The two party system is bad for this country, but so are Republicans.
If you have the slightest inclination to vote for someone other than an R or D, just do it!
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
JAG
Well-Known Member
The theory of voting for whom you think best rather than just voting for the standard D or R is a great one.... except in States that can truly decide the election. I would agree that "the lesser of two evils" idea is ridiculous and not the way to choose; however, in the current political system, it is what dominates. Should it? No. Things would probably be better if more than two parties (which are both incredibly corrupt) actually had to legitimately fight to win against a 3rd party option.
That being said, this idea always brings up the 1992 election. People did not like either option from the major two parties (Bush Sr. and Clinton) so many voted for Ross Perot. Obviously Ross Perot didn't win - he didn't really even have a shot but it allowed Clinton to win because a good majority of those votes that went to Perot probably would have gone to Bush Sr. And here we are, 20 years later trying to find a way to fix what Clinton broke in his 8 years in office. That is why I personally choose to vote for a candidate from the two major political parties (at least at the national level). I know nothing will change unless people begin to do something to change it (i.e. vote for a third party) but too much is at stake to allow one of the candidates to win in the same way that Clinton won in 92.
That being said, this idea always brings up the 1992 election. People did not like either option from the major two parties (Bush Sr. and Clinton) so many voted for Ross Perot. Obviously Ross Perot didn't win - he didn't really even have a shot but it allowed Clinton to win because a good majority of those votes that went to Perot probably would have gone to Bush Sr. And here we are, 20 years later trying to find a way to fix what Clinton broke in his 8 years in office. That is why I personally choose to vote for a candidate from the two major political parties (at least at the national level). I know nothing will change unless people begin to do something to change it (i.e. vote for a third party) but too much is at stake to allow one of the candidates to win in the same way that Clinton won in 92.
Defiant to the end. Love it.
Is Ron Paul on the ballot Utah or did you all just write him in?
And I voted for Jill Stein as well OB.
And I voted for Jill Stein as well OB.
Write in.
I find it quite humorous that you think Bush Sr. would have lead us to a better outcome than Clinton. I maintain that it didn't matter who won that election. Neither person was right for the job and neither was so much worse than the other that making sure they didn't win was imperative.
Voting for someone whose platform you don't fundamentally believe in is ridiculous.
I may have cast a vote for someone who has no chance to win, but I didn't contribute to the election of someone who doesn't really represent me.
BTW, I'd vote for anyone who pledged to abolish the electoral college.
I may have cast a vote for someone who has no chance to win, but I didn't contribute to the election of someone who doesn't really represent me.
BTW, I'd vote for anyone who pledged to abolish the electoral college.
Defiant is not the word I would have used...
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Ben Stein could be impressive.
I don't get the whole "false right-left divide"/"lesser of two evils" disdain. Our system seems to do an excellent job of ending up somewhere in the middle. I like how we give credit to all sides of each argument.. all except the extreme nonsense anyway.
We're never going to overthrow the two leading parties, and shouldn't anyway. If you don't think your vote matters then vote the minority party. I'm scratching pure democrat in Utah out of principle.
We're never going to overthrow the two leading parties, and shouldn't anyway. If you don't think your vote matters then vote the minority party. I'm scratching pure democrat in Utah out of principle.
JAG
Well-Known Member
I don't think I ever said Bush Sr. would have been better, just that the popularity of Perot perhaps cost him the election. I agree that neither option was desirable (hence the popularity of Perot)
