Question for Third Party Voters

As a Libertairan I look at the merits of the Democrats and Republicans. Usually I don't find very many. I despise Bush for his anti-diplomacy, pro-war policies and Kerry is not the kind of leader this country needs. If everyone who BELIEVED Libertariand actually VOTED Libertarian we would be a major national party in no time.

starting with the assumption that anyone running or even wanting to be president is a dickhead I often vote 3 (or 5th) party so as to totally waste my vote and still participate in the election process of being a good citizen.

I agree completely!

I vote libertarian, not to win, but to show the 2 main parties that there are people who disagree. If they were worth anything, they would look at those numbers and think, "What can I do to get their vote?"

I'm hoping to make an impression.

Maybe if everyone voted their conscience dickheads would be discouraged from running for office.

The Democrats are not far from the Republicans in their policies; they drag their feet a bit, but they end up being sort of shadow Republican party. I vote Nader because I agree with him more than Bush and Kerry.

I know that no matter what I do, New York will be behind the Democratic candidate because of the number of votes that come out of NYC. For that reason, I will again choose to pad the numbers for a third party candidate in hopes of one day getting the current system to change a bit.

Nickfun writes:


As a Libertarian, I agree. However, before the American people will risk letting us have a shot at the White House and/or making national laws, the Libertarians themselves are going to have to clean up their act, find some sort of consensus that can be defined on their take on the Constitution and American freedoms and make room for true conservatives in their midst. There has to be a more coherant debate to define a 'just war', 'national responsibilility to neighbors', 'how compassion for the truly needy will be administered', how religous freedom will be interpreted etc. etc. etc. There will not be complete agreement on any major issues and compromises have to be found.

When the party can be projected with an image of free drugs for everybody, no international borders, total isolationism, and 'everybody fends for himself', it creates more concerns in the minds of the public than it creates confidence.

I propose that the debate begin, however. There simply has to be a better plan than what either the Democrats or GOP has come up with so far.

That's a word McGentrix, go for the real democracy.
I know most countries don't have more than two big parties that usually come the executive leaders from.
But I'm sure the US really could need some fresh wind from another party that kicks some butties of "old"-thinking congressmen.