I haven't seen any examples of third parties "engaging" or "invigorating" anyone. Disillusioned voters are not likely to vote for anyone, if those third parties were really inspiring people who don't care to start caring their numbers would have been higher in the last election since there are plenty of people who have stopped caring.
Not participating is silly and doesn't serve to accomplish anything. Neither party really cares if you don't vote and, by not voting, you just ensure that your voice is even less important than those of us who do vote.
The problem with third parties is that they think they can get someone elected President without doing any of the ground work required. If they really wanted to make a lasting difference, they'd be running for local office and setting up local offices everywhere. Even the Greens, who do this sort of thing much more than other third parties, don't do it nearly enough to make a difference. They think they can compete with the Dems and the Republicans when they haven't done the decades of work the Dems and the GOP did to get where they are today.
"Not participating is silly and doesn't serve to accomplish anything."
No disagreement there. Again, I am not one of those people.
'The problem with third parties is that they think they can get someone elected President . . ."
That is not what they think at all.
"They think they can compete with the Dems and the Republicans when they haven't done the decades of work the Dems and the GOP did to get where they are today."
Oh, please. You sound like an apologist for capitalism. The two-party oligopoly is not something the Reps and Dems earned with their hard work. It's just the status quo they inherited.
No disagreement there. Again, I am not one of those people.
And yet you suggest the equivalent. Voting for a third party that you know can only serve to peel off one or two percentage points from the party that is most ideologically aligned with you is functionally indistinguishable from not participating. You'd be doing yourself a far greater favor, if you want to shake things up in American politics, if you helped one of those third parties get involved in local politics. Voting for them just serves to encourage those who you disagree with more.
That is not what they think at all.
Then why do they continue to run for President, often at the exclusion of more attainable elected offices?
Oh, please. You sound like an apologist for capitalism.
No, I'm an apologist for logic.
The two-party oligopoly is not something the Reps and Dems earned with their hard work. It's just the status quo they inherited.
Neither the Democrats or the Republicans existed when this country began. They may seem dominant now but that wasn't always the case. It is undeniable that they possess a significant head start, which may seem insurmountable to those attempting to join them at the top, but they undoubtedly did earn it.
And I would also point out that going around in circles claiming that your opponent is incapable or unwilling of "getting it" is a sure sign you've run out of arguments.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
madscience.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2012-12-22 08:04 pm
no subject
Not participating is silly and doesn't serve to accomplish anything. Neither party really cares if you don't vote and, by not voting, you just ensure that your voice is even less important than those of us who do vote.
The problem with third parties is that they think they can get someone elected President without doing any of the ground work required. If they really wanted to make a lasting difference, they'd be running for local office and setting up local offices everywhere. Even the Greens, who do this sort of thing much more than other third parties, don't do it nearly enough to make a difference. They think they can compete with the Dems and the Republicans when they haven't done the decades of work the Dems and the GOP did to get where they are today.
no subject
No disagreement there. Again, I am not one of those people.
'The problem with third parties is that they think they can get someone elected President . . ."
That is not what they think at all.
"They think they can compete with the Dems and the Republicans when they haven't done the decades of work the Dems and the GOP did to get where they are today."
Oh, please. You sound like an apologist for capitalism. The two-party oligopoly is not something the Reps and Dems earned with their hard work. It's just the status quo they inherited.
no subject
And yet you suggest the equivalent. Voting for a third party that you know can only serve to peel off one or two percentage points from the party that is most ideologically aligned with you is functionally indistinguishable from not participating. You'd be doing yourself a far greater favor, if you want to shake things up in American politics, if you helped one of those third parties get involved in local politics. Voting for them just serves to encourage those who you disagree with more.
That is not what they think at all.
Then why do they continue to run for President, often at the exclusion of more attainable elected offices?
Oh, please. You sound like an apologist for capitalism.
No, I'm an apologist for logic.
The two-party oligopoly is not something the Reps and Dems earned with their hard work. It's just the status quo they inherited.
Neither the Democrats or the Republicans existed when this country began. They may seem dominant now but that wasn't always the case. It is undeniable that they possess a significant head start, which may seem insurmountable to those attempting to join them at the top, but they undoubtedly did earn it.
no subject
no subject
no subject