Agree. I have been fascinated with the approach and issues of the Green Party for many years. It is unfortunate it has not been promoted to the "Big Stage" as an equal. Until that happens, I feel any vote towards an independent would be a wasted vote until there is a core following locally. If Nader can't do it, I am not sure this women can.
This is by far the most dangerous position in politics.
You say you're waiting for a core following before you vote, yet they need your vote to create that core. It's self-defeating.
Fact: the "wasted vote" rhetoric comes directly from the 2 parties who are adversely effected by a third party growing in numbers (or a 4th party or a 5th party)
A third party vote carries more meaning than any for the dems or reps. Especially if you're not in one of the swing states, but even still; the 2 dopey parties running things gather millions upon millions of votes and dominate headlines and debates because of the danger in voting for a 3rd party assumption. Fact is EVERY SINGLE 3RD PARTY VOTE means a lot. Every one is an inch closer to getting more attention in the media and getting a shot in the debates. The difference of a few hundred thousand with Dems or Reps means little, but that same number to a few third parties sends the most important message there is and probably the only one nearly all Americans agree with:
The democrats and republicans are less than what we need or want them to be.
Everyone *****es about these 2 groups, but nobody wants to take the real step in getting rid of them by not voting for them anymore. We lump ourselves into conservative or liberal and fear the other side taking over, so we vote for the lesser of 2 evils meanwhile neither of them actually represent the groups we put ourselves into.
Sorry to rant, but the "wasted vote" notion is something I used to say and believe and now I find it as just another empty slogan from 2 empty political parties lead by empty promise filled candidates.
I'm all about 3rd parties and honestly don't care which one people vote for so long as they do it. Personally, I've come to the conclusion that with the state our planet is in (pollution/climate, wars, etc.) that a Green Party vote is the most scientifically responsible vote.
Originally Posted by homestarunner93
What does protesting about it change? Instead of proactively looking for a solution to their problem, they cry about it. That is a sense of entitlement.
Protesting isn't crying, it's drawing attention to the problem and therefore part of the solution. You're assuming way too much in your position. It's not entitlement unless you consider the right to not be manipulated a sense of entitlement.
But this is a senseless debate since you're clearly firmly grounded in that idea, but I'm sure you can think of at least some protest worthy causes and if so, then just forget the topic/cause for a moment and realize that's the position these people are in, agree or not.