Who's running third-party this year?

Post Reply New Topic

Paul already said he wouldn't go third-party. We've got the perennial Nader, of course. Who else will run third party? The Libertarian Party looks to be in trouble; they wanted to nominate Paul and now they have no real candidates left. The Socialists have nominated Brian Moore, but he will probably only have ballot access in a handful of states. What other third parties are actively campaigning for the presidency, and who are their candidates?

my tentative vote is libertarian depending on who they pick.

if there's no candidates i like, i'll just take a symbolic vote and vote for hunter s thompson.

Nader actually isn't running for the Green Part this year (at least not yet), so they have a selection a few bad candidates. There's the Constitution Party (basically libertarians for Jesus) with a few no-name candidates. Basically not many good options for 3rd parties these year (if Paul ran for the Libertarians, I'd think he'd at least have a chance of instilling fear and reform in the Republicans). Considering this, I think the best option is to vote strategically to maintain the status quo and promote division (the more the two parties dislike each other, the less will get done, which for people like us is good).

Nader is gonna run as an independent. I know that Cynthia McKinney is wanting the Green Party nomination and Alan Keyes might run as the Constitution Party candidate. I don't know about the possible candidates for the Libertarian Party.

"People like us?" Do you mean libertarians?

I agree that there seems to be a dearth of good minor candidates for the principled voter this year.

I learned my lesson about third-party voting in 2000.

Not just libertarians (although probably mostly), but people who dislike the current two party government trend (anarchists for obvious reasons, but also other people who would consider 3rd parties, such as extreme non-interventionalists, maybe some socialists/protectionists/anti-globalizationists).

no one will ever do it because they're too stupid to understand "they never win" will always apply so long as everyone refuses to vote third party because they never win?

or maybe that the elections are rigged?

We're essentially locked into a two party system because of how our legislature works. And it will likely never change because neither the Republicans nor the Democrats would allow it.

By voting third-party in the current system you're actually hurting the major party you most agree with. For instance, I'm sure most Green Party voters in 2000 found Gore more aligned with their interests than Bush, but we ended up with Bush anyway. I'm sure whatever % Nader got in Florida would have been enough to cover the deficit between Gore and Bush.

The only chances that a third party would be able to succeed are either in our electoral system and breaking up the two monopoly on power. Or one of the major parties implode and another part is right there to take it's place, similar to how the Republican Party came to power with the implosion of the Whigs.

It's just the way the system is rigged. There's no real place for a third party that doesn't diminish the major party whose views they're most aligned with. If we had a proportional parliamentary based system it would make more sense.

Whichever side of the political spectrum has their vote split by the most parties will end up losing.

I somewhat disagree with this statement. If you think like that, and don't vote for who you really want, then you essentially become marginalized by the party you mostly agree with (because they know they can rely on your vote since you fear if you don't vote for them, the "wrong" party might get in). If you vote for who you really want, then the party you most agree with will give concessions to people like you so you'll vote for them (they will try and give you more policies you like in the future). Considering the costs are generally greater than the benefits of voting, if you are going to spend the time and energy to actually vote, you mind as well vote for the person you actually like (and if that happens to be no one, then strategically vote to try and minimize the damage caused by all parties by encouraging nothing to get done).

I don't disagree. Ultimately I think it all boils down to the political setup. Voting for smaller parties makes more strategic sense in a proportional system than it does in our system. Hell, it even makes more sense if you simply move to instant run-off voting. Any change to the status quo will be fought tooth and nail, because they stand only to lose.

You've made several similar comments- voting third party (or not voting), while useless in advancing immediate policy goals, is a way to show your lack of faith in the two big parties and, if enough people do it, can force the Dems and Reps to adjust or risk losing elections. I doubt we'll ever be able to break down this monstrous duopoly, but we can at least forcibly drag one or the other closer to our beliefs. And if my such attempts are unsuccessful.. well, it's just two different types of socialist anyways, so it's not like it makes much difference.

CRIMETHINK!! !! !! !! !! !! !!

Mike Gravel recently joined the Libertarian Party and is seeking the nomination. If he wins I will have a decision to make between him and Ralph Nader.