Nader’s run was pathetic. After 8 years of Bush, his ideological assumption that a vote for Bush or Gore or Kerry were the same proved terribly wrong. Nader should join the democratic party, and like Kucinich, change the democratic party ideas from within. Short of that, he’s just another pundit, without an audience. I suspect he runs only to cash in on Public Election Funding.

What is pathetic is that there were less than 2 million Americans who voted to change our country. When a McCain/Obama voter says they want change, they are either a liar or they are woefully uninformed.

McCain and Obama are almost exactly alike on continuing to spy on Americans, perpetuate foreign aggression, and steal from our children and grandchildren in order to prop up corporations that have already had a chance to succeed rather than giving new entrepreneurs a chance to take their place.

We now have a single party government not unlike Russia or China. Rather than wait for 2012, we need to start running for local offices today. Most uninformed voters stay home in non-Presidential years, so we should be able to make a big difference in 2010. The Libertarian Party, despite a candidate so awful conspiracy theorists say he was a Neocon plant, continue to earn the most votes of any third party because they field the most candidates in local races. Some states are so one-sided that a third party could become the second party within that state if it can get organized and field candidates in every uncontested race.

The night could not get much darker than this. Let’s make the dawn happen in 2010.

The two main parties told everybody that this election was so important that nobody could risk throwing their vote away on a third party candidate.
So important to vote based on party, that actual issues we should care about didn’t matter. This election was less about the United States than it was about the Republicans vs. the Democrats.

They duped a lot of suckers this time.

“People did not vote for Obama because they really wanted Nader. Polling showed a wide lead in Obama’s votes that if they wanted to in several states they could have felt free to do so.”

People voted for Obama because they thought he would be different, and they wanted to make history voting for him, but this will be a history where their lofty expectations of him will not be realized. They also voted for him because the two major parties told everybody that this election was so important that nobody could risk throwing their vote away on a third party candidate. It’s all politics of emotion instead of pragmatism.

But you still don’t get it. You think people should only vote third party if the election isn’t close in their states. That shows that you still don’t understand the uniqueness and fundamental differences in principles that many third parties offer.

Third party platforms aren’t just small modifications of the same platforms the Republicans or Democrats have. Real political theory isn’t a bipolar entity like most Americans have assumed. Most third parties have well thought out, substantially alternative platforms that are quite realistic, and would actually more naturally encompass the American people’s viewpoints than the major parties’ platforms, but people don’t have the foundational knowledge to understand this. There is a steep learning curve, because most people have grown up in America only learning about politics within the context of Democrats and Republicans, so most people choose to “remain safe” by sticking with what they already know, instead of learning about something new and bettering themselves.

“McCain and Obama are so far apart on ideology except for the Environment indepedent groups rate them on opposite scales. ”

Actually, on the issues that really matter, to right the sinking ship, the two major parites are more the same than different. They create distractions to split the populous with issues like abortion, same sex marriage, etc, but substantially agree with each other on the issues that really matter, like the bailout plan, policing the world, interventionism, the federal reserve, the national debt, privacy, and civil liberties.

<<>>

These “Independent Groups” only count a few votes in each congress of the thousands cast. Both supported the $700 billion bailout with no restrictions on the banks, absolute unaccountability for the Treasury Secretary. Neither one spoke up that The Treasury Secretary worked for Goldman-Sucks (which got disproportionatly more money than any other bank). Note he was in charge of it when they made all those bad investments. Both favor continuring and stepping up the war in Afganistan. Both support NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. Both support increased funding of the UN, as well as more control given to them, both support Obamas bill to give $950 billion in Africa Aid. Both want to give tax breaks to the top 1% of 1% of taxpayers. Both favor a ’stimulus package”, both favor bailing out mortgage holders in some way. Both want to increase spending. Both support the creation of a US Nazi youth program of forced “volunteering” and indoctrination. Both support the “Cap and Trade” ripoff. Both want to spend hundreds of billions on “infrastructure” and “energy independence” while at the same time opposing “manufacturing independence”, “capital independence”, and “worker independence”. Both support Bush’s “North American Union”, North American “Highway”, and North American “Security”. Both support the fascists “Real ID” program. Both support Amnesty for crimaliens. Both voted for the “bankrupcy reform act” which eliminated all laws to protect consumers from predetory lending, it also allows the government to seize your home to pay your credit cards when the bank can raise your rates to 30% or more with only 30 days notice.
Yeah Kylie, big difference.

It is a shame that our own laws diminish democracy.
I’m sure legitimate reasons are given for establishing minimum vote thresholds in order to qualify for public funding. However, it seems to me that the only way more ideas, more candidates, more party platforms can gain any traction, any consideration by the public at large would be for all political parties to receive public funds. Level the playing field.
Let’s face one fact most are ignoring about this election. Obama bought it. His ability to raise dramatically more money [by not taking public funds] allowed him to raise 2-3x more money than McCain, and purchase advertising anywhere and everywhere.
If the US required all presidential candidates to run on public funds only, and supported all legit parties with public funds, you would have 5-6 candidates/parties to choose from, all with the resources to communicate their differences and the options voters have, and an electorate that would be much more versed on ALL their options.
How do you determine who the legit parties are? I’m not that smart, but I do know that the current law setting minimum thresholds is completely unfair. Theres such an uneven playing field that no one else can succeed enough to get the funding that could put them in the current game.

Jim, you bring up a valid point about democracy.
I firmly believe that one of the least discussed side effects of Obama’s landslide victory is the further marginalization in the United States of third parties, which are a vital part of the democratic process.
As someone that lives in Europe, it is hard to not notice that the United States seems isolated among Western democracies in its determination to head to a further entrenchment in a bipolar political landscape. The United States’ political system seems to deliberately hinder pluralism by limiting the exposure of third party candidates to media.
For more: http://www.ilpodesta.org/2008/11/forgetting-face-of-pluralism.html

Many of you made some good points…In short, the bottom line for third party candidates to flourish is very simple: 1) campaign earlier and more often at the grass roots level…2) and more importantly, voters themselves need to take the time and responsibillity to make better decisions in casting their vote toward a candidate’s stance on issues/ideals that match up w/ their own rather than toward a party. I

‘m proud to say that I voted third party in 2008 for President for the first time since 1992 (Ross the Boss!)…Voting Republican or Democrat in our society today is essentially voting for one party- and more so than at anytime in our nation’s history. By nature, I tend to vote conservative, but have become so disenfranchised w/ the Republican party, that it’ll be a long time before they get a vote from me for President (which they have since 1996.)

People so desperately need to get out of the two-party mind set mode and realize there are other alternatives.

In closing, nonetheless, I’m proud American serving in the military overseas, and take great pride in defending our rights to vote, freedom, liberty, etc. I will support the President regardless of ideals or party lines, but wake up, America! There are choices out there that the media won’t tell you about…Take care and God bless! –K.T.–

This is not only a great article, it’s the ONLY article I’ve managed to find about the complete media blackout of 3rd party election results. Another election or 2 and voting 3rd party will probably be illegal. How come, in our DEMOCRACY, the power elite only allows 2 choices, while they allow 50 choices for the Miss America contest.

Ralph, you ego-centric idiot! hearing your own voice has become more important than clear thought…

WARNING: QUESTIONING THE DEMOPUBLICAN PARTY CAN BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH.

OBEY

OBEY

OBEY

Or, support your local Constitution Party/Libertarian Party!!