?

Log in

No account? Create an account
3rd Party Candidates - Jonathan

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile

August 1st, 2004


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
02:25 pm - 3rd Party Candidates
Poll #329469 3rd Party Candidates

Is voting for a 3rd party candidate

Yes
1(12.5%)
No
6(75.0%)
Undecided
1(12.5%)

Is voting 3rd party the same as not voting at all?

Yes
1(10.0%)
No
7(70.0%)
Undecided
2(20.0%)

Will you be voting this year?

Yes
10(100.0%)
No
0(0.0%)
Undecided
0(0.0%)

(6 comments | Speak your mind)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:metahacker
Date:August 1st, 2004 11:27 am (UTC)
(Link)
First question is...incomplete?
[User Picture]
From:jon3
Date:August 1st, 2004 11:27 am (UTC)
(Link)
Stupid pollmaker. First question should be:

Is voting for a 3rd party candidate "throwing away your vote".
[User Picture]
From:metahacker
Date:August 1st, 2004 12:08 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Maybe edit the entry to put that note above the poll?
[User Picture]
From:jon3
Date:August 1st, 2004 12:09 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It doesn't allow you to edit a poll. :/
[User Picture]
From:metahacker
Date:August 1st, 2004 12:31 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Right, but you can edit the entry around the poll.
[User Picture]
From:rjb5
Date:August 1st, 2004 07:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Wow, a bit surprised to see I'm the only YES vote on the first question. This topic was the subject of many late-night pub discussions over in Northern Ireland, folks who know politics and what it is to be screwed by politics, repeatedly. The reason I answer "Yes", assuming you are referring specifically to the presidential election and not a more balanced local election where a 3rd party might actually win, is that the purpose of an election is elect someone, not make a personal statement. In other words, I think you have to be practical in your election choices. In a democracy, all of politics, absolutely everything, is a matter of compromise. The legislators have to compromise to get anything enacted, nobody ever gets their way 100%. The same is true on an individual level. You can't always get your first choice, and the circumstances may make that obvious. Again, referring to the current presidential election, the only realistically possible outcome at this point is one of the two leading candidates will win the election. Nobody can recover from a 40% deficit at this point... So, when it comes to casting your practical vote, where is the value in voting for an irrelevant candidate? The claims of "symbolic value" really are quite meaningless, just as it is symbolically meaningless for a legislator to "Abstain" from a vote on a tough issue. The fact is, they need to vote Yes or No, and abdicating their responsibility to represent us by refusing to vote is just that: irresponsibility. I look at the upcoming presidential election the same way: each individual has the responsibility to vote for the best practical compromise they can. Another way of saying this: You may not get your first choice, but would you rather have your second or your third? And would you rather have your say in choosing between the second and third, or would you rather abdicate that responsibility?

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com