What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Third party voters: What can you do to make your vote mean something? (1 Viewer)

Captain Cranks

Captain Cranks

Footballguy
My son is a self-described Libertarian and will be voting for Jorgenson in November.  He, like I imagine most third party voters, thinks Democrats and Republicans are a variation of the same thing.  While I don't disagree with his opinion, I have argued that his vote for Jorgenson will have as much impact as a write-in for Scooby Doo.  In four years, if he and the Libertarian Party do nothing else, he'll vote for another Libertarian candidate who has no chance of winning.  Another four years after that?  Same thing.

This cycle seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse.  First you want to get a legitimately competitive candidate.  Then you vote for them.  If you don't do anything about the first part, then the second part is kind of meaningless.  I realize there are huge hurdles to overcome to break the two party system, but I'm curious what needs to happen and what those of you who vote third party are doing about it?         

 
I am under no illusions that a third party candidate can win the presidency. But if you are unhappy with the two major parties yet continue to cast votes for them what incentive do they have to reform?

 
I've had a saying for a while... if everyone who WANTED a strong third party actually VOTED for a third party candidate we'd have a strong third party. A big part of the problem is nobody pulls the trigger on it because they really don't know who these people are unless they're sick in the head like those of us in the PSF and actually pay close attention. 

In terms of actual chance to win you're right, neither Jo nor Scoobs will win this year, but the vote does have an impact if it helps a third party get over the 5% threshold for federal funding. I think the Green's had a real shot to get over that number with Ventura, but that's another conversation. If they can actually get above that number it's still a long road, but it's a big improvement.

After that they need to get on the debate stage, which will be really difficult because it's essentially rigged thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates taking things over to essentially keep things within the club. For now the rule is 15% or higher to be in the debate but I would bet that rule would get raised if a Ventura or Cuban or whoever get in the mix.

I'm not sure about the Libertarians but the Greens are a mess and while I support them because they match up to a lot of what I look for in a platform, I'm very hopeful that the Movement for a People's Party takes off when a lot of the "Bernie-crats" peel off post-Trump era. A ticket like Nina Turner/Cornell West would easily top the funding threshold and may even be able to get enough support to be close to the debate stage. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Murph said:
I am under no illusions that a third party candidate can win the presidency. But if you are unhappy with the two major parties yet continue to cast votes for them what incentive do they have to reform?
Click to expand...
I understand the statement you're intending to make, but unless the candidate becomes competitive then the two parties remain without an incentive to change.  Is Jorgenson's 2% causing Dems and Reps to reform?  Shouldn't the Libertarian Party have spent the last four years making their party more professional, break down the barriers to entry, and find a candidate with some name recognition?  Instead, we've got dudes running around with boots on their heads and another no name candidate.

 
Captain Cranks said:
I understand the statement you're intending to make, but unless the candidate becomes competitive then the two parties remain without an incentive to change.  Is Jorgenson's 2% causing Dems and Reps to reform?  Shouldn't the Libertarian Party have spent the last four years making their party more professional, break down the barriers to entry, and find a candidate with some name recognition?  Instead, we've got dudes running around with boots on their heads and another no name candidate.
Click to expand...
To be perfectly honest you're probably right. The single largest voting bloc in this country is non-voters. There will always be apathy, but if the parties were actually offering solutions people would turn out and that would make a difference. But you are right, they clearly don't care.

I urgently want the Democratic Party to reform because my fear is that even if they defeat Trump, the next Trump-like candidate will actually be competent. And if Dems don't deliver for regular people they will lose. But that is different question than the one you intended for this thread.

 
KiddLattimer said:
I've had a saying for a while... if everyone who WANTED a strong third party actually VOTED for a third party candidate we'd have a strong third party. A big part of the problem is nobody pulls the trigger on it because they really don't know who these people are unless they're sick in the head like those of us in the PSF and actually pay close attention. 

In terms of actual chance to win you're right, neither Jo nor Scoobs will win this year, but the vote does have an impact if it helps a third party get over the 5% threshold for federal funding. I think the Green's had a real shot to get over that number with Ventura, but that's another conversation. If they can actually get above that number it's still a long road, but it's a big improvement.

After that they need to get on the debate stage, which will be really difficult because it's essentially rigged thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates taking things over to essentially keep things within the club. For now the rule is 15% or higher to be in the debate but I would bet that rule would get raised if a Ventura or Cuban or whoever get in the mix.

I'm not sure about the Libertarians but the Greens are a mess and while I support them because they match up to a lot of what I look for in a platform, I'm very hopeful that the Movement for a People's Party takes off when a lot of the "Bernie-crats" peel off post-Trump era. A ticket like Nina Turner/Cornell West would easily top the funding threshold and may even be able to get enough support to be close to the debate stage. 
Click to expand...
Agreed, but they're not giving people a reason to vote third party with crappy candidates.  Ventura is a great example of someone with personality and some name recognition.  If the LP could get a Mark Cuban-type to run, they'd get some traction.  But who in god's name is Jo Jorgensen?  Why are dudes allowed to run around the convention with boots on their head?  Act like a professional organization and put forth a quality candidate with personality.  

But back to my original point, it feels like those most appropriate to demand this would be people willing to vote third party.  If the only thing third party voters are doing is voting third party every four years regardless of candidate, to Murph's point, what incentive does the LP have to reform?

 
I'm voting for Biden this time around, but I normally vote Libertarian.  My reasoning is that by doing so, I'm vocally indicating that I'm unsatisfied with either of the two main options, I want the country to move in a more libertarian direction, and I feel strongly enough about it that I'm willing to send a costly signal to that effect (by taking time out of my day to show up at the polls).

My second choice, at this point, is to not vote.  I'd still be registering my dissatisfaction with the process, but not in a way that anybody could easily quantify or categorize.  When I show up and vote L, everybody knows why I did that.  If I decide not to vote, people might think that I was just lazy, forgot what day the election was, had a car break down, or something else.  Unless they're clairvoyant, they have no idea why I didn't turn out.

The last option is to vote for a major party candidate.  I'm doing that this time because I have an extremely strong preference for Biden over Trump, but I don't harbor any illusion about my vote mattering.  My state is going to go red no matter what, and if it doesn't, then my state's electoral votes won't matter.

 
I'm not as familiar with the internal workings of the Greens, but yeah the LP is a complete joke. If the problem was just Boot on the head guy it would maybe be solvable. But it's not even a fringe element that's the problem. I believe it was in 2016 when someone basically got booed off the stage for suggesting seat belts aren't tyranny.

I second KiddLattimer's suggestion to check out the People's Party. There's no guarantee they won't screw it up too, but they seem to be legitimately trying to build a foundation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Murph said:
I'm not as familiar with the internal workings of the Greens, but yeah the LP is a complete joke. If the problem was just Boot on the head guy it would maybe be solvable. But it's not even a fringe element that's the problem. I believe it was in 2016 when someone basically got booed off the stage for suggesting seat belts aren't tyranny.
Click to expand...
In 2016, both major parties nominated candidates with ties to a child sex trafficking ring.

 
The claim about there being no difference is a whole separate issue. But if you want a 3rd party - Libertarian, Constitution, Taxpayers, one of the 3 socialist parties - to be effective the answer is to join them not just vote for them. Third parties in the US never last because they never grow. Having looked at 3rd parties closely over time though largely their voters aren’t really aware of their platforms because they’re just a vessel for dissatisfaction.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just watched RonPaulMessage30.com.  Ron being Ron, and the most interesting thing in the video I found was the painting of Forrest Gump's house in the background.  He did get that Libertarian motivation going in me a bit though calling out all sides for their BS.  

 
Captain Cranks said:
My son is a self-described Libertarian and will be voting for Jorgenson in November.  He, like I imagine most third party voters, thinks Democrats and Republicans are a variation of the same thing.  While I don't disagree with his opinion, I have argued that his vote for Jorgenson will have as much impact as a write-in for Scooby Doo.  In four years, if he and the Libertarian Party do nothing else, he'll vote for another Libertarian candidate who has no chance of winning.  Another four years after that?  Same thing.

This cycle seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse.  First you want to get a legitimately competitive candidate.  Then you vote for them.  If you don't do anything about the first part, then the second part is kind of meaningless.  I realize there are huge hurdles to overcome to break the two party system, but I'm curious what needs to happen and what those of you who vote third party are doing about it?         
Click to expand...
I disagree that a Libertarian vote is the same as a vote for Scooby Doo. Any candidate that gets 5% of the vote will be eligible for FEC grants.

Also, the more votes you get, the more attention you attract. Ross Perot probably doesn't become a "thing" if he gets 4.9% of the vote while Scooby, Scrappy, and Yabba Do (yes that's a real character -- look it up!) each get a similar amount.

Also, Trump probably doesn't become president in 2016 if Perot doesn't get 19% of the vote in 1992. It all started with Perot.

 
tommyGunZ said:
Thanks for sharing. I think it’s impossible to tell the smartest folks from an administration that they can’t earn money after they aren’t employed by the government, or that they can’t later work in govt if they make bank in private industry.  After reading that, I don’t have any problem with those people working In a Biden administration.  
Click to expand...
In general I agree with that statement but when it comes to the military industrial schilling I can't support brutally killing kids in the poorest countries in the world for the sake of making millions and billions for corporations.  If others do 🤷‍♂️  that's why we all get votes.

 
tommyGunZ said:
When you vote for President of the United States, you're voting for an entire administration, not just the President.  When Trump's nominee for RBG is approved by the Senate, I wonder if 2016 3rd party voters will still believe that there was no substantive differences between Trump and HRC.
Click to expand...
Yes and that's why many people that don't like Trump voted for him (will vote for him again?).  They are voting for the entire administration including the SCOTUS nomination.  Glad we finally can all agree on this.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Yes and that's why many people that don't like Trump voted for him (will vote for him again?).  They are voting for the entire administration including the SCOTUS nomination.  Glad we finally can all agree on this.
Click to expand...
In a vacuum this is a perfectly reasonable.  The problem begins when they rationalize and defend conduct that's detrimental to the rule of law and undermines our democracy.  At that point it's putting party before country.  That's not reasonable.    

 
Captain Cranks said:
In a vacuum this is a perfectly reasonable.  The problem begins when they rationalize and defend conduct that's detrimental to the rule of law and undermines our democracy.  At that point it's putting party before country.  That's not reasonable.    
Click to expand...
Yes.  Both options in 2016 were doing that.  We had to choose between two criminals.  Neither side wants to admit their candidate was a criminal though

 
Captain Cranks said:
My son is a self-described Libertarian and will be voting for Jorgenson in November.  He, like I imagine most third party voters, thinks Democrats and Republicans are a variation of the same thing.  While I don't disagree with his opinion, I have argued that his vote for Jorgenson will have as much impact as a write-in for Scooby Doo.  In four years, if he and the Libertarian Party do nothing else, he'll vote for another Libertarian candidate who has no chance of winning.  Another four years after that?  Same thing.

This cycle seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse.  First you want to get a legitimately competitive candidate.  Then you vote for them.  If you don't do anything about the first part, then the second part is kind of meaningless.  I realize there are huge hurdles to overcome to break the two party system, but I'm curious what needs to happen and what those of you who vote third party are doing about it?         
Click to expand...
If he doesn't live in a swing state his vote is meaningless anyway.

 
Captain Cranks said:
I understand the statement you're intending to make, but unless the candidate becomes competitive then the two parties remain without an incentive to change.  Is Jorgenson's 2% causing Dems and Reps to reform?  Shouldn't the Libertarian Party have spent the last four years making their party more professional, break down the barriers to entry, and find a candidate with some name recognition?  Instead, we've got dudes running around with boots on their heads and another no name candidate.
Click to expand...
If the number of third party voters is greater than the margin of victory, then that itself should be incentive to change.

 
Captain Cranks said:
Agreed, but they're not giving people a reason to vote third party with crappy candidates.  Ventura is a great example of someone with personality and some name recognition.  If the LP could get a Mark Cuban-type to run, they'd get some traction.  But who in god's name is Jo Jorgensen?  Why are dudes allowed to run around the convention with boots on their head?  Act like a professional organization and put forth a quality candidate with personality.  

But back to my original point, it feels like those most appropriate to demand this would be people willing to vote third party.  If the only thing third party voters are doing is voting third party every four years regardless of candidate, to Murph's point, what incentive does the LP have to reform?
Click to expand...
Have you seen the two major party candidates?

You are implying that denying  the LP your vote will incentivize change within the party but don't think it will work with the two major parties?

 
tommyGunZ said:
When you vote for President of the United States, you're voting for an entire administration, not just the President.  When Trump's nominee for RBG is approved by the Senate, I wonder if 2016 3rd party voters will still believe that there was no substantive differences between Trump and HRC.
Click to expand...
On that note, when Green Party voters change their votes to DJT because the Dems are removing them from the ballot, I wonder if Dem vote shamers will still believe that there is no discernable difference between voting Green and voting DJT.

 
Captain Cranks said:
In a vacuum this is a perfectly reasonable.  The problem begins when they rationalize and defend conduct that's detrimental to the rule of law and undermines our democracy.  At that point it's putting party before country.  That's not reasonable.    
Click to expand...
What conduct are you referring to?

 
Navin Johnson said:
Rich Conway said:
And in the long run, advocate for ranked order voting and proportional representation rather than winner take all.
Click to expand...
Didn't that pass in Maine only to have both major parties sue to have it removed?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.  An obvious part of the problem is that the dominant parties will fight tooth and nail to prevent anything that might reduce their current stranglehold on power.  It will be a hard slog.

 
Navin Johnson said:
On that note, when Green Party voters change their votes to DJT because the Dems are removing them from the ballot, I wonder if Dem vote shamers will still believe that there is no discernable difference between voting Green and voting DJT.
Click to expand...
If environmentalists vote for DJT, they are obviously not voting based on the issues.  I tend to believe it's best for Democrats to not worry about trying to win the votes of completely irrational voters.    :shrug:

 
tommyGunZ said:
If environmentalists vote for DJT, they are obviously not voting based on the issues.  I tend to believe it's best for Democrats to not worry about trying to win the votes of completely irrational voters.    :shrug:
Click to expand...
This is right up there with the Bobby Knight rape analogy.

 
Navin Johnson said:
On that note, when Green Party voters change their votes to DJT because the Dems are removing them from the ballot, I wonder if Dem vote shamers will still believe that there is no discernable difference between voting Green and voting DJT.
Click to expand...
But, but, but... The MSNBC crowd has been telling me that 0 and -1 are the same thing the last four years 🤯

 
Navin Johnson said:
On that note, when Green Party voters change their votes to DJT because the Dems are removing them from the ballot, I wonder if Dem vote shamers will still believe that there is no discernable difference between voting Green and voting DJT.
Click to expand...
The State Supreme Court that ruled against the Green Party to be on the WI Ballot is a conservative majority and ruled 6-1 against them.  

 
tommyGunZ said:
Navin Johnson said:
On that note, when Green Party voters change their votes to DJT because the Dems are removing them from the ballot, I wonder if Dem vote shamers will still believe that there is no discernable difference between voting Green and voting DJT.
Click to expand...
If environmentalists vote for DJT, they are obviously not voting based on the issues.  I tend to believe it's best for Democrats to not worry about trying to win the votes of completely irrational voters.   
Click to expand...
Great point and something that confuses the hell out of me.  Trump supporters are generally in places where people love to hunt & fish and Trump is virtually eliminating all environmental regulations. 

 
AAABatteries said:
If it’s a conservative majority why would that lead you to vote Trump?   :confused:  
Click to expand...
The Elections Commission, controlled by the Dems, removed them from the ballot because their VP changed addresses (due to the pandemic) since filing.  The court actually declined to rule on the merits of the Green Party request but said it would cause too much confusion to mail out new ballots.

 
Howie Hawkins' campaign website says, "We will never reverse pending planetary environmental collapse as long as we have a capitalist economy where competition for profits drives the blind, relentless growth that is consuming the environment, heating up the planet, and destroying ecological foundations of human civilization." 
Click to expand...
Donald Trump's campaign website says that "President Trump has approved the infrastructure and provided the resources needed to unleash oil and gas production in the U.S. The administration approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, supporting an estimated total of 42,000 jobs and $2 billion in wages. President Trump rescinded President Obama’s costly Clean Power Plan and instead has proposed the Affordable Clean Energy Rule. In addition to the Clean Power Plan, the Trump administration has rescinded many costly Obama-Era regulations."
Click to expand...
It's almost as if they're the same person...  

 
Navin Johnson said:
What conduct are you referring to?
Click to expand...
Introducing/seeking out foreign interference in our election.  Dissuading people from absentee voting during a pandemic.  Intentionally casting doubt on its results.  Demonizing and punishing whistleblowers who are willing to call out wrongdoing.  I could go on if you need me to.  

 
Navin Johnson said:
The Elections Commission, controlled by the Dems, removed them from the ballot because their VP changed addresses (due to the pandemic) since filing.  The court actually declined to rule on the merits of the Green Party request but said it would cause too much confusion to mail out new ballots.
Click to expand...
cut off one's nose to spite one's face

 
You'd think after seeing the debate last night that more people would vote third party.  My vote is for Jorgensen.  Neither Trump or Biden is fit to be President.

 
At one point in the debate I think Biden said he ‘beat the hell’ out of Bernie.  Just incredible callousness towards someone who’s been working double-OT to shill him for president.  I think it sucks that progressives don’t have a viable choice this year.  

 
ren hoek said:
At one point in the debate I think Biden said he ‘beat the hell’ out of Bernie.  Just incredible callousness towards someone who’s been working double-OT to shill him for president.  I think it sucks that progressives don’t have a viable choice this year.  
Click to expand...
In the very few moments where Biden had enough time to talk about actual policy I thought he did himself a big disservice in terms of lefty votes. Pushing away from the Green New Deal especially... felt like Trump really boxed him in very well there and Biden fell for it

 
KiddLattimer said:
In the very few moments where Biden had enough time to talk about actual policy I thought he did himself a big disservice in terms of lefty votes. Pushing away from the Green New Deal especially... felt like Trump really boxed him in very well there and Biden fell for it
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's starting to feel like Trump's "radical left!" posturing is just about getting Biden to admit he stands for nothing when it comes to left policy goals.  

 
ren hoek said:
Yeah, it's starting to feel like Trump's "radical left!" posturing is just about getting Biden to admit he stands for nothing when it comes to left policy goals.  
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. Division is how he wins. I get this may not be clear to those that generally don't pay attention, but I expect those actively engaged in politics to know this and react accordingly. 

 
MAC_32 said:
Well, yeah. Division is how he wins. I get this may not be clear to those that generally don't pay attention, but I expect those actively engaged in politics to know this and react accordingly. 
Click to expand...
Division is how they've all won.  They exclude dissident voices from the debate stage, castigate Trump supporters as racist/sexist inbreds, shove a bogus conspiracy theory down our throats about Trump being a Putin agent, shame the actual left wing of the party for not settling for neoliberalism, act like they care about the poor while quietly legislating for the obscenely rich.  It wasn't all that long ago that Biden talked about not wanting his kids to "grow up in a racial jungle."  

If the Democrats wanted us they shouldn't have nominated someone that supported the Iraq War, drug war, mass incarceration, bank bailouts, who literally wrote the Patriot Act and tried to pass it in 1996.  It's 2020 and the Dem nominee doesn't even support legalizing marijuana.  That's some warped definition of "unity," where we're all just supposed to fall in line with a horrible candidate that doesn't reflect any of our values.  I'm reacting accordingly, I am not supporting either of them.  

 
I'm not following. Biden isn't left. He won the nomination via the middle lane. The most appropriate word that comes to mind when I ponder expecting him to pivot and support left policy goals is ridiculous. But then again I've not given any real thought to policy recently - it isn't driving my decision making in this election. I expect to revert to my 3rd party voting ways sooner rather than later, but not this year.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ren hoek
I think voters are worse than nonvoters
Replies
22
Views
993
ren hoek
ren hoek
GordonGekko
Do You Believe College Liberals Have Hijacked The Democratic Party? (5/19/22 7:43 PST)
2
Replies
77
Views
2K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
GordonGekko
New York Times: "Will Asian Americans Bolt From The Democratic Party?" (6/20/22 23:20 PST)
Replies
36
Views
873
jon_mx
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top