I do not think you are throwing your Vote away its every persons right to vote for the person they feel will do the best job. The only way you throw away your vote is if you vote for a dead person or a fictional character. I personally have issue with that all the parties including the Libertarians have one essental flaw. They vote the way they want not the way there constituants want.

A good president/ senator/ Rep/ Gov. will flip flop on issues for one reason I do not vote to put someone in office to do what he wants and thinks is right> He is put in office to do what the people of america think is wrong and right. The problem with all the people in politics right now is they have forgotton that they are servents to the people not them selves. If your constituants think a different way than you do and you vote your way you are a bad repersenative of the people. I believe the politicians might wanna reread a little thing that gives them power I believe it starts out "We the People" not "We the Few that are Elected"

Sometimes the greater good transcends the will of the people though....

when it suits the person who gets those votes.

If there was an election between Al Gore and Adolf Hitler, Jr., and Hitler was closing in on Gore's lead, then I'd vote for Gore over Jesus Christ (who, since being a third party candidate, would probably not win the election), but only in that occasion. Neither Kerry nor Bush can be considered devils or angels, and four years with either won't bring Heaven nor Hell, so to vote for one of them over the candidate you really want would be like telling everybody: "My beliefs are less important to me than getting elected a candidate I don't like who will know that I'll vote for him even if he kicks me right in the groin."

The biggest problem with 3rd parties is that they refuse to put an effort into fundraising or use their personal wealth to win elections. The other thing is they try for offices like President and US Congress and what not much to their disappointment.

If they started building their parties at the grass roots by pouring money and effort into Aldermen and State Senators and local offices like that they could build their parties from the ground up. If they did that they'd have the power of incumbency at the local level thus bringing in more money and supporters into the party, which would let them seek higher offices. But as far as I see on the ballot in my state for example, tons of libertarians are running for congress and senate and they even have a presidential nominee, but I don't think any ran for Alderman in the city and I think out of the 118 State Rep races in the state there might be one or two libertarians on the ballot.

3rd parties aren't serious about winning or expanding their reach, so why should we treat them seriously by voting for them?

If Perot spent 500 million dollars, I think he could have possibly won presidency, or at least taken a few states.

You have very valid points, and I agree that no matter what other people tell you, you should ultimately vote how you believe. That IS why we have anonymous ballots. And, Messy, you make a good point with your (very strange) hypothetical about Gore/Hitler. I doubt any one president could screw up everything so badly that voting for a third party candidate instead of the the opposing major party candidate would cause any serious damage.

Of course if Al "Manchurian" Gore and George "Oil Boomer's Son" Bush were running against the third party Candidate of Jesus, I would vote Jesus, because the man can turn water into wine, and also think he would win because the other candidates would concede to him, hehehe.

Still only in the hypothetical does a third party vote go to somebody other than third party, and no matter what anybody thinks you have the right to vote for whoever you please, which because of these people going no you should vote for such and such, I am thinking of writing in Former President George Washington's Skeleton and Theodore Roosevelt's Ghost as Presidential Candidate and VP Candidate.

Vote for Bush, Vote for Kerry, Vote for Badrnik, Vote for Cobb, Vote for Who the freakin' ever, just vote and vote once, SWING STATES BE DAMNED, ultimately if your candidate can't win wihout third party votes, than THAT CANDIDATE DOESN'T DESERVE TO WIN, PERIOD, NO IF ANDS OR BUTS.

ultimately if your candidate can't win wihout third party votes, than THAT CANDIDATE DOESN'T DESERVE TO WIN, PERIOD, NO IF ANDS OR BUTS.

I was looking for a simplified response, and I found it. Cheers ShoZan.

I am thinking of writing in Former President George Washington's Skeleton and Theodore Roosevelt's Ghost as Presidential Candidate and VP Candidate.

Let's not forget. Ashcroft did lose to a dead man right?

Hehehe, yeah, so George Washington's Skeleton and Theodore Roosevelt's Ghost in '04 because they have previous experience and helped made this nation great. Plus if you don't for them George said he cannot tell a lie that Teddy will haunt you.

There's more to politics than the presidency. If 3rd parties were serious about getting involved in the process they'd start building their parties from the grassroots up.

The biggest problem with 3rd parties is that they refuse to put an effort into fundraising or use their personal wealth to win elections. The other thing is they try for offices like President and US Congress and what not much to their disappointment. If they started building their parties at the grass roots by pouring money and effort into Aldermen and State Senators and local offices like that they could build their parties from the ground up. If they did that they'd have the power of incumbency at the local level thus bringing in more money and supporters into the party, which would let them seek higher offices. But as far as I see on the ballot in my state for example, tons of libertarians are running for congress and senate and they even have a presidential nominee, but I don't think any ran for Alderman in the city and I think out of the 118 State Rep races in the state there might be one or two libertarians on the ballot. 3rd parties aren't serious about winning or expanding their reach, so why should we treat them seriously by voting for them?

Actually, you are grossly misinformed. The Libertarian Party has a number of candidates (600, according to the party site) in public office at various levels, and runs candidates at every level of government. We run a presidential candidate as well because we firmly believe in our platform and want voters to have a choice. We are VERY serious about winning and expanding our reach.

There's more to politics than the presidency. If 3rd parties were serious about getting involved in the process they'd start building their parties from the grassroots up.

You're absolutely 100% right and there is a lot of separation in "major" third parties right now. (major in quotes for obvious reasons) The Greens were equally divided on whether they should run a presidential candidate at all, and even those who supported running a candidate may not vote for them. Greens are focused on smaller elections and are thrilled when a Green makes it in as a small town mayor or county commissioner. I believe that the presidential election is very symbolic for the Greens this time around especially since they chose not to endorse Nader. I believe the Greens really want to show the Democrats that the Greens aren't going away simply because there is another choice like Nader running on the Reform ticket. Greens want to continue to pressure Democrats into bringing more of their agenda to the DFL. Don't have Green issues in your campaign, then you don't get Green votes....well, not mine anyway.

Suspeckted

Suspekted,

Are you a Green? If so, I would appreciate you throwing in on my Green Party platform articles -- I'm not a Green, and don't feel comfortable defending their positions, although I do want people to be informed as to their platform.

One other note on the presidential race, though. One of the reasons we run candidates in the presidential race is obvious: money can be raised easier for the presidential race that brings revenue to all levels of the party. A second reason is that it's a unifying element that helps us to build towards the future.

Gideon, I'd be nervous to say that "I'm a Green," but only because I like to keep a soft cushion if ever the part does something, or pushes some agenda that I don't approve of (wimpy, I know). However, I have traditionally voted Green in my short voting career and would be happy to join such discussions when I get time, just link me in the right direction.

One other note on the presidential race, though. One of the reasons we run candidates in the presidential race is obvious: money can be raised easier for the presidential race that brings revenue to all levels of the party.

Definitely true, since the Green party was able to achieve 5% in MN (my home state) they were able to receive public funds for future campaigns. However, the Green party with it's severely limited resources, must have taken a fair hit financially on account of the election in the first place and most know that Nader didn't have a huge personal fortune. I have no stats on this, just my assumption.

A second reason is that it's a unifying element that helps us to build towards the future.

Hopefully this will happen for all third parties and we won't suffer more post-election guilt at the hands of the democrats.