Hi everyone. I'm wanting your feedback and insight as voters. This thread is not meant to start a debate, nor is it to push someone's political views onto another. I'm currently active in the campaign of a third party candidate for office. For the safety of this thread, I am not mentioning who, as it has no bearing on this topic. I am very curious what you think about third party candidates in general. Do you take them seriously, why or why not? Does the specific party matter to you? If you've not heard of them, do you bother researching them to see what they stand for? etc...
Third Party candidates and the public's POV
- Thread starter Mike in Cincy
- Start date
I am a huge fan of one of the third party candidates in this race, but to be honest, many I do not take seriously... I have heard some fairly radical views spouted by both of them. Party doesn't matter so much to me as much as the message.
Also, I will admit to have (a time or two) voted for candidates for minor county positions solely based on who has the funniest name.
Also, I will admit to have (a time or two) voted for candidates for minor county positions solely based on who has the funniest name.
To be honest, I don't take any political candidate seriously. For example, while I agree with the many things that Ron Paul says on many topics, I still won't vote for him, or any other candidate for that matter. One could make the argument that third party candidates believe or say things that hit closer to home with people who want more freedom from government but the bottom line is, politicians by their very nature are going to end up forcing people to do things that they wouldn't do voluntarily.
I tend to not take third party candidates seriously, because I figure they don't have a chance. I realize that my sentiment is perpetuating the problem, but... that's me.
Also, I am not a party person. (Unless there's alcohol and hot chicks involved! [Low brow self high five])
Also, I am not a party person. (Unless there's alcohol and hot chicks involved! [Low brow self high five])
No matter what I or anyone else thinks of third party candidates, if you believe in them and their message/platform, then you should support them however you can. The only candidate (local, state or national) that I ever financially supported was John Anderson when he ran for POTUS back in 1980. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Anderson
Deep down I knew he wouldn't win, but I firmly believed in what he stood for.
Deep down I knew he wouldn't win, but I firmly believed in what he stood for.
I'll vote for a third party candidate that I agree with as soon as he/she actually has a snowball's chance of winning an election - until then, my vote is wasted making a statement and typically helps the person I most dislike. I do like the discourse that third-party candidates bring into the election process, and I think a smart major party candidate would be well-served listening to them and even offering a position within their administration if they win.
I feel like the majority of voters do not care about third party candidates simply because they collectively believe they have no chance at winning. I was very surprised to look at the number of votes that Ross Perot received back in 1992, and that a third party did not gain momentum. (Perot received 18.9% of the vote, almost 20 million voters.) It seems like if there was going to be a major third party, it would have happened in the elections following.
I also feel that part of the reason third party candidates are not taken seriously is because they are given very, very little air time in media. This has to do not only with paid advertisements, but with national news coverage as well. I do not believe this is due to news being slanted toward one party or the other; rather, people on these news programs must deliver the ratings, and reporting about third party candidates doesn't get ratings, because as mentioned earlier, voters don't take third party candidates seriously.
I also feel that people vote defensively. "I would rather vote Banana party, but I don't want the Apple party to win, so I'll vote for the Apricot party, who I hate less."
I actually will be voting for a third party candidate this election because their ideology matches my own. (And, for whatever it's worth, none of the candidates with whom I am closest ideologically will win in my state, so I would rather vote for the person who best represents me.)
I also feel that part of the reason third party candidates are not taken seriously is because they are given very, very little air time in media. This has to do not only with paid advertisements, but with national news coverage as well. I do not believe this is due to news being slanted toward one party or the other; rather, people on these news programs must deliver the ratings, and reporting about third party candidates doesn't get ratings, because as mentioned earlier, voters don't take third party candidates seriously.
I also feel that people vote defensively. "I would rather vote Banana party, but I don't want the Apple party to win, so I'll vote for the Apricot party, who I hate less."
I actually will be voting for a third party candidate this election because their ideology matches my own. (And, for whatever it's worth, none of the candidates with whom I am closest ideologically will win in my state, so I would rather vote for the person who best represents me.)
I love the idea of voting third party and I did in 08 mainly because I knew who was going to win and I figured if enough people voted for a third party the major parties would nominate people closer to my beliefs (with the tea party/occupy movement somewhat justifying that opinion)
I think that for a third party to take hold you need to start local. If we had two or three third party congressmen and a dozen non-republicrat governors then a third party presidential candidate would seem more probable. The problem is that so few people pay any attention to local politics (studies have shown that in local elections the person listed first on the ballot gets more votes then they would if listed lower on the list regardless of political affiliation) that building from the local level is almost impossible.
I think that for a third party to take hold you need to start local. If we had two or three third party congressmen and a dozen non-republicrat governors then a third party presidential candidate would seem more probable. The problem is that so few people pay any attention to local politics (studies have shown that in local elections the person listed first on the ballot gets more votes then they would if listed lower on the list regardless of political affiliation) that building from the local level is almost impossible.
A third party makes pretty good sense in the Canadian Parliamentary democracy system. It's good to have a credible alternative or two waiting in the wings, and if the 'established' main-line parties aren't capturing the imagination of the voters, things can turn around pretty quickly.
Whether that translates well into the different size and structure of the US system ... I cannot say.
Whether that translates well into the different size and structure of the US system ... I cannot say.
If there were a competent third party candidate with ideas and goals that aligned with mine, I would have no issue supporting them.
Unfortunately, in the U.S. System, this hasn't seemed to be the case.
All the third party candidates wind up accomplishing is weakening the campaign of the candidate whose philosophy is most like his.
Unfortunately, in the U.S. System, this hasn't seemed to be the case.
All the third party candidates wind up accomplishing is weakening the campaign of the candidate whose philosophy is most like his.
No support for third party candidates here since the Bull Moose Party.
I take 3rd party candidates seriously as people with forthright intentions and usually more transparent than the 2 established parties. But from a practical POV I realize they have little chance at the national or even state level, so voting for one in a major election is more a protest vote IMO. That is not to say they cannot push the policy debate or actions of the major party they are most naturally aligned with, so they have value. Sometimes I wish we had more viable parties, but based on what goes on in other countries with lots of different political parties, seems factions need align to reach some majority, to the point where there are still essentially 2 sides against each other.
The party does matter in the sense that it establishes the outline of their policy. I want to believe the person running matters more than party, but the political machines are so strong I (sadly) no longer think that is true.
The party does matter in the sense that it establishes the outline of their policy. I want to believe the person running matters more than party, but the political machines are so strong I (sadly) no longer think that is true.
Don't blame me. I voted for Phil.
"Third Party" is a name that's just begging for failure. Reminds people of "third world" or "bronze medal", they need a better marketing campaign.
I wonder why other countries have so many different political parties, but the US is saddled with 2? I think the only way for there to be a third party is if a very popular president abandoned his party and started his own. Then ran for a second term under that banner.
Unfortunately, it's never the Third Party that calls themselves the Third Party, it's the media, pundits and the general population.
I could not imagine a "coalition" government in this country. There is no way anyone in congress would ever agree with anyone else to get anything done. They have become too used to it being "my way or the highway".
I think it might be good to force politicians to work together if neither party had a majority but as long is we are a 2 party country we will never get past the "us and them" mentality.
The party that is in power always has as their first priority (regardless of which party) to stick it to the other guys as badly as they got it stuck to them when they were out of power.
unfortunately, money and politics go hand in hand and when there's the perception that you have none you're not taken seriously as a candidate. I think the US would be better off if we had multiple parties represented in Washington, if not to level the playing field. Most voters feel that it's an either/or situation when it comes to whom they choose, but it's not. Washington is corrupt and it's because the Lobbyists own politicians, Republican and Democrat
Similar threads
