A case against third-party candidates
With less than a week until the election, most people have already made up their minds about who they are going to vote for. However, if you’re thinking about voting for a third-party candidate like Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, I’m going to ask you take a moment to reconsider your choice.
Voting is a right that every single adult in American is entitled to. It’s one of the great equalizers in our country; no matter how much money a candidate or special interest group pours into an election campaign or ballot initiative, you still can’t buy someone’s vote. With that being said, our electoral system has created a somewhat unfortunate system in which, although you may vote for anyone you choose, there are really only two viable candidates in any given race: the candidates of the two major parties.
This is not because of some sort of collusion or conspiracy on the part of the Grand Old Party and the Democrats, but rather a symptom of our electoral system. America has a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post voting system. This means that the first candidate to receive the majority of the votes in any given election wins that election and takes the seat. All other candidates lose and their voters’ views are not represented.
There a various criticisms of this system, but it’s the one the founders chose and the one that has served us relatively well for more than 200 years. In such a system, however, something called Duverger’s law takes effect. Duverger’s law states that first-past-the-post electoral systems trend toward two-party systems. What this means is that in America’s electoral system, we’re almost always going to have two parties vying for your vote and that third (or fourth) parties will almost never win an election. This makes sense if you think about it.
Suppose there are three parties with candidates vying for a single congressional seat in a general election and that two of the three parties are very ideologically similar (the tea party and the Republican Party would be a good example of this). Because all three candidates are competing for the same seat and two parties have very similar constituencies, chances are the party that is dissimilar to the other two is going to win because voters with views closest to the two other parties will split their votes between those two candidates. There have been numerous examples of this phenomenon throughout American history, two recent instances being the Ralph Nader in 2000 and Ross Perot in 1992, the so-called “spoiler” presidential candidates.
So if you’re thinking about voting third party in this upcoming presidential election, or for another candidate in any other race, I would urge you to reconsider. Though a third-party candidate may more closely align with your views, a vote for him is effectively one that’s thrown away. While symbolically voting for a candidate you believe in might feel good, you are also ensuring that a candidate with views even closely resembling yours gets elected.
So your argument against a third party is a an argument for the two party system. How convenient.
The writer is not a moron but well trained in disguising his motives. He does not believe what he writes . It is intended to manipulate you
Voting is not a right or privilege. It simply maintains a system that limits access to individuals who will do what the rulers ask them to do. Actually there are no two parties as imagined. That is a ruse to make constituients believe that lack of action on behalf of the American people is due to dissent between the elected.
With the two primary party candidates having a lot in common and their primary differences being which constitutional rights they want ot strip away, it is the votes for the third party candidates that make the biggest differnece. A vote for either of the two primary party candidates is a vote fo rthe status quo whittling away of our rights and freedoms, a blind acceptance that we have no power against the corporate power that has bought control of the primary party candidates. The more people who vote for third party candidates the more the voice of the american people can be heard stating we are not happy with the way the government is running us instead of us running the government. To say I should vote for one of these two men because they are the only options that have a chance of winning is to say I should throw my vote away and let it melt into the common concensus of defeat to the system because we are all sheep and have no real voice in where our country is going.
Your argument basically is that you shouldn’t vote for a third party candidate because if you do, you’re throwing your vote away. I contend that you’re throwing your vote away much more if you don’t vote for a third party candidate. Let’s be realistic here. With around 150 million votes cast for president, the probability that your single vote will actually influence anything are infinitesimally small. Even the 2000 Florida numbers were separated by hundreds.
If, however, you vote for a third party candidate, your vote will count as significantly more of the total amount. Yes, you will have no influence on the outcome of the election (just like if you voted for a major candidate or sat at home eating chips and watching Pokemon), but you will be making a statement that you are disillusioned with the two main parties, and that you do not buy into them.
Also, your last line doesn’t make sense. Are you trying to say that if you vote for a third party candidate instead of a Democrat or Republican who you would otherwise vote for, the guy with views more opposed to yours would win?
I would say this writer is a idiot, stop reaching for a beggar vote. Plus what the difference between Romney and Obama, I rather be part of the 5% that votes what I believe in and make a change for the future to bring the 3rd party into the mainstream for 2016.
1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported TARP.
2. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama’s “economic stimulus” packages.
3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama’s bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea.
4. Neither candidate supports immediately balancing the federal budget.
5. They both believe in big government and they both have a track record of being big spenders while in office.
6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both fully support the Federal Reserve.
7. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both on record as saying that the president should not question the “independence” of the Federal Reserve.
8. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did a good job during the last financial crisis.
9. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both felt that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke deserved to be renominated to a second term.
10. Both candidates oppose a full audit of the Federal Reserve.
11. Both candidates are on record as saying that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has done a good job.
12. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both been big promoters of universal health care.
13. Mitt Romney was the one who developed the plan that Obamacare was later based upon.
14. Wall Street absolutely showers both candidates with campaign contributions.
15. Neither candidate wants to eliminate the income tax or the IRS.
16. Both candidates want to keep personal income tax rates at the exact same levels for the vast majority of Americans.
17. Both candidates are “open” to the idea of imposing a Value Added Tax on the American people.
18. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the TSA is doing a great job.
19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the NDAA.
20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act.
21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens.
22. Both candidates believe that American citizens suspected of being terrorists can be killed by the president without a trial.
23. Barack Obama has not closed Guantanamo Bay like he promised to do, and Mitt Romney actually wants to double the number of prisoners held there.
24. Both candidates support the practice of “extraordinary rendition”.
25. They both support the job-killing “free trade” agenda of the global elite.
26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.
27. Both candidates are extremely soft on illegal immigration.
28. Neither candidate has any military experience. This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944.
29. Both candidates earned a degree from Harvard University.
30. They both believe in the theory of man-made global warming.
31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a “cap and trade” carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as longas the entire globe goes along with it.
32. Both candidates have a very long record of supporting strict gun control measures.
33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers. Mitt Romney’s “conversion” to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many. In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions on Bain Capital’s investment in a company called “Stericycle” that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.
34. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the Boy Scout ban on openly gay troop leaders is wrong.
35. They both believe that a “two state solution” will bring lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel.
36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges.
37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add “signing statements” to bills when he signs them into law.
38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation.
39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress.
40. Both candidates plan to continue running up more government debt even though the U.S. government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein