|By August (August) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 08:15 am: Edit|
There is something that is rapidly becoming a pet peeve for me. It is the large number of people that I hear saying that they don't like "either" candidate in the US presidential elections -- some of them even saying that they are not going to vote at all because they don't like "either" candidate.
Before you use this pathetic excuse for not voting, please examine your sample ballot and note that there are more than two candidates. Whether you agree with any of these people or not, they have gone to the trouble to run for president and enunciate some ideas about how to make society better. The least you can do is look into the basics of their ideas before writing them off.
I know many people believe that "third"-party candidates are a little bit loony for even putting themselves out there when they are obviously not going to win. But voting for such alternative candidates at least shows people that these candidates have a constituency. This can help to build support for their ideas. This places pressure on the larger parties to pay attention to these constituencies, and it can also lead to the election of people from the smaller parties to office -- maybe not president right away, but some of the lower-level offices that also make a difference. Maybe eventually the two-party system itself will be defeated, but obviously the main way to make this happen is not just to complain about it but to actually vote for somebody from a "third" party. It really makes sense to consider this, especially if you were not planning to vote at all (thus "throwing away" your vote anyway).
Does anybody else have any thoughts about this issue?
|By August (August) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 08:22 am: Edit|
Also, I wanted to say that, while most of the people who don't like "either" candidate are referring to the presidential candidates, I also see on my sample ballot (Connecticut) that there are two "third"-party candidates for US senator and one for state representative. And there is also a "no-party" presidential candidate.
|By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 06:23 pm: Edit|
I disagree with you. Voting for an alternative party candidate will not necesarily help your cause. If you vote for Nader, you are helping Bush. If you vote for Badnarik, you are helping Kerry. The way to help these alternative parties is to get their beliefs (along with justification) into the open. People like Badnarik, Nader, Brown, Cobb, and Peroutka need to get out their and promote their agendas.
The real break through will be when an alternative party finds a candidate that is able to connect with the voters. Until then, the only thing you can do is educate the people and hope that it sticks with them.
One thing that I do agree with is the importance of lower level offices to alternative parties. This is the best strategy for the parties. They need to work their way up the food chain.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|