Democrats have moved too far left. Republicans are spending like its no tomorrow, not to mention their weak foreign policies. I think I might be ready to seriously vote 3rd party (i.e. Libertarian) for the first time.....IF they can come up with a decent candidate. But is it worth the risk if the greater of 2 evils (i.e. Hillary) gets elected?
2006-08-22 12:41:29 · 28 answers · asked by brunerx 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Libertarian all the way! The only problem is that there isn't a viable Libertarian candidate, and that a vote for one is a vote "for" the Democratic candidate (taken away from the conservative one). So, currently, it isn't worth the risk in my opinion. If the Libertarian Party manages to get a stronger following, a stronger voice in local, regional and national politics, then there might be a chance of getting a strong presidential candidate in the running.
2006-08-22 12:46:00 · answer #1 · answered by Bad Kitty! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is time but we must remember what happened to Ralph Nader. The powers that be kept him off the national debates. Whether you think he was brilliant or a wacko is not the point. I feel that he would have intelligently challenged the two major parties. They both fear anyone who is against the status quo. Americans must become more involved in our country by becoming more interested in our procedures for electing people to office. The national news we watch is beyond pathetic. CBS used to be the benchmark for reporting but is slipping into the entertainment news genre. It is time to think of our forefathers who started small newspapers and printed pamphlets against the tyranny they were united against before we become non-complacent worker drones existing but becoming insignificant. Let’s give anyone who wants a chance to change this country an equal opportunity to address the problems, which face us all as we move forward into the future. Now is the time to challenge the two-party system before we no longer have a voice. Vote independently and when the national debates take place lets raise a “little hell” peacefully and lawfully.
2006-08-22 13:08:50 · answer #2 · answered by Thomas S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the candidate. But I agree that most of the national candidates put forth recently by the Democratic party has been hopelessly out of touch with what's going on in America, and the current Republican president and Congress have made it pretty clear how much respect they have for America or our Constitution.
It's time for people to stop following a party blindly, and making informed decisions about what is best for the country, and which candidates can get us there.
Think independently. Vote your conscience.
2006-08-22 12:48:32 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It would be a nice. I always worry that when people vote for candidates from parties like LIbertarian, Green Party and etc, they increase the chance that the bigger dumbass between the Democrat and Republican party will get elected.
2006-08-22 12:44:29 · answer #4 · answered by Michelle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Libertarian, and you talk about the democrats!
No 3rd party candidate has support to get on the ballot in 50 "states" (46+ 4 Commonwealths) much less have enough money to win!!
2006-08-22 12:46:39 · answer #5 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i imagine it really is really available that a third get mutually candidate may be the most qualified individual to be President and that i favor to ensure that come to bypass. even with the undeniable fact that, in point of fact that third get mutually applicants at the on the spot are not doable and can't get elected. They serve in ordinary words as spoilers to at least one or the different of both applicants from th emajor activities. it really is their in ordinary words function in a standard election. This year, as an get mutually, if Ron Paul were to run as a third get mutually candidate and siphoned off sufficient votes from McCain, then the persons who vote for Ron Paul will be helping to opt for Barack Obama. this is the way it worked in 2000 even as sufficient Democrats voted for Ralph Nader. yet, the third get mutually candidate will in no way have a danger except there is an absolute peoples' revolution hostile to our authorities because it really is now and that is now unlikely to ensue. If human beings are so completely disgusted with both significant activities, a good third get mutually cost ticket could do all precise. so a ways, even with the undeniable fact that, it type of feels that this is purely the commonplace Republican vs. Democrat interest.
2016-12-01 00:42:07 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I come from the opposite side of the political fence (Green), but I do sympathize with the Libertarian Party and yes, I do think that it's time for a third party.
2006-08-22 12:43:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The greater (or lesser) of two evils is still evil
We need a viable 3rd party candidate
2006-08-22 12:43:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely
2006-08-22 12:42:40 · answer #9 · answered by remmo16 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've been voting 3rd party since the 60s. I don't feel responsible for W. I am waiting for some perspective that isn't tweedle dum and tweedle dee.
2006-08-22 12:45:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋