Slashdot Mirror
Ralph Nader Moderates One Last 3rd-Party Debate for 2012
Late Tuesday, both the 2012 U.S. election (the popular vote at least) and the 2012 campaign season should be over. Tonight, though, whatever your ability or plans to vote are (see the current poll for a peek at what other readers claim about their intentions), you've got the chance to see one more presidential debate, to be moderated by Ralph Nader, and featuring third-party presidential contenders Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Constitution) and Rock Anderson (Justice). Yes, the same ones featured in another debate a few weeks back. (We promise, this is the last debate of this go-round.) If you're voting (or would, if you could) for other than the Democratic or Republican parties' candidates this year, what drives that decision?
If you're voting (or would, if you could) for other than the Democratic or Republican parties' candidates this year, what drives that decision?
Because it's MY vote. I'm told at work that I'm "wasting" my vote by not selecting candidate XXX, but to me, a wasted vote is a vote for something I don't agree with. I like Obama for ending the war in Iraq, I like Romney for requiring OpenDocument format (ODF) when he was governor of Mass, but at the end of the day, the candidates have more in common than not: use of drones, no plan to scale back TSA, overfunding the military, corrupted by Wall Street, etc.
That's a loaded question to ask anyway, its similar to asking, "Why use something other than Apple/Microsoft?" Well, its about personal choice, and its about ideas. Sure, Linux will probably never win on the desktop, but you better fucking believe that Windows and MacOS are better operating systems now than they would have been had Linux never come along. The threat of losing to competition forced a better TCP/IP stack, it forced real security options in Windows, and it forced Apple to reinvent itself as a UNIX OS. And oh by the way, I happen to prefer using KDE over Apple/Windows.
Same thing with the political parties, we have come to believe (as a nation) that R/D are the only legitimate choices, and it has lead to stagnation of ideas and of real work being done. The Federal government is broken, and cannot even pass a budget. But you better believe if Mitt Romney loses the electoral college due to the L vote, the Rs will start to distance themselves from the "abortion" issue and religious nutjobs, maybe start courting non-whites for a change and it will be for the better. Just witness how the Al Gore and the D's came around on the environment when my boy Nader took the election from him in 2000. The mandate for MPGs is going to double what it was 10 years ago, and we are finally subsidizing clean energy instead of oil.
Won't the election be over on Tuesday?
If you're voting (or would, if you could) for other than the Democratic or Republican parties' candidates this year, what drives that decision?
Easy: Romney wants to control your bedroom (marriage, abortion, etc), and Obama wants to control your bank account. Not to mention in the debates they both have either lied out of their asses or refused to provide real answers/details to any policy question.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I am Greek - in my country (birthplace of Democracy... but you know that!), and in our last elections few months ago, we had about 35 parties to choose from, and from them there are 7 in the parliament (there is a 3% minimum of total votes requirement for geting there), and from those 7 parties 3 of them are forming the goverment... and still, for many citizens there is not a party that fully represents them.
I believe that you have a much better Democracy in the USA than ours, but thats because you are better quality citizens - you should really check this multiple parties thing... it will make your Democracy even more better.
Obama wants the top tax bracket to go up 3%. That's it. It was higher under Reagan.
... and I was just voting my conscience (last Sunday, during early voting, as it happened). The two 'major' parties both want to send your children to die in countries that did not attack us in 2001, and both parties enjoy ordering record numbers of wiretaps, both with and without warrants, every single year. Both 'major' parties are also huge, huge fans of welfare, as long as the recipients are banks. I know one of them will win (and given their similarities, it doesn't matter which). But I'll sleep better knowing I had no part in endorsing their sociopathy.
If I can get a ballot, I am voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson. He would pull all the troops (Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Japan, etc.) home right away and stop the drone strikes. That's enough for me. How do Democrats or Republicans expect people to believe in their government, when their government continues to murder innocent civilians in other countries?
If you're voting (or would, if you could) for other than the Democratic or Republican parties' candidates this year, what drives that decision?
Maybe it's because I only see minor differences between the two major parties. Under both the D's & R's, the size & scope of government has increased, and our liberties are being decreased. What liberties you ask? How about the right to have medical marijuana in a state where the voters have decided it should be legal, but the Feds are conducting record numbers of raids? How about not having a presumption of guilt when trying to travel via airplane? How about the right to not be spied on without due process? That's just the start. I'm not 100% libertarian, but I'll still be casting my vote for all of the LP's candidates on my ballot. We need competition in the political marketplace just like we do in the financial marketplace.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I'm voting Gary Johnson (L) because I'm impressed with his accomplishments and agree with his philosophy.
End the wars, legalize and tax drugs, practice fiscal responsibility.
He's a self-made millionaire businessman who also has an excellent record as a 2-term governor. He was praised by both Republicans and Democrats alike for being able to work with all parties and get the job done.
His bio and record speak for themselves:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/about
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/record
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I agree that you should vote for somebody you believe in, even if they have no chance of winning. My problem is that I can't believe in any of these bozos. Just picture any one of them in the White House. Could they govern? They could not.
The U.S. isn't an elected dictatorship — POTUS has to govern in tandem with Congress. If you're not satisfied with the current crowd, you need to replace the whole crowd, not just one guy. You have to work on electing Congresspeople who reflect your views. If you're not willing to do that, all this crap with fring Presidential candidates is a waste of time.
In case anyone missed the 4-way debate moderated by Larry King in Chicago on 2012-10-23:
https://kat.ph/torrents/20121023-full-third-party-presidential-debate-yt-avi-t6769764/
All of the presidential candidates' social/economic ideologies are graphed here. [Note the proximity of the two corporate parties' candidates.]
Please—especially if you live in an uncontested state—vote for the best candidate, not the second-least-worst candidate; our country (and especially our civil liberties) have taken just about all the "lesser evil" that can be withstood.
This quiz can help you determine which candidate best matches your own ideology.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
I, too, have no plans to vote for either Obama or Romney. I think a vote should only be cast for someone you're confident is a good choice for running the country. Neither one of these people have shown they deserve the title of President, IMO.
I really dislike that "vote for the lesser of two evils" concept. People have been doing that for a long time now, and that's largely how we got to the mess we're in today!
It seems to me that the current system has a razor sharp focus on ensuring everything quickly comes down to only 2 remaining viable candidates, at all costs. If a 3rd. party shows promise, the media or members of one of the two established parties pull out all the stops to discredit him or her. They want politics to run just like our sports teams ... only 2 teams on the field fighting it out to see who wins. No matter how many teams play each other in a season, it has to come down to only two in the end, to declare someone the winner.
Until this changes, the American people really aren't able to vote for the type of government they want. They're only able to pick from two people pre-selected for them by the elite (meaning those with enough money and influence to boil the choices down to the final two they want to see you pick from). And sure, you CAN vote for a 3rd. party candidate (and I almost always do so). But we all know it's currently nothing more than a small display of contempt for the status quo system. I really doubt any sane person voting for, say, Gary Johnson, believes he really has a decent shot at winning.
Still, that's fine with me. You don't earn a prize for having voted for the guy who winds up winning.
If you're at all interested in getting more ideas out into the national consciousness (and if you're living in a state that Obama or Romney has a lock on), consider voting for a third-party candidate. Because of the electoral system, it's not going to change who wins the election, but it can increase the chances that one of these candidates gets a spot at some future televised debate. Once upon a time, the debates were sponsored by the National Organization of Women... and now they're run by the Commission on Presidential Debates (which is run by the Democratic and Republican parties). Being a bit of a cartel, they've managed to stipulate that the only invitees to debate must get at least 15% representation in various national polls (another classic case of the successful pulling up the ladder they used to climb to the top).
Now, we could argue the game theory of elections and I'd have to concede that it's always going to devolve into two parties (like how tea-partiers, when the chips are really down, vote for the republican because the alternative, a democrat, would be, to them, the apocalypse), but part of how those two parties stay on top is by having a "big tent" and trying to appeal to a broad spectrum of views (okay... and also by not really specifying what their views are). And I think that, if other candidates are able to get up with the "big boys" and put forward their views, then that's more exposure... and maybe some of those views might have to get some recognition from one of the major parties.
Frankly, after visiting ISideWith.com, I was blown away at how congruent my views are with the Green candidate, Jill Stein... to the point where I really wish more people knew that there was a candidate that was, potentially, so suited to their views. Same goes for Gary Johnson. He's not my cup of tea, but I really wish the socially-liberal/economically-conservative republican voters out there were more aware that they didn't necessarily need to throw gays and women under the bus in exchange for getting capital-gains and inheritance taxes abolished. And maybe a stronger-than-expected showing in the election will provide the social proof for some more people to look into what's up with this (Libertarian|Green|Justice| Constitution) thing.
Of course, as I said in the subject, if you live in a swing state, then ignore the preceding rant and get your state swinging.
Keep in mind that Obama took 55% of the popular vote in 2008, but with a 62% turnout, only about 34% of eligible citizens supported him enough to go vote for him. The two major parties simply do not represent majorities in this country.
Exactly - and a large percentage of those that voted for him did not identify themselves as D's - they were "Independents". As of 2010, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145463/Democratic-Party-Drops-2010-Tying-Year-Low.aspx). So no party has even close to a majority of voters, and independents are the largest portion.
The interesting thing is that independent voters continue to allow R's and D's to make all national elections referendums almost exclusively about their own candidates. The most successful independent or 3rd party candidates in the past 100 years were Ross Perot (18.9% in 1992), and Teddy Roosevelt (27% as a Progressive in 1912).