1. boyreporter says:

    Why do marginal candidates with no chance of winning run anyway? Two reasons: 1) ego and 2) OPM.

  2. StevePerkins says:

    boyreporter… by your logic, the Democratic Party should stop fielding gubernatorial or senatorial candidates in the state of Georgia.

    Sometimes marginal candidates run in an effort to make bigger candidates shore up their flank on certain issues. Sometimes they just don’t believe in what the two candidates are selling, and want to vote FOR somebody rather than simply voting AGAINST somebody. Scary warnings about the other side’s possible Supreme Court picks simply aren’t enough to motivate everybody.

    Either way, I think the grumbling about third-party folks is overblown. It’s much the same logic that music companies apply toward MP3 downloads… assuming that if some kid hadn’t downloaded 1,000 songs, he would have gone out and bought 1,000 CD’s instead. In reality, the kid would probably have bought a couple of CD’s and just done without the rest. Likewise, the majority of third-party votes are votes that you wouldn’t have gotten anyway (they would have just stayed at home)… so stop whining.

  3. Doug Deal says:


    I agree with you about third parties. I think the people who vote for the Naders and the Barr’s of the world are not really lost votes.

    The ones who are not specifically driven to the polls to vote for the candidate are obviously upset with the party, and it is more likely that they would stay home or vote against you to “teach you a lesson” than vote for you. An exception would be someone like Ross Perot who actually had a whiff of legitimacy.

    I do not know of anyone that I know who has voted Libertarian who would have voted for the Republican if the Libertarian was not on the ballot.

  4. Goldwater Conservative says:

    The strongest arguments made by the “party faithful” amongst fringe parties is that the GOP and Dems are electoral cowards.

    This is consistently the primary motivator amongst the college green party committees around the country…contact any of the green party kids at UGA.

    Doug Deal and Steve Perkins, you are both absolutely correct. They are conprised of people that are fed up with the umbrella parties, their unwavering politcal correctness and their typically self-contradictory rhetoric.

    There will always be ideological and sectional divides with in each of the parties…there is really no need for a multi-party system.

  5. liberator says:

    McCain,Hillary,and Obama are all Nanny Statists out of touch with Mainstream Americana! Barr is the man! The LP is the True Party of Principle and Liberty. I’ll vote Barr and I bet he gets 7 percent or more.

  6. Hank Reardan says:

    When I was working On Garrett Hayes’ campaign for governor as the Libertarian candidate I called up and asked some newspaper for an interview with them because they were not covering him. They said well he has no chance of winning. I said I will give you that so when are going to quit covering Mark Taylor. We got the interview.

  7. boyreporter says:

    Steve. I ain’t whining. Just pointing out that marginal candidates are usually on ego trips and don’t fund their own campaigns, so why not run? Other…People’s…Money.

    Multi-party states, like Italy, are not to be emullated if you want any stability in government at all. Rotating coalitions and heads of state is not a fair exchange for what we have now…which brings me to Goldwater C’s comment about “ideological and sectional divides” already existing in the two major parties. Plenty of room to make your views known and push for your concerns. But it’s easier to take your marbles out of the ring and yell at both sides…ineffectively.

    Oh, and “liberator” — Hooray for 7 percent. What does that getcha?

    I’m not saying third party candidates shouldn’t run, and I’m not saying they should be shut out of news coverage. They should just be treated like children.

  8. boyreporter says:

    Kris Kristofferson wrote it: “The beer I had for breakfast wasn’t bad, so I had one more for dessert…” You’re in good company, Ic.

  9. liberator says:

    BoyReporter where in the Constitution are political parties limited to just Dems and Republicrats? BTW I won 9 of 36 precints and got 25 percent of the vote total as a write-in candidate for Mayor of Macon in 2003 and got 25 percent again winning 4 of 27 precints in the citywide 2007 City Council Race. The LP is on the move and You folks are running scared.

  10. Doug Deal says:


    So then if we want stability, why not try the Soviet method of one party rule?

    Italy has problems that go beyond its political system. Besides, it is one of those weak European brand republics where the government collapses when another coalition takes their parliament. Our head of state is also the head of government, and is elected separately from Congress.

    Anyway, a little instability is good for the long term freedom of those of the current “opposition”. Would you be happy with the stability that would have ensued with the Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress and the presidency for the next 20 years?

    The answer to increase the diversity of thought in Congress is to require a majority vote for all congressmen. If they fail that, they go to a runoff (preferably an instant runoff that requires only one election). In this way everyone can vote for who they want, as opposed to voting against the lesser of two evils. Under the first past the post method of elections, any splinter group actually works against its own interest by harming those they have the most in common with.

    For example, if two thirds of the people in a district are Republicans, and the party evenly split into three (religious cons, econ cons, and national def cons), the Democrats would win 33-23-22-22 under the system used in most jurisdictions. With a runoff, the Demo would likely lose 67-33 to the candidate with 21 percent, following the true will of the voters.

    Also, in the age of computerized voting, any candidate should be able to get on the ballot by paying a set fee.

    I also think that parties should be able to decide who gets to run under their name, but anyone who wants to run as an independent should be allowed with minimal hassle.

    Without both, easier ballot access and runoffs, we will always have the two party system.

Comments are closed.