The reason not to vote for 3rd party candidate.

[Desertdog]

Bob Barr may be a great candidate and I would love to vote for him, but he cannot win as a Libertarian or any other 3rd party candidate.

Do you wonder why not?  Why do I make such a strong statement?

It is very simple why he cannot win.  The last time I checked, not long ago, the Libertarian party is on the ballot of 28 of the 50 states.  And the Constitutional Party is on 20 states.

How can a Libertarian candidate win when they are not on the ballot in every state?

Run to be a Congressman or Senator and I will vote for you if you are in my district.

[MicroBalrog]

The LP is raising, and likely WILL raise, money to be on the ballot in every state.

In the last Presidential election they were on the ballot in 48 states, and in all 50 in the previous two elections.

Wiki is your friend.

[Dntsycnt]

Casting your vote is not about voting for who will win.

Not not not not not.

It's about voting for who you think would best do the job.

[Desertdog]

It's about voting for who you think would best do the job.

If you know they are not going to win why not vote for the person that comes nearest to what you like, as compared to helping the person you really son't want.

[Manedwolf]

Casting your vote is not about voting for who will win.

Not not not not not.

It's about voting for who you think would best do the job.

In this case, it'd be wasting your vote and giving it to Obama. What good would that solve?

You'd feel better? Oh, goodie. Then enjoy President Obama.

[The Annoyed Man]

OR, we could vote the way we want, and not enjoy president Obama - the same way we would not enjoy president McCain.

[Dntsycnt]

Maned:  It would show that I DON'T approve of McCain's stances, or Obama's.

I understand the temptation to vote McCain so that the earth doesn't rend in two and everyone fall into a black hole and die, but when you're just buying time every election, electing the same old crooks, nothing ever gets done.  You might slow down the erosion of our rights, but some of us are looking to be around for another fifty years, and will feel the effects of that erosion.  At some point, people have to take a stand, and say, "These are not the kind of people we want representing us."

I don't want a President Obama, but your way has been sliding us nowhere but downhill.

[Manedwolf]

OR, we could vote the way we want, and not enjoy president Obama - the same way we would not enjoy president McCain.

No, you won't enjoy it at all when an Obama administration taxes you heavily and comes for your guns. But you'll have helped it happen...

[Dannyboy]

I'm seriously considering voting for Bob Barr.  Then again, I live in Jersey where my vote for a Republican candidate is meaningless anyway.  What purpose does it serve for me to vote for McCain? 

[Balog]

I don't want a President Obama, but your way has been sliding us nowhere but downhill.

Exactly.

OR, we could vote the way we want, and not enjoy president Obama - the same way we would not enjoy president McCain.

No, you won't enjoy it at all when an Obama administration taxes you heavily and comes for your guns. But you'll have helped it happen...

And when McCain signs Kyoto and cap-n-trade (massive taxes, destroys American industry), enacts registration under the gun show loophole, shreds the 1st even more under the guise of "Campaign finance reform" and "reaches across the aisle" to his good friends the progressives to help him select judges, you'll still be on here yelling "Obama would've been worse!"

[anygunanywhere]

The next president will almost certainly appoint one or more supreme court justices.

Today's SC decision obviously illustrates the importance of this executive responsibility.

I too gag when I think about voting for McCain. He spouts his supposed constitutional knowledge about the 2A being an individual right like the 1A when his McCain-Feingold 1A muzzle is now law.

Say what you will about voting third party. I thought about it, but really, McCain is the only option, unless you really want BHO as your comrade premier.

If BHO hits Washington with the dems in control of bith houses and appoints a few justices, well, I just can not imagine what retirement is going to be like.

I probably will not have one. So close, I was so close.

Anygunanywhere

Anygunanywhere

[MicroBalrog]

So what do we do AFTER, Manedwolf?

Okay, I accepted your notion that we must support (and those of the posters on this board who can vote, must vote for) McCain.

But that won't improve the situation.

How do we IMPROVE the situation?

[Desertdog]

If BHO hits Washington with the dems in control of bith houses and appoints a few justices, well, I just can not imagine what retirement is going to be like.

Not just the Justices, but all Federal appointments, Global Warming, no oil explorations or drilling, and anything and everything the government sticks their finger in.

Micr0

How do we IMPROVE the situation?

Start runnming and electing good Conservative Senators and Congressmen.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

How do we IMPROVE the situation?

We need to take the primary elections a lot more seriously.  We need to find sane conservative/libertarian candidates to run in the primaries, and we need to vote them the nomination.

The biggest reason McCain is the Republican nominee (and thus the only general election candidate worth voting for) is that the conservative vote was split up among a handful of people during the primaries.  None of the good candidates got enough votes on their own ti win the nomination, allowing McCain to win almost by default.

[Brad Johnson]

You are stranded on a cliff.  You have the choice of three ropes.

The first rope looks good but you know it has a rotton core and will give way at the first tug.

The second rope looks shoddy but you know it will probably hold your weight long enought to reach the top.

The third rope is perfect in every way but is coiled at your feet, unattached to anything.

Assuaging your conscience by voting for a candidate that has no realistic chance of winning is like choosing the third rope.  You get exactly what you want but you still lose in the end.  Only in this case, you take the rest of the country with you.

Brad

[Dntsycnt]

How about you attach the good rope to something?  You'd be pretty freaking stupid to trust yourself to a bad rope.

Argument by analogy is weak at best.

[Brad Johnson]

How about you attach the good rope to something?  You'd be pretty freaking stupid to trust yourself to a bad rope.

You presume that by choosing the good rope you will suddenly have that option available to you.  You do not.

The analogy stands.

Brad

[Nick1911]

You are stranded on a cliff.  You have the choice of three ropes.

The first rope looks good but you know it has a rotton core and will give way at the first tug.

The second rope looks shoddy but you know it will probably hold your weight long enought to reach the top.

The third rope is perfect in every way but is coiled at your feet, unattached to anything.

Assuaging your conscience by voting for a candidate that has no realistic chance of winning is like choosing the third rope.  You get exactly what you want but you still lose in the end.  Only in this case, you take the rest of the country with you.

Brad

The analogy falls apart because in real life - republican or democrat, we end up at the same place.  Let me revise it for you:

You are stranded on a cliff.  You have the choice of three ropes.

The first rope looks good but you know it has a rotton core and will give way at the first tug.

The second rope looks shoddy but will fail halfway down the cliff.

The third rope is perfect in every way but is coiled at your feet, unattached to anything.

Option 1: you die immediately.
Option 2: you die, but it takes a little longer.
Option 3: you live if you can make it work, else you die.

[Brad Johnson]

The analogy is not open to revision just to satisfy a particular slant on the subject, or to insert a wish for what will not be.

You cannot change the candidates to suit your personal whims.  One person will win.  You choice is one of how effective your vote will be on the outcome of that particular contest.  Choosing a candidate you like but that has no real chance of winning (short of a sudden, radical shift in public opinion or complete government overthrow) is a throwaway vote.  You chose your perfect candidate but the vote was still wasted.

Again, the analogy stands as written.

Brad

[Nick1911]

The analogy is not open to revision just to satisfy a particular slant on the subject, or to insert a wish for what will not be.

You cannot change the candidates to suit your personal whims.  One person will win.  You choice is one of how effective your vote will be on the outcome of that particular contest.  Choosing a candidate you like but that has no real chance of winning (short of a sudden, radical shift in public opinion or complete government overthrow) is a throwaway vote.  You chose your perfect candidate but the vote was still wasted.

Again, the analogy stands as written.

Brad

And the other option is...?

Choose McCain; watch the government grow, taxes climb, and liberties be eroded so that Obama won't have a chance to grow the government, raise taxes, and erode liberties?  How is choosing the slow road to hell over the fast lane not "wasting my vote"?  It's a lose-lose situation.  Voting for a third party won't help, but what do I have to lose?  Some a-hole will get elected; but at least I can show support for the political body I consider ideologically correct.  People won't consider the libertarian party as serious contenders until they get some good percentages in the polls.  And that won't happen until people start voting for them!

I believe that the "lesser of two evils" is a failed policy.

[Brad Johnson]

And the other option is...?

Choose McCain; watch the government grow, taxes climb, and liberties be eroded so that Obama won't have a chance to grow the government, raise taxes, and erode liberties?  How is choosing the slow road to hell over the fast lane not "wasting my vote"?  It's a lose-lose situation.

Okay, vote for someone who doesn't have a snowball's chance at actually winning.  You'll still see either McCain or Obama in office. 

Vote Your Conscience does not necessarily equal Vote Responsibly.  Voting for someone with no realistic chance of winning pulls a vote away from someone who does have a chance to win.  Then you have a very real chance of the single worst candidate being the winner even though a huge majority of voters didn't vote for them.  Clinton's second term is a perfect example of that.  Clinton won even though 56.36% of the voting public did NOT vote for him.  All because H. Ross Perot, who had about as much chance of winning as Mickey Mouse, pulled in 18.91% of the vote.  If even half the people who voted for him had voted for Bush, Bush would have won by a comfortable 4% margin.

So, yes, voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning IS throwing away your vote.  And it's a slap in the face to those who vote realistically.  Even though they have a candidate they much prefer, they know there are only two who have a chance at winning, and they know that one of those candidates WILL be the winner no matter how much they wish otherwise.  So they do the responsible thing.  They vote for the candidate who, in their view, will have the least negative impact on the country.  It is neither pleasant nor enjoyable.  It is, however, real life.

Brad

[Dntsycnt]

So, yes, voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning IS throwing away your vote.  And it's a slap in the face to those who vote realistically.  Even though they have a candidate they much prefer, they know there are only two who have a chance at winning, and they know that one of those candidates WILL be the winner no matter how much they wish otherwise.  So they do the responsible thing.  They vote for the candidate who, in their view, will have the least negative impact on the country.  It is neither pleasant nor enjoyable.  It is, however, real life.

I suppose I should warm up my slapping hand, then, because those people have been working hard for a while now to destroy our nation.  Those third party candidates aren't viable only because of the people who "vote realistically."

[Brad Johnson]

I suppose I should warm up my slapping hand, then, because those people have been working hard for a while now to destroy our nation.  Those third party candidates aren't viable only because of the people who "vote realistically."

If you want to make them viable, join their campaign and get the word out.  Make it so people want to vote for them.

It still stands that a vote for someone who has no realistic chance of winning is a wasted vote no matter how righteously indignant you may feel.

Brad

[Dntsycnt]

It is not wasted.  A vote is beyond the means of getting a certain person into office.  It is a statement.

[Brad Johnson]

It is not wasted.  A vote is beyond the means of getting a certain person into office.  It is a statement.

So is screaming at people from a street corner.  About as effective, too.

Brad