Sweet!
Pretty wierd arrangement. Paul is out there urging everyone who will listen to vote for a third-party candidate, meanwhile he’s sticking with the Republicans. And he invites Bob Barr over to help out and Barr is all about JUST US LIBERTARIANS, DAMMIT- WE WANT TO WIN RARGH!
I can admire Paul’s desire to shake up the two-party system, and I’m kind of wavering between voting for McCain or some third party myself, but I really don’t think there will be any major breakthrough on the national level any time soon. The best bet is to get some of these guys elected on the local level and sort of work your way up. That’s the idea behind Paul’s Campaign for Liberty.
Paul’s point is that the majority of people just vote for “the lesser of two evils.” If instead we voted third party for someone closer to our ideals then we could have actual debates instead of a dog and pony mud slinging contest. Let’s face it, there is no real debate in politics in this country because these candidates policies have no essential differences. The debates always seem to center around some technical aspect of policy instead of the more fundamental questions of why such policy is even necessary.
Part of the problem is that media can only cover so much and must keep their content in a form that the lowest common denominator can understand which always amounts to an us verses them mentality. There is no easier concept for the unsophisticated average person to understand than good verses evil.
After Ross Perot got 1 in 5 votes in '92, no 3rd parties we’re allowed to come to the debates. Doesn’t sound very democratic to me.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
…every tom dick and crackpot would demand to be up on stage debating with the big dogs.[/quote]
Its the selection process that determines who the “big dogs” are that is the problem. The media throws the spotlight on who looks good as apposed to who actually is saying anything relevant. Again, this can be blamed on the mentality of the media viewing public. Most don’t want to think. They just want a binary choice.
I’ve voted for the Libertarian chump in each of the last three elections. This was for the purpose of voting for the canidate who has the best ideals for how the country should be run regardless of his chances.
Would someone please explain to me how this is not a complete waste of a vote? After all, the Libertarian candidate got less than 400 votes in my state last time.
Also, There’s no electoral college for a third party candidate. As far as I know, there’s no plan in place for how a states votes would be counted if a 3rd party actually won. Please explain this to me, if you know. I’ve been asking this question for years.
Regarding Ross Perot. Everyone I knew at the time voted for him, even my parents who are die hard Republicans. I think Ross actually won the popular vote, but they just didn’t count his votes.
Why should they count his votes? Foxes running a hen house aren’t going to count the votes to bring in a guard dog. Lame analogy, sorry, that’s the best I can do.
[quote]MrRezister wrote:
Pretty wierd arrangement. Paul is out there urging everyone who will listen to vote for a third-party candidate, meanwhile he’s sticking with the Republicans. And he invites Bob Barr over to help out and Barr is all about JUST US LIBERTARIANS, DAMMIT- WE WANT TO WIN RARGH!
I can admire Paul’s desire to shake up the two-party system, and I’m kind of wavering between voting for McCain or some third party myself, but I really don’t think there will be any major breakthrough on the national level any time soon.
The best bet is to get some of these guys elected on the local level and sort of work your way up. That’s the idea behind Paul’s Campaign for Liberty.
I’ve voted 3rd party before, and I’d do it again. I agree with Ralph Nader’s view that voting third party forces the major parties to eventually start taking seriously the views/issues of the minority parties.
As to why Paul is still I Republican… That is seriously a mystery to me.
I didn’t realize this douchebag was still around.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Short of being a billionaire no one without a high political office or big time celebrity status is going to be able to draw the attention of the press and then build the organization that they need in order to launch a serious campaign.[/quote]
The press takes its operating orders from its customers. Yes, the press pays attention to famous people but this because it is demanded by the viewing public. There are more distractions from actual news than there is news worth covering.
People, for some reason, have a need to know what dress so-and-so wore to whatever pointless self-aggrandizing award ceremony.