Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Third Party Candidates

Posted 6 years ago on June 21, 2012, 11:40 p.m. EST by WageSlave (117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I am surprised more people haven't considered supporting third party candidates. The two party duopoly doesn't represent the interests of the people anymore. Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate. Of course, he is the exception. Third parties typically have no shot of winning a general election, but guess what? That's usually not even the point.

Slavery, women's rights, child labor, and plenty more were influenced heavily by third parties. If they garner enough interest they put pressure on the main parties. Here's a few other examples: http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/politicalsystem/a/thirdparties.htm

Futile or not, voting principle is better than not voting at all. It's not like it requires much investment or effort. I, for one, will be supporting Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein for prez.

Jill on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/05/27/nr-intv-stein.cnn



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by WageSlave (117) 6 years ago

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson qualified for matching funds for 2012. Green Party's Jill Stein is working against the clock on the same.

It seems Chris Bergsten of the Portland Occupier thinks the same: http://www.portlandoccupier.org/2012/06/14/we-need-a-third-option/

[-] 4 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 6 years ago

I think it very important to vote 3rd party. I know both sides of the political spectrun are afraid if they vote Green or Liberatarian that they are effectively voting for Romney or Obama, respectively. Hopefully dissaffected liberals and conservatives will cancel each other out and raise eyebrows on the collective total Stein and Johnson will receive. It's a start towards a true option besides the Demopubs.

[-] 3 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 6 years ago

Don't discount the 3rd party. Remember that Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote, even AFTER he dropped out of the race!

I do think that the Green Party would have the best chance for an upset.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

I'm voting generic. The premium we pay for the name brand parties is too high. Trading our freedom for their corruption isn't worth it.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Lincoln won the republican nomination before he became president.

I plan on voting third party this year... but I'm just pointing out there is some inaccuracy in your post.

[-] 3 points by WageSlave (117) 6 years ago

When Lincoln won the presidency, the Republican party was still a third party behind the Democrats and the Whigs. Although it had been growing for some time. That is my understanding. I didn't mean to imply I expect a third party candidate to come out of nowhere and win, only as a historical example of third party triumph.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Kind of a slippery slope. Whigs went down in the early 50's and Lincoln became president in 61. It could be viewed as either way I guess since at the time the republican party didn't have a long history.

I would love to see a third party candidate to come out of nowhere to win. But the majority will just continue to let the media choose their candidates.

[-] 1 points by Rex37 (4) 5 years ago

No, no, NO! not voting at all is not just counterproductive, it is stupid. Taking such a non-action may make you feel ever so virtuous and principled, but it sure as hell is not going to help you or your progeny in any way. We are for the time being stuck with a two party system that favors the greedy earth destroying corporate fools, and the ONLY way to change it (short of a military insurrection that would be counter to the whole idea of the Occupy Movement ) is at the ballot box. Good works are necessary and powerful, but it won't be enough. You need to infiltrate and capture one of the parties, and at the moment, the only one susceptible to change is the very flawed Democratic party. It's pointless to work hard for a 3rd party candidate so why not move in on the Democrats. Judging from my own experience, the local parties are tired of the top down structure of the party and want to reverse that process. They're with you, not against you, and they want to end the corruption. Many of you seem to have the idea that the Dems will co-opt the movement. Well, let them try. You can reverse the process…unless of course, you're just too too pure to even think about it.

[-] 0 points by WageSlave (117) 5 years ago

Kucinich is a Democrat. Yet, he's just like Ron Paul for the left. Deemed irrelevant just the SAME as third parties. "Don't waste your vote on Kucinich. He can't win." We need a third option for general elections, period. We need to kick the Democratic party in the teeth. They want us to believe third parties are a threat. The DEMOCRATS are the threat, and they know it. They don't represent the people. They pay lip service to progressive ideals, but back up none of it. A vote for Obama is a vote for Wall Street crooks. It's a vote for business as usual.

Every. Single. Election year. Same BS every time. "We can't vote for third parties this time! It's too imporant!" And where has that least worst voting got us??? This is the same "strategy" that has been used for DECADES. Garbage. It's time to go all in on third parties. History is on their side. Ending slavery, women's right to vote, child labor laws, social security, shortened work hours -- all thanks to third party candidates. The U.S. is one of the few democratic countries that has only 2 parties that are given a chance, and we see the consequences. Nothing will change until the two party duopoly is challenged.

[-] 1 points by Rex37 (4) 5 years ago

First of all, it is not productive to refer to opinions sincerely expressed as B.S. By dismissing my words as irrelevant, you are ignoring my experience as a 75 year old working for progressive (liberal) causes all my adult life. If I am wrong, then I'm wrong, but I'm not a liar. I am not pitching snake oil just in hopes of getting you to vote for the lesser of two evils. I hate the two party system and would like to change it, but until we can, it is pointless to allow the very worst to get in office for the sake of our high minded principles.. . .something I've done repeatedly much to my regret. Any way, are we really better off for having voted Green against George Bush? I don't think so. My whole point for you (i.e. all revolutionary young folk) is that you should consider infiltrating and changing the only one of the two parties which houses within its ranks any members who have any soul left. It's your world. I'll be out of it before to long, and will maybe miss the worst of what's about to come, but for some reason, I actually care about what happens to you. . .as do most elderly folks. So try to listen to us once in a while.

[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 5 years ago

Rex, I wasn't calling you a liar. I was criticizing the same old logic that got us where we are today. We have settled for the lesser of two evils for too long. Once the gleaming example of democracy, we are now the example of what not to do. We as a people seem to be the only national electorate too cowardly to vote outside of our two party duopoly even after they rip us off over, and over, and over again.

Infiltration is an impossibility. Just ask Kucinich on the left, and Paul on the far right. I do firmly believe Gore would have been a disaster as well. He had a voting history that was condictory to his words and was also involved with bombing and economic sanctions in Iraq. He spoke of campaign finance reform and the like while his VP assure corporate donors it was all just talk to get his numbers up. Nader acting as "spoiler" was an opportunity for real change, but gullible liberals took the democrat propaganda at face value shifting blame to Nader and completely relinquishing their leverage.

[-] 2 points by Rex37 (4) 5 years ago

Hmmm. "Gullible liberals" I guess that epithet refers to folks like myself who have minds too weak to see through the clever lies being fed to us by the Demonocrats…minds so weak that after 50 or 60 years we have not been able to see through the deceit being heaped upon us. I wonder though, if perhaps some of my fellow lefties -i.e. the ones who feel they have uncovered the lies– are not a bit blinded themselves by the light of false discovery. I wonder if they are not themselves accepting certain opinions uncritically. I won't call them gullible as a result, because I think they are smarter than that. I will say though that I have noticed that in todays typical discourse, even smart people are bandying about terminology which is undefined or ill defined, and it's creating more trouble and confusion than is necessary. Take the term 'liberal' which you have used in a manner to suggest a contempt for those who accept the label, which in turn suggests your having been influence by the 40+ year campaign to demonize the word by the hate mongers on the right. The Right's propaganda has been very effective in eroding the good name of Liberalism as evidenced by even Liberals having to call themselves something else. . .namely, Progressives. So I don't exactly blame you for going along with the crowd, but I must , in my Quixotic bent, hope by appealing to your sense of fairly play and your natural curiosity, that you will reexamine a couple of your prejudices.

One is the aforementioned Liberal which I won't try to describe in such a short space. Suffice it to say, you need to look into it by speaking to actual liberals who -by the way- are on your side and not weak-kneed appeasers. Another is your apparent belief , shared by many others, that there is no difference between the Democratic party & the Republican party. This is patent hyperbolic nonsense. The Dem. party is a coalition of liberals, so called moderates, and sometimes reasonable conservatives. The Rep. party is a coalition of ultraconservatives, right wing extremists, and lunatics. I don't see the comparison. Dennis Kusinich is not the only "progressive" in the party. I agree the Dems can be infuriatingly tone deaf and wimpy, but that is largely because they are being dragged down by the Blue dogs and "realpolitik"- not because they are ALL corporatists. I wish we could have a strong third party, and maybe we can. . .eventually. If you think that can be done before November, go to it. In the mean time, I'm going to promote the adult course of action which is to VOTE for the best that is available and against the worst that is available – that is to say: Democracy against Feudalism

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

Well said. I think Dems have moved right because the populus Left allowed it. There hasn't been a mobilizing issue for the Left since Nixon created the EPA. At the same time the Right was energized by Roe v Wade. And the liberals went into hybernation. Thinking all is well. So it's been the gun nuts and Jesus freaks giving the Republicans the fuel they need to further their neo-liberal economic agenda. And Dems have been running on the fumes of declining Union membership. It's no wonder we have problems. All it takes is a few gun nuts and Jesus freaks to really eff things up.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

what ideals do dems pay lip service to?

no one is talking about ending war

sanders could only speak of wealth disparity

by framing it as a war

[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 5 years ago

The many provisions in the Patriot Act and NDAA contradicted much of Obama's previous statements and promises. He also promised to bring the troops home while he was running for president, but then again I never bought that load of bull anyway because he was wishy washy on the matter, as with most. How often did he drone on about corporate lobbyists during his campaign? The democrats and republicans speak differently but act virtually the same -- whatever will appeal to corporate america.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago


[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

Defensively, you can't let the saboteurs win. I guess you know who they are?

But next cycle, the most promising seems to be the Justice Party and we will have plenty time to vet them and other prospects.

[-] 2 points by WageSlave (117) 6 years ago

To vote fear over principle is doing exactly what they want. Same excuses every. Single. Year. Obama has been a failure. It's like shooting yourself in the stomach instead of the head. Sure, you die a bit slower, but you still die. Obama is not a legitimate alternative to Romney. They're virtually identical. But go ahead, vote for the guy that talks tough on civil liberties and then votes in favor of reauthorizing the patriot act. Nice to know you're content with the way things are. I'm not.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

I think you were doing just fine until you made the disingenuous accusation.

"Nice to know you're content with the way things are. I'm not." You haven't seen failure until you see the next cycle with the saboteurs in charge.

They aren't "virtually identical." And I think you know that.

That makes you intellectually dishonest. I am not willing to accept that you are on a higher moral plane because you aren't.

[-] 2 points by WageSlave (117) 6 years ago

You're right. It was out of line. The frustration has built up for a long time. Every election year is the same. "This election is too important. We can't let them win!" I hear this everyyy time. "Next maybe, but not this time." Well, we happen to be at a crucial junction in our social evolution with climate change, vast growing ocean deadzones, deforestation and so on. We can't afford to constantly role over for these corporations which progressives and liberals have been doing throughout history and what has it got them? Obama was our "best hope" for ending the middle east wars. He expanded them. Patriot act he was harsh on, he voted to reauthorize. Universal healthcare, he never pressed for single payer and sold out to the insurance companies. If it helps Romney win, I don't give a damn. We need a third party revolution for both sides of the political spectrum, and with Johnson on the right, this is our best shot.

[-] -1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

I was with you again, right up to, "If it helps Romney win, I don't give a damn."

Then I was with you again. The best platform I have seen is the Justice Party, I think.

As a person Buddy Roemer seems to be a good guy. Re retains a few positions I don't like, but we would be a lot better off if his package were adopted than what is going to be.

I think a lot of people are ready for a third party and will actually work for it while voting one last time with the Dems.

[-] 2 points by WageSlave (117) 6 years ago

Fair enough. I personally prefer the Green Party platform, which is very similar to the Justice Party. I also like what Jill brought to the table. I'm supporting Jill Stein to bring attention to the platform.

Single Payer Healthcare Living Wage Tuition-free College Education Nationalize the Fed Heavy emphasis on Alternative Energies And so on.

[-] -1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

Sounds good and I must confess, I associate Green with Nader and I haven't forgiven him yet. I will check it out.

[-] 2 points by WageSlave (117) 6 years ago

Ironically, Nader "endorsed" Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. Or so the Anderson camp is claiming. Allegedly there is some lingering animosity between Nader from the 2004 split. I personally don't care for personal squabbles. They're a waste of time and often overblown from the outside perspective. I personally am a big fan of Nader, and voted for him in 2008, but his alleged "endorsement" of Anderson is irrelevant to me.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

Very interesting.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago


[-] 3 points by conservatroll (187) 6 years ago

no war

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 6 years ago

Imagine if Stein and Johnson were polling at 15% a piece. That would be revolutionary. The majority of the public doesn't even vote. Many of whom would, but are disenfranchised. A third party revolution in the U.S. would send HUGE shockwaves and really turn the tides of momentum back to citizen uprisings like Occupy. It could lead to a new era in politics in subsequent years.

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5909) 6 years ago

Without candidate contracting, third party candidates will become just as worthless as the other two. In fact, a willingness of independent candidates to sign legal contracts with the voters would put pressure on the other two party candidates to follow suit. But this, of course, is dependent upon the voters to insist upon contracts they draw up for candidates to sign. The solution is with the willingness of the people to push their own agendas rather than voting for unaccountable individuals and hoping for change.


[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 6 years ago

That's a great idea. However, there's no reason to forfeit your vote in the meantime. When it comes to third parties, the platform is what you're voting for until third parties become viable for the presidency, which wouldn't happen all at once. You can thank irrelevant third party candidates for many of our freedoms as a result of their platforms.

[-] -1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 6 years ago

Voting third party is a cop out. Until we get Instant Runoff Voting. The choices are clear.

  1. More Citizens United judges or less. And these folks serve longer than some of you have been alive.
  2. Money to the rich or money to the rest of us. Which do you think will help the economy more.

No other issues come close.

[-] 2 points by WageSlave (117) 6 years ago

Voting for either one of the corporate puppets is a cop out. It's a vote in favor of business as usual. Third party platforms have a long history of major successes WITHOUT having to win elections, as I cited. It's our best option.

I do agree that we need to press for Instant Runoff Voting, though.

[-] -1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 6 years ago

So does this mean you are cool with more conservative judges and tax cuts for the rich at your expense? If so, I urge you to vote third party.

[-] 3 points by WageSlave (117) 6 years ago

As if democrats have made a difference. Do you think we got where we are today purely because of the republicans? They BOTH are destroying this country. But go ahead, vote for the status quo. Bendover for corporate America.

Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase -- take your pick America! God forbid we vote our conscience with a long history of monumental success!

[-] 0 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 6 years ago

The Democrats are trying to do things that would help the people and help the economy. The Republicans are doing everything to sabotage the economy. Pick any bill and check out the vote. Just facts.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

You are officially "2 Dumb 2 Fail" meaning you get screwed every single year yet dont do anything different, just more of the same.

Have fun endorsing more war, you sell out.

[-] 3 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 6 years ago

i spent the weekend getting sigs for an amendment to our state constitution. What did you do this weekend. I am with Occupy Little Rock. We get stuff done.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

I applaud your effort. I had to work this weekend. What is the amendment for? Putting people in jail who vote for warmongers?

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 5 years ago

Only real people can contribute to campaigns. http://thepeoplerule2012.com/

Are you saying the President is a Warmonger? How you get that stretch? Are you too young to remember the previous administration?

[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 5 years ago

Obama continues Bush's warmongering strategy. Iraq, Afghanistan, drone strikes, voted to reauthorize the patriot act, NDAA, cracks down on whistleblowers like Bradley Manning who has been tortured for exposing war crimes while the murderers are free. If it wasn't for the tape Manning leaked we would still be there. What did Obama have to say on his behalf, can you recall? What did Obama do about the wall street criminals? Nothing. Who were Obama's appointees? What did Obama do for the cause.of single payer? Let me know when the democrats elect someone with a spine. I won't ever support a war criminal like Obama.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

I remember Bush, and he was a warmonger too. If you dont consider bombing 6 nations in 3 years warmongering, then Bush won, because you have been desensitized.

[-] -2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Vote third party!
End social security
End inheritance tax
Get paul ryan's budget
Get another scalia
koch brothers will celebrate

lemmings unite! vote third party!

Your examples left out the most important - Nader
If he got no votes, the president would have read his PDBs
and maybe stopped 911
If he got no votes, the president would not have attacked Iraq

lemmings unite! vote third party!