posted
I know most people feel this way about politics. You may be a Democrat or a Republican, or independent, but most people feel that the two major candidates put forward aren’t qualified for the job they’re running for. Yet most people vote for the one who is “the lesser of two evils”.
This is not really a bad thing, it’s very practical. There are clearly only going to be two people this coming election who have a chance at winning it, and voting for the one who you feel is best qualified (or voting against the one who you feel is the most poorly qualified) makes sense. However, I feel hypocritical about voting as my leader, someone who I don’t actually like or support. Does anyone else feel this way?
I can’t decide what to do. I could vote for the lesser of two evils (as I definitely don’t feel that either Bush or Kerry would be the president I wish to have in office) or I could pencil in a name (I’m also not a big fan of any of the third party candidates I’m familiar with). Doing that would be kind of a waste, in that no one who gets penciled in is about to win the election, but then again, I just feel weird adding my voice to a group that I quite frankly don’t like or trust.
posted
The two party system is really a problem. Unfortunatly it's always existed in American politics. With the exception of the Populist party, no third party has really been of consequence.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that's the problem, I feel like in voting for one of those two canidates just because they're the ones with a chance, I'm endorsing the two party system that I hate. But then again, in a way it really is wasted vote if you write in someone.
posted
So how do you get rid of a two-party system? Why does it exist in America, while most other nations seem to have multiple parties?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I have to tell you that there's no chance I'm going to vote for Bush. I may have voted for Edwards and I really liked Lieberman, but I really don't want to vote for Kerry. However, the point here isn't who is the lesser of two evils, but is it right to vote for anyone you view that way? The reasoning to do so makes sense, but it also strikes me as being very similar to the "well everyone else is doing it, my voicce wont make a difference" reasoning, which I have to say I have little respect for when it comes to something like voting.
The two party system developed out of the personalities at the time of the Constitutional convention. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton both led rival factions against each other. The two party system developed out of this rivalry.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Encourage people to start parties that wake up all these apathetic voters and get them in gear? Too many people don't even bother using their right to vote... A shame... We need stronger politicians seeking out a middle ground and a better country... not just pandering to special interest groups.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What kills ME about the two-party system is that, in conjunction with the primary system, it almost guarantees that the wrong candidates get nominated.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only way a third party could be succesful is if it had different views and focus than the other parties. However those greety Repubs and Demos have stolen all the good opinions
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I'm curious Tom, although you certainly don't have to tell anyone, who you would vote for. Or let's do this better, I don't know how you feel about Kerry (though I'm pretty confident about how you feel about Bush ), but let's just say (pretend) you strongly dislike him, though he's, in your mind, better than Bush. Will you vote for him to make sure Bush doesn't get the office and do an even worse job, or scrap both canidates on the basis of niether of them being any good and vote for someone who you actually think would make a good president, even if you know there's no chance that he/she would win?
And better yet, other people answer this too because this was kind of the point of my thread.
posted
Hobbes, I hear you. I'm afraid I am very tempted this year to not vote. But that doesn't solve anything either. I'm glad I wasn't in the country for the '96 election (and therefore didn't vote), because I would have had great difficulty then also.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the two party system has its faults the alternative is far worse. Unfortunately, the electoral college is to blame. If a truly successful third party were to ever rise to power, and the Republicans and Democrats remained, presidential elections would no longer be decided by the people, but by Congress. If no singe canidate recieves a majority of the electoral votes the election is then decided by the House. It it improbable that any canidate would recieve a majority of electoral votes with a truly viable third party.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To my mind, Hobbes, there is no more important political issue right now than making sure that Bush is not elected, and sending a clear signal that the mockery the Republicans have made of the political process will not be tolerated.
I don't think Kerry's the right man for the office, but I'm SURE that Bush is the wrong one -- and although I'd love to see anybody else in the race, I'm aware that voting against Bush is, at least in this election, far more important than voting FOR anyone.
Yeah, it's unfortunate. And yeah, if a REAL monster were running against him -- like, if the Democrats nominated Lieberman or something (*grin*) -- I'd have a crisis of conscience. But as long as you've got someone mediocre running against someone intolerable, I suppose you still only have one clear option.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm... I think Bush should serve another term, just in case. I mean, give the man a chance to see, and try to confront, the fruits of his work:
Afghanistan continues to be highly vulnerable (the costs per US soldier there are three times as high as in Iraq). Iraq is a bit of a mess, hard to control, and could easily turn into a training ground for a new generation of terrorists. In addition, let's just assume that the economy is indeed heading for a major crash (like some experts suggest). -- Wouldn't it be unfair to let the democrats try to sort out this mess?
And if all this does NOT happen, and Bush turns out to be a genius of a politician, heck, then he definitely deserves reelection, no?
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somehow another term of Bush makes me... uneasy. He can hold back if he wants to be reelected. But without another term to worry about... I really don't feel, from what I have read and observed that he is doing a good job as a president.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy - We have a two party system (Liberal and Labour).
So does England.
For me it's not too much of a problem - even if I don't like the Labour candidate, I'll vote for them above the Liberals as I like the way the Australian Labour Party operates way better - the policy formulation depends much more on the public. (Too lengthy to go into detail here).
It is slightly different here though in the way the voting works - you vote for the party not the person, and it is possible to vote for another minor party (eg the Greens) as a first preference and still have your vote end up going to one of the major two parties.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the way I see it, it's a choice between a certain greater evil, or a possible lesser evil - which makes it simpler. After all, we KNOW from four years experience that Bush makes a poor president. At the worst, we can only guess as much about Kerry at this point. Right now we are just guessing what sort of leader Kerry would end up being for the country, and just as Bush appeared to be "compassionate" at first, Kerry might surprise us. Thus, take a possible good over a guaranteed bad.
I'd like to change the two-party system as we have it now, but I don't think there's any third party candidate out there that has enough support to even have a possibility of achieving that. Nader has had his chance, and really isn't all that better than Kerry. Truthfully, the appropriate thing is to get Congress to do this.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not everyone hates Bush, or thinks he is evil To be honest, not everyone thinks Kerry is bad or the lessor of two evils. Some see Bush as Righteous and Kerry as Evil, and vice versa.
The assumption here is that everyone thinks that the two party system is bad. Well, that isn't true. That is just the way Hatrack Bias sees it and does not reflect the true feelings of millions and millions of others. I for one see enough distictions with my own views of the two to always vote Republican and never vote Democrat. Some, even as expressed here, would never vote Republican and always vote Democrat.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a sad state of affairs when I find myself missing that wacky Frank Purdue look-a-like, Ross Perot. While it would be nice to have a viable third party, I'd settle for 1 consistant spoiler party. Repubs still blame Perot for their loss in '96, Dems blame the last loss on Nader. Voting for a third party, even one I disagree with, seems to be the best option to show my utter disdain for both major candidates.
Not voting is NOT an option in my opinion.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If ya don't vote, ya can't gripe. there, said it. I'm primarilly republican, and would only vote Bush because my thoughts don't exactly match any democrats in almost every way. However, indeed, Use your right to vote. The public voice can be powerful. Unfortunately most of the voting public does not practice this right and the voice is weak.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes I wish the Republicans would hold primaries, even when they're going to nominate an incumbent. I realize this would be political suicide and an all-around terrible idea, but I'd really like to have a second Republican on the ticket that I could choose over Bush. I think he's done some things right, but a lot of what he's doing really make me mad, and make my party look stupid. I'm not a fan of the traditional liberal "tax-and-spend" economic policies, but even those are better than Bush's "cut-taxes-and-spend" programs. And I think that putting an amendment into the Constitution to ban gay marriage really trivializes the document and will make future generations think that we're all idiots. But there are a few things Kerry is guaranteed to support that I could not, in good conscience, go along with. So I'm probably going to end up voting for Bush. Or maybe, if I develop some backbone before the elections, I might vote for a Libertarian or something. But if I do vote for Bush, it will be with a knot in my stomach and a scowl on my face.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've done my ranting on this elsewhere, so I'm going to keep this short. For me, it's not so much that I'm being asked to choose between the lesser of two evils, as it is being asked to choose the more mature of two 8 year olds to run my country.
People say that voting for someone other than the main two candidates is throwing your vote away. I think this is only true if you think your vote "counts" only if you're vote for the guy who wins. In terms of actually having your voice heard, I think that voting for someone else is a hundred times louder than voting for the lesser of two evils.
I'm pretty sure that either of the two major candidates are going to lead our country down the wrong path if they are elected President. One's path may be worse than the others, but they are both leading us off a cliff. I also believe that this state of affairs is going to continue as long as we let lesser evilism be our primary way of choosing who to vote for. I'm telling you, if you don't want to vote for either of them, vote for someone else. It may hurt in the short-term, but I think it's likely to be better for everyone in the long-term.
I've said it before and I'll say it here. As the Democratic party now stands, they are not going to get me vote or my support. If they lose the election because they don't have the support of people like me, it's their own damn fault for neglecting us, not mine for excercising my constitutional right to vote for someone I wouldn't be ashamed to be my country's leader.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: So how do you get rid of a two-party system? Why does it exist in America, while most other nations seem to have multiple parties?
We have a two-party system because we employ a winner-take-all electoral system, with single-member districts. To change to a system that would create more than two viable parties would take radical changes in electoral structure, most involving Constitutional amendments. And such changes would merely bring about new problems--see Arrow's theorom, etc.
This thread (and the last political thread I got involved in) make me suspect that a lot of people view the fact that there isn't a candidate/party who agrees with them on every single issue under the sun as a sign that the System Is Broken. Of course, democracy means that the majority will often disagree with you (yes, especially you. Deal with it).
Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an aside, the first two times I was allowed to vote in a presidential election, I voted for Perot. So I'm no stranger to the third party candidate. Maybe I'll have to find some of the backbone (or was it ignorant zeal) that I had twelve years ago.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to think that the first move away from a two party system would begin with campaign finance reform and the actual enforcement of the equal time policies in the media. As it stands, the two dominant parties are going to remain dominant as long as they have more money and, consequently, more public exposure than anyone else. No third party will ever be able to compete with the fundraising publicity machines already in place until they are limited in their ability to take advantage of people who want to buy influence in the government.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. A lot of people in this thread have summed up how I feel pretty well.
For me, Hobbes, the line between voting for a lesser evil or "throwing away" my vote is in how much less of an evil something is. Which sounds a lot to me like what Tom said, only put more clumsily. In 2000, I did not feel like either candidate was one I wanted to vote for, and I didn't perceive one as being substantially more or less unfit for the job than the other. So I voted for a third party candidate. In 2004, because of the Patriot Act, the gay marriage ammendment rhetoric, and a few other key issues, I see Bush as the greater evil. Kerry is NOT the person I wish was running against Bush, but I will vote for him anyway, because that vote has the greatest chance of helping with my number one goal: to see Bush lose. I don't see it as hypocritical, just making the best of a bad situation.
-o-
And, by the way, I'll repeat what I've been saying here for at least the last year, because I'm perplexed that what is obvious to me is less so to others: Bush will lose, and it will not be that close.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), but let's just say (pretend) you strongly dislike him, though he's, in your mind, better than Bush. Will you vote for him to make sure Bush doesn't get the office and do an even worse job, or scrap both canidates on the basis of niether of them being any good and vote for someone who you actually think would make a good president, even if you know there's no chance that he/she would win?![[Cool]](cool.gif)
