Third party voters rejoice!

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Third party voters rejoice!

arbilad · Head Chef

fear of shiz wrote:

Results here

The Libertarian took away enough votes from the Republicans in Montana to give control of the Senate to the Democrats. That's got to be good for the Libertarian cause....

-- Edited by fear of shiz at 21:16, 2006-11-08

Of course we're sad that the democrats won. That's very bad for everyone. But you accept a certain number of losses in the battle to achieve what you want.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

How do you know the Libertarian took votes that would have gone to Burns? Did exit polls specifically address that question? The exit polls I saw showed the highest percentage of Montanans disapprove of the war in Iraq and Bush's leadership in that war. And the majority of Montanans felt that Burns had been in office too long and that it was time for a change. And the majority of voters had problems with Burns' ethical issues. Most of those folks could have and may have voted for Tester.

eta: Perhaps if Burns had done a better job addressing the concerns of those who voted Libertarian, they would have voted for him instead. Blaming Burn's failure on citizens who actually made the effort to vote? That doesn't seem fair.

-- Edited by Roper at 21:54, 2006-11-08

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

This comes up every election. Last one our Governor won "barely" after two recounts, and there was a libertarian candidate in it, and the same thing was said then. I don't know that I believe it though...

If republican ideals are so great, they should win by better margins, and same goes for democrats... heck all this nonsense about stolen elections would be mute if the consensuses were greater, but they aren't...

Further no really really close election is ever fair to the losing side...

It's a bummer, but you just have to work harder next go around. Why not befriend a few democrats and try having a dialogue with them, maybe you can win them to your point of view?

Today on Michael Medved he went off on the "losertarians" and it really annoyed me... this sort of namecalling is weak and though cathartic, doesn't help anything.

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Well, the various third parties (Libertarian, US Taxpayers, and Green) here in Michigan did not even gain a combined 5% of the vote in any of the offices up for election. They are not relevant here, and the truth of the matter is that if you are going to vote for any of their candidates, you have simply exercised your franchise, but the beyond that it is as good as just staying home from the polls. The numbers are not high enough to "split" a vote that would have ensured a Republican or Democrat candidate wins. You never see any campaigning for third parties, so how the heck do they expect people to know who they are and what they stand for? Seems to me that they are hoping for the odd off votes when people see the name on a ballot...

TitusTodd · Senior Member

There is some surmising when stating libertarian votes would have otherwise gone to a Republican but may not be much of stretch. Most Libertarians I know were once Republicans. From what I understand the libertarian Senate candidate in Montana was pretty weak but yet I'm sure some voted for him just because he is a libertarian. Of course, the republican incumbent had some of his own problems which can't be blamed on anyone but himself.

Medved is a little harsh on third parties but I can't totally disagree with him.

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 08:12, 2006-11-09

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Cat said: "if you are going to vote for any of their candidates, you have simply exercised your franchise, but the beyond that it is as good as just staying home from the polls. "

Hear, hear!

Ray said: "Why not befriend a few democrats and try having a dialogue with them, maybe you can win them to your point of view?" I have had Democrat friends, and have enjoyed great argumen...um...dialogue with them.

In response to Roper: If they were going to vote for Tester, they would have voted for Tester. By voting Lib, they obviously were dissatisfied with Burns, but were unwilling to vote for a Democrat. Perhaps without a Lib option, they would have not voted altogether. But I have trouble believing that people who would vote Lib, and not Dem, have political values that are going to be moved forward by a Dem Senate. It just makes no sense to me. I wasn't thrilled with the Republicans at all this year, but I held my nose and voted for the less bad option.

Arbi said: "Of course we're sad that the democrats won. That's very bad for everyone. But you accept a certain number of losses in the battle to achieve what you want."

I am not prepared to accept 1) the perception that the American people have voted for weakness and retreat, 2) the possiblity of higher taxes and increased regulation, 3) the diminished chance for a strong conservative Supreme Court, and 4) the weakening of the war effort by the barrage of oversight and investigations that the Dems will unleash on the Pentagon/White House. The abstract, quixotic ideal of building a third party is not worth any of that.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Are you sure you're not me, fear of shiz?

arbilad · Head Chef

Content deleted by Moderator
Even though I thought it was a brilliant post, I started thinking about it, and it could have been construed as a personal attack against Shiz, even though it certainly wasn't meant that way.
And I don't want you to think I'm a hypocrite.

-- Edited by arbilad at 21:26, 2006-11-09

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Today I listened to and interview with Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Mohler said that for too long, the Republican party has paid little more than lip service to issues that conservative Christians care about. Additionally, Repbulican candidates had moral and ethical problems that are abhorrent to conservative Christians. Consequently, conservative Christians are rapidly becoming disillusioned with the GOP. He asserts that the Democratic platform embraces ideals contradictory to conservative Christian values, and that there's no real danger of conservative Christians flocking to the Democrats.

So what's left? Stay home out of disgust, or find a third party that better represents conservative Christian values.

Republicans better find a way to bring this constituency back, or 2008 will look much worse.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

If you think I am wrong about point number 1 above (perception of weakness) just check out the news today about how Iran and Al Qaeda are taking the election results. They are crowing about how this is a victory for them.

Here's one example:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061110/pl_nm/usa_elections_iran_dc

arbilad · Head Chef

Shiz, I have no doubt that things will get worse now much faster. But my point has always been that the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is the speed at which it'll get worse. We'll end up in the same place either way.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

So, since the world has to go to pot anyway, before the Savior comes, let's speed up the process?

arbilad · Head Chef

Actually, the reason I vote third party is to make an effort towards the world not going to pot. Since it will with either the Democrat or Republican parties, I vote third party in the hope that we can build up enough momentum to get this thing turned around.
So, it is precisely out of a desire for the world not to go to pot that I vote third party.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Have you heard that Sen. Joseph Leiberman ran and won as an Independent in Connecticut? The democrats turned on him big time, because he wouldn't vote party line when told to. So he switched parties, and his constituents voted for a THIRD PARTY candidate because they felt he was the best choice, despite party affiliation.

I tend to agree with Arbilad. As long as most people continue to vote for the "less bad option", the two major parties will continue to misunderstand what we want.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

In three separate and close Senate races, Montana, Missouri, and Virginia, Constitution, Libertarian, and Independent Party candidates combined to deny victory to the Republican candidates. I note that over 20,000 people in Utah voted for Scott Bradley, the Constitution Party candidate for the US Senate, and a total of over 22,000 people voted for one or the other of the three Constitution Party candidates for the House of Representatives. That tells me there are over twenty thousand voters in Utah who apparently believe in and support constitutional principles, and are convinced the Republican Party and most of its candidates do not.

For decades, the two party system has worked tirelessly to consolidate power and to insulate itself from those who would challenge, change or even restrain it in the name of principles, especially constitutional principles. Party loyalty is rewarded over principle, and those who tend to think for themselves are quickly attacked so as to minimize their influence on the parties. A hallmark of the two party system is the effort undertaken to discredit and silence those who refuse to let the party think for them. This has been especially evident in the so far unsuccessful high $ efforts of the Republican Party in Texas to get rid of Republican Congressman Ron Paul, who uncompromisingly supports constitutional principles. He has publicly stated that both the Republican and Democrat parties are moving us down the road of soul-destroying Socialism.

We constitutionalists may not in the near future win many or any electoral contests and actually regain our full constitutional liberty, especially considering the powerful forces arrayed against us. But we still can support each other in garnering the resolve to stop compromising on essential and core principles, which the current crop of Republican leaders largely ignore. We cannot expect to convince the majority that our position is best, long-term, but we can and do reach those who sense something is wrong and who are open to change Those are the ones with whom our real hope lies.

Many of us believe it will be out of the principled few who have firmly supported constitutional principles, not out of those who chose "the lesser of two evils" or failed to recognize those evils, that God will choose a remnant to survive the ultimate destruction he brings upon nations, including ours, who refuse to repent. There is a good number who are trying to do our part to build a remnant of people who will be able to band together to help rebuild when the inevitable consequences befall this nation.

-- Edited by lundbaek at 21:23, 2006-11-12

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

So if I don't vote third party, I won't be among God's chosen "remnant"?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

We constitutionalists may not in the near future win many or any electoral contests and actually regain our full constitutional liberty

I can appreciate the thought in how inspiring and motivational it may seem, but I do not understand how this particular line of reasoning is any different than the dissident attitude within the ancient Nephite culture. Weren't nearly all the schisms and defections from the Nephites as a result of people feeling their rights had been usurped? Isn't this how the Democrats whined and complained since losing the house and Senate in 1998? Isn't this the same way the Democrats (including Gore and Kerry) complained and whined and fought in the courts after losing the presidential race in 2000 and 2004 respectively? Please explain how the constitutional liberty to participate in the electoral process and the franchise of voting has been usurped by the fact the bulk of the voting public chooses to vote for Republican or Democratic Party candidates. I submit that just because one's candidate or party was not the winner in the election does not equate to a loss of constitutional liberty or voting franchise.

We cannot expect to convince the majority that our position is best, long-term, but we can and do reach those who sense something is wrong and who are open to change Those are the ones with whom our real hope lies

Again, sounds very much like the Nephite schism scenario. The majority of the people have spoken, and it has not been in our favor, so we will take what we can and leave if we can't gain control.

There is a good number who are trying to do our part to build a remnant of people who will be able to band together to help rebuild when the inevitable consequences befall this nation.

And, there is a good number of people who happen to support Democratic and Republican parties, policies, and candidates who are part of the "good number who are trying to do" their part in building up Zion. Or, is it only those individuals who subscribe to John Birch Society dogma who will be found worthy to stand when The Lord comes to rule on the earth? The destruction of this nation is not inevitable. It is not predestined. That is not what the prophets of God have told us. They have warned us that if we do not repent and worship God, then we will suffer the same fate as the Jaredites, the Nephites, and the Lamanites. But it is not a foregone conclusion that it will happen. Where and in what are you really putting your trust, brother? Are there a lot of wicked people out there? Sure. Is there a lot of wickedness out there? Sure. But, aren't there still an awful lot of righteous people out there, both in and outside the LDS church? Absolutely! Aren't there an awful lot of righteous acts and behavior being done regularly? Absolutely!

Come on lundbaek, don't be so fatalistic! It is far easier to go about doing good (and with the proper attitude may I add) if our hope is in the right place. Our faith is then sure. Do you really think Pres. Hinckely and the Apostles all get up in the morning and go about their work with an attitude of "Well, let's take a look at the atomic meltdown clock and see how much longer before the apocalypse comes and the world as we know it comes to an end." No way! Do they have a greater insight into the urgency of the latter-day work? Absolutely! But, I'm sure they have a clearer understanding that to combat the evils in the world is to teach and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to bring souls unto Christ.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

bokbadok wrote:

Have you heard that Sen. Joseph Leiberman ran and won as an Independent in Connecticut? The democrats turned on him big time, because he wouldn't vote party line when told to. So he switched parties, and his constituents voted for a THIRD PARTY candidate because they felt he was the best choice, despite party affiliation.

I tend to agree with Arbilad. As long as most people continue to vote for the "less bad option", the two major parties will continue to misunderstand what we want.

Well, what I find the most telling about Sen. Leiberman is that despite his former party turning on him for being too moderate / conservative, it was the Republican voters who voted him back in as a non-affiliated candidate (aka Independent, he didn't switch to a third party, he switched to no party). Yet, he has such the mentality that he will still caucus with the Democrats and that he is quoted as saying something to the effect of he will not be beholden to the Republicans. Well, can't say that the Republican party did much to actually get him re-elected, so can't say I blame him for the sentiment in that regards. But it was Republican voters, so if he is not going to be beholden to them (as in listening to their concerns and representing them), then he really has no reason to be in the Senate again. It is not that the two major parties "continue to misunderstand what we want." It is that the two major parties and most of the career politicians (regardless of party affiliation be it R or D or L or C or G or Ind) are too often more interested in entrenching themselves in the position and basking in the power than they are about serving the public and their constituency unless it will help them become entrenched further.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Cat, you da man!

Randy · Senior Member

Well at least Lieberman won't rule out the possibility of switching to caucus with the Republicans if the Democrats make it too uncomfortable for him. But really, I don't see that happening. Harry Reid as assured him that he keeps his seniority.

Personally, I'm tickled pink that Lieberman won if only to let the Democrats know that there are limits to what they can do. They did not get the Democrat that they chose.

Some people are asserting that this election signals the death of conservatism. But given that the Democrats' strategy for winning was to run conservative democrats, I think that is questionable. If the democrats become more conservative that is for the good. Whether that is good for the Republican party may be questionable, but it is good for America.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, I didn't read it at all as if lundbaek was saying that people were being denied their voting rights because they didn't win. He was saying that, if we eventually win, we'll have people in elected positions were they can make a difference and restore those rights that have been denied us.
I don't see this as a Nephite style schism at all. There are so many points I'd like to answer, and no time at all to answer them. But those dissenters from the Nephites were interested in leaving or having power over their bretheren. Members of the constitution party, on the other hand, love the US, in every case I've seen wish to stay here. and wish that the government had much less power, rather than much more.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

What rights have been denied to us, since ostensibly the "us" refers to all Americans then?

This is where I feel the Constitution party (as well as other minor third parties) just misses the boat. Claims are made, but little is done to prove the claims or to really get the word out. Failure to secure even a marginal percentage of the vote then gets blamed on the conspiracy of the two dominant political parties. But, that is really a red herring. If a third party political movement really has merit, it will become a force to reckon with, as the Independent Party movement had back when Ross Perot ran in 1992. Problem is that movement collapsed and splintered quickly after the decent showings it had when Perot ran and then when Jesse Ventura was elected Governor in Minnesota. They became irrelevant as the bulk of voters who had previously supported that movement realized that the extreme views of these now niche ideologies did not match up with there moderate to conservative view points.

I don't mean to bash the Constitution party, that is not it all. I was one of those that had high hopes for the Independent Party back in the '92 election, and not because I felt Bush Sr. was a bad president. I thought he was a good president, but had his hands tied due to the democratic block against him. Perot and the Independents sounded great and promised to cut the red tape and get stuff down. Well, they couldn't deliver on being elected, and actually ended up letting the worst candidate win the presidency. Therefore, people could no longer trust that movement to actually keep its campaign promises based on the election outcome, and faith was lost. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.