With the 2008 elections just around the corner, I've been watching the candidates dwindle down. If you work in a place like mine, you'd swear there were only two candidates left (Clinton and Obama). However, if you look at the two primary parties, you'll find that there are still 7 total candidates (including Alan Keyes, who even I seem to have missed; ironically, he's also black, but for some strange reason hasn't gotten near the media attention Obama has). There are, however, about 30 other candidates (if not more) currently running for president. Some female, some black, some black females. Why don't they make the news?
America has become essentially bipartisan - you're either Dem or GOP - and it's really starting to hurt us as a nation. Even with 7 main candidates, most of them are nearly identical. What's that leave us with, then? Well, either we can draw straws for the candidates that are left, flip a coin for the two that will be left when the Dems and GOP make their nominations, or we can vote for someone else entirely.
Constitutional Law Professor Mark Brown has chosen option number three and has been very vocal around here about the importance of choosing third party candidates and breaking the trend of bipartisanship. What makes him stand out even more, at least to me, is that he's one voice speaking out among the many Obama fans not only here at the school, but also in the city. From the looks of the bumper stickers and lawn signs, it appears Obama has pretty much won at least Ohio's capital. For those, like me, who haven't made a concrete decision, this makes Brown's message that much more important.
These third party candidates could mean the difference between the pseudo-change we've been seeing, and the real change this country has needed for decades, even if they don't make the presidency. There are other options, so if you don't completely agree with what even your current favored candidate has to say, you can vote for someone else. Don't think it will make a difference? Your vote going to a Libertarian, or Green, or even Socialist means it's not going to either the Democrats or the Republicans.
I've been going through some of the third party candidates, and I liked one, if for no other reason than a little comedy. While some of the things kind of bother me (hints of dictatorship or monarchy), there are quite a few rather well-thought out answers.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I think he's a parody candidate.
We've had at least three King Georges, a Clinton, Nixon, Reagan, etc. At least Caesar St. Augustine de Buonaparte Emperor acknowledges the empire.
Oh, indeed, and a good one at that.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
This isn't in response to anyone in particular, I've simply noticed that no one seems to have identified the primary reason U.S. elections tend toward two-party dominance: It's a phenomenon typical of our type of electoral system. See 'Duverger's Law' in your resource of choice for an explanation (sorry, but I'm at work and don't have time to do the topic justice).
Thank you for bringing that to the discussion. I can't wait to hear more of what you have to say.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
everyone talks about how terrible our two party system is, but think about it. having multiple parties would actually be a terrible thing
lets say we were more like a european nation, with 3 or 4 major parties. well a party could win 35% of the popular vote and then win the election. with two paries, most of the time [although not always] the president wins with over 50% of the popular vote. with other major parties, a small but dedicated group of individuals could dictate the direction our country will go in without majority support
plus there ARE major differences between the two parties. they disagree on social issues, terrorism, iraq, immigration, taxes, environmentalism, healthcare...
there are real choices. and the reason the 3rd party candidates dont get any press coverage is because they have no chance. which is a good thing. you think there is dealock in our country? after their last election, it took denmark over a year of compromising and arguing to actually form a government. we dont want that kind of bureaucratic inefficency in this country
"we dont want that kind of bureaucratic inefficency in this country."
That is the point of how the government was founded, to be inefficent.
Try to 'Provide for the Common Good' for 200, Alex
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
and the reason the 3rd party candidates dont get any press coverage is because they have no chance
They have no chance because they don't get any coverage. Gravel (Dem), Paul (Rep), and Keyes (Rep) don't stand a chance because the media gives them no coverage. Huckabee might have a chance, but McCain will probably be the GOP nominee and of course either Hillary or Obama will get the Democratic nomination. The average American lets the media tell them who's running instead of actually going out and seeing for themselves who's running.
lets say we were more like a european nation, with 3 or 4 major parties. well a party could win 35% of the popular vote and then win the election. with two paries, most of the time [although not always] the president wins with over 50% of the popular vote
Parties in general were against everything the founders stood for to begin with. The splitting of the nation is exactly what they didn't want.
Part of Article II of the Constitution, pertaining to the election of the President:
In regards to voting, "majority" is defined as more than half of the votes. So no, a president cannot win with less than the majority of either the electoral votes or Congress votes (in the event that electoral does not produce a majority vote).
having multiple parties would actually be a terrible thing
The way I see it, having multiple parties is only a "terrible" thing because it then forces people to actually research who they vote for, instead of giving people an either-or option (which also forces people to vote against a candidate, even if they don't like either of them but still want to vote).
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
"They have no chance because they don't get any coverage. Gravel (Dem), Paul (Rep), and Keyes (Rep) don't stand a chance because the media gives them no coverage."
The question is: Why does the national media decide who the public digs? They answer, I believe, is that they have a vested interest in the status-quo. It's not tricky to get your head around the fact that their advertisers have a large effect on what news organizations report.
I think part of the answer lies in the desecration of the Fairness Doctrine (look it up), which made news broadcasting responsible to democracy. What's democratic about a two-party system that dismembers its citizens from running for office? What's democratic about how "these parties have made the election a commodity to sell"?
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
ok. let me try and explain this to you. if the votes are split 3 or 4 ways, then we will have a president whose won a minority of the votes
it will go to the house, and then the house of representatives, rather than the people, would decide who would be our president
and whoever they elect will have gotten a minority of the votes. plus there would be even more corruption than there is now, considering the power the house will have. they will be bribed and blackmailed to vote for certain candidates
and no, americans wont research anything. it dosent matter if theres more candidates or not, we still wont pay attention.
First of all, I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me. However, that does not give you the right to be condescending to me. This is the first and only time I will ask you to consider how you word things to ensure that you do not come off as such.
it will go to the house, and then the house of representatives, rather than the people, would decide who would be our president
While the people would not have directly elected the President, the people did elect the Representatives who do just that - represent the people. In effect, the people have indirectly elected the President. If the people don't like who the Representatives picked, then they have every right to vote them out of office (and each Rep is up for re-election every three years, and each year, a portion of Congress is up for re-election, turn over can be really high if the people actually chose to do something about it).
Also, even in the current system, the people don't directly elect the President. The Electoral College does that. Now, the Electoral College is based on what the people vote, but they still get two votes and are not Constitutionally required to vote for whom they pledge (this is governed at the state level, where about half the states do not punish for this deed, known as faithless voting).
and no, americans wont research anything. it dosent matter if theres more candidates or not, we still wont pay attention.
People pay attention, they just don't do any of their own research. They let big media tell them who to vote for. That's why Paul, Keyes, and Huckabee will eventually lose to Obama, Clinton, and McCain. And from watching the people around here, in this supposedly nonpartisan workplace, you'd swear the only candidates at all were Obama and Clinton, because none of the others have even been mentioned (even when the company claimed nonpartisanship after a Dem group's Obama rally, they only extended their welcome to Clinton, even though there are currently three Dem candidates).
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I think you'd seriously enjoy this article.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/02/6801/
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
"terrorism"
Obama won't rule out an invasion of Pakistan and Hillary voted for the illegal authorization of force.. Difference on 'terrorism' my ass.
"iraq" (sic)
See if Obama pulls out once he's elected. Hillary voted for the war. Both voted to continue funding. Difference on Iraq my ass.
"immigration"
Both sides want some sort of reform that requires more government Difference on immigration my ass.
"taxes"
It's just a matter of who gets taxed. The Dems will tax everyone heavily now and forever. The Republicans will tax the next generation to death to pay off the war (and Social Security. And the VA. And the EPA. And the DHS.....). Difference on taxes my ass.
"environmentalism"
Bipartisan support, anyone? Difference on environmentalism my ass.
"healthcare"
Just a matter of who, again. The Republicans are just fine with Social Security, MediCare, MedicAid, and like programs. Difference on healthcare my ass.
"[H]aving multiple parties would actually be a terrible thing"
Oh, no! More representation! Somebody call the brute squad!
I agree 100% with Libertarian. The only real difference between the Rep and Dems is the propaganda each spits out. For instance, Hillary talks down on Nafta now but it was her husband who signed the treaty. After the Bush years, the Republicans have been completely drained of anything that made them even remotely conservative. I used to be a conservative but now I vote Libertarian, not because I believe a Libertarian will ever get elected, but because I won't give my vote to either Reps or Dems anymore. And by voting for the Lib party, I hope to send a mesage to the Reps that they stink. If more Reps and Dems abandoned their party to vote for a third party, maybe the main parties would take notice.
Yeah, my roommate just told me that Clinton won the poll for "person who would most likely protect their job". Isn't that insane? I think misinformation and lack of education, not to mention her deception or failed representation has led people from Iowa to take her bid in a landslide.
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Seriously. It sounds like FOX NEWS rhetoric, very slanted.
First of all, you see no difference in what you listed under terrorism? Yeah, Hillary voted for an illegal war, giving George Bush, of all people, so much power. A lot of people made that mistake, and with all the fear mongering gong on, the people did want it. And what choice did Obama have? In everyone's life, you can never say never or always because most of the time it isn't true.
IRAQ... We have troops in Iraq and a really stubborn president. Should we cut funding and let troops die to TRY to get Bush to pull out of Iraq? Uh, no.
The rest just didn't really make much sense.... Clarify and I'll respond.
-Sonja :)
To each his or her own.
I do agree that each 2008 party candidate has made mistakes. But the Iraqi Resolution represents a decision that many made with poor intelligence, because they trusted the most devoid of thought conservative administration they could have trusted. Did you know better than to give authorization for a war in a Middle Eastern country devoid of any responsibility for September 11? The pentagon information told policymakers as much. I assume you knew as much. So why would you vote for a person who represents such a poor display of 'experience'?
Iraq is simply one issue that Clinton has shown her un-progressive merit. The list extends to the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind Act, her support for poor energy bills and a list of corporate welfare bills that represent what I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for.
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
If you're so sure about the "major differences between the two parties", PLEASE check this out
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Ok I am getting so annoyed with this. The election shouldn't be about weather the candidates are black or white, male or female, Mexican, Chinese, or anything else. It's about the candidates with the best ideas, the ones that will actually be good for our country. Obviously Hillary, has been in the spotlight before because of Bill, but OBama has some amazing ideas, some which I admit are a little unrealistic, but he is hopeful and strong and has the appeal of being a younger candidate who knows what it's like to not grow up having everything, and can relate to more people in my age group. There are always going to be candidates that fall into the shadows of the race and go unnoticed, but that's not because they are young or old or black, it's because they didn't manage to get enough support, or weren't inspirational enough to the majority of people.
A wise man once said "I don't know ask a girl."
*Emily*
"it's because they didn't manage to get enough support, or weren't inspirational enough to the majority of people."
Or because the press pays no attention to them.
Think of Paul. With essentially no press, and much of his minuscule press time negative, he broke all fund raising records. Imagine how he might of done if the press was even a little more balanced.
Then, even when they were doing really poorly, McCain and Guiliani had the same amount of press as Romney or Huckabee. When Huckabee started loosing again, he still got time to talk during the debates.
Rudy had less delegates than any of the Republican candidates at the debates, but got more time than some of them.
Media bias? You bet.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Right you are.
He had an excellent collection of supporters who spammed the crap out of YouTube and whatnot. I wrote a little it about this; my thesis was essentially that internet success does not translate to electoral success... yet.
How do you think if Paul (or Nader for certain) runs as an independent we should lobby the news organizations to put third party voices in the TV-debate? It seems like that's why third party candidates run-- to be in the debate and to give voice issues that Democratic & GOP candidates have not picked up.
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
I doubt that Paul is going to run. :-(
I don't know. If, for instance, Paul did win, he could afford to pay the networks to get into the debates... Nader, I don't know. He just pisses me off...
I guess the way to get a third party represented would be for an increased amount of membership, or a few really loud voices...
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Paul already said he wasn't going to run as an independent. He will be remembered, though, even if unconsciously. The use of the Internet for funds is not going to end with him.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Right and he's a Calvinist so those funds will totally end up in his pocket. Think he considered his candidacy a business? Maybe he'll run again because it's profitable.
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Considering he's a Gynecologist and hasn't run since the 80s, I highly doubt that. Got sources to back up your claims?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Well I disagree with Paul, but I signed a petition in Montana to get him on the ballot.
I'm curious: do you support Nader's ability to at least run for president?
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Hey, let him run. I'm for everyone's right to run. I just don't much like him. I also think that people are, uh, sick of him...
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
I think he's turned more into a joke at this point, since he's ran at every election for the past, what? 15-20 years? Have to give him credit for his persistence, though, that's for sure.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Dr. Paul ran as a libertarian in the 1988 presidential election. He honestly had to be begged.
He was begged to try again fairly consistently, but only complied in 2007.
No, that would be Ralph Nader......
We're talking about Ralph, not Ron
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Sure. I'm interested to hear which issues you diverge from Ralph Nader.
There's so much stigma to the man who has consistently raised the corporate personhood, defense spending in a time of no cold war threat, environmental depredation, a sustainable energy future, and what I see as an enlightened, respectable perspective on why terrorists attack us. You may agree that it takes moral courage to continue to raise the issues and I applaud this man today, and I will in 2012, should he campaign.
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Well, as I said, I'm a libertarian (for the moment)... So, I disagree with his economic stuff. And, while this wouldn't affect me voting for him, the man irritates me.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
True, he's not a practicing Calvinist or racist like Ron Paul.
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
I don't see how religion really has any affect on things....
As for the racist thing:
a) it's not substantiated
b) even if he did say what it's claimed he did, the statements in question aren't racist. Both were against specific people and had nothing to do with the race. One was a condemnation of King based on what others said (whether or not that was true) the other was saying how a person was playing the race card against criticism.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Some one should run in the Bull Moose party.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Haha or as a Federalist or anti-Federalist. You'll have most people scratching their heads because they have no idea what those mean anymore, lol.
Or Whig. :D
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Well if you really want to confuse someone, you should run in the Democratic-Republican party.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Or the Republican-Democrat party. But the best is the Democratic-Republican party of Anarchists.
Anti-Masonic (1832),
Liberty (1840, 1844),
Free Soil (1848, 1852),
American-Know Nothing (1856),
Southern Democratic (1860),
Constitutional Union (1860),
Equal Rights (1872),
Greenback, Populist-People's (1880, 1884, 1892),
Prohibition (1888),
Union Labor (1888),
Prohibition (1892),
Socialist-Eugene V. Debs (1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1920),
Prohibition (1900, 1904),
Populist (1904, 1908),
Prohibition (1908, 1912),
Socialist Labor (1912, 1916),
Progressive-Bull Moose-Theodore Roosevelt (1912)
Socialist (1916),
Prohibition (1916),
Communist (1924, 1928, 1932)
Progressive, Socialist (1924)
Socialist-Norman Thomas (1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948)
Socialist Labor (1928, 1932, 1936, 1940)
Socialist Workers (1948, 1952, 1956, 1960)
Progressive (1948)
States' Rights (1948)
Socialist Labor (1952, 1956, 1960, 1964)
Poor Man's, American Third (1952, 1956)
Socialist (1952, 1956)
Constitutional, American First-Douglas MacArthur (1952)
Prohibition (1964, 1968, 1972)
Independent, Consumers (1968, 1976, 1988)
American Independent (1968)
Freedom and Peace-Dick Gregory (1968)
Peace and Freedom-Eldridge Cleaver(1968)
Communist (1972, 1976, 1980, 1984)
American Independent (1972)
People's (1972)
Libertarian (1972)
US Labor, National Economic Recovery, Independent (1972, 1976, 1980, 1984)
American Independent (1976)
Independent (1980)
Libertarian (1980)
Socialist-David McReynolds (1980, 2000)
Prohibition (1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004)
American (1984, 1988)
Workers League (1984, 1988)
Workers World (1984, 1988)
Libertarian-Ron Paul (1988)
New Alliance (1988, 1992)
Socialist Workers (1988, 1992)
Grassroots (1988, 1992)
Natural Law (1992, 1996, 2000)
U.S. Taxpayers, Constitution (1992, 1996, 2000)
Libertarian (1992)
Independent, Reform-Ross Perot(1992, 1996)
Looking Back (1992, 1996)
Green, Reform-Ralph Nader(1996, 2000, 2004, 2008!)
Libertarian (1996, 2000)
Socialist Workers (1996, 2000, 2004)
Workers World (1996, 2000)
Reform-Pat Buchanan (2000)
Libertarian (2004)
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Ross Perot looks like the kid from Deliverance all grown up.
I can't wait to read some of yer blogs.
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
The neat thing about third party candidates is that you really don't need to pay in attention to what they are saying because they don't have a chance in hell of winning. That may change some day but it is the reality now.
I am a conservative who usually votes Republican. It is extremely unlikely that I could overcome my hatred for the open borders RINO, John McCain long enough to vote for him even though he is slightly preferrable to the socialist Clintonista or the chinese food candidate who has been talking most eloquently for almost a year and has yet to actually say anything.
I will therefore pick whichever third party happens to make it onto my Wyoming ballot and vote for them as a protest against the extremely poor chocies we are being offered by the mainstream parties of corruption. If there is more than one third party I will pick the one that is most conservative.
Protest votes are swell. Arguably they got us Social Securities Act because good ol' FDR was able to showcase the New Deal Coalition by showing how many radicals voted in the election (ie. socialist and communist parties). Although you sound a little bit to the right of center. Is your biggest issue immigration?
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Unions began strong political stances with FDR, and yes, a lot of the union organizers and members were socialists and communists. What's wrong with wanting everyone to be taken care of? If I had to pick a party, I'd stand with the democratic socialists.
-Sonja :)
"What's wrong with wanting everyone to be taken care of?"
Absolutely nothing. That's a swell ideal-- I don't know where you got the idea that I opposed unions or that principle....
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
There is a democratic socialist running, but uh, he likes to wear the swatstika on all his clothing choices. He however isn't really as racist as you would imagine.
I know you're talking more along the lines of communist, but the national socialists are an offshoot of social communism. I don't like unions, my dad has been part of one since he's a teacher and I was part of one when I worked and all they did for us was take our money and not do much for any of us. I have no problem with taking care of everyone, but not using socialism or communism because they'll work as well as most governments...not at all.
Now if there was a Juris Naturalist or Anarcho-capitalst party, I'd definately vote for them.
Yes, my top issue is immigration. I want illegal immigration stopped and I want legal immigration sharply lowered to replacement levels.
If your top issue is "sustainability", immigration should be in your top five too.
Everything that has been accomplished over the last three decades by conservation has been undone by mass immigration. For example, our cars are much more efficient than they used to be. They consume far less gasoline per mile. But we have imported so many new people that we are now consuming more gasoline than ever because there are a lot more cars on the road. And now we are raping our land to grow fuel for them which is pure folly. Environmentalism does not have a chance in hell of saving anything as our population marches towards a billion by the turn of the next century. Nothing is sustainable with our population growing at 2% per year. We are going to get steadily poorer and poor people can't afford to care about the environment.
And 100% of our population growth is being driven by immigration.
if you feel that way then mccain is not the answer people!
he wants to grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants.
NADER '08
+mspin
Read upwards about 4 posts and you will see how I feel about McCain.
But both Hillary and Obama are even worse. And undoubtedly Nader is worse yet.
What is it about green party people and environmentalists that they can't see the link between immigration and the environment? More people = more damage.
Sure it's an obvious parallel, but it's not the first thing I think about when I hear 'sustainability'.
On the immigration issue: I think progressives find the wall idea irresponsible. Slapping poor immigrants hands doesn't seem logical either--American jobs will always seem appealing to people south of the border, because employers dig their contributions to the workplace. But if we discouraged employers from beckoning in the poor, that might be a step, right? It may be more efficient, anyways, than building a 10 foot fence and daring Mexican ladder-builders to create an 11 footer.
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
I think the vast majority of our enforcement effort should be aimed at employers. I think when we raid an employer we should not even arrest the illegals. Just make sure they know that it won't be worth their effort to show up for work the next day because they no longer have a job. But the empoyers should be facing huge fines and prison for subsequent offenses. Perhaps like drug dealers we should confiscate any property that is involved in the commission of the crime. When the jobs dry up the problem will solve itself. We don't need to hassle the illegal immigrants or break uop their families. When there are no more jobs they will start making decisions for themselves about what to do and they will pay for these decisions just like they did when they came here.,
But then there is the problem of mass legal immigration. Adding a million plus people to our population is unsustainable and the consumption and environmental impact of these new people undo everything that is gained through conservation.
I've heard that a sustainability energy policy would have the largest impact on our environment, but then again, I haven't read up on this aspect of immigration, although it seems logical.
Yeah I've heard that our population growth would be stagnant (like Japan, China, Britain, France) if immigration and guest worker programs weren't at the rates they are, which is interesting. I've never thought about sustainability from that perspective. Can you cite some articles?
"Everything that has been accomplished over the last three decades by conservation has been undone by mass immigration."
I'd like to read up on the subject in order to compare exactly what halting immigration would do for sustainability as opposed to ridding ourselves of insanely unsustainable practices at the individual and collective levels. I'd thank you greatly with a link!
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
First, you need to understand the scope of the immigration problem. This video is a good starting point:
Immigration by the Numbers
After you watch it you can next move onto a simple thought experiment. If we grow our population by 50% in the next 40 years, what will happen to:
- energy consumption?
- urban sprawl?
- open space?
- land paved for highways?
- Water consumption?
- Unsustainable farming practices?
- Opportunities for enjoying privacy in National Forests, Parks and Wilderness?
I could probably spoon feed you lots of stuff but you will make the connection best if you look up the stuff that interests you. You might compare the amount of gasoline we consumed annually as a nation in 1970 compared to what we consume now. Even though through conservation we have become tremendoulsy more efficient, we still consume a lot more because there are a lot more of us.
I saw in another thread that you like hiking in the wilderness. On your last hike did you see other people? I live in Wyoming and you used to be able to drive half way across this state and not pass another car. Now you can walk 10 miles from the road into the wilderness and you are almost guaranteed of running across others seeking to get away from people.
Regards,
Jack
He isn't getting press because he isn't as strong a candidate as Obama or anyone else. In that same vein, Obama is not getting press because he is black, which is sort of what your statement implies. I don't know if that's how you meant it, but that's what came across.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I'm only 16, but if I were able to vote, I would not vote for a third party candidate. It's not that I feel like they would be inadequate, but I would feel as though I were throwing my vote away. I think that's what scares people away from voting for a third party candidate. they know how slim of a chance there is that their candidate would get even say 5% of the votes in a single state. To think that a third party could not only win a state, but win a majority of the states would be absurd. And I think this is what you're getting at. I think there would have to be some serious changes or a dramatic event in order to convince voters that a third party even had a remote chance.
I would feel as though I were throwing my vote away.
Multiply that by a few million, and there's your problem.
Aside from the fact that that's the reason most people don't vote (even if their favorite candidate is the main party), imagine if you and everyone else that said "my vote doesn't count" actually went out and voted.
Also, keep in mind, that voting for an different party, even if they don't win, is still voting. It also pulls the votes away from the main parties, giving them a smaller percentage, which is based on the number of votes casted. The only wasted vote is the one not cast.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I might consider sacrificing my vote for the person who represents my views for the person who is electable a wasted vote.
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly