Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Politics

Ralph Nader Moderates One Last 3rd-Party Debate for 2012 409

Late Tuesday, both the 2012 U.S. election (the popular vote at least) and the 2012 campaign season should be over. Tonight, though, whatever your ability or plans to vote are (see the current poll for a peek at what other readers claim about their intentions), you've got the chance to see one more presidential debate, to be moderated by Ralph Nader, and featuring third-party presidential contenders Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Constitution) and Rock Anderson (Justice). Yes, the same ones featured in another debate a few weeks back. (We promise, this is the last debate of this go-round.) If you're voting (or would, if you could) for other than the Democratic or Republican parties' candidates this year, what drives that decision?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ralph Nader Moderates One Last 3rd-Party Debate for 2012

Comments Filter:
  • Re:A Wasted Vote... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blackfireuponus ( 2026394 ) on Sunday November 04, 2012 @08:33PM (#41876031)
    I am also a Nader fan and a 3 time Nader voter, and I'm voting for Jill Stein. A vote for a mainstream candidate in a non contested state is the real wasted vote.
  • by belgo ( 72693 ) on Sunday November 04, 2012 @08:44PM (#41876095) Homepage

    ... and I was just voting my conscience (last Sunday, during early voting, as it happened). The two 'major' parties both want to send your children to die in countries that did not attack us in 2001, and both parties enjoy ordering record numbers of wiretaps, both with and without warrants, every single year. Both 'major' parties are also huge, huge fans of welfare, as long as the recipients are banks. I know one of them will win (and given their similarities, it doesn't matter which). But I'll sleep better knowing I had no part in endorsing their sociopathy.

  • Re:A Wasted Vote... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by flyneye ( 84093 ) on Sunday November 04, 2012 @08:48PM (#41876133) Homepage

    Technically, since the Republican and Democratic parties have taken turns, term by term, doing eventually, exactly the same thing the other would do, perhaps sooner, perhaps later, for around a century, we've no reason to consider them separate parties. Minor differences between them have supplied the illusion of a separate entity, all smoke and mirrors, this is a one party system: The Repubmocrats.
            To continually do the same thing over and over, then to expect different results each time is crazy and stupid. Therefore to cast a vote in favor of the presiding one party system is logically a waste of a vote for an improving break of this mad cycle.
    You can argue that radical changes would be made by the other parties, I give you that radical changes must be corrected due to our incompetence over the last century. Yeah , it could hurt. Wanna pawn it off on your kids? Grandkids? Want more of the same ol' downward spiral for you and them? Just keep voting Repubmocrat if you do. Frankly, I would vote for a one eyed, hump backed, anarchist Hobbit, if I thought it would mean an end to Repubmocrat tyranny.

  • Re:A Wasted Vote... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04, 2012 @09:22PM (#41876319)

    Hey assbite, Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico twice and limited by term limits. As a Californian, I'm voting for him. Fuck off with your FUD, American discontent with the existing two-party system is at an all-time high and rising. But I wouldn't judge anybody else who chooses to vote for the third-party candidate of their choice, for they are more principled than the assholes who vote just because they want the other guy to lose.

    What America needs is a common-sense, fiscally conservative, socially liberal platform. Gary Johnson's personal and professional experience and accomplishments speak for themselves. And before any of you dismiss third-party candidates as being a "lunatic fringe..."

    The Republican and Democrat parties both became "lunatic fringes" long ago, far-removed from the population as a whole. You're fucked either way, but the more votes cast as protest votes, the quicker the change. Real change.

    -- Ethanol-fueled

  • Here's the Problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Sunday November 04, 2012 @09:42PM (#41876425) Homepage Journal

    I agree that you should vote for somebody you believe in, even if they have no chance of winning. My problem is that I can't believe in any of these bozos. Just picture any one of them in the White House. Could they govern? They could not.

      The U.S. isn't an elected dictatorship — POTUS has to govern in tandem with Congress. If you're not satisfied with the current crowd, you need to replace the whole crowd, not just one guy. You have to work on electing Congresspeople who reflect your views. If you're not willing to do that, all this crap with fring Presidential candidates is a waste of time.

  • by jemenake ( 595948 ) on Sunday November 04, 2012 @10:17PM (#41876635)
    If you're at all interested in getting more ideas out into the national consciousness (and if you're living in a state that Obama or Romney has a lock on), consider voting for a third-party candidate. Because of the electoral system, it's not going to change who wins the election, but it can increase the chances that one of these candidates gets a spot at some future televised debate. Once upon a time, the debates were sponsored by the National Organization of Women... and now they're run by the Commission on Presidential Debates (which is run by the Democratic and Republican parties). Being a bit of a cartel, they've managed to stipulate that the only invitees to debate must get at least 15% representation in various national polls (another classic case of the successful pulling up the ladder they used to climb to the top).

    Now, we could argue the game theory of elections and I'd have to concede that it's always going to devolve into two parties (like how tea-partiers, when the chips are really down, vote for the republican because the alternative, a democrat, would be, to them, the apocalypse), but part of how those two parties stay on top is by having a "big tent" and trying to appeal to a broad spectrum of views (okay... and also by not really specifying what their views are). And I think that, if other candidates are able to get up with the "big boys" and put forward their views, then that's more exposure... and maybe some of those views might have to get some recognition from one of the major parties.

    Frankly, after visiting ISideWith.com, I was blown away at how congruent my views are with the Green candidate, Jill Stein... to the point where I really wish more people knew that there was a candidate that was, potentially, so suited to their views. Same goes for Gary Johnson. He's not my cup of tea, but I really wish the socially-liberal/economically-conservative republican voters out there were more aware that they didn't necessarily need to throw gays and women under the bus in exchange for getting capital-gains and inheritance taxes abolished. And maybe a stronger-than-expected showing in the election will provide the social proof for some more people to look into what's up with this (Libertarian|Green|Justice| Constitution) thing.

    Of course, as I said in the subject, if you live in a swing state, then ignore the preceding rant and get your state swinging.
  • Re:A Wasted Vote... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tignom ( 562076 ) on Sunday November 04, 2012 @11:42PM (#41877115)
    If there are mainstream candidates you want to win, vote for them. If not, a vote for a third party is a vote for more viable candidates to choose from in the next election. In the long run, that's a meaningful vote.
  • Re:A Wasted Vote... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Vaphell ( 1489021 ) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:14AM (#41877269)

    who says about lack of any government? Cutting back and getting rid of entirely are 2 different things and most libertarians suggest the former. It doesn't matter though because every time a libertarian says something reasonable like 'paying taxes on working and subsidizing not working is counterproductive and the govt is not supposed to micromanage every detail of your life, what you eat, who you sleep with' he is 'encouraged' to go to Somalia.

    also correlation is not causation - that the rich countries recycle huge part of their GDP through government channels doesn't mean the govt is the source of prosperity. It may as well be the other way around: prosperous countries can afford to blow money on fluff and would be more prosperous if they didn't.

  • Re:A Wasted Vote... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Nadaka ( 224565 ) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:04AM (#41880455)

    You get it wrong. If anyone does not hate these candidates, it means the propaganda is working. They are both terrible terrible people who do not deserve to lead. I just happen to think that America can endure 4 more years of Obama better than it could 4 endure years of Romney.

Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?

Working...