Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^Yeah, you're right. I thought after I posted that Gary Johnson is another reasonable choice. I love his cost-to-benefit ratio outlook on things.
I was a resident of New Mexico during his Administration, he was a fairly decent governor, that isn't a knock on him, you'd have to understand how politics work in New Mexico. But compared to who he replaced, and who replaced him, he did a pretty decent job.
He isn't perfect, but he is one of the more ethical businessmen I can think of, and did what he thought actually best for New Mexico. Something our 2 party system doesn't do anymore.
What I liked about him in his tenure was that he did a good job vetoing bills that didn't have established revenue. He was publicly in favor of legalizing Marijuana, and tried vigorously. He passed favorable legislation for Native Americans, which is something Arizona and New Mexico rarely do, and even as a Republican he had a decent environmental record and was a proponent of the beauty of the desert.
I'm not really all that Conservative, but I never thought ill of Johnson, unlike a lot of the current slew where I live now in Arizona.
I'd take him over Scott Walker's long lost Brother (Doug Ducey) here in Arizona.
Hillary will get us into more wars. I will sleep better at night knowing I had no part of that.
Trump is the unknown but hasn't said anything to convince me he would stay and get us out of them.
Hence, I can vote for neither.
For all your reasons and more, I am not voting for Hillary or Trump. I will write in Bernie Sanders. There should be some kind of test for a candidate to be able to run for president. Will the electoral college ever go away????? This is a nightmare.
Your idea is that we are presented with crap, so we must, therefore, choose crap. Someone put it another way on another thread:
Do I vote to be stabbed in the back or do I vote to be stabbed in the front?
Why would I vote for either of those?
My vote is "I choose not to be stabbed."
The people who keep claiming that "you're wasting your vote" if you don't vote for a stabbing, are saying: "This is all we have. We have to be stabbed, so at least we get to decide if it's in the front or the back. If you don't choose one of those, you let other people decide if you're going to be stabbed in the front or the back." That's what you're saying.
The people who choose otherwise are not saying, "Please pick which way I'll be stabbed", they are saying, "I choose not to be stabbed." And when enough people say, "I will not be stabbed" is when the protest is heard. As long as people continue to give up, give in, and give away their right to say, "I choose not to be stabbed", the stabbings will never stop.
This, exactly.
The OP is using much the same "logic" that was used during the run-up to the Iraq war and we know how well that turned out.
We've tried the lessor of the two evils model for far too long.
I am no longer willing to be fed garbage pretending to be food and no one is going to convince me that either of these candidates has any more substance than Cheetos.
If people want quality candidates, they have to stop voting for pretenders.
I will be happy to be in the minority that chooses neither.
For all your reasons and more, I am not voting for Hillary or Trump. I will write in Bernie Sanders. There should be some kind of test for a candidate to be able to run for president. Will the electoral college ever go away????? This is a nightmare.
Sanders is losing in vote count. The electoral college has nothing to do with that.
All the problems people blame our mess on are just ways to blame things other than the real problem. People.
One of the 2 will still win.
So, it really doesn't make a difference.
The popular vote makes some difference.
Congress makes a HUGE difference.
Federal elections in the United States are every TWO years, the presidency is only a portion of the ballot, yes important by around a third at the federal level, nevertheless just a portion.
A president with less than 50% of the popular vote and stiff opposition in at least one branch of Congress is a lot different than a president with more than 50% of the popular vote and strong support in at least one branch of Congress.
So, yes, Virginia, a non-vote for both of the two establishment candidates can make a significant difference in actual policy outcomes that affect people's well being, economic and otherwise.
Anyone inclined to vote third party, write in or leave blank the relatively small presidential portion of the ballot should go ahead and do so with no qualms, full of hope, and even confidence that you've done the best you can and the right thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowmountains
The people who think X is worse than Y will probably vote for Y. But there are people who find both X and Y unacceptable, so why should they vote one of them? They'll either vote for a third party, write in a candidate, or not vote. It's not wasting vote. There is a logic you may not see. Each voter has his own concern and reasoning that doesn't have to be understood by other voters. Just because you don't understand them doesn't mean they are not being logical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
You don't understand. If you go vote for a 3rd party candidate, you are absolutely NOT wasting your vote. You are registering that you will not vote for the DEM or GOP candidate because the are unacceptable. And it can certainly make a huge difference as Nader did in Florida in 2000.
You are wasting your vote if you continue to vote for the status quo.
Think about that for a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
I agree, not voting is a waste of a vote and loss of one's voice. I can see the rise of a 3rd party and it has to start building from somewhere.
All those 3rd party votes would speak to the Dems and GOP, a glimpse of what is coming if they don't get their acts together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blanker
Because voting least-worst in this party duopoly we have gets us exactly what we have right now. And it will continue to get worse right down the line. The other parties out there need to be explored. I voted for the Justice Party candidate last time.
I will not vote for someone simply because the Democratic or Republican party has deemed that these are my two and only options. F them. It's unbelievable to me that these two parties have got this country into the multiple fixes we have to contend with, now and into the future, and yet people continue to vote for these same two parties over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust
I'll vote third party. Only by voting can the people express that they want something other than the same 2 party rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinawina
I think a protest vote is quite sensible and honorable if one truly does not have faith in either candidate. There are people who truly think the county will suffer under either option, so in that case voting third party of write in is the only way to register their displeasure. If enough people do that it definitely sends a message to whomever wins that they have some work to do if they really want to govern the entire nation. It also sets the political wheels in motion to try to capture those voters next go around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baystater
The only thing I or anyone who doesn't like either of the candidates can do at this point, is to make sure my representatives and senators put the appropriate pressure on whoever wins the presidency. That is how my voice is going to be heard at this point.
I think a protest vote is quite sensible and honorable if one truly does not have faith in either candidate. There are people who truly think the county will suffer under either option, so in that case voting third party of write in is the only way to register their displeasure. If enough people do that it definitely sends a message to whomever wins that they have some work to do if they really want to govern the entire nation. It also sets the political wheels in motion to try to capture those voters next go around.
Good luck with sending that message...
Just consider for a moment what the typical voter turnout for POTUS has been historically in the first place, for a long time now. If closer to 60 percent of eligible voters turn out to vote rather than closer to 50 percent, historically speaking, that's considered very good.
Just what better "message" could any politician need than the simple recognition that on the order of 50 percent of Americans don't even vote? How can anyone feel they are "sending a message" within the context of all the people who don't vote in the first place? You're just kidding yourself.
Nevertheless some people continue to think they are "sending a message," and of course I have some choice messages I would love to send to our POTUS and Congress as well, but hello? Just who is receiving this message?
Plain and simple, it's like this. Yes, Trump or Clinton will get voted into the white house. Most likely Clinton.
However.
I cannot bring myself to vote for either of those two trashy excuses for "people". My conscious simply will not allow it.
Whatever helps you sleep better at night, of course, but to my way of thinking...
We seem to agree on the inevitable choice we either make or choose not to make, and those who choose not to decide -- for whatever worthy reason or not so worthy -- are leaving the final outcome (and our future) to those who will decide.
Of the few reasons I have a good deal of trouble with that sort of logic or withdrawal tactic is because no way are Hillary and Trump equally good or bad all considered, just no way if you follow and understand them and/or politics even to the most basic degree.
Seems the comments posted in this thread boil down to either a perspective related more to how people feel about their vote vs what that vote (and/or no vote) actually means from a simple and practical standpoint.
Again, I understand those perspectives and beliefs contrary to mine just like I understand why people pray in church. What reality or truth we recognize and/or believe when it comes to these matters is a very personal affair that logic nor reason can necessarily change to any degree.
Just consider for a moment what the typical voter turnout for POTUS has been historically in the first place, for a long time now. If closer to 60 percent of eligible voters turn out to vote rather than closer to 50 percent, historically speaking, that's considered very good.
Just what better "message" could any politician need than the simple recognition that on the order of 50 percent of Americans don't even vote? How can anyone feel they are "sending a message" within the context of all the people who don't vote in the first place? You're just kidding yourself.
Nevertheless some people continue to think they are "sending a message," and of course I have some choice messages I would love to send to our POTUS and Congress as well, but hello? Just who is receiving this message?
Wishful thinking is more what I call it...
If one of the third parties can get 5% of the popular vote they gain access to crucial federal campaign funds. If they can poll at 15% they get to debate with the two parties. That is the message.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
