My biggest fear is that the majority of voters likely to support a Unity candidate are left leaning centrists who would be voting democrat in the upcoming election. While the dems have given us little in the way of hope (sans Obama), I fear that my vote for the Unity candidate will only put Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson in the White House because of the active religious right voter base. In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected because Ross Perot took a small percentage of votes from HW Bush. Gore's loss in 2024 may have been avoided if it wasn't for Ralph Nader on Florida's ballot. I am so tired of the same old political garbage and want to support a third party candidate, but someone will need to convince me that my vote won't be part of an effort to give the war in Iraq four more years. Can someone give me hope?
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
The myth that third party candidates spoil elections is just that, a myth. Fact is most people that vote for third party candidates wouldn't even have shown up for the polls had that candidate not running.
If you don't want to lose an election then stand up for what the people want. To pander to special interests or stab people in the back right after you are done shaking their hand. The problem with the two party system is a lack of ethics and a lack of difference. The only way to break the current cycle is to organize and make a strong showing at the polls.
You can't always put it off to the next election, which was a common theme against Nader this past election, because all elections are equally important. This is not only your future but the future of your children, do you really want to leave them with the second worst candidate for president?
the dems run both houses of congress ( and they have done nothing) and now they are going to take the white house. what are you talking about? in 16 months all of washington will be democrat.
So if we decide we are "left-leaning", then by your logic should we not simply place another Republican on the ticket, thereby ensuring a win for "our" Democrats? It would be comical, and might even work. I agree more with the other post- that most third party voters won't upset the Dem apple cart, because they never would have voted Dem anyway. I know that I will never do so again.
I think somehow that it won't matter, because all of the Repub candidates are truly awful, while the Democratic ones aren't much better. I don't even need to explain why the Repub candidates won't win, but the Dem front runners? Clinton? So our Presidential history goes Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? Forgive my optimism, but I don't believe our electorate is so stupid as to vote for Monarchy, or at least very open oligarchy. Obama I don't really know enough about, but what I do know is that he avoids answering tough questions as often as not. Like the other Dems, he is nominally against our continued presence in Iraq, but will not openly say this date or that. He would take "no option" off the table in dealing with Iran. Next!
I would be much more likely to vote for a policy wonk who talks sense like Nader or Richardson, or a radical idealist like Kucinich or even Ron Paul. They'd be hamstrung by the parties in Congress anyway, but I'd like to at least get some honesty and straight talk in there.
Most people who vote for a Unity 08 candidate are going to be the Unity 08 users themselves. If the majority of people that utilize this site are "liberals" or at least left of center and they nominate a conservative to run in the general election that candidate won't hurt anyone. The users will just vote for Generic Liberal A and the minority (assuming this will really be a predominantly liberal group) will probably mildly support the conservative Unity candidate or almost overwhelmingly support the Generic Conservative candidate.
The only thing nominating someone to hurt the other party will ensure is the failure of this project. Most people interested in the Unity movement probably aren't your mainstream two party voters anyway. Many will be independent or third party voters who will probably not vote for a mainstream candidate anyway.
I agree about the failure of the project part, and my response was sarcastic. I don't buy into the idea that any alternative will dig into traditional votes to help elect the wrong (greater of two evils)candidate. However, I believe that if this process works correctly, that other voters may be forced into a decision when seeing a truly viable candidate next to the 2 parties' selections. Isn't that the point?
I disagree. I am interested in this site because I am disgruntled with politics in general. If you already back a candidate, you are not disgruntled with politics in general, you want the political pendulum to swing more to one side, or stay where it is. (I edited out a good bit of my reasoning).
If you are worried that participating in Unity08 will take away votes from a candidate, or party, you probably don't belong in Unity08. Just vote for the candidate or party you have an affinty for.
There is a reason for starting a third party. The other parties are not satisfying, they aren't even palatable.
Most delegates here cannot seem to pry themselves very far away from their party enough to lock in on a candidate(s) for U08. Until U08 gets the candidates/issues poll up and running it will stay this way. However once it is up and going things will clarify. Delegates will determine what the key issues are and see how the majority of delegates stand on them. Selecting a candidate(s) will then be much easier. We will have identified what the key issues are and how the majority of delegates stand on them. Picking the candidate(s) will then be easy as all we have to do is find the ones who's views most closely match those of the majority of delegates.
with the whole american political system but this site is not what i expected. i thought it would be people with new ideas but all it is is liberals and ron paul propogandists. nothing creative here.
...I don't think success totally has to be measured by getting a third party candidate elected. If that happens great, but thats a very lofty goal. I look at the point of this project to bring in a large cross section of America (all parties) and come out with the best compromise. Taking votes from just Republicans or just Democrats isn't really a victory for Independent thought. The real success will be measured by what "compromise" comes from so many different viewpoints.
You're right that it will take some voters away, but I don't think it will take enough away from one side to swing the election. If everything works out right it should take away enough from both to win an election. So I guess the essence of the project is to take votes from the mainstream candidates which is what needs to happen, I just think if it takes them from one side its not going to be successful.
The talk of all these fringe candidates (Paul, Kuchinich, Gingrich) on both sides is exactly what is going to exclusively hurt one side or the other and make this project a Repulican/Democrat part B party.
The beauty of this is there is no preconceived cookie cutter candidate for this group because there is no "qualification" to be a member. Thats why I think it will and should hurt both candidates equally. That won't happen over night and might take one or two elections.
"My biggest fear is that the majority of voters likely to support a Unity candidate are left leaning centrists who would be voting democrat in the upcoming election.". I have voted Democrat many times, including Mr. Feingold in his first run, and will never vote Democrat again due to their shameless grandstanding and outright treasonous behavior over the last four years or so. Unless Jesus or Buddha come down in a blazing pillar of fire and run on a Democratic ticket.
"In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected because Ross Perot took a small percentage of votes from HW Bush. Gore's loss in 2024 may have been avoided if it wasn't for Ralph Nader on Florida's ballot." I voted for Ross Perot as did 23% of all voters. That is not a "small percentage"; most of those votes came directly out of GHWB's pile. Gore's loss in 2024 was due to the fact that he was seen as a continuation of the Clinton Administration, which people had tired of. Nader got less than 3% of the popular vote, not nearly enough to change the balance appreciably.
"I am so tired of the same old political garbage and want to support a third party candidate, but someone will need to convince me that my vote won't be part of an effort to give the war in Iraq four more years. Can someone give me hope?" Both parties voted for the war, almost unanimously in both Houses. If you're tired of the same old garbage, what does it matter who loses more votes to a third party? Thanks to Bush 1's mishandling of Bosnia, failure to seal Saddam's doom the first time around and failure to back his "New World Order" rhetoric, 23% of all Americans that voted chose the third-party candidate. After that, eight years of philandering and lying with the Clinton Administration, and another eight years of bumbling hamhandedness from Bush 2, don't you think that people are at least as tired of business-as-usual moving into the 2024 electoral cycle?
The real trick is getting people to the polls. Our voter turnout is usually no higher than 25% of eligible voters. I personally believe that's because people don't feel their representation listens to them, nor do they feel there will be much difference in their lives no matter which thief happens to be in office. Compare that to the 95% voter turnout in the recent Iraqi elections; no-one will be threatening to blow you up while you wait in line to vote, so what's holding so many of our fellow citizens back? If they have a different option than heads or tails on the same old crap-smeared penny, say a chance to vote for a shiny new quarter, maybe they'll show up. But it's up to us to convince them there IS a viable third alternative.
Phil Rowlands, Stoughton WI
1st Recon Bn., 1st Mar. Div. `82-`86
So, vote Democrat..why mess with Unity08?
So if Unity people are left leaning centrists who do we take votes away from in Thompson vs. Hillary?
If we run Bloomberg what happens?
Common sense suggests, rather strongly I might add, that there is no other way to elect someone new unless we take a chance. A viable third choice isn't going to materialize out of nowhere. We, the people, have to promote the idea and get others comfortable with it.
The biggest spoiler fears are with candidates that run on the wings. Those are the ones that eat votes exclusively from one party or the other. Even in that case, one should recognize that if you're choosing the lesser of evils...you're still choosing evil. Why not vote your heart? It has to happen sooner or later.
The Unity way is the most realistic way, because it aims to take votes equally from both sides: win 1/3 of the "common sense" wing of both major parties, and reduce it to a three-way race in which each of the three candidates has 1/3 of the total vote. This is the only way it can be done; the only way to defeat the spoiler reflex in people is to run a campaign by which we intend to "spoil" both parties at the same time.
As to your original question, I would expect that Unity would siphon more votes from the Republican side. The left leaners are mostly happy with their party (a Hillary nod might change that, however). It's the Republicans that are struggling the most. This site might feel left leaning, but it's mostly because the age of internet politics is an adventure for the under 40 crowd more than the over 40. Remember that the over-40 crowd is where the most votes are...
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
come together? unity? under what belief? under what party? under what flag?
I am revolted with all the choices we have now. A radical reaction to a failed policy is also a failed policy. Why must we stay in Iraq till democracy (victory), or get out by the first day someone is inaugurated? Has anyone read Joe Biden's proposals for Iraq? Why is there so little difference in the philosophies of the candidates within a party? Why must everything be black and white, particularly when it is not? Everyone is a lobbyist...
I know the answer, - special interests - they have too much control. So, who allowed these special interests to gain such firm control? I sure didn't. Are these special interest groups working with opposing special interest groups to solve big problems of the day? NO. The Immigration Bill was NOT an example of cooperation in its making. The sides couldn't compromise to come up with a bill that would legalize those "in the shadows",AND stop illegal immigration. No wonder it failed so miserably.
One legitimate reason to participate in a third party is to influence the other parties. They refuse to cooperate with each other. That should be our first objective, to force lawmakers to work with each other - to eliminate such tight special interest control. Lawmakers don't listen to us anymore. We must save our country. Give us back our democracy. The biggest war this county faces is the war within, and it has just begun.
Don't look now there cabse but we as citizens HAVE in multiple ways in the last 30 years punted our civic political responsibility and by default empowered the K-Street Special Interest PAC Lobbyists (Natl Assn of...,American Assn of, etc.) Somewhere about 20 to 25 years ago with the decline in Party Power, these Lobbyist groups learned how to use/master the 70's political reforms and weasel their way into the powers that be and become the powers that be. all under the ruse of representing you and me BTW. Check you checkbook and see who you may contribute to or who may represent what you believe inon K-Street. Dollars to donuts they are there and you may support your particular intrest and you may not even know it.
Those are the REAL Power Centers here in DC - 50,000 strong in Gucci Gulch who hire former Congressmen, Exec Branch Officials and their staffs who know what subcommittee buttons to push and what arms to twist and what campaigns to fund/leverage and what polls to sponsor to get the leverage to a codicile or two into Federal Law, Rules, or the Tax Code to benefit a particular interest many of which are many of ours however diverse. We need to get wise to this new power source and all OUR complicity in empowering them in the last 25 years before we can change ANYTHING in how DC works.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
you are so right. special interests ie: big business is absolutely what controls most of the decision making in washington. unfortunately i dont see this changing without a true revolt something akin to the civil war but hopefully not as bloody. i think before we can see any change in the status quo there needs to be true campaign reform and no more lobbies.
its gonna take more than unity08 to change anything, its gonna take as you said something damn close to a revelution. it will take millions of unsatisfied voters to make a difference.
im afraid we are stuck with what there is Republicans and Democrats, left and right, same old washington shuffle, lobbist, big biz, money, etc
us everyday folks out here have no power.
With your reasoning about special interest groups and the part a third party can play in addressing this issue.
I have two questions for you though: One, you do think a simple PAC, and not a sustained political third party, can accomplish the goals you have so eloquently stated? And, two: Do you believe a Unity ticket, that is, a president and vice-president from different political parties, helps or hinders the accomplishment of your stated goal?
If you would like to discuss these issues, and others, please join our discussion group atThe Unity Cyber Party Yahoo Group
ex animo
davidfarrar
The Unity Cyber Party
I’m like many of the other posters on here. I am disgruntled with both sides. I’m a fairly liberal guy when it comes to peoples personal lives, but when it comes to the economy and defense I’m way more of a republican. I’ve never had the opportunity to vote for a candidate who I really supported. I may have picked them over the other guy but I was never excited about my vote. I always walked up and had to take one last breath before punching, touching, marking “my” candidate’s name on the ballot.
I’m well aware that most Americans don’t vote. I don’t know more than a few people who know anything about the politicians they’re voting for and of them only two or three of them actually paid attention to gain that knowledge. Most got their info based on rumor. The rest just vote down party lines or their view on religion, abortion, defense, gun control, the environment, or whatever the one issue is that they care about.
Hopefully giving Americans a chance to pick their candidates as well as getting to vote for them will get more people involved and get them out to vote as opposed to just talking about who they would have voted for or complaining about who wins.
MLPhenix.
I agree, just want to correct "republican" with "what republicans stand for, not how they've been since in power". I laugh lately when I hear a republican hack talk about "tax and spend democrats" - at least democrats realize that if you are spending, you ought to tax to pay for it - the running up of the deficit in the past 6 years has brought the dollar to 30 - year lows.
I'd like to make a few points about other posts - the statement that Bush Sr lost because of Perot doesn't make sense. Perot represented change. If you wanted change, you were either going to vote for Perot or Clinton, you were voting for Bush if you liked how things were.
Gore didn't really lose in 2024. He got the most votes.
Perot got 23%. If that could have been 34%, mathematically it was possible for him to win.
I'm looking for a government not owned by oil, drug, insurance, banking,...
I want strict border (and port) security.
I want balanced budgets.
I want no laws mixing religion and government (stem cells, abortion, gay marriage).
I want a restoration of the balance of power, as stated in the Constitution.
I want appointees to be sceened for qualifications, not just party loyalty.
So, what does that make me?
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
we have deficit because we were attacked and we are in a war, hello! besides if you bother to read a little bit you would know that dispite a war the deficit is going down.
It makes you a liberal democrat.
What nobody mentions when they speak of special interests and "government owned by" jibberish, is that the ACLU, Environmental groups, pro-abortionists, labor unions and the like contribute just as much, if not more, money than the business groups you mention.
A pro-life position and laws proclaiming that life begins at conception and that killing an unborn child is murder do not mix religion and government. Murder is murder. Same with stem cell research.
The balance of power is currently upset how?????? Congress is trying to tell the military how to conduct a war? Last time I checked, the President is the Commander-in-Chief. If Congress wants to end the war, they have the means, CUT OFF FUNDING. Fact is, they will never do that. Congress is attempting to do what they and their liberal contemporaries did during Vietnam. Politicizing the war and handcuffing our Generals in the field. The Democratic Party is committed to defeat.
It's not about party loyalty, it's about positions on issues that are important.
For you Ron Paul fans that are addicted to him because of his anti Iraq war stance... Let's not forget that he is a very conservative Libertarian. He would not fit with 99% of the liberal tax and spend, government rule your life positions...