If Trump & Clinton are so despised then why not vote third party?

1. 68

   ptosisposted 8 years ago

   If Trump  & Clinton are so despised then why not vote third party?
   
   The Founding Fathers were vehemently against a national party (faction) system, especially a two-party model.  2016 3rd party Prez candidates; Darrell Castle, Gary Johnson, Chris Keniston and Jill Stein.  Sanders supporters cried (literally) when Sanders threw his support to Clinton. Later there were cries of "Jill! Not Hill!" in the DNC. Noticed how you are given a Either/Or Reasoning, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, Black/White Fallacy, False Binary Logic?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 78

   jackclee lmposted 8 years ago

   Because they are out of main stream and will be a wasted vote. When I use a write in candidate, it is a protest vote but it is based on my principles.
   I don't agree with the green party candidates or the libertarian candidate. I am voting for Ted Cruz the only Constitutionalist and outsider.

   replyreport
3. 81

   tamarawilhiteposted 8 years ago

   Because our federal election system is designed for two parties.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      ptosisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      rigged

      replyreport
4. 82

   gmwilliamsposted 8 years ago

   
   
   Many feel that voting for a third party is an exercise in utter futility.  Third party candidates if they are only associated with the specific third party don't get elected.  People know that in order for candidates to be elected, h/she must be in one of the well-known, popular parties such as the Democratic or Republican Party.  In order for a vote to be of substantive value, the candidate is either a Democrat or Republican.  It is the name of the political game.  Even if the candidates aren't so copasetic, one learns to vote for the lesser of the two evils.  In essence, third parties aren't viewed as valid as far as voting goes.  In the end, the votes go to the candidates of the major parties while minor parties.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      ptosisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      that's true. Never really voting FOR always AGAINST the lesser of the two evils.  Wish they would do away  with current system and do an overhaul reform on it.

      replyreport
5. 60

   fpherj48posted 8 years ago

   ptosis......Trump & Clinton have their share of people who "despise" them, as you say, however they both also have their share of supporters.  If some voters waste their vote by going with a 3rd party candidate or a write-in, that's their right whether it seems unwise or not.
   The rest of the voting public will of course choose between the 2 nominated candidates and just as in every election, the result will be what it is and we ALL must live with the outcome.  In fact, we'll live with that outcome for the next 4 years, whether we like it or not. Unless & until we ever have that 3rd party......
   Some things don't change.  I may not be very pleased with EITHER of our choices but prior to November, I know I have to be ready to cast my vote as an American.  Then afterward, must accept the majority choice of the people.....happily or begrudgingly.   Can you come up with a better plan??

   replyreport
   1. 68

      ptosisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      no. Looked up all the various different ways to run an election and none are perfect. Beside, who counts the votes is what matter.

      replyreport
6. 64

   Johnny James Aposted 8 years ago

   In recent polls (Gallup Poll) American Voter Affiliation was listed as 39%Independent; 31% Democrat; 28 Republican; and 2% other. So almost 2 out of every 5 people have not affiliated with a party platform, although when the Independents and other were asked how they leaned politically and were added into the Republican and Democratic fold it turns out 48% align with Democrats; 42% align with Republicans and 10% align with neither. This is important as only the 10% were inclined to align strongly with a 3rd party view.  This can be for various reasons.
   
   Now getting to the races: In the US we have a First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system of government, which means if you the most votes in most political race (even under 50%) or get 50%+ of the Electors in the Presidential race you win outright (no sharing).  So let's say a viable third party candidate came about which caused Clinton to get 180 Delegates; Trump to get 180; and the 3rd party 178.  Since none of the candidates got the 270 delegates to win, the decision to who becomes president would be with the House of Representatives and Trump would win.  This would happen regardless of whether the voters of the 3rd party are more aligned with Trump or Clinton. In many other countries they do not like the FPTP system as it really favors a two party system.  In the US we have historically favored this as it results in less need for conformity. For example, in some countries the Parliament or Congress chooses the leader of the country.  This is great if people have a lot of varied political views and many parties, as compromise candidates are usually chosen because no one party "normally" will have enough seats to control the country. In the US we do not have this.  People do not see themselves as being "too" varied in their beliefs.  However, if we were varied and say had 5 legitimate parties who made up roughly 20% a piece of Congress AND allowed Congress to choose the President then I would say neither Clinton or Trump would win IMHO. However, this mess is really the fault of the PEOPLE and not government, for those who want more choices. For those who like the 2 party system, they are happy people align right and left. The only way to get a viable third party is for people to affiliate (not just say Independent as this does not help either).  Then they may need to change the way we choose a Prez. However, be ready for congressional gridlock as we are not use to consensus building like other countries.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      ptosisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't even know the term a First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system. thank you for your informative answer

      replyreport
7. 78

   FitnezzJimposted 8 years ago

   We are hearing a lot of news reports about disappointed Republicans supporting the Libertarian Party, and disappointed Democrats supporting the Green Party.
   I did a quick on-line review of the major third parties to see if they are on the state ballots.
   The Libertarian Party web-site shows they are on 36 states ballots, with efforts underway to get on the remaining state ballots.
   The Green Party web-site shows they are on 22 states ballots, with efforts underway to get on most of the remaining state ballots.
   It looks like both are on track to be on all ballots.
   
   Like Trump, both the Libertarian Party and the Green Party are regarded by many as not being part of the system that got us to where we are today. In todays environment, that  is a positive. This years election may have no clear winner.  If that happens the selection is governed by a constitutional process, that may give a result that surprises us all.
   
   That would be a change, would it not?

   replyreport
   1. 68

      ptosisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      yes

      replyreport
8. 48

   bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years ago

   The reason you don't vote for third party is because all the loyal drones from both parties will still vote row A or B. So you won't elect someone for president from a third party, just throw your vote away.
   
   It would be a good idea for having a strong third party, but it would take some known names to get on that ticket.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      ptosisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      How do we all build a strong 3rd Party?  I wish I knew how other than dropping the Electoral College

      replyreport
9. 37

   ChristinSposted 8 years ago

   Here's the rub, if we want a different outcome, we have to quit doing the same thing and expecting different results.  I believe the time is now to push 3rd party viability and here's why. 
   
   The majority are dissatisfied with the choice of Hillary or Trump.  The only platform that either has to run on is that they aren't the other one.  The lesser of evils is a divide and conquer strategy that has allowed both parties to become wholly corrupt by the same monied interests. 
   
   Everyone cries "but a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote!" It wouldn't be if more people would find their courage and vote for their convictions instead of hate or fear of a bogeyman.
   
   Now, for candidates from the other parties to get on the national debate stage they must hit 15% in the national polls.  I say, support 3rd party and get them that percentage.  We desperately need more platforms and ideas brought on the national stage to show American's that there are more choices out there.
   
   Get Stein and Johnson in the debates - they are the 2 with the strongest pollings at this moment.  Open the stage to new ideas etc. THEN, if you find they are not polling high enough to win in November, and you are absolutely compelled to vote for a "lesser evil" once again - you can, but we will also have had the opportunity to bring viable new parties onto the scene in a meaningful way for the future.
   
   That seems like the rational answer to me.  I am supporting Jill Stein currently, but I'd be happy to see any "other" candidates on the main stage at the debates.
   
   If we keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results that's the very definition of insanity. Nothing will EVER change until the people DEMAND it.  That's my take on it.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      ptosisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the answer. I feel I have no free will since my vote won't count anyway.

      replyreport