Stupid theory?




View Poll Results :True at all?
Yes 3 27.27%
No 8 72.73%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
November 1st, 2004  
battery
 

Topic: Stupid theory?


A teacher of mine today said: "Third-party canidates are there for taking away votes from the democrats"

Is there any truth to this?
November 1st, 2004  
implicature
 
 
teachers are cynical: READ: those who can...do those who cannot...teach
November 1st, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Third party candidates can take potential votes (split the vote) for both Republicans and Democrats.
--
Boots
November 1st, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
Ask that teacher to explain Ross Perot's roll in the 92 election. If he never ran, Bush SR would have been elected instead of Clinton.
November 1st, 2004  
Airborne Eagle
 
 
Not true.

The Constitution Party takes votes from Republicans. The Green Party takes votes from Dems.

Libertarian Party takes votes from both, as does the Reform Party.
November 1st, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RnderSafe
Third party candidates can take potential votes (split the vote) for both Republicans and Democrats.
To expand on that thought: Ross Perot almost definitely lost the election for George Bush Sr. in 1992. Ralph Nader probably took a victory away from Al Gore. Both of the big 2 parties stand to lose from a good performance on the part of a third party candidate. Depends entirely on what sort of third party candidate we're talking about.

Be that as it may, our country is an odditiy amongst representative democratic governments in the world. Only two parties parties dominate it all. Everyone else I can think of have 3 or more very strong parties. I for one would favor seeing a viable strong third party rise. The problem is, everytime one has, their causes are rapidly adopted by the Republican and Democratic Parties, and they disappear very quickly.
November 1st, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
In reality, none of these parties actually "take" votes from any of the others, as those votes do not belong to the parties but to the voters. If someone votes for Nader instead of Kerry or Senator Snuffy instead of Bush, it means (or should mean) that they agree more with that candidate than the Democratic or Republican one.
November 2nd, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Yes, but unfortunately, at this time, it does nothing to vote for a third party candidate except to help/hurt the Democrat/Republican candidates. Essentially, it is a wasted vote for the election, but well spent if one is voting by their convictions. Perhaps someday that will change.
November 2nd, 2004  
LeatherNeckRVA
 
yea I may not agree with most of nader's opinions I think it's important that his voice is heard and he should not be relegated to a joke by the democrats or an underhanded tactic by the republicans.
November 2nd, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
i do not agree that an independant or a third party voter really does anything at all in a presidential election..as the popular vote in a state is actually a tally system to alert the electors, appointed by the state governers, which way to cast their electoral college votes for the president.

as long as states define or direct how their electors view and then cast their votes..its a mute point. when it comes in play is when a idependant party takes a way enough of one or the others popular vote..to enable one or the other..or in some rare cases the idependant runner..is when the fun really begins.

thought id chirp on that...