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

[mawilson 2,133]

I agree. And saying a third party isn't viable is a bad reason to not support one.

It doesn't matter if it's viable or not - a vote for a third party is one less vote for the Republican-Democrat Regime.

[Texanadian 10]

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.

Heck, one could make the argument that a two party system isn't viable in a dictatorship.

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.

It's extremely hard to get on the ballot. That's pretty much why Ron Paul decided against running as a 3rd party candidate last time around. He knows how hard it is. (He ran as the Libertarian presidential candidate back in 1988)

Consider that New Hampshire is the most Libertarian friendly state in the country. Yet when Badnarik was running for president, he wasn't on the ballot in NH. You had to get a certain amount of signatures to get the party on the ballot. But the signatures collected were before the Libertarian party had chosen their candidate. So those signatures were deemed invalid. Thus a new round of signature gathering was needed with very little time. As a result, the LP was not on the ballot in NH.

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.

When the voter eligible roles show only 30% of the voters bother to vote, the Dems and Repubs can't really say with a straight face that they've received the voter's stamp of approval. It's like choosing between Coke and Pepsi. They are slightly different, but mostly the same. If you want root beer, dr pepper, or sprite, you're out of luck. Personally I think a 2 party system is pretty crappy. I would much rather vote for somebody who supports my views even if they have a low chance of winning. It's an honest vote that way......Voting for the 2nd worst candidate only because they're not the 1st worst candidate isn't really democracy.

I thought it really sucked when Nader got ridiculed for "stealing" votes from Gore. The people had the choice to vote for Gore if they wanted. They didn't agree with Gore and/or thought Nader was better. So they got to vote for who they truly thought was the best candidate. Besides, who is to guarantee that they would have voted for Gore anyways? I'm a Libertarian Party guy. But if they weren't on the voting list, I'd probably vote Democrat before I voted Republican. It really depends on who is on the ballot. But speaking strictly in the party sake, I'd go Libertarian, then Democrat, then Republican.

To look at it another way. Voting is about the individual. Groups can't vote. Only individuals. Thus the vote should be about who each individual thinks is the best person for the job. But too many people get into the group thinking mode when it comes to elections. Having to vote to keep the bad guy out. It's a strange way of demonstrating why big government and group thinking is less sincere than small government and individual thinking.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Texanadian