This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Voting for a Third Party Candidate Is NOT Wasting Our Vote
Preface: Many Americans are waking up to the fact that the Republican and Democratic candidates are incredibly similar. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this.
Many people are starting to realize that Obama and Romney are virtually indistinguishable on war, jobs, freedoms and favoring fatcats instead of the little guy.
Many of us want a third party candidate to win … but are afraid of “wasting our vote”.
Leading conservatives and liberals say that we should vote for a third party candidate.
Judge Napolitano explained today why voting for a third party is not wasting one’s vote:
Can one morally vote for the lesser of two evils? In a word, no. A basic principle of Judeo-Christian teaching and of the natural law to which the country was married by the Declaration of Independence is that one may not knowingly do evil that good may come of it.
***
So, is a vote for [a third party] or no vote at all wasted? I reject the idea that a principled vote is wasted. Your vote is yours, and so long as your vote is consistent with your conscience, it is impossible to waste your vote.
On the other hand, even a small step toward the free market and away from … central economic planning would be at least a small improvement for every American’s freedom. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
(Conservatives like Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin have spoken favorably of third parties as well.)
Liberal news commentator Lawrence O’Donnell urges us to vote for a third party candidate:
The liberal former chief aide to progressive Congressman Alan Grayson – Matt Stoller – agrees. After demonstrating how similar Obama and Romney are on most major issues, Stoller concludes:
I think it’s worth voting for a third party candidate, and I’ll explain why below.
***
There are only five or six states that matter in this election; in the other 44 or 45, your vote on the presidential level doesn’t matter. It is as decorative as a vote for an “American Idol contestant.” So, unless you are in one of the few swing states that matters, a vote for Obama is simply an unabashed endorsement of his policies. But if you are in a swing state, then the question is, what should you do?
***
The people themselves, what they believe and what they don’t, can constrain political leaders. And under Obama, because there is now no one making the anti-torture argument, Americans have become more tolerant of torture, drones, war and authoritarianism in general. The case against Obama is that the people themselves will be better citizens under a Romney administration, distrusting him and placing constraints on his behavior the way they won’t on Obama. As a candidate, Obama promised a whole slew of civil liberties protections, lying the whole time. Obama has successfully organized the left part of the Democratic Party into a force that had rhetorically opposed war and civil liberties violations, but now cheerleads a weakened America …. We must fight this thuggish political culture Bush popularized, and Obama solidified in place.
But can a third-party candidate win? No. So what is the point of voting at all, or voting for a third-party candidate? My answer is that this election is, first and foremost, practice for crisis moments. Elections are just one small part of how social justice change can happen. The best moment for change is actually a crisis, where there is actually policy leverage. … Saying no to evil in 2012 will help us understand who is willing to say no to evil when it really matters. And when you have power during a crisis, there’s no end to the amount of good you can do.
How do we drive large-scale change during moments of crisis? How do we use this election to do so? Well, voting third party or even just honestly portraying Obama’s policy architecture is a good way to identify to ourselves and each other who actually has the integrity to not cave to bullying…. We need to put ourselves into the position to be able to run the government.
After all, if a political revolution came tomorrow, could those who believe in social justice and climate change actually govern?
***
[If we had had more courage, we could have] reorganized our politics. Instead the oligarchs took control, because we weren’t willing to face them down when we needed to show courage. So now we have the worst of all worlds, an inevitably worse crisis and an even more authoritarian structure of governance.
***
The reason to advocate for a third-party candidate is to build the civic muscles willing to say no to the establishment in a crisis moment we all know is coming. Right now, the liberal establishment is teaching its people that letting malevolent political elites do what they want is not only the right path, it is the only path. Anything other than that is dubbed an affront to common decency. Just telling the truth is considered beyond rude.
***
We can do this. And the moments to let us make the changes we need are coming. There is endless good we can do, if enough of us are willing to show the courage that exists within every human being instead of the malevolence and desire for conformity that also exists within every heart.
***
Systems that can’t go on, don’t. The political elites, as much as they kick the can down the road, know this. The question we need to ask ourselves is, do we?
Why I’m Voting for Gary Johnson
One of the main reasons to vote for a third party candidate is that the broken two-party system will never change unless third parties get more backing.
If 5% of the American people vote for a third party candidate, that candidate will receive government matching funds, which will give them a better shot at competing.
Moreover, a showing of 5% or more would create buzz and start a self-fulfilling dynamic of lending credibility and a sense of possibility for a third party.
But do any third party candidates have a chance of getting 5% of the vote.
Yes … Gary Johnson.
Judge Napolitano endorses Gary Johnson. Jesse Ventura endorsed Johnson.
Even Ron Paul hinted that he would vote for Johnson. And in 2010, Paul said that if he didn’t run in 2012, he would endorse Johnson.
A bunch of other people have endorsed Johnson as well. And at least some newspapers – such as the Chattanooga Free Press – have endorsed Johnson.
In fact, polls show that Johnson might reach 5%. A September CNN/ORC International poll showed that 3% of likely voters and 4% of registered voters say they’d vote for Johnson. A Reason-Rupe poll the same month showed Johnson raking in 6% of likely voters.
Those polls were taken before Ron Paul convinced his supporters that he’s out of the race, and before he virtually endorsed Johnson.
Moreover – since the polls were taken - Johnson has gotten on the ballot in 48 states … and won the right for write-in votes for Johnson to be counted in the remaining 2.
Ron Paul supporters can, of course, write in Paul on the ballot. But a write-in vote for Paul will not be counted in most states.
And since he is not affiliated with any party at this point - and since even he will likely himself vote for Johnson - a vote for Paul will not help any third party. No wonder many diehard Paul fans are announcing that they're going with Johnson.
As such, I’m voting for Gary Johnson.
Postscript: Johnson is not perfect, but he is solid on issues of civil rights, liberty, peace and fiscal responsibility.
»
- advertisements -
George,
I completed and mailed my absentee ballot in Ohio a couple of weeks ago. There was no way that I was going to vote for Obama or Romney for all of the reasons you've listed above.
I struggled with whether to write-in or vote for a third party candidate, and I felt that the vote would be wasted either way. In the end, I voted for Gary Johnson. Thanks for making me feel a little better about taking the first step of a thousand mile journey.
In the solidly red and solidly blue states I agree 100% don't vote for Obama or Romney, vote for the 3rd party candidate you like best.
trunkmonkey, sorry to burst your bubble of "feeling a little better", however a vote for a third party is a vote for Obumbler in Chief. I wish someone other than Romney could have been the candidate, but it didn't happen that way. I voted in the primaries for someone other than Romney. The Primaries is where it begins........ Did you vote there?
This election is not a vote for Romney, but a vote against Obama and his socialist communist ways. It's a vote to save America. Do you not realize the DemoRats put the third party candidate there to take votes away from Romney? This is why I can NOT support that man. Follow the money.......
Yours truely,
Bubble Buster!
"It's a vote to save America."
ROFL
yeah - the primaries are the most important part of the election and where we have the greatest influence. People who are registered Independent are seriously missing out on the best opportunity to influence politics. Hold your nose independents and join one of the two lame ass parties so that you can support real candidates in the primaries.
And work for approval voting to fix this false choice: www.approvalvoting.org
Approval voting allows the voter to vote Yes for each candidate on a ballot that the voter approves of. In this way liberals get to vote for Obama (but I wouldn't) AND Jill Stein AND Rocky Anderson. Conservatives get to vote for Romney (but I wouldn't) AND Gary Johnson, etc.
What's amazing is that after one or two cycles people will realize that they don't have to vote for the corrupt main parties any more because their support has cratered because everyone finally realizes how awful they are.
Libertarians the Goddess worshippers of the Republican party. They are like those Catholic chicks who pretend to be different and start spouting Goddess this and Goddess that, they start all the strange prayers and activities. In the end it was all just show because they were to scared to become Atheists.
Trade one belief in for another of similar weight, something close to where you started then live with pretense.
Paul will never run third party. He has his Republican base that continues to put him in office. The old fuck has no worries but still refuses to run outside the party.
That tells me that the Republicans use him as a lightening rod for all the fringe wack jobs. He distracts them so the party can get on with business as usual.
He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. After all the abuse this year why do you think he refuses to run as other than a Republican? Why do you think his son went big for Romney?
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_liberta...
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]
AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]
AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.
Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Censorship: Local and Express,” 1973]
AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.
Your point?
condensation of Gully's rant:
Hippie chicks are alot cooler than Catholic girls.
Ayn Rand really knew about politics back in the 60's.
Great article. The Republican party made it clear at the convention that they didn't want the Libertarians in the party, so I voted (absentee) for Johnson. If the Libertarian party gets 5% of the vote and Romney loses by 5% or less, the Libertarians will have a stronger voice in the Republican party. What do I care if Johnson doesn't win? I'm not placing a bet, I'm voting. If I'm placing a bet, I'm betting on Romney.
Not voting. Fuck off, America. You can make me pay taxes at the point of a gun, but otherwise, I'm not playing...
Don't vote FiSHeS.
Stepping into a voting booth and giving away your power to anyone is bad for your mental, spiritual, and physical health. Each of us is way more powerful than the institutions we have inherited and often helped to empower. It takes a while to reclaim one's personal power from those parasitical creatures, to become whole again, but it can be done. My suggestion is to avoid the politicians, the clergy, the pill pushers, the jerks with badges, the fools in the courts and jails, the corporate goons, the ponzi con men, and learn to live a life you love - with the goal of healing ourselves and maybe some others.
It. Is. Not. Easy. - but it can be done.
We as individuals are not responsible for other peoples paths on this planet. Celebrate that freedom by not getting enmeshed in their webs of self deception. Don't vote, do something that makes your heart glad instead!
The Second American Revolution, unfolding now in a gerrymandered voting district near you.
Hey guess what >>> There is no room for a non-fascist in either party.
Mr. conservative himself, William F. Buckly Jr. always urged others to vote for the right-most electable candidate possible. >>The problem with that advise is you can do just that and still drift ever leftward and/or statist. Well I refuse to do that anymore, I will stand my ground and say NO MORE! I will always vote my conscience from here on out. I will not vote for Democrat or Republican.
Im a Ron Paul activist voting for Gary Johnson -this is a no-brainer. Thank You General Washington. Give my regards to Martha.
This 'american' author again at it.
Yes, voting for a third party is a wasted vote.
'Americans' have pushed forward the idea that an uniformized world would be a peaceful world.
That did not factor in rivalry.
Rivals want the same, wish the same etc. That does not mean that rivals are the same and this is the source of conflicts.
The two factions in the US are rival factions.
They will operate the same policies once in power (minor some adornments to mark a difference in style)
'Americans' do not cast vote on the matter of principles ,save 'american' principles.
So what do they tell? Those principles tell that if you want to be part of the winning faction and get the best end of the shaft once the faction is in power, you've got to vote for that faction.
Voting for a hopeless faction with no chances to win is a wasted vote as you'll end no matter what and even before the race is out on the wrong side of the deal.
So what are those 'americans' experiencing? They are experiencing that the 'american' middle class is overpopulating the world and has to be reduced. An operation that is performed by the 'american' middle class itself.
What is happening is that as 'americans' are losing their middle class status, they automatically find themselves on the wrong side of the deal.
A republican used to vote for his republican party. But contrary to the past (and while it remains valid for some of his republican buddies), the republican party being in power no longer translates into that 'american' voter being more secured on his entitlements. He is now pushed into the ditch.
This 'american' voter now decides to vote for the democrat party, hoping to get re-entitled as he is used to be by the republican party. But here, same, the democratic faction is downsizing too and this guy finds that the democrats in power, he is still on the wrong side of the deal.
Hence his flawed conclusions that the two parties are the same. Nope, they are not, they are rivals.
'America' is a big club and more and more 'americans' find out they are less and less welcomed to the club.
The factions need them but on the other side of the deal, where their contribution will help to secure the remaining 'american' middle class in their entitlements. For that strongly entrenched 'american' middle class, voting for one party or another does not mean the same. A solidly entrenched republican/democrat middle class will get more if the republican/democratic faction is in power.
Whaaaaat?
There are some slight differences-mainly in rhetoric -the big difference is that which party wins determinines which group of party cronies and their constituents gets more of the largesse and slush funds, courtesy of the taxpayers -actually courtesy of their children, since todays pod people zombie American Republocrats prefer to put their largesse and spending on a national credit card payable sometime in the future -actually, since its too much to be paid back -no problem -their chilldren are the collateral-thus the return to feudalism and debt slavery. Thanks Mom and Dad. Vote Gary Johnson.
There are some slight differences-mainly in rhetoric -the big difference is that which party wins determinines which group of party cronies and their constituents gets more of the largesse and slush funds, courtesy of the taxpayers
________________________________
It makes slight differences when you are no longer part of the communauty.
Crony capitalism is what 'americans' call the 'american' communauty spirit when they are not part of that communauty.
As it applies here.
But when you are part of the communauty, whether it is your man or not in the office makes a lot of differences. It can make the difference between being given a lot and nothing.
No matter what government was in charge, for the Indians, who were on the wrong side, it meant the same: 'americans' would steal their land.
When the government boot is on your neck, it does not matter left or right
YES GW, Voting third party IS a wasted vote and a vote for the socialist dictator BHO....
Wrong! In my state, polling data show that a vote cast for a third party candidate will in fact increase Romney's chances of winning the state. You're wrong that a third party vote is a vote for BHO, and also wrong that a third party vote is wasted. This bitch will vote and vote well, meaning I will vote my conscience.
LOL...so unless people vote the way you want them to, they're wasting their vote?
Even more bizarre, unless you have voted for the winner in your state, you have wasted your vote....
I find two of GW's points very interesting:
- "Americans have become more tolerant of torture, drones, war and authoritarianism in general." Sad.
and
- "If 5% of the American people vote for a third party candidate, that candidate will receive government matching funds, which will give them a better shot at competing."
As an interested very-far-and-foreign outsider, I wonder how little support for Ron Paul switched to Judge Napolitano's endorsment of Gary Johnson. The first is one of the very few libertarian pundits that make sense to me when he talks (though I do wonder how he can work for Murdoch) and the second is someone I expected to generate more interest here in ZH and in general.
in the european experience, parties need pressure to function, and fear of being shut out from power for ever is the best pressure - and the basis of a functioning republic based on democratic elections. Competition, bitchez
what competition exists in collusive oligarchy-- uh-- oligopoly? wake up please.
Interesting how?
In the way they contribute to another layer of "our fantastic but fabled past" by this 'american' propagandist author?
'Americans' have never disagreed with tyranny, they have been disagreeing with being tyrannized.
'Americanism' is all situational, about being on the right side of it.
Whaaaaaat?
interesting in the sense that I expected more third party movements by this year. I wonder how much Ron Paul's return to the republican fold has to do with it
btw, did you ever try constructive criticism?
Ah, the 'american' great call for constructive contribution etc
'Americans' like to introduce themselves as promoters of freedom of speech while they are interested in the power to censor only.
Calling for constructive speech etc is just an attempt to censor and discriminate among reports of facts those that are disparaging.
'American' killer to someone:
Okay, what could help me out?
Someone:
-we know you've killed that person. Maybe you should put up with the consequences of your action and tell you've killed a person.
American killer:
- be constructive.
This is how 'americans' censor any fact or solution that might be detrimental to themselves.
I think this is the 20th time I tell you that your trademark "american" label is unnecessary and conflates several things:
Western thought, civilization and so on; western imperialism; first-world politics; a couple of other things
I support free speech, also because the biggest enemy to any human endeavour is ignorance
Criticism is part of free speech. Nevertheless it's constructive criticism that brings home the bacon, eventually, both in my experience and in history
so, again, do you have any constructive thoughts to share today? did you read the Chinese Ambassador's FT piece for example? thoughts?
How could it conflate several things?
Western thought? What is that? The West is a large place and many patterns of thought have been developed there. This idea of western world, civilization is an 'american' idea.
'Americans' even include Japan as part of the western world.
No, there is an 'american' world which goes beyond the west world.
Imperialism is older than 'americanism' etc
So, no, wishing for something is not enough for the thing to be.
'American' is not an unnecessary label, widely contrary to 'american' claims it is (who could have figured that out?)
The rest is quite funny indeed.
The support to freedom of speech is done the 'american' way.
There is bacon to be brought back from this forum? In what way?
That cause could not hold ground here. In one replaces someone by a lawyer, it is clear that this lawyer has better to do according to the wishes of his customer if he wants to be paid.
Hence self censor himself and remove options that are detrimental to his client.
But a lawyer's job is not freedom of speech.
In an 'american' world, has one to do the bidding of a superior to get paid? Yes, indeed. 'American' freedom and all.
How does it relate to freedom of speech?
In the end, with 'americans', it usually ends up with them explaining how censorship (slavery, war...) is freedom of speech (freedom, peace...)
Ah yes, when all else fails, bring out the "bacon" analogy. that coalesces your incoherent ramblings with you incomprehensible chain of thought into a succinct paradigmn of feces.
The angry, confused, and incoherent ramblings of AnAnonymous serve to illustrate the point that if you could teach a chimp to talk, he would still crap in his hand and throw it at you.
His obsessive and deranged comments are the lamentable results of his excremental illness.
in short? in a world without the two continents called Americas, what you call "americanism" would still be visible, in (western) europe
"Western" vs "Eastern" goes back to Europe vs Asia that goes back to Greece vs Persia.
All part of "Western thought", including the Myth of Europe being robbed by Jupiter in Asia.
Can't change the fact that we use the word "western" for this meme.
perhaps in your language "western" has a too strongly "place" orientation? but "America" comes from the name of Amerigo Vespucci, a Western Explorer and it's a "place orientation", too.
While I'd agree with getting rid of the Rs and the Ds, Gary Johnson is just as bad. Look at his record in New Mexico; he's a big government guy who's a social libertarian.
In this election, the only principled action is to not vote.
Manhattan is in total chaos and you're saying the two candidates are indistinguishable? really? hahahahahaha. Ah, "the old days." Time Square in the 70's bitchez!
You're right.
One wears magic underwear and one has nappy hair.
But I miss Times Square in the '70s...
Many folks really are waking up to the "two party" scam.
This is from a staunch Progressive: http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/President-Obama-s-Complete-by-John-Mo...
6) Conservative Bush era policies of the Obama administration: The following is a partial list of some of the negative Bush era polices continued or expanded under the Obama Administration:
1) Overall military spending is significantly up since President Bush left office
2) Bank bailouts with no strings attached continued unabated, with no accountability for past actions
3) Greatly expanded war in Afghanistan, threatening war with Iran and Syria
4) Greatly expanded the unmanned drone strikes in Africa and the Middle East and denial that any civilian casualties have occurred
5) Continued and expanded warrantless wiretapping at great taxpayer expense, and refusal to reveal how many citizens are being spied upon
6) Lack of Justice Dept. or other investigations into the financial collapse, foreclosure fraud, etc.
7) Continuation of indefinite detention without trial, now including American citizens after President Obama signed the NDAA into law
8) Lack of vocal support for workers and unions in Wisconsin or Occupy Wall Street and tacit support of military-style police violence against protesters
9) Expanded oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas, support for more nuclear power plants, not supporting stricter drinking water standards, not properly funding watchdog agencies like the EPA, FDA or USDA
10) Under the Obama administration the FDA has turned its scrutiny inward to investigate FDA scientists who challenged FDA approval of medical devices
11) Prosecution of whistleblowers rather than support, including very harsh treatment of Bradley Manning
12) Federal crackdown on medical marijuana facilities contrary to state law and doctor's and scientist's recommendations
13) Extrajudicial assassinations now including American citizens
GW:
Nice job your right!
Keep up the great posts.
It's not looking like much is changing in November, except for which group get's to play important White-house staff.
Is there a poll on a bigger or smaller kill list if Mitt wins ?
And those making money now, will still be making more after the election.
Most banksters.. have paid off both sides and seem to be betting on Democrats.
If they get the Mitt its like getting your bonus after the bail out.. who would believe they wouldn't hang us or at least ask for a hair-cut but Obama's team pulled through and we got full fee's.
Or like setting down for dinner in Vegas winning all week to the tune of $5,000,000 and your wife is bored puts one dollar in the slot machine and hit's $250,000.00 Jackpot you don't need it but it's cool right.
(top .001% person quote)
Because Mitt said it as a campaign promises so who will stop it?
Most of Congress will get money directly in their check book.
"sweet for the rich"
NO ONE IN CONGRESS SAID HEY INSIDE TRADING IS WRONG UNTIL THE AVERAGE AMERICAN GOT WHAT INSIDE TRADING WAS!
(top .001% person quote)
Remember if we don't get it(our tax break) we will not trickle down our billions at the tax rate we have now that has made us richer than anyone in the family except great grand dad in the twenty's :-)
America got to love it if you live in it!
"Peace"
Thanks for putting this out there. I am so sick of dealing with and hearing from- the idiots who are hopelessly mired in R and D politics. Telling us that we are "wasting our votes." You'd think after 24 years they'd catch on. But they don't. You know who wasted their votes in 2008? The 52% who voted for Obama and the 47% who voted for McCain.
A vote for the lesser evil is still evil. I refuse. Vote well or not at all.
"A vote for the lesser evil is still evil. I refuse. Vote well or not at all."
I absolutely agree and feel compelled to quote one of my favorite "old-time" ZH posters who, sadly, seems to have gone by the wayside - ChumbaWumba:
"I WILL NOT OBEY!"
BE A TRUE PATRIOT THIS YEAR AND JUST SAY NO TO VOTING! THERE IS NO VIABLE 3RD PARTY ANYTHING. THESE SOCIOPATHS SEE NO MESSAGE IN CIVIL ACTS. WAKE UP!
Some interesting videos;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buiO1K_kRSg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJpUQ-6cZrE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_game#Vulnerability_to_confidence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
"I do not ask that you place your hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, just that you support him no longer." - Etienne de la Boetie
"In the most corrupt republic, the laws are most numerous" - Tacitus
This is what the ruling oligarchy is looking for: quiet ond obidient population siting at home and taking orders.
I vote we all go back to the Gold Standard, and don't invite any of the politicians to go with us
RON PAUL 2012
http://occupymonopoly.blogspot.com/2012/10/gold-standard-version-in-this-version.html
So..., does a vote for Johnson help or hurt Obama? Just wondering...
Not very subtle are you? The answer to your question would depend upon the State in which you are voting. The Johnson vote would vary in potency according to the way your State leans. I voted for Johnson already in my State and it is a blow to the Republican Party. Not because I like/dislike either party. It was just my way of giving the finger to the way the Republicans treated Ron Paul. Simple.