Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If third-party votes gave us more progressive policies, you would not be complaining right now.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:14 PM
Original message
If third-party votes gave us more progressive policies, you would not be complaining right now.
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 05:15 PM by LoZoccolo
In 2000, a certain number of people voted for Ralph Nader rather than Al Gore, presumably because they wanted more progressive policies enacted.

This failed in two ways:

1. A progressive candidate was not elected in 2000.
2. I think Obama is progressive, but he continues to be thought of as unsatisfactory to a vocal 15% of liberals, some of which continue to advocate for third parties.

If someone thinks that third parties are effective in bringing about more progressive policies, wouldn't they expect to have started seeing some results that were satisfactory to them after ten years?

If there is still some future benefit to the third-party votes cast in 2000, when will we see it? (I don't think we will.) Is there a time somewhere in the future where, if satisfactory results are not achieved, you will then claim that the third-party votes did not bring about a benefit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mrcheerful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. And if cows could fly just think what they would drop in your eye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Drale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. When you vote third party might as well not vote at all
Thats unfortunate but thats the way our electoral system works. I wonder how many of those Nader voters wished they have voted for Gore now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Probably none. Some are just as hard headed as their opposites
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Probably none since Gore won!
I bet they wish that millions more had joined them though. Maybe then the SC's treasonous act might have been challenged. I have a feeling that Nader, in Gore's position would have challenged it and kept on challenging it until Bush was finally removed from office.

But Nader had nothing to do with Gore not being the rightful, elected POTUS. The felons on the SC are responsible for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. 4 words; You S Supreme Court
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 05:19 PM by Botany
the future is now, Want to give over all of America to the Koch Brothers?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Really.. funny I thought a progressive was elected in 2000
Oh wait he was. Until the election was stolen from him.

So that pretty much makes all your blathering mean nothing as your entire basis for this post was 3rd party voters cost us the 2000 election.

Hey I have an idea, how about you blame the Supreme Court, KKKarl Rove, and the army of assholes used to steal the election instead of the progressives fighting for a better country....


The reason third party voting does not work is there are too many people like you who refuse to step out of line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. well said!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. you are mere 10s of millions of votes short
of being relevant, but 537 votes strong enough to be destructive.

It is not people being willing to "step out of line" you need to be concerned about, it is moving the entire line to another place that would actually matter. Good luck with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. Each state has different rules for getting a party on the ballot...
So for a third party to be successful they have to have a lot of money to even get on the ballot to compete. The game is rigged to favor the two big parties in a winner take all system.

But it is still possible with peole such as Bernie Sanders (Social Democrat).

The tea party actually just elected republicans, so they don't really count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. Generally agree. But I would hardly call Obama liberal or progessive.
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 05:26 PM by bluerum
The democratic party as it exists today, is IMO, centrist at best. And that is far too right leaning for my taste.

On edit: We need a progressive party or candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleanime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Amen, brother, Amen...
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. The moderate conservatives that used to be in the GOP
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 06:05 PM by NYC Liberal
are now Democrats because of how crazy the Republicans have become over the last 20-30 years. But they are still conservatives.

The Democratic Party has both liberals and conservatives in it (who the liberals are and who the conservatives are doesn't matter here), which is partly why there's so much infighting all the time. Whereas the Republicans have, at worst, right wing vs really right wing.

A Progressive Party would be good...BUT it can't just be one person jumping in and running for president. A truly viable new party has to start locally. Organize the party, get candidates on the ballot in local elections, then state elections, then congressional and Senate elections. It would take time, but the fundies and right wingers spent 30 years slowly getting their agenda passed all over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
14. Are you really that worried about a 3rd party candidate from the left?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
17. and if wishes were horses then beggars would
eat a lot of horse meat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
18. Ralph Nader didn't cost Gore the election . . .
. . . Five corrupt justices of the Supreme Court did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
19. Voting doesn't do shit. It's about the movement behind the votes.
Maybe we can work on movement building instead of pushing all our hopes and dreams into less than 24 hours every 2 or 4 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC