On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jason Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While there is a lot of truth to what levi says, we do have federal > and state level complications that *do* make it valuable to vote 3rd > party, even if they won't win, and that is with campaign money, and > access to the polls. > > The two main parties have made it very difficult for people outside of > their control to get on the ballot, and to receive their part of the > huge amounts of money the government gives them to stay in power. By > receiving certain percentages of the vote in major elections, they can > receive that money on the next election cycle. > > That doesn't help a write-in though.
Thank you, Jason. Focusing on 3rd parties, and Ron Paul aside, the problem and solution that Levi has presented is a Catch-22. Apparently, it makes no sense or difference to vote 3rd party in the general elections because by then it is too late. So, spend time between elections drumming up support. However, the money needed to educate the populace, the access to debates, even the access to the ballot itself, is often based on results from previous elections. So, all you have to do is convince people to vote for your 3rd party in an upcoming election to get those resources. But that makes no sense since your party has no chance of winning. So based on election results 3rd parties then have little to no resources with which to campaign between elections. They can only hope that the merits of their platform are enough to sway voters in the next election. But that makes no sense, since they have no change of winning. And on and on. In other words, the game is rigged to keep new comers out, and leave the field consisting only of 2 parties that as Levi said, aren't that different in full political spectrum. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
