expand...
You just made my point!!! Despite having your freedoms protected by arms, the government IS noodling in your health care. And you're not going to shoot anyone because of it, so your gun is not protecting your rights.


I ask you directly, in the above election example, who would you vote for?
 
Of course I'm not going to shoot anybody over government interference in the health care system.

I can opt out of it, and I don't regard health care as a "right." As all of us here should know, the use of armed force is reserved for very severe circumstances.

In the voting example you offered, I can't really answer. It's too hypothetical a question. I can't imagine anyone who'd guarantee repealing the GCA and simultaneously state they wanted to give in to terrorists. If you could find such a creature I wouldn't vote for him or her because I'd figure they were stone crazy.

For what it's worth, I think the war on terror is fine if it's a manhunt for Osama bin Laden. I think we need to tough it out in Iraq, and we MUST support the troops. But I didn't think going in there was the right thing in the first place, because one of our major justifications was that Saddam had violated U.N. resolutions. I think the U.N. should be disbanded. It's mostly a collection of tinhorn autocrats from various backward pestholes who collectively pose a grave threat to national sovreignity. Besides, the building could be used for indoor firing ranges.

I don't recognize the GCA as valid law. I believe it's an unconstitutional infringement on its face. But since my preferred weapons are revolvers, pump shotguns, bolt action .30-06 rifles and 1911 pattern semi-auto pistols, it's a remote threat. I do despise the morons that voted for it and those nitwits who still support it, but then most politicians also rate somewhere below pimps in my esteem.
 
Too recap:


1) Your gun is doing nothing to influence rights other than basic life/liberty, since you are unwilling to use it except in "very severe circumstances". (And health care is not a right, but having say in health care policy, is.)

2) You would not vote on single issues. You do care about the rest of the candidates platform, as you would not accept an apocolyptic bargain as an exchange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top