Staying home in November or voting third party does nothing to fix -anything-

Speaking in terms of the presidential election. You have a perfect right to do so, as your vote is your own, but if you believe your non-vote or third party vote will have an impact beyond some personal sense of satisfaction, it's my opinion that you are deluded. And I see it as an extremely selfish, egocentric delusion. Here's why I have that opinion:

First, there is zero evidence that such behavior shifts the political debate in this country to where we want it to go. Non-voters are simply thrown into a monolithic mass for media purposes--no one bothers too much to figure out the motivation of non-voters. Ralph Nader makes the claim regularly that non-voters are simply fed up with the lack of a true opposition party, and doubtless many are. But you'll note that even when offered an alternative in Nader, one who for all his imbecilic political strategy -does- speak to the issues which would galvanize those non-voters, the non-voters in vast majority do what their name would imply. They don't vote. Media coverage on -why- non-voters don't vote is virtually non-existent, and when people don't vote for progressive reasons the personal impact is a salved conscience (a falsely salved conscience as I will argue), but the impact on the wider state of politics is simply a mathematical reduction of the progressive vote's impact. The media don't do nuance, and the motivations of non-voters, given such a massive block of people, are basically non-measurable. And no one in the media wants to measure such motivations anyway. So much for not voting.

Third party voting is far more acceptable to me, but in the past few decades (and likely in '08) it still doesn't change the political debate. Too few people put too few votes into too few viable progressive third parties. With the lack of instant runoff voting, voting third party has only two chances to push the political debate in the right direction:

1. Expanding the clout of a progressive third party by jumping the 5% mark, etc. Even assuming significant numbers can be attained, building a competitive party from that will take years, and progressive third party clout is far -better- expanded by actually doing serious, committed, time-consuming work for the party. That can include your two minutes in the voting booth, but it doesn't need to.

2. The Democratic Party taking notice of third party defections, and moving in a progressive direction. This is extremely unlikely to occur. As we saw with Nader splitting the progressive vote in 2000 in a way that at least indirectly hurt the Democrats, the response of the Democrats was not at -all- a move left. You can blame ambitious pols all you want for not reading the defection properly, but they simply don't, and won't. They see Republicans winning left and right after a split progressive vote and what do they do? They imitate Republicans. The heart of almost every establishment pol is fixated on getting elected and staying in power. Ambitious people who mostly just want those two things will imitate general success, not seek out third party voters whose motivations or requirements to vote Democratic are a total mystery. They will imitate the Republicans, and they did after 2000.

So much for simply voting third party. Again it does not move the political debate or change the views of the Democratic Party--again it just mathematically reduces the progressive vote's impact.

Work hard for progressive third parties. Fight for the most progressive candidate in the primaries and caucuses (hello Dennis!). Just don't tell me that your staying home or voting third party will make a positive impact to anyone but you.

As Chomsky would say, the small differences between the parties can be magnified by the power of the office. While no serious progressive would feel great about voting for a pro-NAFTA, anti-gay marriage, IWR "yes" Democrat, that same Democrat would vastly improve things for millions of people worldwide. Don't believe me? Here are three basic examples:

1. Foreign policy. Enablers are always better than war mongers. They're not better in Congress, where the exclusive "yes" or "no" nature of legislating makes ass-covering floor statements which go along with a war vote almost meaningless, but you tell me which Democratic candidates are as eager to rattle the saber as -any- of the Republican candidates. Even a seemingly small difference can mean millions of lives saved due to the monolithic power of the presidency.

2. SCOTUS. Don't even try to tell me that -any- GOP candidate would nominate someone more acceptable than even the worst Democratic candidate. Despite the tragic and frustrating fear Democrats have of wholly supporting gay rights, or their enabling of civil liberties violations, you cannot name me one GOP candidate that would offer superior nominations to SCOTUS than even the worst Democratic candidate. This impacts the rights of millions of people for decades to come. Even a small improvement or a halting in the erosion of our rights seems worth a single vote to me.

3. The cabinet! Interior, Labor, State! Democrats are far too corporate-friendly, but show me a GOP candidate who would create a better atmosphere for corporate regulation, labor rights and diplomacy than even the worst Democrat. Our natural treasures, our relations around the world and the battle against corporate domination are -all- better served with a Democrat in office. Not as much as anyone would like, but again isn't that difference worth two minutes and a vote?

To me a presidential vote isn't about "who is most in touch with my views?" That's what the primary is about, and, more importantly, what working for progressive third parties and great politicians is about. If a self-satisfied refusal to submit to the broken and frustrating two party system is all you want your vote to do, that's fine. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. But don't pretend such a protest vote will have any impact on actual policy. A Democrat in office as opposed to a Republican will make the most significant policy change, however frustratingly small that change may seem. If you want to do the most good with your vote, if you want to save the most lives, make the most systematic changes to the political debate, a Democrat in office is sadly your only vehicle.

But that's just the vote. To make a real effective change in political discourse outside of just voting, we need years of hard work and thousands of committed individuals and resources to influence the system. That's the important contribution. For right-wing views to gain the supremacy they have it took decades, and billions in think tanks and policy groups--it didn't happen by people just showing up to vote. If you're really into changing our political discourse, just voting isn't going to be enough. In the present situation, the best you can hope for your vote is either feeling good about not voting for anyone bad, or holding your nose and making a difference for millions, possibly billions of people. It sucks, but as of right now with our system it's the most your vote in isolation can do to change policy and our political discourse.

I am prescribing you one viewing of the documentary An Unreasonable Man. I think it would do a lot for you and help you better understand third party voters.

I just don't believe there is any basis for the argument that such a vote in isolation will move the country left.

It's about electing leaders who stand up for what you believe in. And not just voting for those who "will" win. Vote for who should win. If that happens to be a Ralph Nader, so be it. It's the Democrats fault for being lousy candidates or for running a lousy Democratic candidate for president.

To me, two major issues are the war and the Patriot Act. Voting for the same people who brought us the war and the Patriot Act will not solve those two problems.

My .02

You think that any of them are as bad on corporate regulation? Human rights? Civil liberties?

eom

Interesting.

.

it is way down on my list of priorities right about now. I can not imagine voting for her in the vain hope should would choose a "liberal" supreme court nominee. get real! :eyes:

There is a reason ruppert/aipac/the dlc/big oil/corporations are all behind her and it is not progressive. I consider hillary a neocon as much as bush.

Fixed this to change a snarky reply.

I urge you to reconsider the baseless insulting nature of that reply.

If she wants to make the choice to have the war trump everything else, that's fine. But there are consequences to that choice.

it doesn't bother me a bit.

which hillary could give a shit about. I am under no illusions that if I voted for her she would actually pick a pro-choice SC nominee. What are you smokin?

reading problem?

someone who was?

She's rated 100% by NARAL. Why do you think she'd suddenly change her position on choice?

based on her past assorted waffles and flip flops, that she would choose a 'safe' nominee who would not voice an opinion on choice.

Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. She's never waivered on choice, and she'd have a Democratic majority in the Senate, so what possible reason could she have to select a "safe" choice?

None that I can see.

blue dogs (or bush dogs). That is not a democratic majority as the last few votes in congress have shown.

If you think Hillary Clinton is going to spend her entire life working toward the presidency to suddenly give up her position on choice, you should probably review her record a bit more. The chances of that happening are zero.

There are plenty of items in Hillary's record that deserve significant criticism. Choice is not one of them.

completely.

Your assertion that Hillary is going to ignore the choice issue when determining potential SC justices is ridiculous.

as thinking she does not have a neo-con vision based foreign policy. When did that happen? Was she always a war hawk? NO! She flipped to show that a woman can be "strong on terra". Much like Kerry did, that IWR vote was about politics, not policy. To think she could not flip on any other issue be it politics or how the wind is blowing that day, is naive. You are the one who seems detached. :eyes:

Your post originally referenced foreign policy specifically. That's a topic for another thread, but no, I do not see any fundamental foreign policy differences between a Bush and an Obama or Edwards presidency. I want to see an end to American imperialism, and all I see most of the dem candidates suggesting is tweaking the status quo, not changing it fundamentally.

Full disclosure: I believe Kucinich is an exception, and I fully intend to vote democratic as long as Rep. Kucinich is on the ballot.

But to focus on that for a bit--how can you equate an enthusiastic push to war with a milquetoast enabling vote? They are two completely different things. The "yes" votes between a war monger and a war enabler in Congress are the same, but the motivation behind them is hugely different. Neither is good, but how can you pass up the chance to put someone in office who is less likely to start a war that costs millions of lives?

:rofl:

Look, I'm done trying to parse candidates campaign-speak. If they SAY they're tough on defense, the sham WOT, gunboat diplomacy, etc., then I'll just take them at their word and vote for someone else. Which war hawk is less likely to start a war, the ones who pursue war enthusiastically or the ones who pursue it less enthusiastically? Ummm..., neither represents the America I want to leave my kids.

When you elect someone with the power to start a belligerent, imperialist war, isn't it best that it be the person -least- likely to do so?

...then so be it.

Does our responsibility include ensuring we vote for the candidate who is least likely to start a nasty war AND can conceivably win? Otherwise it splits the antiwar vote and indirectly helps the war-mongering candidate, no? I'm not saying third parties shouldn't run for fear of enabling nasty right-wingers, but is that a consideration? Voting for principles vs. voting for one of the candidates most likely to actually have to make those decisions?

she is in lockstep with the neocon agenda....

Hillary Clinton, AIPAC and Iran

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01032006.html

<snip>

AIPAC's hypocrisy is stomach-turning, to say the least. The goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to be slapped across the knuckles while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. And who is propping up AIPAC's hypocritical position? Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.

As the top Democratic recipient of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle thus far, pocketing over $58,000 as of October 31 last year, Senator Clinton now has Iran in her cross-hairs.

During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered on December 11, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, "I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials , including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel's right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day ... It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel ..."


Here is a video of her at an AIPAC speech from this year. Now what does she say about Iran that is different from anyone at the AEI?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5ulGiPp0LQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsabbah%2Ebiz%2Fmt%2Farchives%2F2007%2F09%2F03%2Fhillary%2Dclinton%2Dat%2Daipac%2Dbomb%2Diran%2F

And better than all the GOP candidates, who are worthless troglodytes for many other reasons. I don't care for Hillary at all and certainly won't vote for her in my caucus, but against anyone the GOP puts up, it's worth my vote to make sure the worse candidate does -not- get charge of our overpowered executive branch.

the lesser of two evils vote. No thanks.

Strength Through Peace

Corporate regulation - we'll have to wait and see

Human rights - sacntions against Iraq come to mind

Civil liberties - they did vote for FISA

I do. Particularly the top-tier candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The current court is perfectly able to overturn roe without any changes in seats.

...or my political interests. I might as well vote for a republican as for a DINO or a corporatist dem.

Third parties give voters an opportunity to make a political statement about the representation they want. THAT is how American politics is supposed to work. Insisting that we vote only for candidates from column R or column D is only one candidate away from sham democracies where only one dictator's name appears on the ballot.

Or do they not warrant any consideration from you? If your hypothesis is true, why didn't the political scene move left after 2000, when the Greens took a significant chunk away from the Democrats?

I don't vote Green solely to force the democratic party leftward. I vote green to DEFEAT right wing candidates, whomever they might be. Whether they're dems or repubs is immaterial if neither represents good leadership for America.

We have the insipid dem leadership we have today because voters applied the sort of binomial thinking you're advocating. You want more of the same? Vote for it, and that's precisely what you'll get.

If you have to choose between someone likely to start another belligerent war costing millions of lives and someone less likely to do so, why would you vote for someone who can have no impact whatsoever?

That is precisely how I view DINOs and dem corporate tools. Yes, why vote for them?

What are you basing this on?

I never said "a democrat wouldn't have any" positive influence. I will happily vote for any democrat that I think will affect real change, especially in foreign policy and environmental policy, which are among my signature issues presently. I do say that most of the current dem candidates will not try to fundamentally alter U.S. policies in those areas, and so they won't earn my vote. Period.

What I won't do is vote for someone I think provides the wrong leadership, simply because they have a D after their name.

Look, everybody here ought to hate our binary political system and intensely corrupt political parties. All I'm saying is that those insignificant differences between two wrong candidates can mean a lot to people who have more to worry about than having to hold their nose for two minutes in a voting booth. I'm sure lots of Iraqi civilians would be less than sympathetic to a 2000 voter's "I won't vote for Gore, he's a corporatist!" rationale. (And yeah, in many ways the guy -was- a corporatist).

Repub candidate (badly wrong for America)

Dem candidate (somewhat wrong for America)

3^rd party candidate (right for America)


I will happily vote for the candidate who is best for my country, as I see it.

And one of those two therefore is the only one that will effect policy change. In other words it's important if the "right for America" candidate doesn't win to ensure the "somewhat wrong for America" candidate does. Wouldn't you agree? Now the question is how best to do that. IRV would make the choice much easier, no?

First, it's incredibly defeatist to simply dismiss the candidacy of someone who legitimately represents our political interests in favor of someone who doesn't simply because they haven't joined one or the other major party-- if people vote for the 3^rd party candidate then their candidacy will prevail.

Second, I thought my cynicism was total, but the statement "...it's important if the "right for America" candidate doesn't win to ensure the "somewhat wrong for America" candidate does" made my head explode because you're advocating purposefully throwing your vote away to the lesser evil even when there are better alternatives? That's crazy. I'll vote for the lesser evil if there aren't any alternatives, but not if there are.

I do agree with you about IRV, completely.

When the poll numbers are in the day before the election, if a wide enough gulf exists between the solid third party candidate and the frontrunners, said third party candidate has already lost the game. The way to improve that showing is not to just vote in November, but to increase exposure and beef up the ballot box as much as possible leading up to the vote. The actual vote itself I don't see as having as significant an impact.

why indeed?

:thumbsup:

Excellent post.

One point you made...SCOTUS. A lot of people here oppose Hillary Rodham Clinton's candidacy. Fine. But there is NO way a President Hillary Rodham Clinton would appoint a Samuel Alito to SCOTUS...or any other far right jurist. And with a 85 year old John Paul Stevens, the next President could very well have the chance to appoint at least one Justice. With so many important issues the Court can rule on, we no longer have the luxury of not voting or voting for that 3rd party candidate.

to vote doesn't seem to fixing anything either. Think about the 06 change in majority and all the things we thought would get fixed and haven't. Ending the Iraq occupation, restoring habeas corpus, eliminating the un- American Patriot act and Military Commissions Act, Impeachment, etc.

But the minimum wage increase, to cite one example, improves the lives of millions of people. The investigations into the DoJ and other examples of Bush admin malfeasance would not exist with a GOP majority. Congressional bills pushing to get troops out (as timid as they are) would not exist if the GOP were in majority. These all are indicative of significant differences. Do you think we are no better off with a Democratic Congress/presidency than we are with the GOP dominating all branches of government?

Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry would have nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

None of our candidates in '00 would have gone to war in Iraq on false pretenses.

None of our candidates in '00 or '04 would have granted rich people enormous tax cuts in the middle of a war. Or at all.

But, but...they're exactly the same!

I will never ever forget these last few years. I know there is frustration with too many right leaning Dems, but lord, if we had pulled together in the past two elections, things may not have been perfect, but we wouldn't be in this big a mess. Our presidential candidates differed greatly from *'s followers and no one can convince me otherwise. In the beginning of *'s presidency, I used to say to myself, "things couldn't get worse". Yuh, right - that idiot has done more damage than I could ever have imagined. I'll vote and it will be for the chosen Democratic candidate, period. And, he/she probably won't be the one I voted for in the primary.

Yeah, that'll fix everything.

:sarcasm:

Until we get a proper instant runoff voting system, voting for someone who can't win will fix nothing.

The people in office fixing anything that is.

SCOTUS appointments don't matter. Interior and Labor secretaries don't matter. Is that really what you mean?

A pittance of an increase for both and nothing else. Yeah, they did a real bang up job on SCOTUS appts.

We're done past the point of no return where voting or even protesting will be for anything other than show. Like politics, one big fucking show.

Do they matter to you or not?

It's gonna take alot more than fiegned compassion towards average joes to fix the mess we're in.

The dog and pony vote show hasn't gotten us anywhere for the last 30+ years if you've been paying any attention at all.

But that vote is all I'll give the worst of them, even though their holding it hostage is less than a happy situation.

There are times when I think going third party or sitting it out are legitimate ways of letting our corporately- taken- over party leadership that we're willing to take a chance on losing to repubs rather than have yet another spineless republican-lite candidate for whatever office shoved down our throats. But right now just isn't one of those times, for all the excellently explained reasons above.

by by Norman Solomon, 1994

"And I see it as an extremely selfish, egocentric delusion."

Blow me.

I'm through choosing the lesser of two evils. I'm not supporting any Democrats that have abdicated their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution.

None have my Senators or Congressman have thus far, and none will get my support.

Its bullshit reasoning like yours that allows the Democrats to continue with their jello like spines and weak positions on everything.

If a Democrat wants my vote, they have to earn it. Otherwise Republicans are going to be elected. Sucks, but thats the way it is.

:toast:

Sucks, that's the way it is?

Without IRV, there's no way to vote for the -best- candidate on foreign policy (likely a third party) without indirectly helping the most war-mongering candidate of the two major parties. Again, sucks, but that's the way it is.

No, as far as foreign policy is concerned, the differences are slight, and more related to perception management than actual substance. A Democratic president, excepting Kucinich, would bomb a nation "back to the stone age" at the behest of one corporation or another if they can come up with a good enough pretense.

The only candidate who is less likely to commit to some type of war of aggression against a nation that presents no threat to us would be Kucinich.

Think about this, EVERY president since WWII has engaged in just this type of act at one time or another during their presidency, political party seemed to have not mattered.

Or Bush and Clinton as far as foreign policy. If you get big picture enough, you can claim they are all generally the same, but there is no -way- you can look at the GOP candidates' statements on Guantanamo, aggression towards Iran, etc., and claim that even the worst Democratic candidate is at that level of belligerence. I guess I just can't get that big picture.

Democrats are less HONEST, to be frank about it, on their foreign policy. Republicans like to talk tough and then send other people's kids into dangerous areas, Democrats like to talk about "peace" and then do the same damned thing. Its the substance that matters, not the rhetoric. To be frank, I don't TRUST any of the candidates, excepting Kucinich, on foreign policy.

The only actual difference that can be perceived is the neo-con influence, and the Bush II policy. If Gore was elected into office in 2000, I doubt we would have invaded Iraq, but we would STILL be bombing them occasionally, a continuation of a policy started under Bush I. The biggest sin of Bush the lesser's policy is the stupidity of it, since Vietnam, America has been careful in beating up nations that can't fight back effectively, not occupying them for extended periods of time, allowing for retaliation. That's the biggest divergence between the Chimporer's policy and every other President before him.

Rewarding enablers with votes only encourages more enabling.

That's sort of the dilemma we have at the moment.

The only thing worse than a neocon is a neocon enabler!

Which one do you think would be more likely to start wars? In Congress a "yes" vote is a "yes" vote, but in the presidency it's a little different.

There's that pathetic lesser of two evils BS again, and it's disgusting! We can do better, and that's why I'll vote for Kucinich in '08.

which has become a lame subsidiary of the same corporatist war and sickness machine that has long owned the repukes

then I'm not sure (for the first time in 30+ years) what I'll do.

That right choice being Obama or Edwards, since Gore apparently isn't running.

Either one of those two would be far less "more of the same" than what seems to be everyone's inevitable, Madam Windsock.

I don't know, apparently America is just too slow to figure out that it needs change and FAST. I hardly think it's my fault that because I'll choose to sit out should Mrs. "there are positives to outsourcing" gain the nomination, America will get "more of the same" no matter who they select. And it'll happen over and over and over again until they get it through their skulls NOT to vote against their interests, just as they've done the past two elections (yes, each one was stolen, but my point is neither one should have been CLOSE enough to steal). My county and the one next to it are heavily blue anyway, but that will get tested should we nominate "the inevitable".

And why does it have to come down to "the best I can HOPE for"?

Bills don't get paid on HOPE. Economies cannot recover on HOPE. People who aren't meant to go to diploma mill colleges can't just HOPE they'll qualify for a job that pays at least a liveable wage. 47 million people shouldn't have to go to sleep at night HOPING they'll not have a debilitating illness that bankrupts their entire family.

There needs to be a plan to revive the economy to accommodate ALL workers, not just toss your hands in the air and give up. There needs to be a PLAN for single-payer health care system, not a shrug, sigh and a "Oh well, that's just the way it is". You want to know WHY all those jobs went overseas . . . one of the main reasons is that Big Insurance frowns on single payer, therefore the employer ends up holding the bag. I WANT to pay taxes to help myself, my family and my fellow citizens, not funnel it in the pockets of the Bushes, Cheneys, Rices and Chertoffs via the Pentasewer.

I WANT a candidate that doesn't support corporate rights over human rights. I DON'T think that's too damned much to ask or expect from a DEMOCRATIC candidate. Hillary has not at ALL proven to me through her actions and statements that she can stand up to corporations or the MIC. I don't want someone who'll work with them, because in the end, it will be about them and their needs, not ours. AS USUAL.

And FYI, I VOTED for Gore. I VOTED for and supported Kerry because at least he was honest, albeit a bad campaigner.

Hillary is just a baggage-ridden windsock who takes no strong progressive STANDS on anything.

And if a Dem candidate loses to, offense dished out, a Puke from the WEAKEST GOP field since 1996, it wouldn't be because I didn't support the Dem. It's because we chose a Dem that didn't convince enough voters that things would change for the better.

ANY Democrat that gets nominated, even (ecccch) Hillary), should win this election by at LEAST 30-40 electoral votes over ANYone from the Repuke side. Bewsh's wholesale destruction of this country for the past 7 years should be cause ENOUGH not to stick another Republican in, let alone lack of name recognition and lack of positions that don't reek of pro-corporate to religious-right-pandering nutjobbery.

As for the likelihood of a Dem win, I agree it's extremely high. And what I argued to mike_c above about wrangling our winner-take-all voting system goes for Democratic candidates as well. In other words if not-as-bad has a wide enough lead over completely-bad in my state, I would feel free to vote for better-than-both.

I mean, talking about how "electable" Fred Thompson is . . . I can't take that or him seriously, I'm sorry. Same with "Mr. 9/11" or the Bewsh-hugger. Mitt Romney is a plain-ol' stuffed shirt, they'd never nominate Ron Paul and Sam Brownback . . . ha ha . . . HA ha ha . . . well, let's just say there were more insects than people in his last speaking engagement.

Edwards or Obama would win this election by at least 40 electoral votes.

A ticket with both would be a rout.

I sure haven't.

I think the basic truth of your premise does not mitigate in the least, reepated failures by the Democratic Leadership to take substantive action against the most grotesque State Criminality that most of us has ever had the misfortune of living in.

You are correct, but it changes nothing of the situation. Sure, I'll vote for the Dems, what else I am gonna do?

But as I cast the vote, I will know deep in my eart that EVEN IF a Democratic Emperor is permittede to warm the throne between Emperors George and Jeb that virtually ALL of our greatest problems from rising wealth inequality to the shredding of the Constitution and everything in between will NOT be addressed in any meaningful way.

(yes, I continue to pray that I will be wrong but seven years of living in Totalitarian Amerika since the Old Republic died, has shown me that anyone who understands the nature of totalitarianism and applies these rules to Bush Amerika, will be right 3-to-4 times more often that anyone who believes that the Old American Repubkic is strong and healthy and thinks this is just another round of pendulum swing)

The New Deal was a hell of a correction, and we may be able to work our way to something similar.

One is that it actually matters who anybody votes for.

The whole thing is rigged on so many levels that your assumption is provably false.


I'm done with voting for the candidate who isn't worse. My vote is no longer going to be held hostage to the boggieman

I'm voting for the candidate who I want as my representitive, even though I know the whole thing is rigged, on many levels.

Seriously, if there's no point in being involved in the political process because the entire thing is rigged, why should anyone bother?

If you really think your vote is meaningless and won't matter, why vote at all?

1. Habit
2. Conviction. I believe in a democratic republic, even though I realise we are an empire
3. To annoy those who are ripping us off.

It's the same reason I send letters to my Repo and DINO Reps. I know they are going to vote against my interests, but I want to let them know I know.

If that's the case, citizen activism on electoral reform is worth more than how you cast your vote.

activism is one of our last tools.

You're right that solving problems politically is a long struggle. I can well understand people who don't bother voting, so unresponsive have we allowed our governments to become.

Voting is never enough.

responsibility, might not be a bad idea

If you do all that and the third party candidate still has no chance to win in your state, I choose to use my vote to ensure the worst guy -doesn't- win. That goes both ways--if the lesser-evil candidate is way ahead of the evil candidate, then by all means a vote for the great third party candidate is far more viable.

Everyone wants us all to give in and vote for Clinton when the primaries haven't even taken place yet. I don't think people realize how many people will not vote for her and the ones that do may need some reasoning why not to vote for her because it will hurt the Democrats chance at getting in office. I know the media and the polls say she is gonna win but everyone I speak to doesn't just say they are voting for someone else but they express a dislike towards her and say that if shes the nominee, they will have to use their vote elsewhere.

Now if someone could get me a post with this many replies about Kucinich, then I will get excited.

Even when "we" win, we can't seem to "fix" anything.

First, we've been engaged in this "voting for lesser evil" cycle for years and decades now, and look where it has gotten us. Not just Bush the idiot, but also Bill Clinton, a corporate candidate who merely paid lip service to traditional Democratic principles while screwing over the population. Thus it becomes simply a question of when are you going to be fed up with this two party/same corporate master shitstorm of an electoral process? Many, many people are waking up to the fact that there indeed is little or no difference between the parties. Thus you have a population that is tired of politics as is and are looking for a different way. Thus they are seriously considering a third party vote. We're tired of continously voting against somebody or something and are yearning, desperately, to vote for somebody.

Second point, voting third party isn't a waste at all if that third party candidate wins, or even if that third party candidate places well. Yeah, I know, I know, that I'm talking a long shot here, but those odds are becoming increasingly shorter as more people become disgusted with both of the major parties. This relates to the above point, since as I said, people are yearning to vote for somebody or something. And as they look across the political landscape right now, they're horrified. On the right they have the various shades of ugly conservatism running on the 'Pug ticket. On the left, they see more two faced, double speaking politicians who won't give a straight answer, who contradict their words with their actions. The only candidate whose been right on the issues all along has gotten marginalized and dismissed as some sort of kook.

Thus, a third party looks attractive. People figure that voting their traditional two party Democratic vote is a waste anyway, so why not at least "waste" the vote voting for somebody that they genuinely like and agree with on the positions. Besides, if enough people do vote third party, then their vote won't be wasted and they will have made a real difference with their vote.

I guess it comes down to negative and positive. People are tired of voting negative, and are becoming so fed up that they are going to say fuck it, and vote positive. And frankly, in my opinion, that's a great thing.

"it is a great thing". :)

Imagine if, after McGovern was crushed by Nixon, rather than letting the 'old guard' take back control of the party, we had dug in and kept control and kept putting progressive candidates up against right wing neoliberal asshats. Sure, we would have gotten beaten, but no worse than Carter v Reagan or Mondale v Reagan, and as the Washington Consensus beat down the living standards of working families, fucked up the whole planet with their insane profit and growth over everything policies, and dealt with peak oil by, as we have seen, getting us mired in an impossible planetary resource war, the Democratic Party would be offering people the sane alternative to more of the same. Instead we are having this debate.

All we get is a choice of which branch of the War Party and Kleptocracy Inc we want in power.

It is interesting, the public discourse has begun to move more to the center (and left) on many issues for the first time in my political memory. Just one example is that more than a few people are talking seriously about issues of Universal Healthcare - and the public is predominantly behind it and rejecting the conservative talking points being sold for several years per the "ownership society" rhetoric.

Keep getting both populist and progressive candidates who are democrats and the party will move as the electorate is moving (to the center and finally - a wee bit over the center left - lets use the momentum.)

... I didn't make the game - don't yell at me for how it currently works.

Democracy isn't coming back by the ballot box. It's going to have to come back through NGO's or a free press which doesn't appear anytime soon to coming around the horizon. I'm going to pick and choose this time. Guess I will be concentrating on judges in 08 and the legislature.

Voting third party votes against yourself.

IF
we had instant runoff, it could be okay.

BUT, THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

IF
third party candidates could take their vote and add it to the vote count of whomever they would choose, okay, third-party voting could be worthy.

BUT, THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN EITHER.

WE ARE NOT THIS FREE IN AMERICA!