Third Party Vote

[HisChildForever]

I posted this in the main election thread but in all the excitement it was glossed over. We face two rather abysmal candidates in the voting booth this November. My vote is going to neither. I would like to vote for Gary Johnson but he is pro-choice. Is it morally permissible to vote for him if (a) I am not voting for him because he is pro-choice (b) I am confident he will not win the election (c) I cannot in good conscience vote for Clinton or Trump. I always vote Republican but not this time. In the primary I wrote in Rubio (he had already been removed from the ballot by then). I could do that again, but I more or less want to send a message and be part of that Third Party percentage.

[Maggyie]

yes you can.

[Guest]

Excellent move and decision.  You got my vote 100%

Using the 'third party option' does mean of course that either Trump or Clinton will be president, it cannot be avoided and it couldn't be anyway.  Were it mine to decide, I would use the third party option and then pray knowing that God has permitted the outcome, not willed it.

Prayer for the USA at election time.........daily.  Very much on my mind and in my heart.

The other thing that does occur to me is that if the third party option receives a good percentage of votes, it becomes obvious that the people are not happy at all about either Trump or Clinton - and that just might be the cause of them taking note knowing that their chances of a second term win are slim unless they do modify and look at their performance and their policies, and listen to the reasons the USA is using the third party option.

It would be a hope.

[dominicansoul]

I would never vote for anyone who is pro abortion, even if it is a protest vote.  i would rather write in Rubio.  

[Basilisa Marie]

If you're going to vote third party, check out: http://www.solidarity-party.org/

[Anomaly]

The time you should vote and support third parties for this presidential race has passed.  Either Trump or Clinton will be the next President. 

HOWEVER

Take a good look at the local races.  Today's mayor may run for Govenor.  Today's County Commissioner may be a State Senator a few years later.  The local races are less dependent on the BigPolitical Machine and more responsive to local voters. 

It takes time to develop the broad support.  Not paying attention to local politicians, not voting on the smaller races, is why we end up with Presidential Candidates and career politicians that don't respect the populace and look to the political machine and superficial sound bites that sway the gullible and inattentive.

.  

 

[Seven77]

3 hours ago, Basilisa Marie said:

If you're going to vote third party, check out: http://www.solidarity-party.org/

or http://www.voteforjoe.com/

[Archaeology cat]

14 hours ago, Anomaly said:

The time you should vote and support third parties for this presidential race has passed.  Either Trump or Clinton will be the next President. 

HOWEVER

Take a good look at the local races.  Today's mayor may run for Govenor.  Today's County Commissioner may be a State Senator a few years later.  The local races are less dependent on the BigPolitical Machine and more responsive to local voters. 

It takes time to develop the broad support.  Not paying attention to local politicians, not voting on the smaller races, is why we end up with Presidential Candidates and career politicians that don't respect the populace and look to the political machine and superficial sound bites that sway the gullible and inattentive.

.  

 

It can be argued that those not in swing states can easily vote 3rd party, as it probably won't make a difference anyway to the outcome, but can help get that party more support for next time. I agree we need to support those parties in local and state elections (I often vote 3rd party for those, too).

[Anomaly]

I would say that Third Party for other positions (not president), even in swing states, is a good option for this election AND other elections.  You're right, these alternative Parties can't get traction and develop with people only voting for president or only casting votes during the presidential election. 

We have to put in the effort to vote and attend rallys, learn, form, and voice opinion, way before the presidential contest.  Don't whine about your grade if you skip quizzes and midterms and just cram for the finals. 

[Amppax]

Here's a good article about Gary Johnson's position for those interested: http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/gary-johnsons-abortion-position/. I would say that because Trump can't be trusted, it is a much more pro-life position than his. Especially considering that a majority of state legislatures are Republican controlled, and the general population is trending pro-life. 

 

 

[CatherineM]

I vote in a swing state and my ballot is still sitting on my desk. 

[Peace]

18 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Either Trump or Clinton will be the next President.

You don't know that. There is no guarantee that either of them will get to 270, especially as McMullin is polling well in Utah.

[Anomaly]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

You don't know that. There is no guarantee that either of them will get to 270, especially as McMullin is polling well in Utah.

And I also don't know the sun will rise tomorrow.   There is no guarantee that the earth will continue orbiting the sun at 1,000 mph and remain intact. 

Both are the realistic assumption. 

2 hours ago, CatherineM said:

I vote in a swing state and my ballot is still sitting on my desk. 

@CatherineMSame here.  Mail in voting is nice in that I have weeks to check out the other races and issues.   How are you leaning in Fla's Ammendment 2?

[Peace]

1 minute ago, Anomaly said:

And I also don't know the sun will rise tomorrow.   There is no guarantee that the earth will continue orbiting the sun at 1,000 mph and remain intact. 

Both are the realistic assumption. 

A tie is more likely than Trump winning. If you believe otherwise please feel free to watch the "grab them by the p----" video one more time to convince yourself.

One of the two (Hillary) becoming president is the likely scenario. But that is not a valid reason to assert that a person should vote for Trump, when there are  other possibilities. Just look at the map in 2000. If any of 5 different states had gone the other way neither candidate would have reached 270.

There is no reason why one should vote for Trump over McMullin, considering that Trump has no chance (or a highly unlikely chance) to win, and considering that McMullin is a true pro-life candidate (as opposed to Trump, who everyone here admits is pro-life in name only).

[Amppax]

32 minutes ago, Peace said:

A tie is more likely than Trump winning. If you believe otherwise please feel free to watch the "grab them by the p----" video one more time to convince yourself.

One of the two (Hillary) becoming president is the likely scenario. But that is not a valid reason to assert that a person should vote for Trump, when there are  other possibilities. Just look at the map in 2000. If any of 5 different states had gone the other way neither candidate would have reached 270.

There is no reason why one should vote for Trump over McMullin, considering that Trump has no chance (or a highly unlikely chance) to win, and considering that McMullin is a true pro-life candidate (as opposed to Trump, who everyone here admits is pro-life in name only).

McMullin could actually win if this went to the house. In fact, he'd really only have to win one state to do so, Utah. Here is a National Review article detailing how it could happen: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438907/evan-mcmullin-independent-candidate-does-he-have-chance. Unlikely, but technically possible. I really do think there are enough Republicans opposed to Trump where this could happen. 

It would mean a very interesting election 4 years from now. I'm guessing McMullin would run again, except in the Republican primaries, and as incumbent would have a pretty decent shot. Hmmm...