How does running on a third party ticket make a mockery of the election process?

[^_^ 5,021]

How does running on a third party ticket make a mockery of the election process? It would seem to me that a move like that is precisely what the electoral process is supposed to be about.

Mr. Tancredo's support for sealing the U.S. border against illegal immigrants, slashing government spending and taking on the Republican Party's elite have resonated with tea-party activists, his decision to run for governor as the candidate of the tiny American Constitution Party set many of his former fans fuming.

"This seems like an enormous power grab," said Lesley Hollywood, director of the Northern Colorado Tea Party. "He's making a mockery out of himself and the entire election process."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704700404575391530401169408.html

No, you stupid fu##ing teabagger. Making a mockery of the election process is continuing to support a party that no longer represents your interests, only because that party offers a chance at victory.

Tancredo is standing up for his principles. I wish more people would do that. We'd have a better electoral process, it's the current one that is a mockery.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I can't stand conservatives and liberals who eat up the two-party system. Hell a good majority of our problems today are due to the two-party system....

Imagine what would happen if the ruling class had to deal with a 3rd group, or even more in congress. *gasp* the horror!

[^_^ 5,021]

I can't stand conservatives and liberals who eat up the two-party system. Hell a good majority of our problems today are due to the two-party system....

Imagine what would happen if the ruling class had to deal with a 3rd group, or even more in congress. *gasp* the horror!

I agree. And saying a third party isn't viable is a bad reason to not support one. Politics is just as much about influencing power (see: tea party) as it is about actual victory.

[IndigoSkies 168]

So this proves once again that tea party and any party that's involved only cares about winning the election and having the power. All this nonsense about caring for the little guy, the people, etc are just that, nonsense. It's all about the money and the power.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So this proves once again that tea party and any party that's involved only cares about winning the election and having the power. All this nonsense about caring for the little guy, the people, etc are just that, nonsense. It's all about the money and the power.

Not necessarily.

While I agree with the premise that we need new parties as I said before, at the same time the political climate is only that of the two parties.

The Tea Party feels that they need to infiltrate and take over the Republican party because that's the only way in this society they will get elected. You can be a 'tea party' canddiate running as a Republican. Hell, even some states won't put anything but Republicans and Democrats on their ballots. A state still gets to choose who appears and who doesn't appear on them.

Also in cases past, if a third-party canddiate runs, all it does is give an advantage to one of the other major 2 parties. See the elections of 1992 and 1996 for example... Bush Sr and Bob Dole never stood a chance and Clinton never got 50% of the vote in either election....

To have new parties come in, it's going to take an attitude change in the American people and a lesson of that there is not just two parties. The current system we have now with the two of them, is one of the things the founding fathers feared the most. People need to be educated to understand this and need to understand why it's bad for the country.

[IndigoSkies 168]

Which States do not allow anything beside Democrats and Republicans on their ballots? They should be refered to United Nation, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, European Union, African Union, National Democratic Institute, Carter Center, and Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, US Election Commission. It's not free election if all parties aren't allowed to ballot. Do they at least allow write in candidates?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Which States do not allow anything beside Democrats and Republicans on their ballots? They should be refered to United Nation, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, European Union, African Union, National Democratic Institute, Carter Center, and Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, US Election Commission. It's not free election if all parties aren't allowed to ballot. Do they at least allow write in candidates?

Write-in candidates are always allowed.

Most states don't just allow a party onto the ballot without a certain amount of signatures/certain sign of support that that current system is comfortable with. For instance in the 2008 election, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr only appeared on a handful of state ballots and had to be written in everywhere else. Kind of sad when you really think about it... Each state sets their own rules though in the election process. There's not really a national standard set of rules...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The election process itself is what's cementing the two party rule we have. In a winner-takes-all election, emerging political parties are usually crushed.

[luckytxn 2,264]

The election process itself is what's cementing the two party rule we have. In a winner-takes-all election, emerging political parties are usually crushed.

It is very easy for one of the two parties to usurp any smaller party. The green party has been by the Socialists. The Neocons are at the moment usurping the Tea party. In fact not long ago I read a book that showed for many centuries now many third party tried have been tried and every one of them were usurped by one of the two majors.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Write-in candidates are always allowed.

Most states don't just allow a party onto the ballot without a certain amount of signatures/certain sign of support that that current system is comfortable with. For instance in the 2008 election, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr only appeared on a handful of state ballots and had to be written in everywhere else. Kind of sad when you really think about it... Each state sets their own rules though in the election process. There's not really a national standard set of rules...

Texas is one of those states. It is very hard to get any party on the ballot. There has to be a certain amount of registered voters in the last major election sign a petition submitted by a certain date to the secretary of state for a party to be allowed to be posted on the ballot.

[Peikko 1,575]

Texas is one of those states. It is very hard to get any party on the ballot. There has to be a certain amount of registered voters in the last major election sign a petition submitted by a certain date to the secretary of state for a party to be allowed to be posted on the ballot.

That does not seem very democratic. A less polarized electoral process/system would indeed improve the lot of the 'people'.

[alienlovechild 75]

No, you stupid fu##ing teabagger. Making a mockery of the election process is continuing to support a party that no longer represents your interests, only because that party offers a chance at victory.

Coming from the guy who's never heard of the long line of winners from Nader, Perot and Anderson.

None of guys' ideas got anywhere.

[^_^ 5,021]

Coming from the guy who's never heard of the long line of winners from Nader, Perot and Anderson.

None of guys' ideas got anywhere.

Their ideas never got anywhere, therefore their candidacies made a mockery of the electoral process?

Their candidacies were precisely what the electoral process is designed to do - let people run for office. It's the height of arrogance for D's and R's to say third-party candidacies devalue the process. Whether their ideas make it into the mainstream or not really isn't the point.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Their ideas never got anywhere, therefore their candidacies made a mockery of the electoral process?

Their candidacies were precisely what the electoral process is designed to do - let people run for office. It's the height of arrogance for D's and R's to say third-party candidacies devalue the process. Whether their ideas make it into the mainstream or not really isn't the point.

The third parties and their ideas I do not think made a mockery. It was the ideas from them that captured the moods of many people. One of the two major parties would notice the growing movements and then try to capture the idea and incorporate it into their own party before the other one did and thus guaranteeing them the votes. Usually the two majors are so large that they are very much unwieldy that it is very hard to get them to notice changes and moods in the populace and third parties and movements that start up and then get popular are a great way for an entrenched party to make changes.

Personally, the GOP used to espouse pretty much what the Tea party is saying but proved to be just paying lip service and instead gave us more spending and more government. I expected them to start trying to usurp the tea party movement from the beginning. I also expect them to do the same thing as before and that is say they will do it but the actions will be different.

[alienlovechild 75]

Their ideas never got anywhere, therefore their candidacies made a mockery of the electoral process?

Their candidacies were precisely what the electoral process is designed to do - let people run for office. It's the height of arrogance for D's and R's to say third-party candidacies devalue the process. Whether their ideas make it into the mainstream or not really isn't the point.

luckytxn has right that third parties ideas can get absorbed by the two big parties but the most recent examples I gave didn't really matter beyond a symbolic protest vote.

If the third party candidates achieve nothing and their ideas don't go anywhere the only result is a divided vote throwing a victory to the side without ideological cracks.

If your third party candidates and run and lose everytime, you can get a superiority complex that comes with not being "part of the system" but then again you've no real input into what's happening so it's the same as not voting at all. Better yet, just write in whoever you want because it doesn't matter except to you.