Politics
Out of context: Reply #619
- Started
- Last post
- 33,769 Responses
- tommyo0
Well I can only speak for myself when I say this but here goes my take on that. This is so generalized it's laughable. I've got a ton of work to get to right now but I figured I'd try my best to answer it...and in the end I think a caveman could have written better engrish [sic].
The 'a third party candidate can never win so don't throw away your vote' logic is complete bs (as of right now). And it's only supported by the 'this is the most important election ever.' Thus giving voters no hope for a third party, coupled with urgency. Yes, obtaining a viable 3rd party would take time to develop. Every election is important to some degree, but long term is also very important. But I'd love to see a viable 3rd party candidate for a few reasons.
1. It's easy not to work together when it's Us vs Them, which is the case now. When the congress changes hands like it did in the middle of Clintons presidency as well as in 06 with Bush, you see how excited the politicians get. Now they've got the majority and they get to 'control.' Seems immature to me. It's like 2 kids and both of them are constantly fighting over who gets to sit up front in the car. You also see that the one party who isn't in control is always throwing stones at the one who is...good for us? No, I don't think so. Can you make good solid decisions if you're worried about your party canning you (like Lieberman was) because you vote for the other sides policies too much? Us vs Them is a bad idea, just look at this chatroom. If there are three parties, and we're just assuming for shits and giggles that they're pretty equal in their respective voting population then they're forced to work with each other no? I don't know, I'm not very well versed on branches of government so I'm shooting off the cuff here but it seems like it makes more sense for us, the people.
2. Same as 1, but for the voters. If I have three choices for president - then doesn't that kind of open the gates to allow us to choose the lesser of three evils? I did the math, yeah, three evils. Now we're roped into choosing one of two, and it almost always comes down to what party theology you believe in. Rarely do people switch sides right? Sure there are a select few but really, you only have two choices. So on November 4th you pick your guy and you always feel a little deflated because well, he's not perfect (you've watched 4 months of the other guy bash your guy on tv, but you feel okay with it because your guy bashed him right back for 4 months). It's fucking depressing is what it is, I want to pick the guy I think is BEST for the job. Maybe having 3 parties would present that guy, sorry, or girl. I don't know, I don't have all the answers other than knowing that 2 sides going after each other can't possibly be the best way to get solutions. Imagine working on a project for a client that has two contacts that you have to deal with and they don't like each others ideas, but the guy who can round up enough people in the office to choose his idea wins.
3. For the benefit of the Presidential candidates. Is anyone else here extremely saddened that this is the very first election to have a black man or a woman (not true, there was a woman who ran as vice president on a third party ticket) as a high ranking official? More positions available for a possible presidency means more possibility for diversity. (I actually would love a gay president just to shut up the neocons)
Anyways I guess the goal I'd love to see achieved is more openness to working together and less infighting amongst them. Will it happen, my magic 8 ball says no. Will a big spike in people who vote 3rd party scare the living shit out of the establishment? I think they'd take notice and at the very least hire more PR guys. :P