Should People Have The Right To Vote For 3rd Party Candidates?

It seems that some people who consider themselves progressives favor taking legal action to prevent 3rd party or independent candidates from appearing on election ballots! They want to restrict the right of people to vote for the candidates or political parties of their choice.

That's not a progressive view of free elections at all. In fact, I think that's a downright reactionary point of view that runs contrary to the concept of free and democratic elections no matter how you try and justify or rationalize it.

What do you think?

We already have a two party system, with legal barriers to third parties. So let's just go all the way. Instead of "third parties" you can organize into affinity groups, community trusts, unions, and take over one party or the other, in coalition with other groups. The parties themselves wouldn't stand for anything, simply an official governing coalition group.

This would be simliar to what we have now, but more open and accountable. No more Republicans paying Nader, or Democrats paying Buchanan. No more "purity purges". To get elected, you have to join up with a majority of one party, and then the majority of everyone, to win.

The "two party system" is a major part of the problem -- better than a "one party system" but only slightly. There are few enough ways to put any real popular pressure on the power duopoly -- and third parties are one way the pressure can be put. (Remember that if third parties had been illegal in 1992 Clinton would not have been elected!) Without that pressure it is less probable, not more probable, that "affinity groups" would take over a major party.

We need
nonpartisan primaries, with
preference voting and instant runoffs

That's a package -- and a minimal package -- to move the country toward democracy. Putting further barriers in the way of third parties would move away from democracy.

I have no problem with third party candidates.

You have the RIGHT to vote for any candidate. But you must be smart enough to realize the CONSEQUENCES of that vote. That was the problem with the last election. People frivolously tossed away their vote on Nader and gave us bush. They could not comprehend the result of their actions. Hopefully they have all learned an amazingly important lesson.

You CAN vote for any candidate. But who SHOULD you vote for????

Obviously any vote that IS NOT FOR JOHN KERRY is a VOTE FOR BUSH.

It is that plain and simple.

No one else has a chance in hell during a sweltering summer day to win.

This election is BETWEEN KERRY and bUSH - that's it. PERIOD.

A vote of conscience is far better than a vote of conformity.

If you have to hold your nose to cast a vote, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

to prohibit political parties completely. To do so would limit freedom, but no more than this proposal would, and with better consequences.

Any and all minor parties should be listed, and we should go over to preference voting with an instant runoff, so that if I want to record my first preference for the Natural Law candidate, I can do so without my second preference for the Democratic candidate being lost.

'one person, one vote' simply isn't working. it's actually led to this two-party mishmash where you have to hold your nose to perform your civic duty. i think that preference voting is an excellent idea, and will encourage the populace to have a broader political view, not just this myopic democrat/republican/waste of vote conundrum.

range. So many people tire of having thier vote taken for granted.

"Instant Runnoff Voting"
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
Flash demo:
http://www.chrisgates.net/irv/

But please recognize that a vote for someone is also a vote against someone else.

I want to participate on DU, but i ignore the actual name and stated purpose of the site, so i'll say "you aren't a progressive since you wont let me talk about Nad...candidate X"

This is the Democratic Underground. Get it? Not the Third Party Underground and not the Progressive Underground.

If you wish to vote for a 3rd party fine do it, you are an american and have that right. If you wish to convert people to your candidate take the damned discussion elsewhere.

Who are you responding too? I think you just posted your comments on the wrong thread.

This is the DEMOCRATIC underground, and in the tradition of democracy and the democratic party, you should NOT be allowed to speak unless you completely agree with the party. You can't discuss "canidate X" unless the subject is "Why we hate him". (Turn Sarcasm off now)

It doesn't look like anyone here is using this thread to push their third party canidate. Most people agree that you should vote your conscience. When didn't that become inconsistant with democratic ideals? Frankly, I think a discussion about, dare I say it, Nader, on this website will do more to serve Kerry than Ralph. I'm not a supporter of Nader's, but I don't mind having the opportunity to try to convice others that they shouldn't support him either.

Grow up! This thread is about helping the GOP get Nader on the ballot in all 50 states.

Vote with logic and reason.

stumping for Nader on this thread? No one on this thread has asked for help in any way to get Nader on the ballot, nor has anyone attempted to advocate voting for him. It looks like someone might just be looking for justificaiton to do it. Most people have left it at "vote for who you want, but just realize what the consequences will be", which is fine. If someone started a thread "10 reasons why you should vote for Nader", then I would think you'd have a point, but right now, you just seem to have some misplaced anger instead.

One should also try to post with logic and reason.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is that people shouldn't use the judicial system as a means to keep someone off the ballot. How does this equate to an endorsement of Nader? You seem to be inferring this, and if so, which one of us is closer to the original point. If Nader want's to be on the ballot, and he gets his signatures, that's fine with me. I'm not going to vote for him.

That's nonsense. I'm not working for Nader's campaign. However, I believe that the Green Party, Reform Party and all other parties and candidates should have the right to be on the ballot and people ought to have the right to vote for them if they wish.

or the Democratic Party underground?
Your vote is for the latter obviously.
Isn't the "Democratic Party underground" an oxymoron, by the way?

I don't think that the "Democratic underground" is an oxymoron.

I also think that other people ALSO have a right to see that all signature requirements, etc., are met for those 3rd-party candidates to appear on the ballot.

Do you think ALL ballot signatures for ALL candidates and parties should be inspected with a microscope to make sure every i is dotted and every t crossed? Perhaps some legal technicality can be found to deny ballot status to some!

I hope your not suggesting a heavily financed and organized effort to deny ballot status to just one political party or candidate that you personally don't like.

via the ballot box...I though fascism was a concern for you.

What he said seems pretty straight-forward.

SARCASM DISCLAIMER

Like your nickname. One of the truly great labor leaders.

Oh. I'm a Cub fan. Attended game 6 at Wrigley Field in the playoffs. That was a real bummer.

Go Cubbies!

of course people have the right to vote bush back in office.;)

is this a strawman?

and that is exactly what a 3rd party presidential vote would be this year.

with the future?

I mean it was a nice pat "gotcha" type of statement....but if you are going to raise the past then I will point to the more recent past and the morons in Germany on the left who were divided and allowed Hitler to come to power...or the stupid fucks in Florida who thought there was no difference cause Ralph looked down from his ivory tower and said so and gave us Bush.

"morons in Germany on the left who were divided and allowed Hitler to come to power.."

Well, that's a whole different discussion. Are you saying that Bush is a Nazi and that we now live under a fascist dictatorship? I know a few ultra-left political sects think that but they are wrong ... in my opinion.

And if I'm wrong, I don't think fascism can be overthrown at the ballot box.

In any case, what's your opinion on the question asked?

If fascism can't be beaten at the ballot box, then explain how FDR managed to do it. He was elected during a period when fascists were at play in our country...he came from upper crust New York blue blood as does our current nominee (save for the state) and he managed to accomlish reforms which kept fascism in check for several decades via the Sherman Anti-Trust Act...which of course, the Clinton administration was reinforcing with the Microsoft case, which case was settled abruptly when Gore could not take office due to the Florida debacle.

SOOOOO...the crux of your post above is fundamentally incorrect.

As to your opening post...I already responded above and no O don't favor suing to keep someone OFF the ballot in most cases as it in all probability violates equal protection clauses of the constitution. That said, I DO favor lawsuits in some instances to preclude someone from pretending to run or perpetrate fraud...and wish someone would finally sue the pants off of La Rouche for such.....I also think that if some states are challenging Nader being on the ballot and he has not met their state requirements (since the states nominate their electors based on their election laws as outlined by US constitutional protocols) then that is fine.

I think you are misrepresenting what is actually occurring in your opening post if that is what you are referencing.

however I don't see the capitalist crisis here that led to fascism in Germany, but Bush/Republican hegemony does scare me enough to probably vote for Kerry as a purely defensive measure. I just don't agree with your statement that voting third party this election makes someone "stupid".

I was just being an ass

(hey! at least I admit it)
But I disagree about the level of crisis. We are right there. Not long ago there was an article in The American Prospect by Robert Kuttner detailing how dangerously close we are to one party rule...the ONLY time we were ever even NEAR this close was during FDR's term ...and FDR had the integrity to make sure it didn't occur...if I remember, I'll go get it in a bit (gotta get some work done right now) and post it here for you.

I think there are lots and lots of parellels politically...without calling anyone a Nazi

and I know that is the stated goal of the Republicans who I view as being dangerous and having fascist ideology. However, there is a big difference between Nazi Germany and contemporary America.

1930s Germany was in a state of economic and political crisis that we are not. First, they were in the middle of a crippling depression. Second, there were many strikes and working-class political activity (including the Social Democrats and Communists). Fascism was a way to restore capitalist order by smashing the trade unions and working-class political parties. By contrast, we are not in a Depression, and sadly, there is no large scale working-class movement, or really, political resistance of any kind to the corporate-dominated state.

Kerry will help ameliorate the excesses of the Repubs, but there will be little political, economic or social progress under Kerry, and the power of the corporations will stay intact. The Democratic Party may be the less evil capitalist party, but AFL-CIO support aside, they are my no means a working-class party (despite the socioeconomic status of most Democratic voters).

1930s Germany was in a state of economic and political crisis that we are not. First, they were in the middle of a crippling depression. Second, there were many strikes and working-class political activity (including the Social Democrats and Communists). Fascism was a way to restore capitalist order by smashing the trade unions and working-class political parties. By contrast, we are not in a Depression, and sadly, there is no large scale working-class movement, or really, political resistance of any kind to the corporate-dominated state.

I'd say we're at the precipice of a crisis in that unions have been busted or are being rendered powerless based on the current paradigms that business and the public are operating under (shipping jobs overseas, promoting draconian labor legislation and having unions go along ets)

We are half a trillion in debt and while inflation seems an immediate concern, DEFLATION is highly possible. We just lived through a stolen election and what MAY have been the burning of the Reichstag in order to foment fear and power.

I'm not ready to predict what Kerry will or won't do just yet...I DO think he's been waiting quite a while since the time he discovered everything he did in the late 80's...and again...he was banged back on his investigations as a junior senator by his own party.

In my own state where Arnold recently used a ballot initiative hanging over people's heads tp carve out the most draconian workers compensation laws passed since 1911...I watched the way organized labor played the game..they backed off since they got THEIR carve out legislative deal and left the little guy (which is the majority of the working class) to fry...claiming they had "other priorities."

I think Nader wants it to get that point you reference in Germany believing nothing short of a violent revolution will bring forth a new progressive era...it's not a risk I am willing to take.

someone from running. Will we do everything within the law to make it as hard as possible for someone to get on the ballot? Yup, it's called democracy. Since third party candidates are free to spout all the election spoiling rhetoric they want without ever having to be responsible for actual policy decisions, I think it is fair that major candidates fight back using all legal means.

I take that to mean you believe the Democratic and Republican parties should do everything in their power to prevent people from having a third choice in elections .... by keeping third parties and independent candidates off the ballot.

I'd rather see the two major parties campaign for votes rather than take legal action to stop people from voting for other choices.

I believe your view encourages a very undemocratic concept and one I'm sure most DU'ers do not subscribe to.

Please think about it some more.

Ir reminds me of 2000 when the Green party was all crying that it was Gore's responsibility to get Nader into the debates.
If you want 3rd party candidates on the ballot, then they have to meet the legal requirements just like everyone else. If you can't meet those requirements then you don't have the support or organization to waste everyone's time.

Again, since third party candidates never have to take responsibility for putting their votes where their mouths are, they should at least follow the law. There is no special dispensation for people with tiny pockets of loyalists.

"If you want 3rd party candidates on the ballot, then they have to meet the legal requirements just like everyone else. If you can't meet those requirements then you don't have the support or organization to waste everyone's time."

And who determines those "legal requirements"? The laws are written and designed to discourage and make it very difficult for 3rd parties and independent candidates to be on the ballot. And who writes those election laws? Representatives of the Democratic and Republican parties in a remarkable display of bi-partisan unity.

And what happens when a 3rd party manages to meet stiff requirements for ballot certification? Frequently Republican and Democratic legislatures write new laws making it even more difficult to achieve ballot recognition. That's anti-democratic and undermines free elections. And if that's not enough to stop people from voting for a 3rd party or independent candidates, the opponents of free elections can always go to a friendly judge to have a independent candidate thrown off the ballot on some technicality.

That's just not right. That's unfair. That's undemocratic. That undermines our right to vote for the candidate and/or party of our choice.

neocon "Republicans" vs neocon "Democrats is NOT a two party system.

That may not be the smartest thing in the world to do. But let them do it if they choose to.

Don

He warned against political parties. And he was right. Both parties play their constituents against each other. But in reality, they are hurting our democracy. We only have two real choices in 2004. Bush or Kerry. And neither of them appeal to me. I like Nader's views, but in reality I'm going to have to vote Kerry to keep Bush out.

I bet a lot of DUers loved it when Ross Perot ran. Clinton barely squeaked into the White House, probably thanks in part to Ross. Yet when the tables are turned and they perceive that Nader will hurt the Dems, they hate it. That is hypocritical.

I'll vote for Kerry, but Nader has every right to run.

Why can't people understand why so many Americans don't vote and see the two parties as tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum? If there was such a difference in the two, why can't one or the other sweep and take a landslide of votes? Why is it so close?

Maybe Gore should have won Tennessee. That state plus the criminal activities in Florida accounted for more votes than Nader got.

You will be flamed for trying to start a civil discussion. My sympathies to you for trying.

and I'll do my best to be certain that the guy I want to win will win. If that means getting your guy off the ballot I'll do that. You go ahead and do what you can to get him on the ballot, but don't expect my help.

Every ballot I've ever seen has a write in option. You can vote for Curious George if you want.

therefore, only 3 armed people should vote third party.

its in the bible, somewhere.

but its what a person values as to voting in a democracy and what they are willing to tolerate from such a political system that determines whether they use the vote for a near goal or latter one.

IHaveADream wrote:

"Obviously any vote that IS NOT FOR JOHN KERRY is a VOTE FOR BUSH.
It is that plain and simple.
This election is BETWEEN KERRY and bUSH - that's it. PERIOD."

Really? Well, were the 400,000 votes cast for Patrick Buchanan in 2000 actually votes for Bush? Or does your twisted logic consider them votes for Gore? And how about all the votes cast for the Libertarian, socialist and other candidates in 2000? Were they also votes for Bush?

That's pretty "plain and simple" but simply not logical or true.

In 1976, I voted for a 3rd Party presidential candidate because I didn't like Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter. Now tell me if I "really" voted for Ford or for Carter using your logic. Perhaps we should flip a coin to determine that.

Candidates do not steal votes from other candidates. Candidates have to convince voters to support them. In the 2000 election Gore failed to convince 7 million registered Democrats to vote for him .... they voted for Bush. And he failed to convince about 3 million Nader voters to support his campaign. Now whose fault is that?

I'm sure that Gore did convince many Nader supporters to vote for himself once they got to the ballot box. How many? I don't know. Perhaps you can tell us how many votes Gore "stole" from Nader.

if you didn't vote for Ford or Carter, you cast your vote for "no one," at least the way our system presently works, it did. Effectively, you could have stayed home. You certainly had the right to vote or not, as you saw fit.

Actually, several thousand Buchanan votes (in a Jewish neighborhood in Florida) WERE meant for Gore, because of the cute way Teresa LePore designed the ballot so that Buchanan's punch hole (hole #2) appeared in Gore's box, and where Gore was supposed to be the #2 choice, but instead was #3. The strange part was that the shorter you were, the harder it was to figure out the ballot, because of the angle at which you saw it.

As for whose fault it was that Bush "won," I truly believe that to be a combination of things, none of which included Gore being a bad candidate. It was poorly designed ballots, election maneuvers by Republicans, the Supreme Court AND idealistic Nader voters. Gore got plenty enough votes to win and especially in Florida.

I don't place the entire blame on Nader voters, but they have to accept their share. Environmental folks and liberals who would vote for Nader, are not the type of folks who would have voted for Bush. Perhaps if some had not voted for Nader, they would have stayed home - I will concede that. If any ONE of the things that had gone wrong with 2000 had not gone wrong (including voting for Nader), thousands of people who have suffered the consequences of Bush's election would not have had to.

I'm not inclined to forgive Nader any more than I am those Republican thugs who stopped the Miami vote count or the "felonious five." I remember Nader's anti-Gore speeches, trying to make Gore out to be just another Bush. He convinced a lot of young, idealistic people there was no difference. THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE.

also, you make an interesting proposition; one has to believe in what you believe.

fair enough from one perspective.

but who says that you get to be the guy?

btw maybe you are fairly new here but i was excoriating nadir supporters long before their 2000 votes.

for whomever they chose. That person does not necessarily have to be on the ballot. You can write them in. If every single person who wanted to be on a ballot could actually get on, the ballots wouldn't be long enough and it would be a waste of taxpayer time and money to put them all on. It makes sense to require that a candidate have a minimum amount of support before he or she is placed on a ballot.

Run off elections seem like a good idea to me, but that would require a change in the law. There is no time for that right now - and it would be very hard to sell, especially to Republicans (way too fair for their taste).