Time for a third party?

[kaz]

What would and who would a 3rd party represent?

Would it be conservative or liberal, reactionary or progressive?

Would it support the will of the people, and be guided by referendums to decide wedge issues (abortion, gun control, tax policy, liberty issues on religion vis a vis the rights of minority populations).

Would such a party support free markets or regulated markets?

Would it support established industries and eschew new technologies?

Would it support a textual interpretation of the Constitution, or recognize the 21st century is greatly different than the 18th?

Would it close our borders and be a by-stander on the world stage, or seek power and control over the policies of other foreign nations?

Would it be fiscally conservative, fiscally responsible or spend like a drunk Marine?

The most obvious third party would be Republicans who are sick of abortion and social issues and Democrats who are sick of out of control spending

Removing the Social Conservatives from the Republican Party will effectively make the R Party a minority party and put the D's in power for years to come. Social conservatives control the vote in Red States, removing them from the R Party will hand over to the D's the electoral college.

Out of control spending is too subjective a phrase, a third party would be wise to set economic policy to responsively take care of what needs to be done, and eschew things (such as unnecessary wars and corporate welfare) which do noting for the many and continue to enrich the few.

A third or fourth or greater number of parties may work in a Parliamentary system, where coalitions control policy and who is the executive (the Prime Minister); in our system chaos would reign (any doubt, consider the chaos the Tea Party has had on governance).

I think there are more liberals who think we're spending too much than you think there are. They have just been coralled by the Democrats and their endless they are worse message.

And I didn't say the socons would leave the Republican party, I said non-socons would to join the third party.

I would still be left without a party, I was just logically saying in our system non-socon Republicans and more fiscally conservative Democrats would be the obvious third party

Mea culpa, the socons (first time I've read that contraction) would not leave the R Party (my post was wrong). In effect, staying with the R's will still religate the R Party to a minority one, and bring chaos to local and state elections too (IMO). We have too many single issue voters which makes for an interesting mix if most of them feel the two viable choices do not effectively meet their wants and needs.

Exactly, abortion is the biggest single issue that single issue voters vote on. That's a big part of why a non-socon Republican fiscal conservative Democrat alliance could work

 

[ChrisL]

Well, hellooooo Kevin!

 

[ChrisL]

What would and who would a 3rd party represent?

Would it be conservative or liberal, reactionary or progressive?

Would it support the will of the people, and be guided by referendums to decide wedge issues (abortion, gun control, tax policy, liberty issues on religion vis a vis the rights of minority populations).

Would such a party support free markets or regulated markets?

Would it support established industries and eschew new technologies?

Would it support a textual interpretation of the Constitution, or recognize the 21st century is greatly different than the 18th?

Would it close our borders and be a by-stander on the world stage, or seek power and control over the policies of other foreign nations?

Would it be fiscally conservative, fiscally responsible or spend like a drunk Marine?

The most obvious third party would be Republicans who are sick of abortion and social issues and Democrats who are sick of out of control spending

Removing the Social Conservatives from the Republican Party will effectively make the R Party a minority party and put the D's in power for years to come. Social conservatives control the vote in Red States, removing them from the R Party will hand over to the D's the electoral college.

Out of control spending is too subjective a phrase, a third party would be wise to set economic policy to responsively take care of what needs to be done, and eschew things (such as unnecessary wars and corporate welfare) which do noting for the many and continue to enrich the few.

A third or fourth or greater number of parties may work in a Parliamentary system, where coalitions control policy and who is the executive (the Prime Minister); in our system chaos would reign (any doubt, consider the chaos the Tea Party has had on governance).

I think there are more liberals who think we're spending too much than you think there are. They have just been coralled by the Democrats and their endless they are worse message.

And I didn't say the socons would leave the Republican party, I said non-socons would to join the third party.

I would still be left without a party, I was just logically saying in our system non-socon Republicans and more fiscally conservative Democrats would be the obvious third party

Mea culpa, the socons (first time I've read that contraction) would not leave the R Party (my post was wrong). In effect, staying with the R's will still religate the R Party to a minority one, and bring chaos to local and state elections too (IMO). We have too many single issue voters which makes for an interesting mix if most of them feel the two viable choices do not effectively meet their wants and needs.

Exactly, abortion is the biggest single issue that single issue voters vote on. That's a big part of why a non-socon Republican fiscal conservative Democrat alliance could work

Ugh, how can people be SO narrow minded?

 

[kaz]

Well, hellooooo Kevin!

He was #1 for me as well

 

[BULLDOG]

I thought the Tea Party was supposed to cure all the right winger's ills

Until it was infiltrated by the religious right.

Nope. Not infiltrated. The Tea People were bought soon after their inception by the Koch brothers who funded their rallies, and provided "advisers" to help guide and direct the fledgling party toward goals that would suit the Koch's, and by Fox who gave hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising and support as long as the party followed the fox line. The "religious right" were cultivated and pandered to in order to increase the party's numbers.

 

[ChrisL]

I thought the Tea Party was supposed to cure all the right winger's ills

Until it was infiltrated by the religious right.

Nope. Not infiltrated. The Tea People were bought soon after their inception by the Koch brothers who funded their rallies, and provided "advisers" to help guide and direct the fledgling party toward goals that would suit the Koch's, and by Fox who gave hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising and support as long as the party followed the fox line. The "religious right" were cultivated and pandered to in order to increase the party's numbers.

That's not what I've read. Are you basing this on fact or opinion? I think it was their choice of religious pandering candidates is what did them in as a legitimate party.

Tea Party movement | American political movement

 

[ChrisL]

I've been an independent for over 40 years, and I'll tell you why. Canned answers from an organized "party platform" don't cut it; they rarely fit right. I could care less what party a candidate is from and imo neither should anyone else. People should choose the best person with the views they agree with to represent them. I am not at all sure the primaries would have gone the way they have if Independents had a free hand to vote in them. There are a lot of independents and we'll see if the election is as predictable as the pundits think.

Shouldn't political parties have a right to choose their own candidates?

If changes need to be made, then why not make it in election reform? Such as how candidates collect and spend money. The length of the election season. The winner-take all aspect of voting.

You should take that test I posted. I would be interested in the results you get, since you and I seem to share a lot of the same views when it comes to politics.

 

[BULLDOG]

I thought the Tea Party was supposed to cure all the right winger's ills

Until it was infiltrated by the religious right.

Nope. Not infiltrated. The Tea People were bought soon after their inception by the Koch brothers who funded their rallies, and provided "advisers" to help guide and direct the fledgling party toward goals that would suit the Koch's, and by Fox who gave hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising and support as long as the party followed the fox line. The "religious right" were cultivated and pandered to in order to increase the party's numbers.

That's not what I've read. Are you basing this on fact or opinion? I think it was their choice of religious pandering candidates is what did them in as a legitimate party.

Tea Party movement | American political movement

In the beginning, the TP didn't have candidates. They were a small group with a goal. When the Kochs started paying for their massively funded rallys and choosing candidates for them is when all that changed.

 

[Divine Wind]

The poll below shows many Americans, like myself, feel that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent our interests. Is it time for a third party? I say yes....and so do many other Americans.

Americans Continue to Say a Third Political Party Is Needed
A majority of U.S. adults, 58%, say a third U.S. political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic parties "do such a poor job" representing the American people. These views are little changed from last year's high. Since 2007, a majority has typically called for a third party.

Have you checked out the Libertarians? I don't know anything about them, yet, but I aim to find out. Supposedly fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Yes, I've read their platform and agree with it, although in some cases, like in many things, the problem isn't the position, but in the details: Platform

https://www.lp.org/files/2014_LP_Platform.pdf

Here is one of those tests that allows you to figure out your party affiliations. Might be interesting. Whenever I take one of these tests, I always fall under the centrist/moderate category.

How Republican vs Democrat are you?

I chose many of the expanded answers.

Candidates you side with...
89%


Kevin McCormick Libertarian
on domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration, healthcare, social, environmental, criminal, and electoral issues.
compare answers

87%


Austin Petersen Libertarian
on domestic policy, economic, immigration, healthcare, and electoral issues.
compare answers

84%


Marc Allan Feldman Libertarian
on domestic policy, economic, immigration, healthcare, environmental, social, and criminal issues.
compare answers

82%


Gary Johnson Libertarian
on economic, domestic policy, immigration, healthcare, environmental, and science issues.
compare answers

 

[ChrisL]

The poll below shows many Americans, like myself, feel that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent our interests. Is it time for a third party? I say yes....and so do many other Americans.

Americans Continue to Say a Third Political Party Is Needed
A majority of U.S. adults, 58%, say a third U.S. political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic parties "do such a poor job" representing the American people. These views are little changed from last year's high. Since 2007, a majority has typically called for a third party.

Have you checked out the Libertarians? I don't know anything about them, yet, but I aim to find out. Supposedly fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Yes, I've read their platform and agree with it, although in some cases, like in many things, the problem isn't the position, but in the details: Platform

https://www.lp.org/files/2014_LP_Platform.pdf

Here is one of those tests that allows you to figure out your party affiliations. Might be interesting. Whenever I take one of these tests, I always fall under the centrist/moderate category.

How Republican vs Democrat are you?

I chose many of the expanded answers.

Candidates you side with...
89%


Kevin McCormick Libertarian
on domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration, healthcare, social, environmental, criminal, and electoral issues.
compare answers

87%


Austin Petersen Libertarian
on domestic policy, economic, immigration, healthcare, and electoral issues.
compare answers

84%


Marc Allan Feldman Libertarian
on domestic policy, economic, immigration, healthcare, environmental, social, and criminal issues.
compare answers

82%


Gary Johnson Libertarian
on economic, domestic policy, immigration, healthcare, environmental, and science issues.
compare answers

Me too. That's why I chose that particular test. It is more accurate and more in depth than a lot of them. I hate tests that only allow you a yes/no response.

 

[Alex.]

a third party will solve nothing. Work with what you have and make that work for you.

Disagreed. I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" several times and it solved nothing. In fact, things got worse. Now we're left with two of the most controversial and hated candidates in modern history. Which one are you voting for? Do you really support them or, like many others, are you really just voting against the other candidate?

Sorry, but as kaz just pointed out, it's crazy to keep doing the same thing expecting a different result. I can't bring myself to vote for either Clinton nor Trump. I also am a strong advocate of voting as a civic duty. Ergo, I'm voting for the candidate who best represents our nation's interests. In this case, it will probably be Gary Johnson or whomever the LP selects as their nominee. Sure, you may get your choice of Hillary or the Donald, but I can't hold my nose and vote for either of them.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ibertarians-big-third-party-run-guns-weed-and
AS THE likely presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson has a lot to be modest about; and he is. “Everybody I meet seems to like me,” says the two-term former Republican governor of New Mexico. “But I’m a Libertarian, so doesn’t that denote there are some loose screws out there?” He leaves the question hanging.

Tiny, electorally trifling and obsessed with guns and weed, cherished emblems of its 11,000 members’ freedom, the party has never mattered in national politics. It is by some measures America’s third-biggest—yet not flattered by that comparison. In 2012 Mitt Romney crashed to defeat with 61m votes; Mr Johnson, who ran for the Libertarians after failing to be noticed in the Republican primaries, won 1.3m. Yet he could be about to improve on that.

Mr Johnson and his running-mate, Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts, are expected to emerge from the Libertarians’ convention in Orlando on 30th May with the party’s ticket. If so, he could feasibly launch the biggest third-party run since Ralph Nader won almost 3% of the vote for the Green Party in 2000—including 100,000 votes in Florida that may have cost Al Gore the presidency. Or he could do better; a poll by Monmouth University put Mr Johnson on 11% in a three-way race with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. That was especially creditable given how little he is known; he figured in almost no national polls in 2012. It has encouraged Mr Johnson to think he could register the 15% vote-share that would guarantee him inclusion in this year’s televised debates.

With publicity, he could catch on. He has the accomplishments of a chest-beating conservative hero—he is a self-made millionaire, triathlete and razor-beaked deficit hawk; he vetoed 750 spending bills in New Mexico. He is also a sometime dope smoker (he resparked his youthful habit in 2005 to manage the pain from a paragliding accident), who comes across as almost goofily unaffected. He speaks in horror of the disdain many Americans show for Mexican immigrants—whom he calls “the cream of the crop”—as if it were borne of some crazy misunderstanding, rather than embedded nativist resentment and economic anxiety. Voters sick of political polish might like the mix: he really is authentic. Yet Mr Johnson’s main cause for hope is the unpopularity of the likely Republican and Democratic alternatives.

Around 60% of voters dislike Donald Trump and 55% Hillary Clinton. That should encourage more Americans to vote as freely of the old duopoly as they increasingly claim to be; 42% say they are independent voters, up from 30% a decade ago. And the Libertarians’ voguish message of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and anti-interventionism has something for the disaffected of both big parties. Compared with a straightforward Trump-Clinton match-up, the Monmouth poll suggested Mr Johnson could take 6% of the vote from Mrs Clinton and 4% from Mr Trump.

The particular unease of many Republicans with their presumptive candidate—along with their failure hitherto to launch a conservative rival to him—explains a surge of interest in the Libertarian confab in Orlando. After Mr Trump sewed up their nomination in Indiana this month, Google reported a 5,000-fold increase in online searches for Mr Johnson. He is not to all Republican tastes; Mr Trump’s most outspoken critics in the party tend to hold neoconservative views on security. Yet even they hope he might bring disenchanted Republicans to the polls in November, and thereby retain their support for Republican candidates in the coterminous congressional contests.

Mr Johnson rejects Mr Trump utterly: “There’s nothing about Donald Trump that appeals to me.” Yet he sounds most hopeful of picking up support from disaffected Democrats, especially followers of Senator Bernie Sanders, whom he says he agrees with on almost everything—including the evil of crony capitalism and virtues of pot—except the economy. Yet how would he woo them?

Mr Johnson’s suggestion is unconventional. On the basis that, he argues, with some support from surveys, Americans are more libertarian than they know, he would point them to an online quiz, “Isidewith.com”, to help them work out where they stand. “I say, “Take the quiz, and whoever you pair up with, I think you should knock yourself out over them.” His own experience with the quiz, he sweetly relates, suggest he agrees with 73% of Mr Sanders’s proposals, 63% of Mrs Clinton’s and 57% of Mr Trump’s

Not lesser of two evils, but ACTUALLY WORK within the party for those change you wish to see happen.

 

[Alex.]

a third party will solve nothing. Work with what you have and make that work for you.

Why? Do you know Einstein's definition of insanity?

Yes...reading your post.

 

[Divine Wind]

a third party will solve nothing. Work with what you have and make that work for you.

Disagreed. I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" several times and it solved nothing. In fact, things got worse. Now we're left with two of the most controversial and hated candidates in modern history. Which one are you voting for? Do you really support them or, like many others, are you really just voting against the other candidate?

Sorry, but as kaz just pointed out, it's crazy to keep doing the same thing expecting a different result. I can't bring myself to vote for either Clinton nor Trump. I also am a strong advocate of voting as a civic duty. Ergo, I'm voting for the candidate who best represents our nation's interests. In this case, it will probably be Gary Johnson or whomever the LP selects as their nominee. Sure, you may get your choice of Hillary or the Donald, but I can't hold my nose and vote for either of them.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ibertarians-big-third-party-run-guns-weed-and
AS THE likely presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson has a lot to be modest about; and he is. “Everybody I meet seems to like me,” says the two-term former Republican governor of New Mexico. “But I’m a Libertarian, so doesn’t that denote there are some loose screws out there?” He leaves the question hanging.

Tiny, electorally trifling and obsessed with guns and weed, cherished emblems of its 11,000 members’ freedom, the party has never mattered in national politics. It is by some measures America’s third-biggest—yet not flattered by that comparison. In 2012 Mitt Romney crashed to defeat with 61m votes; Mr Johnson, who ran for the Libertarians after failing to be noticed in the Republican primaries, won 1.3m. Yet he could be about to improve on that.

Mr Johnson and his running-mate, Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts, are expected to emerge from the Libertarians’ convention in Orlando on 30th May with the party’s ticket. If so, he could feasibly launch the biggest third-party run since Ralph Nader won almost 3% of the vote for the Green Party in 2000—including 100,000 votes in Florida that may have cost Al Gore the presidency. Or he could do better; a poll by Monmouth University put Mr Johnson on 11% in a three-way race with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. That was especially creditable given how little he is known; he figured in almost no national polls in 2012. It has encouraged Mr Johnson to think he could register the 15% vote-share that would guarantee him inclusion in this year’s televised debates.

With publicity, he could catch on. He has the accomplishments of a chest-beating conservative hero—he is a self-made millionaire, triathlete and razor-beaked deficit hawk; he vetoed 750 spending bills in New Mexico. He is also a sometime dope smoker (he resparked his youthful habit in 2005 to manage the pain from a paragliding accident), who comes across as almost goofily unaffected. He speaks in horror of the disdain many Americans show for Mexican immigrants—whom he calls “the cream of the crop”—as if it were borne of some crazy misunderstanding, rather than embedded nativist resentment and economic anxiety. Voters sick of political polish might like the mix: he really is authentic. Yet Mr Johnson’s main cause for hope is the unpopularity of the likely Republican and Democratic alternatives.

Around 60% of voters dislike Donald Trump and 55% Hillary Clinton. That should encourage more Americans to vote as freely of the old duopoly as they increasingly claim to be; 42% say they are independent voters, up from 30% a decade ago. And the Libertarians’ voguish message of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and anti-interventionism has something for the disaffected of both big parties. Compared with a straightforward Trump-Clinton match-up, the Monmouth poll suggested Mr Johnson could take 6% of the vote from Mrs Clinton and 4% from Mr Trump.

The particular unease of many Republicans with their presumptive candidate—along with their failure hitherto to launch a conservative rival to him—explains a surge of interest in the Libertarian confab in Orlando. After Mr Trump sewed up their nomination in Indiana this month, Google reported a 5,000-fold increase in online searches for Mr Johnson. He is not to all Republican tastes; Mr Trump’s most outspoken critics in the party tend to hold neoconservative views on security. Yet even they hope he might bring disenchanted Republicans to the polls in November, and thereby retain their support for Republican candidates in the coterminous congressional contests.

Mr Johnson rejects Mr Trump utterly: “There’s nothing about Donald Trump that appeals to me.” Yet he sounds most hopeful of picking up support from disaffected Democrats, especially followers of Senator Bernie Sanders, whom he says he agrees with on almost everything—including the evil of crony capitalism and virtues of pot—except the economy. Yet how would he woo them?

Mr Johnson’s suggestion is unconventional. On the basis that, he argues, with some support from surveys, Americans are more libertarian than they know, he would point them to an online quiz, “Isidewith.com”, to help them work out where they stand. “I say, “Take the quiz, and whoever you pair up with, I think you should knock yourself out over them.” His own experience with the quiz, he sweetly relates, suggest he agrees with 73% of Mr Sanders’s proposals, 63% of Mrs Clinton’s and 57% of Mr Trump’s

Not lesser of two evils, but ACTUALLY WORK within the party for those change you wish to see happen.

I did. After 32 years, I gave up.

 

[ChrisL]

a third party will solve nothing. Work with what you have and make that work for you.

Disagreed. I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" several times and it solved nothing. In fact, things got worse. Now we're left with two of the most controversial and hated candidates in modern history. Which one are you voting for? Do you really support them or, like many others, are you really just voting against the other candidate?

Sorry, but as kaz just pointed out, it's crazy to keep doing the same thing expecting a different result. I can't bring myself to vote for either Clinton nor Trump. I also am a strong advocate of voting as a civic duty. Ergo, I'm voting for the candidate who best represents our nation's interests. In this case, it will probably be Gary Johnson or whomever the LP selects as their nominee. Sure, you may get your choice of Hillary or the Donald, but I can't hold my nose and vote for either of them.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ibertarians-big-third-party-run-guns-weed-and
AS THE likely presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson has a lot to be modest about; and he is. “Everybody I meet seems to like me,” says the two-term former Republican governor of New Mexico. “But I’m a Libertarian, so doesn’t that denote there are some loose screws out there?” He leaves the question hanging.

Tiny, electorally trifling and obsessed with guns and weed, cherished emblems of its 11,000 members’ freedom, the party has never mattered in national politics. It is by some measures America’s third-biggest—yet not flattered by that comparison. In 2012 Mitt Romney crashed to defeat with 61m votes; Mr Johnson, who ran for the Libertarians after failing to be noticed in the Republican primaries, won 1.3m. Yet he could be about to improve on that.

Mr Johnson and his running-mate, Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts, are expected to emerge from the Libertarians’ convention in Orlando on 30th May with the party’s ticket. If so, he could feasibly launch the biggest third-party run since Ralph Nader won almost 3% of the vote for the Green Party in 2000—including 100,000 votes in Florida that may have cost Al Gore the presidency. Or he could do better; a poll by Monmouth University put Mr Johnson on 11% in a three-way race with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. That was especially creditable given how little he is known; he figured in almost no national polls in 2012. It has encouraged Mr Johnson to think he could register the 15% vote-share that would guarantee him inclusion in this year’s televised debates.

With publicity, he could catch on. He has the accomplishments of a chest-beating conservative hero—he is a self-made millionaire, triathlete and razor-beaked deficit hawk; he vetoed 750 spending bills in New Mexico. He is also a sometime dope smoker (he resparked his youthful habit in 2005 to manage the pain from a paragliding accident), who comes across as almost goofily unaffected. He speaks in horror of the disdain many Americans show for Mexican immigrants—whom he calls “the cream of the crop”—as if it were borne of some crazy misunderstanding, rather than embedded nativist resentment and economic anxiety. Voters sick of political polish might like the mix: he really is authentic. Yet Mr Johnson’s main cause for hope is the unpopularity of the likely Republican and Democratic alternatives.

Around 60% of voters dislike Donald Trump and 55% Hillary Clinton. That should encourage more Americans to vote as freely of the old duopoly as they increasingly claim to be; 42% say they are independent voters, up from 30% a decade ago. And the Libertarians’ voguish message of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and anti-interventionism has something for the disaffected of both big parties. Compared with a straightforward Trump-Clinton match-up, the Monmouth poll suggested Mr Johnson could take 6% of the vote from Mrs Clinton and 4% from Mr Trump.

The particular unease of many Republicans with their presumptive candidate—along with their failure hitherto to launch a conservative rival to him—explains a surge of interest in the Libertarian confab in Orlando. After Mr Trump sewed up their nomination in Indiana this month, Google reported a 5,000-fold increase in online searches for Mr Johnson. He is not to all Republican tastes; Mr Trump’s most outspoken critics in the party tend to hold neoconservative views on security. Yet even they hope he might bring disenchanted Republicans to the polls in November, and thereby retain their support for Republican candidates in the coterminous congressional contests.

Mr Johnson rejects Mr Trump utterly: “There’s nothing about Donald Trump that appeals to me.” Yet he sounds most hopeful of picking up support from disaffected Democrats, especially followers of Senator Bernie Sanders, whom he says he agrees with on almost everything—including the evil of crony capitalism and virtues of pot—except the economy. Yet how would he woo them?

Mr Johnson’s suggestion is unconventional. On the basis that, he argues, with some support from surveys, Americans are more libertarian than they know, he would point them to an online quiz, “Isidewith.com”, to help them work out where they stand. “I say, “Take the quiz, and whoever you pair up with, I think you should knock yourself out over them.” His own experience with the quiz, he sweetly relates, suggest he agrees with 73% of Mr Sanders’s proposals, 63% of Mrs Clinton’s and 57% of Mr Trump’s

Not lesser of two evils, but ACTUALLY WORK within the party for those change you wish to see happen.

I did. After 32 years, I gave up.

Neither of the two major parties have OUR best interests at heart. I think that much is obvious.

 

[Alex.]

a third party will solve nothing. Work with what you have and make that work for you.

Disagreed. I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" several times and it solved nothing. In fact, things got worse. Now we're left with two of the most controversial and hated candidates in modern history. Which one are you voting for? Do you really support them or, like many others, are you really just voting against the other candidate?

Sorry, but as kaz just pointed out, it's crazy to keep doing the same thing expecting a different result. I can't bring myself to vote for either Clinton nor Trump. I also am a strong advocate of voting as a civic duty. Ergo, I'm voting for the candidate who best represents our nation's interests. In this case, it will probably be Gary Johnson or whomever the LP selects as their nominee. Sure, you may get your choice of Hillary or the Donald, but I can't hold my nose and vote for either of them.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ibertarians-big-third-party-run-guns-weed-and
AS THE likely presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson has a lot to be modest about; and he is. “Everybody I meet seems to like me,” says the two-term former Republican governor of New Mexico. “But I’m a Libertarian, so doesn’t that denote there are some loose screws out there?” He leaves the question hanging.

Tiny, electorally trifling and obsessed with guns and weed, cherished emblems of its 11,000 members’ freedom, the party has never mattered in national politics. It is by some measures America’s third-biggest—yet not flattered by that comparison. In 2012 Mitt Romney crashed to defeat with 61m votes; Mr Johnson, who ran for the Libertarians after failing to be noticed in the Republican primaries, won 1.3m. Yet he could be about to improve on that.

Mr Johnson and his running-mate, Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts, are expected to emerge from the Libertarians’ convention in Orlando on 30th May with the party’s ticket. If so, he could feasibly launch the biggest third-party run since Ralph Nader won almost 3% of the vote for the Green Party in 2000—including 100,000 votes in Florida that may have cost Al Gore the presidency. Or he could do better; a poll by Monmouth University put Mr Johnson on 11% in a three-way race with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. That was especially creditable given how little he is known; he figured in almost no national polls in 2012. It has encouraged Mr Johnson to think he could register the 15% vote-share that would guarantee him inclusion in this year’s televised debates.

With publicity, he could catch on. He has the accomplishments of a chest-beating conservative hero—he is a self-made millionaire, triathlete and razor-beaked deficit hawk; he vetoed 750 spending bills in New Mexico. He is also a sometime dope smoker (he resparked his youthful habit in 2005 to manage the pain from a paragliding accident), who comes across as almost goofily unaffected. He speaks in horror of the disdain many Americans show for Mexican immigrants—whom he calls “the cream of the crop”—as if it were borne of some crazy misunderstanding, rather than embedded nativist resentment and economic anxiety. Voters sick of political polish might like the mix: he really is authentic. Yet Mr Johnson’s main cause for hope is the unpopularity of the likely Republican and Democratic alternatives.

Around 60% of voters dislike Donald Trump and 55% Hillary Clinton. That should encourage more Americans to vote as freely of the old duopoly as they increasingly claim to be; 42% say they are independent voters, up from 30% a decade ago. And the Libertarians’ voguish message of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and anti-interventionism has something for the disaffected of both big parties. Compared with a straightforward Trump-Clinton match-up, the Monmouth poll suggested Mr Johnson could take 6% of the vote from Mrs Clinton and 4% from Mr Trump.

The particular unease of many Republicans with their presumptive candidate—along with their failure hitherto to launch a conservative rival to him—explains a surge of interest in the Libertarian confab in Orlando. After Mr Trump sewed up their nomination in Indiana this month, Google reported a 5,000-fold increase in online searches for Mr Johnson. He is not to all Republican tastes; Mr Trump’s most outspoken critics in the party tend to hold neoconservative views on security. Yet even they hope he might bring disenchanted Republicans to the polls in November, and thereby retain their support for Republican candidates in the coterminous congressional contests.

Mr Johnson rejects Mr Trump utterly: “There’s nothing about Donald Trump that appeals to me.” Yet he sounds most hopeful of picking up support from disaffected Democrats, especially followers of Senator Bernie Sanders, whom he says he agrees with on almost everything—including the evil of crony capitalism and virtues of pot—except the economy. Yet how would he woo them?

Mr Johnson’s suggestion is unconventional. On the basis that, he argues, with some support from surveys, Americans are more libertarian than they know, he would point them to an online quiz, “Isidewith.com”, to help them work out where they stand. “I say, “Take the quiz, and whoever you pair up with, I think you should knock yourself out over them.” His own experience with the quiz, he sweetly relates, suggest he agrees with 73% of Mr Sanders’s proposals, 63% of Mrs Clinton’s and 57% of Mr Trump’s

Not lesser of two evils, but ACTUALLY WORK within the party for those change you wish to see happen.

I did. After 32 years, I gave up.

..and I helped write a revision to the US TAX Code that spoke to my best interests.

 

[Divine Wind]

a third party will solve nothing. Work with what you have and make that work for you.

Disagreed. I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" several times and it solved nothing. In fact, things got worse. Now we're left with two of the most controversial and hated candidates in modern history. Which one are you voting for? Do you really support them or, like many others, are you really just voting against the other candidate?

Sorry, but as kaz just pointed out, it's crazy to keep doing the same thing expecting a different result. I can't bring myself to vote for either Clinton nor Trump. I also am a strong advocate of voting as a civic duty. Ergo, I'm voting for the candidate who best represents our nation's interests. In this case, it will probably be Gary Johnson or whomever the LP selects as their nominee. Sure, you may get your choice of Hillary or the Donald, but I can't hold my nose and vote for either of them.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ibertarians-big-third-party-run-guns-weed-and
AS THE likely presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson has a lot to be modest about; and he is. “Everybody I meet seems to like me,” says the two-term former Republican governor of New Mexico. “But I’m a Libertarian, so doesn’t that denote there are some loose screws out there?” He leaves the question hanging.

Tiny, electorally trifling and obsessed with guns and weed, cherished emblems of its 11,000 members’ freedom, the party has never mattered in national politics. It is by some measures America’s third-biggest—yet not flattered by that comparison. In 2012 Mitt Romney crashed to defeat with 61m votes; Mr Johnson, who ran for the Libertarians after failing to be noticed in the Republican primaries, won 1.3m. Yet he could be about to improve on that.

Mr Johnson and his running-mate, Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts, are expected to emerge from the Libertarians’ convention in Orlando on 30th May with the party’s ticket. If so, he could feasibly launch the biggest third-party run since Ralph Nader won almost 3% of the vote for the Green Party in 2000—including 100,000 votes in Florida that may have cost Al Gore the presidency. Or he could do better; a poll by Monmouth University put Mr Johnson on 11% in a three-way race with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. That was especially creditable given how little he is known; he figured in almost no national polls in 2012. It has encouraged Mr Johnson to think he could register the 15% vote-share that would guarantee him inclusion in this year’s televised debates.

With publicity, he could catch on. He has the accomplishments of a chest-beating conservative hero—he is a self-made millionaire, triathlete and razor-beaked deficit hawk; he vetoed 750 spending bills in New Mexico. He is also a sometime dope smoker (he resparked his youthful habit in 2005 to manage the pain from a paragliding accident), who comes across as almost goofily unaffected. He speaks in horror of the disdain many Americans show for Mexican immigrants—whom he calls “the cream of the crop”—as if it were borne of some crazy misunderstanding, rather than embedded nativist resentment and economic anxiety. Voters sick of political polish might like the mix: he really is authentic. Yet Mr Johnson’s main cause for hope is the unpopularity of the likely Republican and Democratic alternatives.

Around 60% of voters dislike Donald Trump and 55% Hillary Clinton. That should encourage more Americans to vote as freely of the old duopoly as they increasingly claim to be; 42% say they are independent voters, up from 30% a decade ago. And the Libertarians’ voguish message of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and anti-interventionism has something for the disaffected of both big parties. Compared with a straightforward Trump-Clinton match-up, the Monmouth poll suggested Mr Johnson could take 6% of the vote from Mrs Clinton and 4% from Mr Trump.

The particular unease of many Republicans with their presumptive candidate—along with their failure hitherto to launch a conservative rival to him—explains a surge of interest in the Libertarian confab in Orlando. After Mr Trump sewed up their nomination in Indiana this month, Google reported a 5,000-fold increase in online searches for Mr Johnson. He is not to all Republican tastes; Mr Trump’s most outspoken critics in the party tend to hold neoconservative views on security. Yet even they hope he might bring disenchanted Republicans to the polls in November, and thereby retain their support for Republican candidates in the coterminous congressional contests.

Mr Johnson rejects Mr Trump utterly: “There’s nothing about Donald Trump that appeals to me.” Yet he sounds most hopeful of picking up support from disaffected Democrats, especially followers of Senator Bernie Sanders, whom he says he agrees with on almost everything—including the evil of crony capitalism and virtues of pot—except the economy. Yet how would he woo them?

Mr Johnson’s suggestion is unconventional. On the basis that, he argues, with some support from surveys, Americans are more libertarian than they know, he would point them to an online quiz, “Isidewith.com”, to help them work out where they stand. “I say, “Take the quiz, and whoever you pair up with, I think you should knock yourself out over them.” His own experience with the quiz, he sweetly relates, suggest he agrees with 73% of Mr Sanders’s proposals, 63% of Mrs Clinton’s and 57% of Mr Trump’s

Not lesser of two evils, but ACTUALLY WORK within the party for those change you wish to see happen.

I did. After 32 years, I gave up.

Neither of the two major parties have OUR best interests at heart. I think that much is obvious.

Agreed. Both have become too extreme, too partisan and far too beholding to special interests.

 

[Divine Wind]

a third party will solve nothing. Work with what you have and make that work for you.

Disagreed. I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" several times and it solved nothing. In fact, things got worse. Now we're left with two of the most controversial and hated candidates in modern history. Which one are you voting for? Do you really support them or, like many others, are you really just voting against the other candidate?

Sorry, but as kaz just pointed out, it's crazy to keep doing the same thing expecting a different result. I can't bring myself to vote for either Clinton nor Trump. I also am a strong advocate of voting as a civic duty. Ergo, I'm voting for the candidate who best represents our nation's interests. In this case, it will probably be Gary Johnson or whomever the LP selects as their nominee. Sure, you may get your choice of Hillary or the Donald, but I can't hold my nose and vote for either of them.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ibertarians-big-third-party-run-guns-weed-and
AS THE likely presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson has a lot to be modest about; and he is. “Everybody I meet seems to like me,” says the two-term former Republican governor of New Mexico. “But I’m a Libertarian, so doesn’t that denote there are some loose screws out there?” He leaves the question hanging.

Tiny, electorally trifling and obsessed with guns and weed, cherished emblems of its 11,000 members’ freedom, the party has never mattered in national politics. It is by some measures America’s third-biggest—yet not flattered by that comparison. In 2012 Mitt Romney crashed to defeat with 61m votes; Mr Johnson, who ran for the Libertarians after failing to be noticed in the Republican primaries, won 1.3m. Yet he could be about to improve on that.

Mr Johnson and his running-mate, Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts, are expected to emerge from the Libertarians’ convention in Orlando on 30th May with the party’s ticket. If so, he could feasibly launch the biggest third-party run since Ralph Nader won almost 3% of the vote for the Green Party in 2000—including 100,000 votes in Florida that may have cost Al Gore the presidency. Or he could do better; a poll by Monmouth University put Mr Johnson on 11% in a three-way race with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. That was especially creditable given how little he is known; he figured in almost no national polls in 2012. It has encouraged Mr Johnson to think he could register the 15% vote-share that would guarantee him inclusion in this year’s televised debates.

With publicity, he could catch on. He has the accomplishments of a chest-beating conservative hero—he is a self-made millionaire, triathlete and razor-beaked deficit hawk; he vetoed 750 spending bills in New Mexico. He is also a sometime dope smoker (he resparked his youthful habit in 2005 to manage the pain from a paragliding accident), who comes across as almost goofily unaffected. He speaks in horror of the disdain many Americans show for Mexican immigrants—whom he calls “the cream of the crop”—as if it were borne of some crazy misunderstanding, rather than embedded nativist resentment and economic anxiety. Voters sick of political polish might like the mix: he really is authentic. Yet Mr Johnson’s main cause for hope is the unpopularity of the likely Republican and Democratic alternatives.

Around 60% of voters dislike Donald Trump and 55% Hillary Clinton. That should encourage more Americans to vote as freely of the old duopoly as they increasingly claim to be; 42% say they are independent voters, up from 30% a decade ago. And the Libertarians’ voguish message of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and anti-interventionism has something for the disaffected of both big parties. Compared with a straightforward Trump-Clinton match-up, the Monmouth poll suggested Mr Johnson could take 6% of the vote from Mrs Clinton and 4% from Mr Trump.

The particular unease of many Republicans with their presumptive candidate—along with their failure hitherto to launch a conservative rival to him—explains a surge of interest in the Libertarian confab in Orlando. After Mr Trump sewed up their nomination in Indiana this month, Google reported a 5,000-fold increase in online searches for Mr Johnson. He is not to all Republican tastes; Mr Trump’s most outspoken critics in the party tend to hold neoconservative views on security. Yet even they hope he might bring disenchanted Republicans to the polls in November, and thereby retain their support for Republican candidates in the coterminous congressional contests.

Mr Johnson rejects Mr Trump utterly: “There’s nothing about Donald Trump that appeals to me.” Yet he sounds most hopeful of picking up support from disaffected Democrats, especially followers of Senator Bernie Sanders, whom he says he agrees with on almost everything—including the evil of crony capitalism and virtues of pot—except the economy. Yet how would he woo them?

Mr Johnson’s suggestion is unconventional. On the basis that, he argues, with some support from surveys, Americans are more libertarian than they know, he would point them to an online quiz, “Isidewith.com”, to help them work out where they stand. “I say, “Take the quiz, and whoever you pair up with, I think you should knock yourself out over them.” His own experience with the quiz, he sweetly relates, suggest he agrees with 73% of Mr Sanders’s proposals, 63% of Mrs Clinton’s and 57% of Mr Trump’s

Not lesser of two evils, but ACTUALLY WORK within the party for those change you wish to see happen.

I did. After 32 years, I gave up.

..and I helped write a revision to the US TAX Code that spoke to my best interests.

Good. I was a career military officer supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[HappyJoy]

Time for a 3rd party? We have more than 2, it's only a matter of voting for them.

 

[kaz]

a third party will solve nothing. Work with what you have and make that work for you.

Why? Do you know Einstein's definition of insanity?

Yes...reading your post.

 

[kaz]

Time for a 3rd party? We have more than 2, it's only a matter of voting for them.

A day late and a dollar short. Obviously the discussion is a viable third party. I mean duh, how did you not get that? You get asked that a lot, don't you?