[SumItUp]

Ross Perot received the largest % of votes for a 3rd party candidate in recent history with 19%. I'm sure it got noticed, but did it change anything? I guess it at least makes the voter feel like they accomplished something.

Yes, and President Clinton and his sidekick would like to thank each and every one of those that voted for Mr. Perot. Without his aid, they could not have enjoyed 8 years in the White House and a net worth in excess of $100 million. While Perot had a mix of voters (new, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans), the majority that would have voted if there was not a viable third option would have marked the box for Bush/Quayle.

[Sly Fox]

And the same could be said four years ago for Mr. Unsafe at Any Speed.

[RagingTireFire]

I simply can't imagine not voting. For reasons I'd rather not share here, the idea of not casting a ballot when I have the right and freedom to do so is completely unacceptable to me. It's not a Christian thing and it's not even necessarily an American thing; it's the fact that I can.
I also refuse to believe that voting for the candidate of your choice is throwing your vote away just because that candidate might not be from one of the two major parties. I'm still not certain who I'll pull the lever for in November but I am for dang sure going to pull it.

[WinthropEagleFan]

in todays day and age, however, there is the easy ability to find out who the other candidates are and its easier to find one you like. the problem is most see it as "why bother, it does nothing"....but if a good # of voters that actually vote are voting for neither party but some libertarian guy (any of them, its just not a vote for the dems or repubs), if enough peopel do it, it will get noticed.....

Ross Perot received the largest % of votes for a 3rd party candidate in recent history with 19%. I'm sure it got noticed, but did it change anything? I guess it at least makes the voter feel like they accomplished something.

It changed things in that a 3rd-party or independent candidate hasn't been allowed to participate in a major debate ever since. Perot's ideas/statements got a platform back in that election because he was able to participate in those debates. The two major parties saw what happened when the masses could actually get exposed to other ideas, and they've kept candidates from other parties from gaining that platform after Perot.

[FlameNForest]

It changed things in that a 3rd-party or independent candidate hasn't been allowed to participate in a major debate ever since. Perot's ideas/statements got a platform back in that election because he was able to participate in those debates. The two major parties saw what happened when the masses could actually get exposed to other ideas, and they've kept candidates from other parties from gaining that platform after Perot.

This is true. So I guess you can say it made it even more unlikely a 3rd party candidate can win now.

[ALUmnus]

I simply can't imagine not voting. For reasons I'd rather not share here, the idea of not casting a ballot when I have the right and freedom to do so is completely unacceptable to me. It's not a Christian thing and it's not even necessarily an American thing; it's the fact that I can.

Control issues.

[RagingTireFire]

I simply can't imagine not voting. For reasons I'd rather not share here, the idea of not casting a ballot when I have the right and freedom to do so is completely unacceptable to me. It's not a Christian thing and it's not even necessarily an American thing; it's the fact that I can.

Control issues.

You have no idea.

[RubberMallet]

It changed things in that a 3rd-party or independent candidate hasn't been allowed to participate in a major debate ever since. Perot's ideas/statements got a platform back in that election because he was able to participate in those debates. The two major parties saw what happened when the masses could actually get exposed to other ideas, and they've kept candidates from other parties from gaining that platform after Perot.

This is true. So I guess you can say it made it even more unlikely a 3rd party candidate can win now.

until the retards that occupy this country by the zillions realize this and decide to do something..

[Ed Dantes]

It changed things in that a 3rd-party or independent candidate hasn't been allowed to participate in a major debate ever since. Perot's ideas/statements got a platform back in that election because he was able to participate in those debates. The two major parties saw what happened when the masses could actually get exposed to other ideas, and they've kept candidates from other parties from gaining that platform after Perot.

This is true. So I guess you can say it made it even more unlikely a 3rd party candidate can win now.

until the retards that occupy this country by the zillions realize this and decide to do something..

Seriously, as long as TV is populated with shows like "The View", that ain't gonna happen.

[RubberMallet]

i was thinking more along the lines of TMZ but i'll accept the view as well...

[RubberMallet]

this was on nightline by the way....they interviewed rick warren about it...

he said he's a registered independant. he said he both thought they answered their questions honestly and that they were both his friends.

i wasn't paying much more attention to it than that other than the lady tryign to get him to say he was voting for mccain...which he didn't...

[rogers3]

until the retards that occupy this country by the zillions realize this and decide to do something..

They do realize that there is a candidate that wants to continue and expand the redistribution of wealth. The candidate knows that as long as he makes promises to give out more handouts, there is a a large segment of the American populace that is ignorant and believes that our government can do this with no repercussions.

I like the idea of the third candidate, but I'd really like it if it was a candidate that would split Obama's votes!

The whole "I exercise the right not to vote" argument seems counterproductive. One of my managers has done the same thing for years and I really enjoy giving him grief!

[mrmacphisto]

I'm exercising my right to not vote. I'm proud to live in a country where such things aren't compulsory.

Also, just because I'm probably not voting doesn't mean I'm not interested in politics or the future of America. It will be interesting to see how things unfold.

Don't pat yourself on the back. Comments like these make me want to

Why would I pat myself on the back? Contrary to popular dogma, voting is not my civic duty. I'm not even sure it can be considered a right. More than this, it's a freedom we've been afforded as Americans, and as such we have the option to participate or abstain.

Voting for the sake of voting, simply because I can, seems less responsible than abstaining when I have no actual preference amongst the candidates. I would rather let those with an actual preference decide. That's the purpose of an election.

For the record, I flipped a coin and Obama won.

[SumItUp]

I'm exercising my right to not vote. I'm proud to live in a country where such things aren't compulsory.

Also, just because I'm probably not voting doesn't mean I'm not interested in politics or the future of America. It will be interesting to see how things unfold.

Don't pat yourself on the back. Comments like these make me want to

Why would I pat myself on the back? Contrary to popular dogma, voting is not my civic duty. I'm not even sure it can be considered a right. More than this, it's a freedom we've been afforded as Americans, and as such we have the option to participate or abstain.

Voting for the sake of voting, simply because I can, seems less responsible than abstaining when I have no actual preference amongst the candidates. I would rather let those with an actual preference decide. That's the purpose of an election.

For the record, I flipped a coin and Obama won.

It is not your civic duty, but it is a privilege that is NOT enjoyed by billions of people around the world. Those freedoms that you so flippantly want to make known came at a price. Do you plan to abstain from voting for all levels of government or only the presidential ticket? I'm curious, who would be your ideal candidate? You state that you have no preference among the candidates presented, but you have the option to write-in a candidate.

Wait, I just figured it out. Your previous statements of "Also, just because I'm probably not voting doesn't mean I'm not interested in politics or the future of America" and "I would rather let those with an actual preference decide" just made everything clear. You're not actually a citizen. You don't have the privilege to vote. Surely, that is the explanation. I can think of no other reason why a person would have an interest in politics and the future of America, yet does not wish to participate and thinks it will be interesting to see how things unfold.

[mrmacphisto]

It is not your civic duty, but it is a privilege that is NOT enjoyed by billions of people around the world.

As is the privilege to not show up. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq had nearly 100% voter turnout. Would you call that a step in the right direction?

Those freedoms that you so flippantly want to make known came at a price.

I'm neither flippant nor ignorant of the price that has been paid for freedom.

Do you plan to abstain from voting for all levels of government or only the presidential ticket?

It's probably more likely that I'll vote at the legislative and local level. If I have a strong preference one way, I will probably vote.

I'm curious, who would be your ideal candidate?

I don't know who my ideal candidate would be. I like to think I would know it if I saw it, but then again, politicians will usually say anything necessary to get elected. I suppose that ideally, that person would be honest, intelligent, espouse all my Christian values and ultimately make a good Chief Executive. I'm finding leaders like this harder and harder to come by lately.

You state that you have no preference among the candidates presented, but you have the option to write-in a candidate.

Yes, and that would require me to (1) drive to the polls and (2) cast a meaningless vote that will never be read. I might also be voting for a person who has no desire to be President, even though I think they might be good at it. What's the point?

Wait, I just figured it out. Your previous statements of "Also, just because I'm probably not voting doesn't mean I'm not interested in politics or the future of America" and "I would rather let those with an actual preference decide" just made everything clear. You're not actually a citizen. You don't have the privilege to vote. Surely, that is the explanation. I can think of no other reason why a person would have an interest in politics and the future of America, yet does not wish to participate and thinks it will be interesting to see how things unfold.

I know you're being humorous, but I'll answer anyway. On the contrary, I voted in the last two presidential elections. I was once quite comfortable with choosing between what I perceived to be the lesser of two evils, but I'm not sure that's the right choice anymore.

I have no problem with people who vote. If you want one candidate to win over another, then vote. Inform yourself about the candidates and vote according to your convictions. My convictions are leading me to abstain from voting in this election. You either understand it or you don't, and if you don't, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone.

[thepostman]

just face it...if you don't vote you are going to hell

seriously though...people fought and died for our freedom...this means people can choose or choose not to vote...it ridiculous to try to guilt someone into voting...which essentially is what people are trying to do when they bring up the price that was paid for the freedom to vote...

I plan on voting, but I see nothing wrong with people making the choice not to vote...its our freedom as Americans....

[ALUmnus]

What's wrong with guilt? And why is it bad that someone thinks it's wrong not to vote? People have become such pansies. It's our freedom not to vote, just like people on here like to excercise their freedom to be stupid. So dumb.