Thinking About Voting Third Party?

No I am not going to bust your chops about a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Donald Trump or Secretary Clinton or anything like that. I don’t care if it’s a protest vote or not.

But my one question to you is: If Dr. Stein or Gov. Johnson were to get elected, without party members in Congress, just exactly what do you expect them to do for the next four years?

Share:

Related Articles

19 thoughts on “Thinking About Voting Third Party?

  1. In 2012 I trusted the polls–Wisconsin was going for Obama–and voted for Dr. Stein. Rest of my ballot was for Democrats.

    I hope DPW looks at precinct totals.

    Unless you’re in a swing state, how much does the POTUS vote matter?

    Wing nuts–financed by the elites–began their take over of the GOP in primary elections for school boards and local government.

    President Obama wanted a GOP Congress in 2014, so he could look like a savior as he pushed the elite’s agenda. Before Comey ambushed her, I don’t think Sec. Clinton wanted Feingold. Hope she’s changed her mind.

  2. The thing that I have been pondering lately, is whether or not a vote constitutes and endorsement, and should you then vote for the best practical option or the person you want to be the president, regardless of whether or not they are running.

    When it comes down to it, I really would rather not have any of the options become president. So should I write in someone who I want or should I just pick the one most qualified for the job from the available, practical options?

    Also I heard someone on the radio say they were going to vote for Gary Johnson. Not because they agreed with him on anything but because they knew he wouldn’t win and they wanted to get a third party candidate as many votes as possible as a way to encourage future third party runs.

    At this point there is a 90% probability I will vote Clinton. She is the best option and Trump is too troubling a possibility to not stand against. But I don’t feel great about it.

  3. I go into most elections thinking there is something I don’t like about the person I’m voting for and something I like about the person(s) I’m not voting for. Also no election happens in a vacuum-which includes congress.

    So I’m voting for Hillary. I know the House is gerrymandered and likely to be in GOP hands regardless of if the majority of citizens vote for a democrat or not. I don’t want to reward a party that rigged elections-drawing lines on a map for the purpose of swinging elections to your party no matter who the population. I could sympathize with someone who voted against democrats for this reason but the fact is, at the federal and state level in Wisconsin they have gerrymandered and by the GOP.

    I don’t want to reward a party that has rigged one part of government with single party control.
    So that pushes me to vote for Democrats.

    There are a lot of issues where I also feel Clinton is better than Trump anyway so that makes it easier.

    There was a state level election where I regretted not voting for the green party candidate so I’m not against voting for a 3rd party out of hand. But I also know that, I can vote for a major party candidate and have it be a symbol too.

    When a dirty trick (denying legitimate voters in Florida the right to vote in 2000 by removing them from the registered voter lists) swung things to W I think it mattered that the popular vote still went to the person who most of the people nationally (and I suspect in Florida) supported.

    1. “no matter who is supported by the population.”

      Sorry for the typo, not my first, not likely to be my last.

    2. “I don’t want to reward a party that has rigged one part of government with single party control.”

      Amen and alleluia!

  4. Ed, at some time, and hopefully soon, the election process has to be narrowed down to the top two or three presidential candidates in the final November casting based upon the individual party primaries and their final vote tally My suggestion assumes that an individual can create his own party.

  5. The lesser of two evils is still an evil. The fact is that one of those two will win, and I oppose them on too many issues to support them. My candidate won’t win a single state, but how low does the winners popular vote need to be for anyone to think it is significant? 45%? 40%?

    That said, one third party candidate has a shot in one state; Evan McMullen in Utah. According to rcp.com, he is approaching 25%. He probably won’t win, but if one of the “main two” comes in third in just one state, it will be newsworthy. At the same time, Perot never won a state, but had a much more significant presence, and that wasn’t enough to kick off a new party.

    1. McMullen’s ex-CIA, ex-Goldman Sachs, wants government forcing birth, supports NAFTA and NAFTA on steroids–the Trans Pacific Partnership.

      He doesn’t accept the science on climate change and wants more earthquakes in Oklahoma.

      He’s only on the ballot in eleven states, because he’s a pawn for Sec. Clinton.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/08/evan-mcmullin-can-t-beat-donald-trump-but-he-can-make-sure-he-loses.html

      We need to bring back both sides of the holiday on the payroll tax–FICA. It’s the most regressive federal tax. Democrats are afraid if they do that, GOP will cut Social Security and Medicare. We should increase federal spending on both. We need to slash federal income and corporate taxes on the 99%. We need vastly increased federal spending on health care, education, green infrastructure, and anti-trust enforcement. Monopolies and oligopolies are the enemies of innovation and democratic capitalism. “We the people” decide what’s of value, not the elites.

  6. On the original question, what if a third party won? Would that be enough to make the democrats and republicans find some middle ground? It has become the trend to write bills that are very partisan, buy the necessary swing votes, and it is an easy rubber stamp by the President. What if his signature weren’t so easy?

  7. Forward,

    The only “middle ground” the leadership of either party is committed to is protecting the elites.

    Since the elites are in fierce competition with each other, that’s not as easy as it sounds.

    A block of Republicans want to replace Trump with Pence.

    With Dem help, Ryan can get the 2/3’s necessary to impeach him.

    McConnell would probably need a few D’s in the Senate to convict.

    The House “freedom caucus” likes Trump, because of his stand on TPP, opposition to NATO, and lots of other positions. If leaks start coming out about Trump paying for abortions, that’s a sign imho the GOP’s mobilizing to impeach.

    Knowing Trump, he’ll try to find ways to back-door ways to implement TPP. Unfortunately, lots of Dems want to help Paul Ryan and him with that.

    Lots of Republicans oppose Trump on immigration, because they depend on it to keep wages low.

    The start of “middle ground” is that the federal government cannot go broke.

    Per PIMCO’s Paul McCulley, ‘Remember, the government sector’s liability is the private sector’s asset!

    http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/pn_10_02.pdf p.3

    That’s an accounting identity. You want a smaller federal deficit, there’s less money for everyone. What matters, is what we spend federal dollars on.

    Based on what I know now, democratic capitalism is better served by President Trump than by President Pence. The president elect understands that, so D’s have some room to operate the next two years. Pro-choice Americans and those who favor marriage equality might find Trump less of a threat than Pence.

  8. Forward,

    OT,

    Both parties have forgotten the fundamentals of democratic capitalism.

    “Without spending–there are no sales;
    Without sales–there are no profits;
    Without profits–there is no demand for workers;
    Without demand for workers–there is no job creation; and without job creation–there is no recovery!”

    Via Economist Pavlina Tcherneva @ptcherneva

  9. The government already is broke…beyond broke and significantly in debt.

    Talking about impeaching Trump already is as ridiculous as giving Obama a Nobel Prize for getting elected.

    I agree that the demopublican #1 priority is to reimburse those who funded their campaign and continue to feed into them.

    I’m saying that if the President were not a participant in that common goal of feeding their backers special interests, it wouldn’t be so easy to pass partisan laws. Does it further gridlock or does it force them to make progress that is more representative of the country as a whole? I guess it is up to them, but in my 40+ years, it has been my observation that each administration is worse than the previous one; a hyperbolic sine curve if you’re mathematically inclined. The last administration went too far in one direction and people want to right the ship, just like we have seen in the last few administrations.

    Trump is certainly more to the left than Pence, and I think Bernie forced Clinton too far left, and that was a major part in causing people to oppose her. Trump was enough left of center to attract the voters closer to the center.

  10. Forward,

    I stopped reading after “significantly in debt.”

    Your heroes, President Obama and Speaker Ryan, lied to you about the “fiscal cliff” when they ended the holiday on both sides of the payroll tax.

    Tomorrow the Packers play in Nashville. Are you worried the scoreboards at Nissan Stadium could run out of points? Can the Titans borrow points from another NFL stadium?

    State and local budgets are different. They rely on tax revenue to provision themselves. They have to balance, just like a family’s. The federal government is different. The dollar is a public monopoly. The Federal Reserve is the nation’s checking account. The Treasury is the nation’s savings account.

    When the Treasury wants more money, they do what the scorer at Nissan stadium does, a keystroke. If the Treasury wants to print physical money, they can, but most of it is created electronically. The federal government does not need tax revenue to provision itself. The only constraint on federal spending are the three economic sectors, private, trade balance, and public. Eventually those three have to “balance.”

    The U.S. has a trade deficit. Either the private sector or federal spending has to “balance” that, make up for it.

    Japan has a trade surplus. That’s why they’re not in default when their debt to GDP ratio is way worse than Greece’s. Greece isn’t a good example, because Greece doesn’t have its own currency, but Japan can run larger yen deficits, because of their trade surplus.

    Federal taxes are not obsolete.

    We need them for a lot of things.

    Federal taxes for revenue are obsolete in any country that issues its own non-convertible currency.

    If the U.S. borrows in gold or oil, all bets are off.

    We can run out of breathable air, potable, drinkable fresh water, safe food, sustainable energy, some metals, minerals, and medicines. Those are the corner stones of local security without which we don’t have national security.

    Just because the federal government can’t run out of money, doesn’t mean we should just give the vast majority of “entitlements” to the elites, the .0001%, like we’re doing now.

  11. Obama and Ryan are far from being my heroes. You say insulting things in attempt to bully me into saying things equally insulting or ridiculous like your scoreboard example. You have your opinions and I have mine.

    The entertainment industry is not the government. As long as people are willing to pay outrageous ticket prices and sponsors pony up the big bucks, they can continue to pay their talent whatever they can/want. It is an industry.

    Of course we agree on the need for air water, food, energy, but I don’t see how a third party President endangers those. Quite the opposite, I think the third party President could start to stop the extremists who do.

    1. I think you are overestimating the power and influence of a president without any party support in Congress or any support from the private powers that be. If a Stein or Johnson or you or me had been elected, the establishment would have just frozen them out in even a more blatant manner than they did President Obama the last six years.

      1. I think he did a lot despite having to fight for a majority of votes, but it was very partisan. I hope this administration finds a way to more of a middle ground, and I hope to see the “nuclear option” used more sparingly. I feel it has recently been exercised at times it shouldn’t.

        And yes, it would take more than an independent President alone, and it doesn’t look like it will happen any time soon.

        We would likely see more politicians behaving badly like their reactions to Act 10 in 2010 and the ACA in 2013 (which was only 3 years ago). Both of which passed with slim, but majority support. How about not acting on a Supreme Court nomination? Unfortunately that seems to be the new way the game is played, so it already happens.

        1. Forward,

          1. You either don’t understand the “nuclear option” or you don’t understand “partisan,” or both.

          2. Everyone in the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches takes an oath to defend the Constitution.

          3. It comes first. The founders thought it more important than defending U.S. lives and property.

          4. The legislative and judicial branches have lost their institutional pride. The founders saw them as co-equal branches of government–checks and balances.

          5. Among all the problems we face, the unitary executive is high on the list.

          6. I hope that one of the benefits of a Trump presidency is that the other two branches reassert the Constitutional authority they’ve abdicated.

          7. If you want a state example of judicial abdication, read some of Justice Rebecca Bradley’s philosophy.

          8. World War 2 didn’t last four-years, because it wasn’t profitable.

          9. The GWOT will last as long as federal taxpayers let Big Data and the defense contractors milk them. The elites have convinced the U.S. taxpayers to pay to keep the world’s sea lanes open so they can increase their wealth on imports that have gutted U.S. manufacturing and the 99%.

          10. I didn’t know the executive branch could unilaterally declare war. I thought that power was reserved in Article 1 to the legislative branch.

          11. Besides Russia and China, are there any countries left in the world in without a U.S. combat presence? I know there are, but I’m having a tough time recalling the dwindling number of them.

          12. I’m not clear on what you meant by “We would likely see more politicians behaving badly like their reactions to Act 10 in 2010 and the ACA in 2013 (which was only 3 years ago).”

          Could you spell that out?

          13. A primary challenge to Ron Kind in the August primary on trade went nowhere, because the media ignored it. Trade imho is fundamental issue, or at least a fundamental issue that swept Trump to victory.

          14. The elites–who control the private equity groups that control the media–only allows Republicans and Democrats a narrow range of talking points. They didn’t want Trump, because they make money off global trade. Sen. Feingold was one of the few who had the courage to vote against repealing Glass-Steagall in ’99. Without that firewall, it only took Wall Street nine-years to crash main street. The elites didn’t want to hold senators and representative who voted to repeal Glass-Steagall accountable, because that would make it tougher for them to get more federal welfare and they know they’re entitled to it.

          15. Unless POTUS and Congress change classification laws, President Trump will have the same authority as President’s Bush and Obama. He can secretly decide what’s classified and what isn’t. He doesn’t have to tell anybody. He can change his mind as frequently as he wants.

          The last guy to challenge Wall Street was Democratic Governor Elliott Spitzer. The FBI used laws and technologies from the Patriot Act to analyze his bank statements. Then they leaked it.

          Gov. Spitzer never had a trial. He never had a shot at holding those who violated his civil rights accountable. Wall Street and the elites had to remind both parties and all three branches of government the consequences of thinking there are one set of laws that govern this country. Taxes, like individual responsibility, are for the little people.

          If you felt “bullied” or “insulted” by anything, please identify it by the number.

  12. You’re entitled to your own opinions.

    You can believe the earth is flat.

    You’re not entitled to your own facts.

    The only thing I wrote about you was, “Your heroes, President Obama and Speaker Ryan, lied to you about the “fiscal cliff” when they ended the holiday on both sides of the payroll tax.”

    Where was the “bullying?” Where was the “insult?”

    From Forbes “Beware Of Politicians Bearing Household Analogies.”

    “If only it worked that way. In fact, a government surplus has the opposite effect on Joe Public: a government surplus means that the public has to either run down its savings, or increase its debt. And if the government runs a sustained surplus, then—unless the country in question has a huge export surplus, like Japan or Germany—a financial crisis is inevitable.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2015/01/14/beware-of-politicians-bearing-household-analogies-3/#3ea42fd1572d

    If you’re gonna play the “victim” card, can you find another handle?

    The State motto deserves better.

    The higher federal taxes are, the less consumers have to s-p-e-n-d.

    “Without spending–there are no sales;…”

    The most regressive federal tax is FICA, the payroll tax. Democrats are afraid–justifiably–that if they vote to bring back the holiday on both sides of it, Republicans will cut Social Security and Medicare.

Comments are closed.