A wasted vote is a vote for someone with strong ideological differences with you. For instance, if I had voted for Bush either time, it would have been a wasted vote. I am for smaller government, and he is for bigger government. I am for secure borders, and he is for open borders. The list is very long.
Yeah, it's no fun that the people I vote for don't win. But what would I get if I voted for a major party candidate? Basically, just a feeling of self-importance that the candidate I voted for won. But then I'd have to live with the reality of what they actually did all term. Whereas I don't have the satisfaction of my candidate winning, but at least I have a clear conscience that I didn't support the bad things they're doing.

I think it is legitimate to vote AGAINST a candidate by voting for the one most likely to win.

Our population is full of know-it-alls who think they know best, but no candidate outside of running for office yourself, will EVER be exactly what you want. It's a ridiculous delusion that third party candidates pursue. It's like the spoiled child who takes his ball and goes home because the group won't play the game according to his rules--even if they defy reality or are entirely one-sided... no one likes that kid.

If you ever really care about your ideas becoming law, you MUST work within the two party system, or your ideas simply don't matter.  The Primary is a GREAT time to get behind and work for your guy within that framework. If you can't do that, then you don't have what it takes to be in politics, because you don't what it takes to build a concession and work with people of differing viewpoints.

IF your ideas really are the best, then do you just think everyone else is stupid? The fact is there are thousands of varying opinions and perspectives. Each person has their own personal ideaology and the topics that interest them the most.

--Ray

Ray said it well, and others have explained where they differ from me. Thanks for saving me the trouble, guys!

Coco, I respect those who want to vote 3rd party, especially if they are drawn to the ideology of the party. But I feel that political participation requires accepting the reality of the system, and the reality of our system is that there are two viable parties. Not since the mid 1800s has a new major party arisen in the US, and that was the Republican party, which essentially picked up the remains of the Whigs, who had been one of the two dominant parties prior to that. So our system has always been favorable to two-party dominance. It is the nature of the structure of the system. The Italian, Israeli, French, and other systems are set up in a way to allow small, ideological parties to be viable. Ours is not. I think this is a benefit.

Voting 3rd party is usually a way to protest when your preferred party of the Big Two has "betrayed" you by not being "pure" enough. But seeking purity in politics is another denial of reality. For a party to have majority status in a country of 300 million people, with varying backgrounds, religions, worldviews, economic status, etc. it has to be a coalition. It has to be open enough to accept people who disagree on some points. The great Democrat majority of 1932-1968 had both Catholics and Jews, southern segregationists and northern blacks.

I am going to include something I said when I first started posting on this forum:


"I've been lurking a bit here--checking out some of the various threads before I dive in. I think that there is a need for me to state a general principle that will apply to many of the discussions here.

Many people here have expressed their desires for what they think would be right and good in American government, including a return to very conservative practices, and a much stricter Constitutionalism, as they define it. There is nothing wrong with having these opinions and desires. There is nothing wrong with working towards these goals. But it is important to remember that Politics is the Art of Compromise and of Forging Consensus where there is none. One is limited in Politics by what is Possible, and what is not Possible. One cannot just impose one's will on the body politic--that is a dictatorship, and even a "righteous" dictatorship in my mind would be terrible. I hope that those here who value strict, conservative Constitutional principles will not a) opt out of the political process because they think they will never achieve those goals or b) look to some "knight on a white horse" to come in and "rescue" the Republic.

So when we participate in the political process, we have to build a coalition with those with whom we do not agree in every particular. We have to be willing to compromise. Unfortunately, the number of Americans who believe strongly in such conservative ideals is a minority. Perhaps it is a significant minority, and perhaps it is growing. There has been a lot of work done in the last 30-50 years to educate and spread Conservative ideas. We don't have the Universities, or the "main-stream" media. But it is not going to happen overnight. And there is a long way to go. Remember that Al Gore got more popular votes than George W. Bush. So there is a long way to go.

So keep educating people in conservative, Constitutional principles. Keep working to further good government and good policy. But when we get a President like George W. Bush, who may not be perfect in our minds as regards immigration and other issues, at least be grateful that he has chosen good judges and that he has responded well to the challenge of Islamo-fascism. When the Republicans in Congress let us down, as they do fairly often, keep in mind that the alternative is much worse.

This may require some holding-our-nose and working with people with whom we disagree, or making some compromises along the way. Doctrinal purity is appropriate for the religious sphere of action--but politics is not so clear-cut."

If we always do what we've always done, we'll always get what we always got.

And with a few rare exceptions on the state and local levels, I've never liked what I always got with those who supposedly represent the political will of the people.

I've never bought into the reasoning that a two party system is best and it's all we
will ever have so just accept it and work within it.

if we ever want to have more options than offered by a two-party system, then some people somewhere have to vote for a third party.

I have to admit, Arbi, your dead cat analogy is brilliant... Hahahahaha!! Love ya! I'll have to grant you that point. :)

--Ray

PS> Oh yeah, and Mitt Romney would NEVER put a dead cat in your mailbox. He's the popular kid who with a little encouragement can think of a way to get the bad boys to bury the dead cat in Miss O'Malley's abandoned garden, where it can decompose and form fertilizer for nourishing vegetables that he would share with all the children of mexico (after accidentally insulting them all with really bad spanish).

-- Edited by rayb at 23:03, 2007-03-19

I've studied the resources Lundbaek has provided a few times on this forum.  I've done more research and study on my own about the role of our inspired Constitution and the proper role of government.

My own political beliefs have grown decidedly closer to the positions Lundbaek articulates (although I'm not as focused on Cold-war-era ideology )

With a few exceptions like Ron Paul, I don't think our old embattled Constitution has had a friend in federal government for a long time.

"The Puppet Masters" as I use the term, are members of the conspiracy that President Ezra Taft Benson warned us about when he stated "I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society.  It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing.  A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world." (I Testify by President Ezra Taft Benson, October Conference, LDS Church, reported in Nov. Ensign, 1988, p. 87)  Note that he spoke of conspiracy in the singular, not plural.  Those "Latter Day Gadiantons", as I usually call them, are the ones Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith believed are doing Satan's bidding when he wrote:  "Satan has control now.  No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land.  He is guiding the governments as far as the Lord will permit him....One master mind is governing the nations.  It is not the President of theUnited States...it is not the king or government of England or any other land; it is Satan himself. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3,pp, 314-315)   Maybe I'll elaborate on the conspiracy as I perceive it on a new thread.  It is a bit much for this topic.

Without going into detail, I do believe that if our presidents, congressmen/women and Supreme Court adhered to the principles written in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the US Constitution, possibly (hopefully) the other issues destroying this country would not be doing so. 

I have addressed the Romney question on another thread.  Basically, I think he turned his back on the values and beliefs of the Church, presumably for political gain. 

What evidence?

Didn't you see him in person, Mahonri?

Cocobeem wrote:

---

roper- What resources have you found most helpful?

---

These are my top three:

1.  D&C 98, D&C 101, D&C 109 (spec. v. 54)
2.  "Liberalism, Conservatism, and Mormonism" by Hyrum Adrus (Deseret Book, out of print)
3.  "The Proper Role of Government" by Ezra Taft Benson

 Here are the resources Lundbaek originally posted.