Especially if they are really displeased with the way that the current elected government officials are doing things and not doing a very good job of really representing what "we the people" want them to be doing. why do people see things as only 2 choices Rep. or Dem. when infact thier are many other choices to choose from. It seems to me if people really want "change" That they should look at "All" the options available to them. This is like only choosing chocolate or vanilla ice cream and never even trying any of the other flavors available to them. I just don't get it.
2006-10-19 10:26:53 · 9 answers · asked by mistyrose 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
These are the only two viable options. Independents, prohibitionists, and libertarians may get on the ballot, but they do not have the network to promote their candidacy and therefore are very seldom elected to any national office. Usually, a vote for a candidate not affiliated with one of the two established parties is only a symbolic protest.
2006-10-19 10:34:53 · answer #1 · answered by Knowledge 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The electoral system is broken. I maybe a registered Dem but when I voted absentee, I considered voting for 1 Rep as county commissioner (she had more experience) and 1 independent as U.S. Senator (because I think Nelson will win the seat easily), while with the others I went Dem. Florida elections have usually 2 or 3 candidates per district and it's not fair.
To my point, I agree with you about voters not considering voting for third parties. I always vote according to the platform. I don't like 2 choices either and we should take money out of politics, at least the PACs. Give each candidate the same amount of time. But the main thing is that we must do 2 things: modify the Electoral College and change the electoral Simple Plurality system. The reason why the EC is so important is because it protects the two-party system. Unless we can modify it, we won't see any progress with reforming the national electoral system. I really admire what states are doing about their elections. Many states have systems like Cumulative Voting, Limited Voting, Instant Runoff Voting and Single Transferable Voting (only used in Cambridge, MA); I also think that Michigan tried a type of Mixed Member Proportional system that's used in Germany and New Zealand but not sure if it was for city elections only and if it's still being used. Gerrymandered districts under-represent hispanics, blacks, orientals, pacific islanders, native americans and women. Turn a minority into a majority. If you look at the last elections, you'll find out that the ones who have their voices heard are a majority of a minority.
2006-10-19 12:54:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only way Americans can feel they have more freedom in voting for some other candidate besides a Democrat or Republican is if their is change in the system to the point where Washington would allow more than TWO official parties on the ballot. Liberals and Conservatives aren't enough - they don't even represent the interests of most Americans - just goes to show you how broke the system is.
2006-10-19 10:35:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
None of the other parties are all that great of a choice either.
About the only one that had a good showing has been the Reform party (Perot, and I think Jesse Ventura in Minnesota)
Most people think they're throwing their vote away if they vote for a 3rd party-- e.g. Liberatarian, Green, Constituion etc.
The system is also slanted to the 2 dominant parties.
We actually need viable 4th or 5th party like other countries have.
Bring back the Bull-Moose party....
2006-10-19 10:34:09 · answer #4 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A bigger and bigger percentage of voter’s are voting independent. Unfortunately, most of these parties represent some kind of a kook fringe. Perhaps in the future there will be a third party that represents the middle class. Right now the biggest dividing point is still abortion. Maybe after this generation of people is gone the focus will shift back to other issues until then I believe it is hopeless. Neither party represents the majority of us.
2006-10-19 10:33:12 · answer #5 · answered by damdawg 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Simple enough - a 3rd party vote = a vote for the party you're really against.
So when a lefty votes Green (or Socialist or Communist, etc), that's an advantage to the Republican.
When a righty votes Libertarian (or Constitution or Taxpayer, etc), that's an advantage to the Democrat.
Because many folks are vehemently against either the Republican or Democrat, they're not going to use their vote and increase the chances for the candidate from the party they truly are against.
That's about it.
2006-10-19 10:40:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Get this. 3rd. parties have no money and no power. You can not advance any agenda without those two things. Nader is a very smart person and would make a great President. His agenda would not advance in a Republican controlled Congress. Nader could further his agenda if he would except a Cabinet position under a Democrat. Displeased is not the word, more like outraged. The lessor of two evils is a choice no one likes. Democrats are the lessor of two evils.
2006-10-19 11:38:29 · answer #7 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the Democrates and the Republicans make up the majority of the parties. They shouldnt just consider those two but most people do anyways. And because of the two parties being so big, people dont even bother voting for the other parties because they dont think that the parties stand a chance against the Republicans and Democrats.
2006-10-19 10:35:47 · answer #8 · answered by lea_vue 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
People only see the 2 options because that is how your government runs it. The much vaunted live TV debates, head-to-head have only the 2 people on it. At rallies, the independents aren't allowed to get in. Rupert Murdochs empire will not give airtime or news-space to any other than the 2 parties.
2006-10-19 10:30:04 · answer #9 · answered by SteveUK 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋