Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[xyrofen]

I got Gary Johnson and then Jill Stein, two people I, nor anyone I directly know, has even heard of.

Pretty neat that the main party candidates can get known with money. Woooo

[Danny O Flannagin]

I got Gary Johnson and then Jill Stein, two people I, nor anyone I directly know, has even heard of.

Pretty neat that the main party candidates can get known with money. Woooo

 

That's what happens in a capitalistic "democracy"

[azatoth]

This "lesser of two evils" voting is just supporting the status quo. Vote for third party, any one of them that is on the ballot. If they get enough votes then it perhaps would make them more visible. Reading this thread shows that people are not even aware of the options they have and that's just because the Dems/GOP control the narrative and the media isn't helping either by perpetuating this false dichotomy. Best option would of course to reform the whole system and get rid of the two-party system and move towards a parlamentary system that allows more parties power. But that won't happen.

 

On some level I am an accelerationist and want Romney to win as to accelerate the run to the ground, but in the end be it Obama or Romney in the WH, very little will change. Odds are that the congress will continue to be obstructionist and the lobby groups will still have their huge influence over policy. You can always hope that the re-elected Obama will be that progressive candidate he made himself to be in 2008, but I am afraid that was just brilliant campaigning from his team and his record shows that it was just BS. As long as the majority has their vapid reality TV in HD, burgers, cars and the illusion of choice and influence then nothing is going to change.

[eugene]

i'll personally blame you no confidence/3rd party/ctulhu 2012/"sticking the pinky inside the penis hole instead of voting" fucks if the iranian scuds will start flying over my home when romney green lights the op. if you honestly don't see the difference between obama and neo-cons just murder yourself.

[syd syside]

[Guest Iain C]

i'm voting for Romney just to piss off all my friends. I don't give a shit about the general election this time around. And it kind of disgusts me that there is some sort of tokenistic moral imperative to vote, it means absolutely nothing. The 'step in the right direction' argument is simultaneously lol-worthy and pitiful.

 

I agree with Awepittance. If you expect any kind of positive change by participating in parliamentary/presidential democracy as it stands today, I've got a lol for you.

[syd syside]

You can make people think if you say third party in discussions, perhaps encouraging some to move away from "lesser of two evils." Not voting is fine as well I guess, or protest voting, but there is more ways in which general increase in third party support can make headlines. While protest voting/not voting/voting for Romney in spite has a small chance. Also having a candidate you can generally argue and support over Obama/Romney is more optimistic and therefore marketable/appealing than saying "fuck it".

[Guest Iain C]

But what's the point in supporting a third-candidate when the very act of voting legitimises a corrupt and broken system?

[syd syside]

I don't follow your logic. The two parties are corrupt, not the act of voting. Not voting just increases the stigma that young people are too stoned to show up to the voting booths. If our generations had a significant increase in support for third party candidates and it messes with swing states, the mainstream news would have to give attention to it and it would be a much better way to inform the public of the corrupt two party system.

[Guest Iain C]

I think you're being wholly unrealistic about the prospects of third-party candidates. It's simply never going to happen - the whole system, vast sets of stacked interests, are set up to preclude it. All you're doing by being one of the incredibly few people who votes for a third-party candidate is allowing those interests to say "Look, you see! Marginal ideas DO have a place in our inclusive democracy!"

 

And then there's the fact that most third-part candidates are, to my knowledge, bollocks. If you believe in what they're selling fine, vote for them if it makes you feel better, but if you're just choosing someone because they're not Romney or Obama and you vaguely agree with them on some issues, you're no better than someone who chooses Obama over Romney because you're going to get a drone war either way, but with Obama at least you're getting gay marriage.

 

I'm just shocked that anyone has faith in "democracy" as it exists in nation states today.

[syd syside]

So all third party candidates are bollocks? This is determined how? And how exactly does greatest increase in youth vote + greatest increase in third party support = marginal ideas having a place in US democracy when there would still be no gain of power for third parties within the system. The point isn't to win this election, it is a long term commitment, which is fine because I am voting for the candidate who most represents my ideals regardless of probability of winning. It would take one motherfucking indoctrinated individual to correlate a youth cultural shift in voting to "the two parties and the current structure of the electoral college and debates are fair for third parties"; when third parties don't get coverage in the media nor do they rarely get in the debates.

 

To conclude real change isn't possible is quite depressing and I refuse to believe that in todays world of viral media, third party support wouldn't snowball.

[Guest Iain C]

Name one that isn't bollocks. Who should I vote for? The Greens? Natural Law? The SWP? UKIP, BNP? Fill in the blanks with the US third party of your choice, but none of them represent my views - and even in the unlikely even that one or two MPs get elected (like the Green woman in Brighton) they have practically no power. Which in the case of the Greens is probably for the best.

 

The rest of your message I don't really understand. If you feel like you're being true to your political principles by voting for a third-party who represents your views then that's good for you, but expecting any kind of cultural shift towards a reform of the parliamentary (or in your case, presidential) system is just naive. I don't think it's harmful necessarily, just pointless - when you can have a FAR greater impact both in terms of policy, public opinion and media coverage by direct action, organisation and protest outside of the political system.

[Guest Gary C]

Jill Stein. Yawn.

[Guest Iain C]

To conclude real change isn't possible is quite depressing and I refuse to believe that in todays world of viral media, third party support wouldn't snowball.

 

That's the point though, change is possible . Just not by participating in the parliamentary/presidential system.

[syd syside]

Name one that isn't bollocks. Who should I vote for? The Greens? Natural Law? The SWP? UKIP, BNP? Fill in the blanks with the US third party of your choice, but none of them represent my views - and even in the unlikely even that one or two MPs get elected (like the Green woman in Brighton) they have practically no power. Which in the case of the Greens is probably for the best.

 

The rest of your message I don't really understand. If you feel like you're being true to your political principles by voting for a third-party who represents your views then that's good for you, but expecting any kind of cultural shift towards a reform of the parliamentary (or in your case, presidential) system is just naive. I don't think it's harmful necessarily, just pointless - when you can have a FAR greater impact both in terms of policy, public opinion and media coverage by direct action, organisation and protest outside of the political system.

 

Quick question: did you take this survey? Seems pretty clear from this thread that most people line up with third party candidates... obviously no candidate is absolutely perfect.

 

Also one can't vote third party and also support and organize/protest?

[Guest Gary C]

I completely agree with Iain, by the way, and I'll never vote again.

[Guest Iain C]

To conclude real change isn't possible is quite depressing and I refuse to believe that in todays world of viral media, third party support wouldn't snowball.

 

Let me give you an example, here in the UK lately there's been a lot of talk and controversy over workfare schemes where big companies are essentially receiving free labour. The "workers" have to attend and work full-time jobs, usually shitty retail jobs, or risk losing their meagre unemployment benefits.

 

Both main parties support workfare, indeed the last Labour government essentially paved the way for it. But a large proportion of people are outraged by it and organised against it - by picketing stores that used it, plus leafleting, telephone and letter-writing campaigns.

 

 

 

As a result many companies, including Holland and Barrett here, are pulling out of workfare schemes. And it's all come from ordinary people - not political parties - organising and taking action. Real positive change, no voting involved.

 

Also one can't vote third party and also support and organize/protest?

 

Well you can, but it's a waste of 15 minutes you could better spend masturbating or cooking.

[syd syside]

You agree that not voting and protesting is the way to fix everything, while voting for the candidate who most closely represents your views (Jill Stein) and protesting is legitimizing all the corruption?

 

edit: @ Gary

[Guest Gary C]

You agree that not voting and protesting is the way to fix everything, while voting for the candidate who most closely represents your views (Jill Stein) and protesting is legitimizing all the corruption?

 

edit: @ Gary

I don't think that any significant and immediate change can ever occur through voting. Maybe only a handful of issues every 4+ years. The two-party system of back-slappers is too, and unceasingly, pervasive.

 

Direct action gets shit done, especially more so when utilising social-media. The things you care about, that effect you daily, can be highlighted and changed with personal and community effort. The stuff in the background, banks and wars... Governments just do that shit anyway.

[syd syside]

lain C , if I vote for Jill Stein am I continuing to support the two party system? And you haven't answered my question about the survey...

[Guest Iain C]

Well look, "legitimising" is kind of an abstract term and it was probably a mistake to bring it up. But I do think that increasing the proportion of third-party votes gives the entrenched two-party system a right to say "Look, these guys ARE being represented" even if it gives them precisely no power ever.

 

I think it makes a much better statement to abstain from voting altogether. Low turn-out figures reduce the mandate of the ruling parties (although they'd never admit it).

 

lain C , if I vote for Jill Stein am I continuing to support the two party system? And you haven't answered my question about the survey...

 

I took the survey, I'm not from the US and a lot of the questions weren't relevant to me. For example I have no idea how your debt ceiling works and frankly I'm not even that well-up on the intricacies of your political system full-stop. For what it's worth it aligned me with Jill Stein.

[syd syside]

When did I say I didn't favor direct action/protesting? The original qualm I had with Iain was that he said voting = supporting a corrupt system... while if a majority voted for third parties it could at the very least be an improvement over the current situation.

[Guest Iain C]

BUT NO I would never elect someone into a position of power over me. That's a political belief that I won't compromise.

 

while if a majority voted for third parties it could at the very least be an improvement over the current situation.

 

It will never happen. And it's a serious waste of time and energy pursuing it. You seem really offended by this idea that voting for a third-party will never make a difference. Why are you so attached to it?

[syd syside]

Well look, "legitimising" is kind of an abstract term and it was probably a mistake to bring it up. But I do think that increasing the proportion of third-party votes gives the entrenched two-party system a right to say "Look, these guys ARE being represented" even if it gives them precisely no power ever.

 

I think it makes a much better statement to abstain from voting altogether. Low turn-out figures reduce the mandate of the ruling parties (although they'd never admit it).

 

lain C , if I vote for Jill Stein am I continuing to support the two party system? And you haven't answered my question about the survey...

 

I took the survey, I'm not from the US and a lot of the questions weren't relevant to me. For example I have no idea how your debt ceiling works and frankly I'm not even that well-up on the intricacies of your political system full-stop. For what it's worth it aligned me with Jill Stein.

 

If the goal is to disrupt the system, than that involves getting people who support either an R or a D favorably, to understand how their needs to be electoral reform for more parties... telling them to go protest on the streets is a good idea, but voting third party is also a good idea. At the very least I don't see how it can hurt. I don't buy into the logic that a noticeable/sizable shift in third party support = more comfortability with Dems and Reps. Everyone is always going, "lesser of two evils"... and "third parties have no chance"... but like I said, things can snowball... and with something like OWS happening in conjunction with less percentages for the Rs and Ds, I just don't see how thats gonna make everyone go "sweet we did it!"... what it will do is mobilize people and push things further in that direction.

[HoA]

Poly - Many

Ticks - Blood sucking parasites

 

Not voting for any of them.