There are more than 2 choices.

terry_wendel · 08-07-2004, 09:55 AM

Libertarian: http://www.badnarik.org/

Constitution Party: http://www.peroutka2004.com/

Green Party: http://www.votecobb.org/

Reform Party: http://www.votenader.org/

...and many others who don't stand a chance.

atticus_finch · 08-07-2004, 10:41 AM

the constitution party sucks my nuts

SlingerXL · 08-07-2004, 05:50 PM

Until the other parties have as strong a base as the dems or repubs, I'm going to vote for who I think will lead the country the best and who also actually has a chance at winning.

Unfortunately, most people think like me so deal with the fact that it is very unlikely that anything other than dems or repubs will ever be voted in office. I suggest those parties start small and work there way up instead of going outright for presidency. City officials, mayors, govenors, senators etc.

Klaymen b2k3 · 08-07-2004, 05:58 PM

Vote to create public coverage and debate inclusion for a 3rd party! W0000000000! (reform/nader party this year)

SlingerXL · 08-07-2004, 06:00 PM

Ross Perot got 15% of the vote in '96. I liked his charts.

El Presidente · 08-07-2004, 06:53 PM

I am reviving the Whig party...even though I forget what they stood for but I have a gut feeling I didn't like it.

hiaseas · 08-07-2004, 06:55 PM

I'm gonna bring back the Bull-Moose party

SlingerXL · 08-08-2004, 03:03 PM

Whig is the way to go.

atticus_finch · 08-08-2004, 04:01 PM

if u think about it, the two party system is the best there can be. (i personally would replace the dems with libertarians and just have libs and reps but w/e)

this is because if there are 3 parties each having a significant following, it guarantees that the president will not have a majority vote. Less than half of the country will have voted for the president regardless of who wins.

do u want a president in power that only got 34% of the votes? i dont

Westopher · 08-08-2004, 04:09 PM

Libertarian is a state of mind, not a political folowing you fool.
If the President got 34% of the votes, and this would be more than any other canidate, then yes, I want him in charge. More people wanted him.
If and when you vote, will you vote for the person who will win, not who you want to win?

terry_wendel · 08-08-2004, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by atticus_finch
if u think about it, the two party system is the best there can be. (i personally would replace the dems with libertarians and just have libs and reps but w/e)

this is because if there are 3 parties each having a significant following, it guarantees that the president will not have a majority vote. Less than half of the country will have voted for the president regardless of who wins.

do u want a president in power that only got 34% of the votes? i dont

You're stupid.

elTwitcho · 08-08-2004, 07:14 PM

Yeah there are other choices, but an election this critical really boils down to wether you want to elect "Bush" or "not Bush" and so far "Not Bush" is the democrats. It's too important an election to throw your vote away

ipoppedtimmy · 08-08-2004, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elTwitcho
Yeah there are other choices, but an election this critical really boils down to wether you want to elect "Bush" or "not Bush" and so far "Not Bush" is the democrats. It's too important an election to throw your vote away

well said

atticus_finch · 08-08-2004, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by terry_wendel
You're stupid.

i dont understand why

i think it is logical to desire that the leader of the country have a significant portion of the votes (more than half)

or if ur using the electoral college system, more than half of those votes

Hubris · 08-08-2004, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elTwitcho
It's too important an election to throw your vote away

Only if you live in one of those states that either candidate could win.

terry_wendel · 08-08-2004, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elTwitcho
Yeah there are other choices, but an election this critical really boils down to wether you want to elect "Bush" or "not Bush" and so far "Not Bush" is the democrats. It's too important an election to throw your vote away

A vote for Democrat is a wasted vote for me too... as is Republican.

I support who I think can run the country better and that would be Libertarian. Sure a Libertarian won't win. I know that. A democrat won't win either. Both wasted votes and by voting libertarian I get them a little more recognition that they would have gotten if I didn't.

SlingerXL · 08-08-2004, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by atticus_finch
if u think about it, the two party system is the best there can be. (i personally would replace the dems with libertarians and just have libs and reps but w/e)

this is because if there are 3 parties each having a significant following, it guarantees that the president will not have a majority vote. Less than half of the country will have voted for the president regardless of who wins.

do u want a president in power that only got 34% of the votes? i dont

Wowser. Nice job on the faulty math. More choices = better quality politician. And there were three choices in 1996. Clinton won with over 50% anyway.

SlingerXL · 08-08-2004, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by terry_wendel
A vote for Democrat is a wasted vote for me too... as is Republican.

I support who I think can run the country better and that would be Libertarian. Sure a Libertarian won't win. I know that. A democrat won't win either. Both wasted votes and by voting libertarian I get them a little more recognition that they would have gotten if I didn't.

People who voted for Nader (not saying he's lb) are th reason Gore lost in 2000. Nader was fundamentally much closer to democrats than republicans therefore he stole more votes from the democrats.

retardawn · 08-08-2004, 09:48 PM

there ARE many choices, but really there's only 2. Kerry and that other clown who never got elected.

terry_wendel · 08-08-2004, 09:55 PM

If you're voting for a candidate just so another one will lose, then you're doing your country a disservice. Vote for who you think will do better, no matter what.

P.S: I more than likely will not get my lazy *** down to where ever I need to go to vote.

SlingerXL · 08-08-2004, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by terry_wendel
If you're voting for a candidate just so another one will lose, then you're doing your country a disservice. Vote for who you think will do better, no matter what.

P.S: I more than likely will not get my lazy *** down to where ever I need to go to vote.

... *reads again*

So you stress the importance of voting for who you think will run the country the best but don't even vote yourself? What the duece? I think you should put your vote where it will help your country the most and since lb's and green party canidates don't have much of a chance of winning...