Since republicans and democrats seem to screw our country to the ground, wouldnt be better if we tried a different approach by electing a independent instead?
2006-09-04 08:01:04 · 18 answers · asked by mj 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes it might be better. However, since the two parties of power have the venue locked up many do not want to throw away their votes on third party candidates. They would rather choice between the lesser of two evils.
2006-09-04 08:03:57 · answer #1 · answered by Lisa M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Or a third-party candidate.
The problem is, with the current implementation of the electoral college system, any votes that don't have a reasonable chance of being the majority votes across the state are utterly wasted, any votes that are not for the highest-result-winner in each state not even counted in the final tally. As if they were never cast.
2006-09-04 08:15:51 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on who runs. I'm all for Nader, he is not just environmentalist but a long-time champion for consumer rights, which I think is very very important. He would be a good ally in controlling the corporations.
Last time, however, I voted for Kerry, not just as an anti-Bush vote, but because he cofounded Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He would have won a lot more votes, in my opinion, from fellow vets who were against the war, and from people my age, and from many educated people, if he had embraced his past instead of trying to be a bigger warrior than Bush. I guess you can't blame him, after all, he served, Bush didn't, but really, I think a lot of people have sympathy with running away from Vietnam, and Kerry would have seemed a lot more like someone who could get us out of the war instead of getting us lost deeper in the woods if he was more open about his history, as a veteran who saw an unjust war and then fought an effort to end it.
2006-09-04 08:13:57 · answer #3 · answered by Aleksandr 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
im going to asssume u mean joe lieberman who will most likely run as an independent in the 08 election. I think that many ppl who do not wish to ascoaite themselves with te republican party will vote for an independednt if they dont want to vote for a democrat but i dont think that an independent stands any real chance at winning and i most likely woudlnt vote for one
2006-09-04 08:29:05 · answer #4 · answered by yankovicfan6 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll vote for anyone with a good idea. I refuse to vote against someone. I refuse to vote for someone I think might win. I will only vote for someone whose ideas I agree with. If more people voted their head instead of their party, this country would be a far better place.
2006-09-04 08:11:05 · answer #5 · answered by JB 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the number of independent voters in 2008 (that is if they are actually COUNTED) will be the largest this country has ever seen.
2006-09-04 08:12:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think there is a big difference between Dems and Repubs, and I think the Nader candidacy in 2000 has taught me the folly of voting for a candidate who can't win because "Dems and Repubs are the same" -- they arent
2006-09-04 08:10:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would if that independent had a real chance of winning and also was interested in honest reform of our corrupt politics.
2006-09-04 08:16:06 · answer #8 · answered by OzobTheMerciless 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I usually vote Libertarian. They have the best ideas
2006-09-04 08:07:07 · answer #9 · answered by Dan 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have for the last several elections. Libertarian numbers are slowly rising.
2006-09-04 08:06:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋