The Davis Square Community

As a progressive that in one of the top income bracket supporting 3rd party candidates like David Cob is a win, win. I get the benefit of the GOP tax cuts from a second Bush presidency while still being able to feel morally superior. [/sarcasm]

From:

ever heard of the Electoral College? (http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm) yeah, our vote in MA is worth nothing. Kerry's got MA, so if you agree with a 3rd party candidate's platform, you might as well vote your conscience. Massachusetts isn't a swingstate.

From:

*snicker* Very empowering. Sign me up, we can never get enough impotent anger.

From:

prunesnprisms.livejournal.com

Not that I think that either of our political parties is serving everyone, but I'm terrified to think that enough people in MA will think that their vote won't matter because everyone else is voting Democrat, and our state will come out unexpectedly Republican.

I mean, there HAVE to be some Republicans out there, I see idjits with GWB stickers on their giant SUVs on 93 every single morning, and there's that whole Mitt Romney thing, too.

From:

artemii.livejournal.com

i can't explain romney (thankfully!), but i do think some people here have gwb stickers just to be cantankerous &/or piss people off.

kerry is polling ahead in ma by about as much as kennedy wins each re-election (i.e., at least 3/4 of "likely voters", i believe).

From:

komos.livejournal.com

Romney is fairly easy to explain. Even though MA leans left on social issues, it is still a fairly affluent state with a large voting bloc that is very interested in protecting their assets. As a result, we're not nearly as liberal as the hacks would have you believe. Often, fiscal conservatism wins out.

From:

artemii.livejournal.com

uh, sounds to me like it's more "vote for who you really support".

From:

If you voting for the person whose views most match yours then with no thought to the ability to actually make a real difference on the issues you claim to care about, then you should write in your own name? It will obviously be a vote to change the country from a republic to a "direct democracy."

Just imagine if everybody did it! What you don't think that will happen?

From:

that argument is flawed. if a third party candidate gets more than 1% of the vote, whoever is elected president and future presidential candidates will notice that that platform is appealing to some people, and will likely change their agenda to match parts of it. 1% of the popular vote behind a somewhat known candidate means a lot more than 1 vote behind someone nobody has heard of.

Also, voting for a president is more than just voting for a person whose views most match your own or choosing the most likely candidate whose views most match your own.

From:

Actually 1% of the population voting their own name would be big news. A third party could get 5% and still be way beyend Perot's votes in 1992.

From:

err, way behind.

From:

Actually 1% of the population voting their own name would be big news.

probably not, given that we have a secret ballot, so we'd have no way of knowing that everyone voted for themselves. lots of people vote for a write-in every election.

A third party could get 5% and still be way beyend Perot's votes in 1992.

this is true, but they'd still be on the radar, and that's the point. perot certainly was. nader certainly was after the 2000 election.

From:

When they made the ballots counts at the state level and there where 10s of thousands of ballots with a single vote for a different person and 100s of individuals saying they were voting for themselves, it would be unpresidented.

Perot got 21% in 1992 and his party all but dead today. Third parties in the US are a history of ineffective anger. If you want to see a successful movement look at how the fundamentalists took over the GOP from the local level up. Compare their effect to the various third party fundamentalists you can find on this list of third parties.

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

From:

it is a possibility, but a movement to have everyone vote for themselves is something which expresses an entirely different sentiment than voting for a third party. voting for a third party implies that you are deeply unhappy with the two major parties and that the one you are voting for fits your beliefs enough that you can stomach them. voting for yourself, as part of a movement, implies that you are deeply unhappy with the fundamentals of the system.

If you want to see a successful movement look at how the fundamentalists took over the GOP from the local level up.

note that the green-rainbow party is working to develop things at a state level, which is pretty local. note also that the libertarians are quite active at a local level (for example, new hampshire).

the reform party lost popularity because they had not set up a framework in which they were supported at a local level. essentially, perot blew a lot of money trying to win an unwinnable presidential race. that's not what's happening here.

also, i was pretty young at the time, so i don't know for sure, but i bet that a lot of the ideas he ran on have been incorporated into the platforms of the two larger parties. running for president for a third party is not about winning the election -- it's about getting your party noticed and changing the way that the major parties run things.

From:

"running for president for a third party is not about winning the election"

I couldn't have said it better.

From:

right on.

I disagree with Nader running. in most states he's independant. it's not that he's trying to build a 3rd party. He's trying to get all the attention like he's going to win or something- including in swing states. It's all about HIM not a party (except where he is running 'reformed' since the states wouldn't let him run independant)/
3rd PARTY candidates are trying to build the party. there are lot of complicated rules for 3rd parties to follow in order to maintain status as 3rd parties. If you are trying to build a party you need candidates- whether or not they have a chance of winning.

From:

komos.livejournal.com

You do realize that, in Massachusetts at least, write-ins are never examined unless there is not a clear winner amongst the names on the ballot?

No, probably not.

From:

But isn't voting your conscience is more important than trival things like who wins?

From:

komos.livejournal.com

I was specifically responding to your statement here:

Actually 1% of the population voting their own name would be big news.

In answer, no, it wouldn't be big news. In fact, no one would notice at all. There's a huge difference between a off-party candidate getting enough votes to ensure that party's place on the next ballot and a bunch of people writing in nonsense votes that aren't even tallied.

In other words, if you're going to troll, at least get your facts straight first. It will make a much more effective argument.

From:

It is all about doing something symbolic to make yourself feel good that don't really affect the outcome. And yes I do recognize the irony of this reply. =)

From:

locke61dv.livejournal.com

Like I said in b0st0n: I'm pretty sure Cobb isn't targetting swing states, AND this post talks about local elections, where a third party could actually make a win. I mean, the Libertarian party pulls it off.

So, credit where do. You don't have to like the greens, but they aren't pissing in your cheerios, either.

From:

The Libertains are an excellent example of how much of a difference 3rd parties don't make. The mathmatics of winner take all elections is that in the long run you have either one or two viable political parties. A successful third party is one that replaces one of the existing parties. A party that plans to be one of many plans to remain a fringe organization.

From:

locke61dv.livejournal.com

First off, good job on making democrats look like total dicks.

Secondly, there ARE many Libertarians in local offices, plain and simple. While most larger elections probably succumb to a two-party system (and voters will recognize this), just due the scale and resources necessary, a third party candidate in a local election can have enough momentum to overcome this.

And of course, a big third party vote is a big signal to the major parties. If Bush loses and Badnarik scores big, the GOP will be majorly tempted to re-court the libertarian vote.

From:

I'm just realistic. I prefer to succeed at making a little, change instead of fail trying to make a big change. But hey, I am a white male over 35 so really if Bush wins I'm not the one who will suffer the most.

From:

locke61dv.livejournal.com

Oh, the "Libertain" party! I got confused. Yeah, those Libertains are just useless.

From:

you have to start somewhere. a few seats in congress, a governorship or state legisilature. to say that the only way to break into the 2-party system is to win the presidency or take over congress in one election is absurd. to say that it is impossible to break into the 2-party system is defeatist.

From:

It's not going to happen overnight. but yet if we *don't* run candidates, we won't get anywhere. We are trying to build the party from the bottom up. David has his platform (http://votecobb.org/issues) (as do all presidential candidates) but he's trying to help build the party from the bottom up. By doing this breakfast in a low key-environment it's allowing non-greens a chance to come hear him and his issues.

From:

i'm not disagreeing with you. i'm disagreeing with the

gothic_peacock post i responded to.

From:

nowalmart.livejournal.com

From Open Debates (http://www.opendebates.org/): Third-party candidates have introduced popular and groundbreaking issues that were eventually co-opted by the major parties, such as: the abolition of slavery, unemployment insurance, social security, child labor laws, public schools, public power, the direct election of senators, the graduated income tax, paid vacation, the 40-hour work week, the formation of labor unions, and democratic tools like the initiative, the referendum and the recall.

Yeah, I guess third parties make no difference at all.

Also - suppose in 2000 that Gore had tried to court third party votes in Florida? About ten candidates received more votes in Florida than the Bush-Gore difference. Voting third party can be a way to get the two major parties to listen to you.

Want my vote, Kerry? Tell me why I should vote for you instead of Badnarik.

So far I have not heard kerry giving me any reasons. If he loses, I will blame him for not learning from Gore's mistakes in 2000.

From:

Voting Nader or Green this year will send a clear message that it doesn't matter how bad the Republican is or how liberal the Democrat is there are some progressives out there that will never vote Democratic.

From:

la-ti-da.livejournal.com

bad statements. but if you're really concerned, read here: http://votepair.org

From:

laklare.livejournal.com

I just signed up for that. I'm voting in NH.

From:

nowalmart.livejournal.com

I am not sure how you are defining the terms when you say "the only Presidential Candidate who fully supports our right to marry and all equal rights for us".

Libertarian Nominee Michael Badnarik's stance on gay marriage (http://badnarik.org/plans_gayrights.php):

Just as anyone can engage in a business relationship, any individuals should be able to enter into a marriage. Government's role in a business partnership is to simply enforce, not dictate, its terms. Government's role in marriage should be the same.

While Mr. Cobb does support gay marriage, I do disagree with several other parts of his platform.

I would encourage every voter to research all of the Presidential candidates who will appear on the ballot this year.

You can see the ballot you will be receiving on Election Day on WhereDoIVoteMA.com (http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.php).

A few weeks ago some of the major third-party candidates for President held a debate at Cornell University. I am not a big fan of their platform either, but the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/) has posted a page with a link to a download of the debate. (http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=361) (warning: the movie is a 67.4MB download).

Listen to all of the third-party candidates. Research the difficulties they have getting into the debates and getting their names on ballots. Go and listen to Mr. Cobb speak.

On Election Day, vote for the candidate you think is best. For more information on voting third-party, feel free to read through my journal.

[Oh, and for the comment that "yeah, our vote in MA is worth nothing": No comment more singly pisses me off than that. Saying that places you only one step above someone who does not even vote in my book.]

From:

I didn't make the flier actually. I'm posting it for someone else. I'm aware of Badnarik.

From: