3rd party candidates

[Wraith]

who here is voting for a 3rd party candidate im voting for badnarik of the libertarians (see my sig). Why are you voting for them even though you know they won't win? Im voting for badnarik because i dislike both bush and john kerry, and i think the libertarians are truly the only political party to get things right. take a look at their site if you arent too busy, its no boring

www.lp.org/issues

i know he wont win, but i wish he could

 

[Ikerous]

I personally would prefer them
Over the two main parties

Too bad itll never happen

They definitely have a lot
Of really good ideas

 

[aeroripper]

I was gonna vote for kerry (lesser of two evils but still not great)

but i read up on the green party and they sound a whole lot more reassuring than anything the repubs and democrates have done.

Also the fact that i don't think these two main parties are really doing what the american people WANT, but rather being told what we want (*cough patriot act *cough)

Besides i really agree with the de-corporatizing of the "free media". You'll never see a democrat\republican president do that. Although i think clinton passed the telecommunications act of 1996. I don't know a ton about it i should read up on it more.

Also it seems the parties are in bed with the large corporations and now they are making big decisions right along with the ones in power. But why is it we know all about bush and kerry but we don't know nearly enough of the people with the real financial power?

Enron was a good example of this but there are countless others... 2 am and i'm to lazy to look them up

that's my .02

 

[Neutrino]

I'd be curious to hear you expand on your reasons for voting for him. Now certainly it is your right to do so if you wish, but I don't truly understand anyone's reasons for voting for a third party candidate.

From an idealogical view point I can understand it, but looking at the reality of the situation I do not. See, to me it doesn't make sense for two reasons.

1) The person will not be elected, thus your vote will not have an influence on US politics.
2) You give up your chance to choose between the two candidates who are actually competing for the presidency.

I realize you don't like either person, but surely it is not a perfectly equal dislike? As unpalatable as it may seem, would it not be better to vote for the one you dislike the least so that atleast you can have an influence in the election which is in favor of your views, even if it is only the choice between the lesser of two evils?

Just curious.

 

[qckbeam]

I'm personally a big fan of the Pansexual Peace Party!

Their tagline is:

"Sex is Good! Sex is Great! Yea, Sex!"

Christ, could you imagine their convention?!

 

[OCybrManO]

I would pick Nader over Kerry. I would rather have Kerry than Bush. Only two of those three have a chance. Sorry, Ralph.

EDIT: If the "Apathy Party," the "Dumbass Political Party," the "Free Pony and Ice Cream Political Party," the "Cybercratic Party," the "Keg Party," the "Lefty Righty Party," the "Reform Silly Party of Florida," or the "Stupid People's Party" were active I would have a tough choice.

 

[Wraith]

1) The person will not be elected, thus your vote will not have an influence on US politics.
2) You give up your chance to choose between the two candidates who are actually competing for the presidency.

1. yes i know, that's the sad fact. but maybe if everyone started voting for who they really wanted, in 50-100 years from now this could change who knows? someone has to start it off. i vote badnarik out of symbolism, its a symbol of my rebellion and my choice not to play into their 2-party bullshit. one day it wont just be a symbol or a statement, hopefully one day it'll matter.

2. the honest to god truth is i really don't want either one of these guys to win. i could choose bush, who in my eyes is a corporate whore who cares only about money and his approval ratings. running the most secretive presidency to date. spending our surplus then putting us into debt. or i could choose kerry, who came out of nowhere, who has nice plans that cannot be financially backed, and no one knows the truth about this guys past or anything he says.

i just wanted to hear the opinions of some other 3rd party guys, because i feel like i could either throw away my vote for someone i don't want, or throw it away on someone who won't win. i have been disenfranchised in this manner.

i believe there should be a law saying that corporations cannot give money to any candidates, and there should be a law saying that every news channel has to air each candidates advertisement for free 3 times per month or something and not sell it to them. that way everyone gets an even amount of media coverage. also ALL candidates should be allowed to debate and stuff.

 

[Revisedsoul]

now if everyone who would vote nader realizes if they vote nader, he will prolly win, instead of hiding behind if noone is going to vote for him why should i.

 

[OCybrManO]

there should be a law saying that every news channel has to air each candidates advertisement for free 3 times per month or something and not sell it to them. that way everyone gets an even amount of media coverage. also ALL candidates should be allowed to debate and stuff.

... even Lobsterman?

 

[Reaktor4]

If i was american id love to vote for ralph nader.
ali g: is natural gases runnin out?
nader: no
ali g: why dont you get humanoids who make a lot of natural gas to maybe squeeze one out into a box oh sumfin like that, and use dat enegy?
nader: well, you already have tens of millions of cattle, but they havnt firgured out how to put a box, on their asshole.
lol

 

[Sprafa]

bipartisan system is forced by the Electoral College.

3rd parties don't want to admit it but their dream is to become one of the two parties....

 

[Jakeic]

psh, i saw an interview the other day on CNN with Ralph where he seemed down right positive about John Kerry.

I would vote for Nader as well, he is a much better man than either of those two.