The Problem with Third Party Candidates

[Paco Bedejo]

So, in a perversely ironic twist, you voted for an unacceptable candidate (by your own standard) that couldn't win (and which you apparently hoped would not), in order to secure government largesse for so-called Libertarians? And you consider that reasonable? Those voting for Republicans are "comprising principles?" Hail Bedlam, I've now heard everything.

That was a damned fine job of totally ignoring my explanations & cherry-picking ideas in order to twist them as much as you could to bring my position down to yours. You, sir, win the internets today!

 

[ocsdor]

Here's how I approached the last election:

If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.
-- Robert Heinlein

I can't say I was made any happier by it, but there it is.

I voted against the two party system.

 

[CarmelHP]

Right. Right. Right.

After all, McCain voted for Tarp. Oh, wait, so did Obama. McCain voted for McCain-Feingold. Well, Obama wasn't there to vote for it but his comments when the Supreme Court overturned it tell us that he would have.

So I'm kind of wondering what anti-freedom position McCain is supposed to have that Obama doesn't share in full measure?

Well, I'm still trying to figure out what the Libertarian Party was offering in 2008 that was new and different. There was some vague reference that it was the Republicans fault that the Libertarians turned around and nominated Barr by not nominating Ron Paul, who could have won the general election even though he couldn't win the primary of the party of which he was a member. But it's OK, if you vote for an unacceptable candidate in order to get government handouts for a party that opposes government handouts you're adhering to principle? I can now see why using multi-syllabic words and avoiding logical fallacies is frowned upon here.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

But it's OK, if you vote for an unacceptable candidate in order to get government handouts for a party that opposes government handouts you're adhering to principle? I can now see why using multi-syllabic words and avoiding logical fallacies is frowned upon here.

It costs money to play the game. That money is taken from my paycheck before I get to touch it. I'd like it to go to a third party.

That's not a logical fallacy nor is it a contradiction of libertarian principles.

How do you feel that your guy is the only one in the general presidential election with such funds?

 

[CarmelHP]

That was a damned fine job of totally ignoring my explanations & cherry-picking ideas in order to twist them as much as you could to bring my position down to yours. You, sir, win the internets today!

If you continue to provide ridiculous reasons, I will continue to point that out. Sorry, that's the way it works.

 

[CarmelHP]

It costs money to play the game.

Then go out and raise it.

That's not a logical fallacy nor is it a contradiction of libertarian principles.

It is a contradiction of libertarian principles, but not, apparently, a contradiction of Libertarian principles. The two are not coextensive.

 

[DragonGunner]

As a rookie to voting an politics, until about 3 yrs. ago. I enjoy reading an
learning. I was sadly sleeping as a American when it came to politics an voting.
Which is probably why so few, as I found out, don't vote. It just seemed in the
past is the same case of picking the lesser of the 2 evils that are running. I'm wondering if we had 5 or 6 or more parties running if their would be a stronger voter turn out....? I don't like the way the Republicans went, seems the Democrats have been takin over by extreme left radicals....so wheres my voice? Better yet where is the person or party that tells lobbists to take a hike an stand for America. I just wonder what if their was the Repblican party, Democrat, Independents, Tea Party becomes a real party, The Marxist party, the Commie party, I'm here to get rich party, City folk party, Country folk party, Christian part, Anti-christian party...I just have to think what would happen.....too much time on my hands right!!!

 

[bigg cheese]

Make things worse as fast as possible as a strategy? How very Che of you.

You really need to look at how well that has worked historically before hitching your wagon to that star.

I'm looking at reality right now..

If we had McCain, we'd still be on a slow, progressive path, with few people whining. With Obama, everyone's getting riled up, just as they should be.

I will always vote my conscience.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Then go out and raise it.



It is a contradiction of libertarian principles, but not, apparently, a contradiction of Libertarian principles. The two are not coextensive.

If the ideals of liberty are not popular, then attempting to raise the money to compete would be a catch-22. If 25-35% of my money didn't evaporate before I got to touch it (along with the money of other libertarian-minded individuals), raising such funds wouldn't be nearly as daunting. Utilizing the legal system by which the money stolen from me can be applied to the candidate of my choosing is not a contradiction of libertarian principles. The contradiction is that my money is stolen from me & applied to your Republican candidate in order to give him a major advantage over any libertarian-minded candidate who doesn't qualify for my funding.

 

[jsgolfman]

I have a question. We've had either republicans or democrats in charge of the country for as long as any of us can remember. Have we gotten more or less free in that time?

 

[dburkhead]

Exactly. You finally agree with my earlier opinion:



Can we be done here now?

No, actually, I do not agree with that earlier statement. "What anti-freedom policy does McCain support that Obama doesn't share in full measure?" does not imply "What anti-freedom policy does Obama support that McCain does not support in full measure."

I have not found any "flaw" of McCain's in that regard that Obama does not share. I have found flaws of Obama's in that regard that McCain does not share.

McCain has historically voted "pro gun" about twice as often as Obama.
McCain has supported conservative judges. Obama has not.
McCain, on the international scene, has not made a point of slighting our friends while sucking up to our enemies. Obama has.
McCain voted against ObamaCare. Obama signed it.

While neither is what I would consider "good" the two are not the same.

 

[dburkhead]

I'm looking at reality right now..

If we had McCain, we'd still be on a slow, progressive path, with few people whining. With Obama, everyone's getting riled up, just as they should be.

Che has taught you well. That's exactly the tactic of far-left guerrillas and the like: encourage things to get worse, inspire the "right" to make an overreaction based on it. Use the overreaction to mobilize people against the right.

Classical leftist guerrilla playbook tactics.

What makes you think Obama and his administration isn't completely familiar with the approaches of folk like Che Guevara? Have you ever considered that people "getting riled up" is exactly what they want? All it takes is someone on the right overreacting to justify the crackdown that will follow.

I will always vote my conscience.

So you go out and find the person who exactly matches what you want in every single particular? Have you actually found a person who agrees with you every single time on every single issue or do you just write yourself in?

Or do you accept that the candidate isn't always going to follow what you would prefer? If the latter, then the argument is purely about where to draw the line.

 

[dburkhead]

I have a question. We've had either republicans or democrats in charge of the country for as long as any of us can remember. Have we gotten more or less free in that time?

And the counter question right in the OP is what, exactly, have Libertarians accomplished to make us more free in that time?

Three things of little use:
- The wonderful gun you left at home.
- The ammunition you're out of.
- The politician who lost the election.

 

[CarmelHP]

If the ideals of liberty are not popular, then attempting to raise the money to compete would be a catch-22. If 25-35% of my money didn't evaporate before I got to touch it (along with the money of other libertarian-minded individuals), raising such funds wouldn't be nearly as daunting. Utilizing the legal system by which the money stolen from me can be applied to the candidate of my choosing is not a contradiction of libertarian principles. The contradiction is that my money is stolen from me & applied to your Republican candidate in order to give him a major advantage over any libertarian-minded candidate who doesn't qualify for my funding.

It is a contradiction of libertarian principles, participating in the theft by accepting the stolen money. However, your Libertarian principles allow to do or say anything and vote for anybody, ideologically acceptable or not, in order to advance a label devoid of any real principle. That's what you're saying. Maybe the "ideals of liberty are not popular" because most people think giving money to a party that betrays it's supposed principles so easily is not an "ideal of liberty" any more than the devils they already know. You should be ashamed to make these arguments.

 

[jsgolfman]

And the counter question right in the OP is what, exactly, have Libertarians accomplished to make us more free in that time?

Three things of little use:
- The wonderful gun you left at home.
- The ammunition you're out of.
- The politician who lost the election.

Dave, you should know I am not a Libertarian. Answer the question. Or let me answer it for you. Less free. Yet the same pattern continues. Comparing the last few years worth of dems/repubs is extremely nearsighted, the trend is obvious if you expand your view by a few decades.
You've got some serious anger for the Libertarians, yet claim to actually lean that way?

 

[bigg cheese]

What makes you think Obama and his administration isn't completely familiar with the approaches of folk like Che Guevara? Have you ever considered that people "getting riled up" is exactly what they want? All it takes is someone on the right overreacting to justify the crackdown that will follow.

Perhaps "riled up" was a poor choice of words.

Absolutely, they know and understand the tactics. Pelosi marching herself through a self-described "violent" crowd, antogonizing Tea Partiers is an attempt to make us over-react.

I think that is where they lose us. We are people with principles and wisdom on our side. I sincerely hope that we don't blow it, but so far, we have remained largely immune from these antagonistic tactics, despite their attempts to lie about it, and they're looking silly doing it.

1. I don't want anyone over-reacting.
2. The left doesn't understand us.
3. We understand them.

So you go out and find the person who exactly matches what you want in every single particular? Have you actually found a person who agrees with you every single time on every single issue or do you just write yourself in?

Or do you accept that the candidate isn't always going to follow what you would prefer? If the latter, then the argument is purely about where to draw the line.

I'm the only, "Me" and we both know that. I will vote for A)someone who's running, and B)someone I think best qualifies for the position, and NOT a lesser individual who stands a better chance of getting elected. I'm tired of the party system. It's broken and the longer we try to prop it up, the longer we have to wait for a GOOD candidate to get in. I suppose that's the bad thing about the human race -- we feel compelled to count, categorize, and label everything under the sun.

 

[hornadylnl]

Oh, you might be less free that way. After all tyrants are more free then their subjects so not allowing someone to be a tyrant does make him less free.

Oh, you've already sacrificed your principles. "Freedom for me but not for thee" is called the double standard.

Yes, yes, I know. It's for the greater good. Seems to me that that, too, is a line I've heard before.

You see, you can disagree with them all you want. You can use persuasion to try to encourage others to agree with you rather than with them and thereby cut them out of political power. I'll even go so far as to allow direct "tit for tat" reprisals for actions they take (on an individual, case by case, basis).

But the instant you attempt to use force to enforce your view over theirs (and just how else exactly do you plan to expel them from the country) you become a tyrant.

How very tyrannical of me to want to shoot the gunman in the room who is hellbent on killing me and everyone else. After all, he has rights too.

I don't care if someone votes for the cookie monster as long as they respect my rights. The moment you try to take away my rights, you are my enemy.

Keep pulling that R lever folks. It allows them to keep being rinos.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

No, actually, I do not agree with that earlier statement. "What anti-freedom policy does McCain support that Obama doesn't share in full measure?" does not imply "What anti-freedom policy does Obama support that McCain does not support in full measure."

I have not found any "flaw" of McCain's in that regard that Obama does not share. I have found flaws of Obama's in that regard that McCain does not share.

McCain has historically voted "pro gun" about twice as often as Obama.
McCain has supported conservative judges. Obama has not.
McCain, on the international scene, has not made a point of slighting our friends while sucking up to our enemies. Obama has.
McCain voted against ObamaCare. Obama signed it.

While neither is what I would consider "good" the two are not the same.

From John McCain on the Issues

• Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
• Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
• Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
• Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)
• Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
• Voted NO on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
• Voted YES on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
• Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
• Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
• Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997) [the public financing I voted in an attempt to get a 3rd party qualified for it is your guy's idea...]
• Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar 1996)
• Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)
• Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
• Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
• Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006) [big one there...]
• Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
• Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
• Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Nov 2008)
• Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
• Voted YES on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions. (Jul 1999)
• Voted YES on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996)
• Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
• Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)

I agree with a lot of what this man has voted for...but there are some pretty major differences listed above. Personally, I'd rather have more choices than just D or R.

 

[CarmelHP]

From John McCain on the Issues
I agree with a lot of what this man has voted for...but there are some pretty major differences listed above. Personally, I'd rather have more choices than just D or R.

Differences with who? What do these votes represent to you?

 

[dross]

Some of the arguments here illustrate perfectly why the Libertarian party can't ever get off the ground.

I flirted with getting active in the Libertarian party about ten years ago, but as I got to know some of the folks I realized that it was just a cloistered group of smart, nerdy people who wanted to jump straight from the reality of today right into a Galt's Gulch society. I'd like that too, but it's not on the table.

Weighing my options, I decided there were three:
1. Support a third party I believe in (though I don't even agree with the Libertarian party on everything)
2. Work to drag the Republican party closer to freedom positions (Why them? In my book they are closer to freedom than the Dems)
3. Actual Revolution

I don't believe number 3 is yet justified. I don't believe number 1 is likely to work until we have a party willing to be more strategic and pragmatic and less ideological dogmatic. So I was left with an imperfect strategy that doesn't work very well, may not work at all, and is extremely frustrating.

It reminds me of many other dilemnas I've faced as I sink deeper into middle age, and have come into view of senior citizenship. I used to think in terms of absolutes. I still feel there are absolutes, but I never see them being achieved. I never find anything to be exactly as I once thought it should and could be. From my life, to my marriage, to my career, to fatherhood, to the way my body has aged, nothing has lived up to my ideals. Certainly not society and politics.

What am I to do with that info? Is it the World that's wrong? Yes, I still think perhaps it is. Yet, if my ideals don't match reality, am I not committing a sin of reason?

So, if McCain had been elected, would I be pleased? No. I despise McCain. Honestly, if I were just having a beer and a discussion I'd rather have one with Obama or Clinton than McCain. Do I think McCain would damage our country? Yes, in fact, he already has many times. I just don't think he'd damage it as much as Obama. Would I rather have Ron Paul? Yes, despite my strong disagreement with him on foreign policy, I'd rather have Ron Paul. As many have pointed out already, however, if Ron Paul can't even win a primary voted in by people who are closer to his positions, how is he going to ever win the "swing voters"?

So, I muddle on, choosing the lesser of two evils. Perhaps I should have chosen number 3. Perhaps within my daughter's lifetime it will be a more rational choice, though I hope beyond hope we can fix it without that tragedy.