|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 04:55:03 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  Why do third party candidates get so few votes...
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Why do third party candidates get so few votes...  (Read 8711 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 20, 2004, 06:48:02 pm »

Even in states like Texas and New York?

If I was a third party campaign manager, I'd be focusing my efforts there, and not in New Mexico or Colorado.
Logged
badnarikin04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 888


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2004, 01:26:30 pm »

Third party candidates don't get many votes because most swing voters are scared stiff of voting for truth because Republicrat mafioso tell them that they're wasting their vote.

The reason third parties reach out to smaller groups is because these are the groups that are ignored by Republicrats. Plus advertising is cheaper there.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2004, 01:06:40 pm »

How much can an ad buy in Wyoming honestly cost? Smiley
Logged
PBrunsel
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,543


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2004, 03:29:29 pm »

I actualy think that thye Libertarians focusing on smaller states is genious. If they can build their support in a small state like New Mexico, than there chances are all the better that their success in New Mexico will give them more votes in bigger states the next time they run.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2004, 03:31:26 pm »

But Wyoming is both solid and small (less people than DC).
Logged
PBrunsel
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,543


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2004, 04:01:46 pm »

But Wyoming is both solid and small (less people than DC).

It would be smart to focus on small states, as I stated above. Smiley
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2004, 04:51:00 pm »

You mean in geographic size? Wyoming has less people than any other state.
Logged
PBrunsel
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,543


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2004, 06:00:43 pm »

You mean in geographic size? Wyoming has less people than any other state.

I mean by population. If the Libertarian Party could take just the 3 electoral votes in Wyoming it would be a great victory for their party.
Logged
weallbleed
Rookie
**
Posts: 67


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2004, 10:08:24 pm »

The reasons I think:

-most people aren't aware of how the electoral college works
-third parties are third parties because they are out of the mainstream, and represent few people's actual views.
-people just aren't too familiar with them due to lack of media coverage.

that said, I've decided that I'll never vote for the lesser of two evils in a non-competetive race. Since SD is not in play, I will vote Badnarik, even though I reluctantly find Kerry very marginally better than Bush and would vote for him if I lived in a swing state. I will vote for Daschle because while I'm not a fan of him, I'd rather have him than someone like Thune who doesn't even believe in evolution, and is now campaigning on that stupid anti-gay marriage amendment.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2004, 10:10:57 pm »

You're going to not vote for a guy because he doesn't believe in evolution?

And what's wrong with shutting up activist judges?
Logged
weallbleed
Rookie
**
Posts: 67


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2004, 10:14:59 pm »

I find such views asinine, and I do not want someone who holds them to be in public office, the same way I would not want a Holocaust denier or someone who believes those "Bush ordered 9/11" type conspiracy theories in office. For anyone to ignore such blatant evidence against creationism due to their belief in Biblical innerancy is simply a zealot I would prefer not having authority.

I barely care either way about gay marriage, i'd rather just have the government get out of marriage altogether, but this is not an issue worth amending the Constitution over.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2004, 10:38:49 pm »

Darwain's own test has disproven macroevolution.
Logged
James Falconer
Newbie
*
Posts: 9


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2004, 10:58:09 pm »


Concerning Presidential elections, it is almost impossible for a third party candidate to win, thanks to the electoral college. Viable third party candidates have had good showings, and in two elections, 1948 and 1968, especially '68, the third party candidate could of deprived the top two vote getters from reaching 270.

If Wallace could have picked up Tennessee, and N and S Carolina and Humphrey won Missouri, no one would have the majority, although Nixon would have won the popular vote by a hair, he may of lost the election in the Congress because then it was heavily Democratic at the time.

What I am saying is that under the Electoral college (EC) system does not leave room for a third candidate. The EC needs to be ditched, and have a popular vote decide. If no candidates gets 50% plus 1 of the votes, then a run off will be held with the top 2 candidates one month from the election.

The Falcon!
Logged
bergie72
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 380
Germany


Political Matrix
E: 4.77, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2004, 07:06:08 pm »

Even though I'm in a swing state, I feel much better voting for Badnarik than either Bush or Kerry.

Kerry can't stick with one position for any real length of time it seems, and his tax policies I am totally against.  From reviewing his voting record while in the Senate, most of the votes he showed up for were for taxes, and he consistently voted to raise then or repeal previous tax cuts.

And even tho I voted for Bush in 2000, I don't feel I can support him anymore.  The cutting back of civil liberties under the Patriot Act is sickening, and wanting to add an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage is ludicrous (sp?).  

As I've heard quite a bit in this election, "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil."
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2004, 09:00:33 pm »

Well, my common sense philosophy is to get the most good out of my vote possible. If I live in a close state that could decide the election, I'll vote for the R/D I'd rather win the election. Otherwise, I'll just vote for who I think would make the best president.

I might vote Libertarian in 2008.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,702
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2004, 01:52:03 am »

I think you should vote for whoever you think will be the best president. Your vote will only be wasted if the election comes down to the electoral college in your state, and one of the candidates wins it by one vote. Now, what are the chances of that happening?
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2004, 06:17:51 am »

A serious (that is serious about making a difference and being heard) third party candidate should concentrate their campaign in CO.  The ballot initiative to assign CO 9 EV proportionally (where a Yes vote is leading in the polls)  means winning 11% of the vote in CO would result in winning 1 EV.  Since only EV count, this is where the Libertarians or Greens should work the hardest.

If they won an EV in CO, they could then move to other states that allow ballot initiatives (CA in particular) to change EV allotment and gradually build both a national presence and a national impact.
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,415
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2004, 03:55:03 pm »

I'd be more inclined to vote for a third party if I lived in a competitive state.  Ralph Nader didn't get noticed because he got 10% in Alaska, rather it's the few percent he got in Florida and New Hampshire that caused waves throughout politics.
Logged
Ats
Rookie
**
Posts: 130


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2004, 06:15:11 pm »

I'd be more inclined to vote for a third party if I lived in a competitive state.  Ralph Nader didn't get noticed because he got 10% in Alaska, rather it's the few percent he got in Florida and New Hampshire that caused waves throughout politics.

That's an interesting idea ... and I'm inclined to agree now that I thknk about it, actually.
Logged
Redefeatbush04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,504


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 10, 2004, 12:20:06 pm »

People in battleground states are LESS inclined to vote for third parties and not more inclined. If I lived in Massachusetts, I would probablly vote Badnarik, because there is no chance Bush would ever win there. In New Jersey however it is competitive, and I feel that if I vote for Badnarik, I take a vote away from Kerry, and help Bush out. New Hampshire and Florida would both have gone for Gore in 2000 if it weren't for Nader.
Logged
Ats
Rookie
**
Posts: 130


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2004, 07:34:28 pm »

Well then that would depend on how committed you are, and whether you prioritize now, in which case you'd vote for the R/D, or the future, in which case you'd vote third.
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,307
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2004, 04:00:16 pm »

I think a stragedy for third parties would be to go for Nebraska or Maine since they split the electoral vote by congressional district. Also possibly the small states with 3 or 4 electoral votes. If the new percentage based electoral vote in Colorado passes, that could be worth considering, though a candidate would have to get about 10% of the states popular vote to get a single vote.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 14, 2004, 04:35:18 pm »

Hey brandonh,

Welcome to the forum!
Logged
TæxasGurl
texasgurl24
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828
Japan


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -6.17

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 14, 2004, 04:38:57 pm »

third parties seem to nominate some weird people sometimes,so a lot of people don't take them seriously.
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,307
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 15, 2004, 11:06:05 am »

Thanks for the Welcome.

Another key thing that seperates most third parties from the Big Two is that usually their Candidates have never held office before. If they could win a seat in Congress or a Governorship then they would be taken a little more seriously. But in one of the debates they said running a Presidential Candidate helps all other candidates.

I think the best example of this is Jesse Ventura. He went from a Mayor, to a Governor, and is strongly considering running for President in 2008. He would media attention because he has already held a major office (besides the fact that he was already a celebrity).

Is it too early to start talking about 2008 or does that have to wait until Nov. 3?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines