3rd Party Voters?

Jason P wrote:

I figured Gary's Johnson would get 3% - 5% of the vote. He ended up w/ 1%.

Proper fucked, indeed ...

i think a lot of the paul supporters voted for romney ...

polaris_x wrote:

well ... johnson finished 3rd and stein a distant 4th ...

none of these candidates got over 5,500 votes ...

surprised how low the overall 3rd party votes got considering there were really only a handful of battleground states ...

it takes way too much effort to find out what those candidates stand for, our "media" is terrible...I voted for Johnson and I am glad I did. I stared at my ballot for quite a while trying to talk myself out of writing in Ron Paul. I would have loved to vote for the guy but really hoped the lesser parties would gain some sort of steam. Here's to hoping.


I am not sure how many of you remember the great Basil Marceaux

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnx-SqMYknI

but I promise you more people know who he is than know who ran on the libertarian, green, or justice party tickets...

mikepegg44 wrote:

I don't think they voted in the presidential election at all to be honest. It isn't like he was getting millions of voters in the primaries even...the republican party spent a lot of money and effort trying to marginalize those supporters. I know many in my local group didn't vote for a presidential candidate at all. And those that did wrote in Paul. To say he didn't get one vote just goes to show how much we should question the legitimacy of the counts for those third parties/write ins.

really ... that's interesting ... do you know if any of the other people on the full list were write-in? .. outside of none of these candidates? ...

it wouldn't surprise me if something nefarious went on tho ...

mikepegg44 wrote:

hard to say, and I don't think it is necessarily nefarious, just not worth the time to accurately report them. I mean, with all the votes cast for the main two candidates, is it worth the time to count the few thousand that wrote in? probably not. I mean, my ballot gets put through an automated reader and is probably left in a stack unless there is a recount done by hand. Writing in Paul would have felt good to me, but the machine would have never tracked it and it would only have been seen if someone went through each and every ballot on election night

frig ... they reported 503 for some guy ... why wouldn't paul supporters vote for johnson? ... i'm sure there are at least 5 million of ya across the country ...

MayDay10 wrote:

I watched the 3rd Party Debate last night and it convinced me 100% that the best candidates are on the sideline.

Stein and Johnson were killing it. They werent dodging any issue and were laying out their platforms with no shame.

We need these 3rd parties included more in typical Gov't to force more issues. I dont think the environment was mentioned 1x in the R vs D debates, Johnson would press Romney on how he is really going to reduce the deficit, and people would love to hear/consider Lib/Green foreign policy instead of unanimously 'agreed upon' drone attacks.

no real change will happen in this country until these 2 things happen:

1. more viable options for president are allowed to have their voices heard.
2. term limits are enacted in congress.

sadly, i think neither will ever happen. we are screwed.

we're like a middling nba team strapped by the salary cap with no conceivable way in the foreseeable future of getting over the hump.

musicismylife78 wrote:

i wrote in paul, because I didnt want johnson, he didnt mean anything to me. I wasnt voting for the best runner up. I was voting for who I wanted to be president. I wanted paul. Why should I have to change my vote. Theres no way the majority of ron paul supporters voted romney. I'd bet most either didnt vote, or some voted for Johnson or other 3rd parties. And I dont think im the only person who wrote in Paul. Yes i too was bemoaning the fact that my state supposedly doesnt even count write in ballots, its only registered as a write in, the exact nature of it, that I voted for Paul specifically, supposedly wont or didnt count. So yeah, I was furious and am furious about that. But I didnt want to change my vote. Paul was the only guy with integrity running. And thats why I voted for him. I voted against war, against the patriot act. Against torture. Against the drug war.

well jill stein is against war and torture and the war on drugs ... i would even say that it is more credible to vote for stein based on those issues than paul ... but i digress ...

the reason one votes for johnson is to get these 3rd party candidates in the 5% range so they can be represented in future elections/debates ...

if seeing ron paul as a presidential candidate was important - he should have ran as the libertarian candidate or as an independent ...

polaris_x wrote:

show previous quotes

musicismylife78 wrote:

i wrote in paul, because I didnt want johnson, he didnt mean anything to me. I wasnt voting for the best runner up. I was voting for who I wanted to be president. I wanted paul. Why should I have to change my vote. Theres no way the majority of ron paul supporters voted romney. I'd bet most either didnt vote, or some voted for Johnson or other 3rd parties. And I dont think im the only person who wrote in Paul. Yes i too was bemoaning the fact that my state supposedly doesnt even count write in ballots, its only registered as a write in, the exact nature of it, that I voted for Paul specifically, supposedly wont or didnt count. So yeah, I was furious and am furious about that. But I didnt want to change my vote. Paul was the only guy with integrity running. And thats why I voted for him. I voted against war, against the patriot act. Against torture. Against the drug war.

well jill stein is against war and torture and the war on drugs ... i would even say that it is more credible to vote for stein based on those issues than paul ... but i digress ...

the reason one votes for johnson is to get these 3rd party candidates in the 5% range so they can be represented in future elections/debates ...

if seeing ron paul as a presidential candidate was important - he should have ran as the libertarian candidate or as an independent ...

Everyone votes their conscience. or should. Ive voted in the last 3 presidential elections. I voted nader twice, and Paul once. I wouldnt take back any of those votes. Ive never and will never vote based on who will win, and who could win. I vote on the best man for the job. And I vote based on issues that are of value to me. Jill Stein seems great, but ive had problems with the greens since 2004, when they were telling voters during the election to vote kerry as opposed to green in battleground states because it would be too close to call. The purpose of a third party, of the greens, is to push back and force the major parties to discuss important issues, not to cowtow and tell us to lock step support a major party candidate. Third parties are essentially what the Democrats should be, our voice. And johnson sounds interesting, but I was most interested in ron paul. He captured my imagination and spoke the most sense. Seems silly to be supportive of the guy, feel like he's the only sane person running and then at the last moment, switch the vote to another guy. Fair play to those who did that, but thats not me. Not how I operate.

Im all for getting the 5 percent for third party candidates. Nothing would thrill me more. I remember that was the goal that Nader failed to achieve in 2000. But it was 7 percent back then I think. Anyways, I totally agree. But my vote for Paul wasnt a negation of that. I just voted for a different guy. My whole MO and opinion for years, has been the debates should be open to ANY candidate, and that third party candidates should be taken seriously by the media and everyone else.

JC29856 wrote:

show previous quotes

JimmyV wrote:

I've said this before but it is the honest truth: The vote I cast for Ralph Nader in 2000 was the worst vote I ever cast.

care to explain why?

Just seeing this now.

I voted for Nader because I believed about Bush and Gore what many believe about Obama and Romney: That there is no difference between the two, and that the country will be the exact same no matter which wins. I was dead wrong about that in 2000, and I completely underestimated how dangerous to the country the Bush presidency was going to be. Gore was not perfect, far from it, but he was clearly the better choice. I do wish I had voted for him.

mikepegg44 wrote:

show previous quotes

MayDay10 wrote:

Ron Paul blew it.


couldve made a real difference

How, by running on the GOP ticket?

it was a long shot, but he would have done more for the country by transforming the current nonsensical wizard party that is the GOP than he could have possible done third party. He would have been ignored by the press again, he would have been kept out of debates, and people would still call him crazy

I agree. I've only read a few articles about Gary Johnson during this election cycle and can't recall seeing him mentioned on a TV report.

At least Ron Paul was able to get his message out during the debates and the media was forced to semi-recognize him for a few months.

Here's what i think...
I think the only way a Third Party candidate will ever get a chance of winning is by this:
1. Uniting the fractured Independent Political Parties into ONE unified Third Party (after Hell opens it's first ski resort)
2. A Third Party making substantial gains in Congressional districts.
3. The Thrid Party in the House votes as a bloc, forcing the two major parties to consider the Third Party's issues and requests during congressional voting.
4. Once the Third Party begins to move into into the Senate, it cannot be ignored.
5. This allows for the possibility of a Third Party Presidential Candidate that actually has a chance of winning.
...
Of cource... nothing can take place until step 1 is completed... so, in other words, you have 2 parties to choose from. As usual.