Don't want to split the vote and let the other guys win. The stakes are too high for Romney to win because I wanted to support the little guy. If Romney wins the EPA is done for. I won't let that happen.<br />
Besides let's imagine if a third party did win. The new president would then have to deal with either the democrats or the republicans. It would still be virtually the same.
I want to give another party a chance, but third parties barely get any attention, and they're usually focused on specific issues instead of improving America in general. I actually researched third party candidates recently, but didn't care for any of them.
Our Pres. is of the Socialist Party (France). For our election we had alot of different parties to choose from.
Thats what ive noticed.
The other ones don't have a chance.
But they really don't, it's not their fault, our system has just developed into a two party system. It's not the best way for politics to be done but in order to change it elected officials would have to initiate change and they would never in a million years do that. Just look at how much control the parties have over presidential debates!
Amen! I have been voting for "third party" candidates since the 92 election. A lot of people don't vote because they don't like either party's choice. I say that's wrong ... the major parties equate not voting with not caring. If you care, (and MANY of you do) and you don't like the choices that the Republicrats and Demicans have offered us, then vote for another candidate. If one of big party candidates wins with less than 30% of the vote, the parties will have to take notice that we Americans are not going to take the same old crap just because it has a Donkey or Elephant stamped on it.
i would rather not vote rep or dem because the two that are running for the parties are morons and they are going to sink the economy even worse than it is. now, if they would let johnson run in my state, then i would vote, but untill then i cant vote for who i want so i wont vote, simple as that.
There is no viable established third party. <br />
Democrates are for minorities, liberals & the<br />
blue collar public.<br />
The Grand Old Party is for big business and the<br />
@Lostinthewoulds you hit the nail on the head.
Other impediments to third parties are lack of funding comparable to the major parties and lack of personnel. It takes a lot of people to operate a political campaign and at least some of those people need to be experienced.
Other parties are not going to get elected. Voting for them is equal to not voting, or worse. It sometimes takes votes away from the better major party candidate and elects the worst major party candidate.
Ballot access laws in most states make it very difficult for third parties. The R and D hate competition or any genuine change from the status quo.
Unfortunately the system is set up in such a way that it makes it nearly impossible for anyone to win without the backing of one of the major parties. Ross Perot proved that. He was the only candidate that I can ever remember running a campaign and actually having a chance. He was not part of either party and had the money to run an effective campaign. In the end it didn't matter.
The R&D's put their differences aside to make sure no other political party stands a chance of becoming relevant. There's too much money at stake and neither party wants to split it three or more ways.
Actually the ballot includes the other parties as well, for example Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian Party. If another party has enough money to register to be in the races, then they get put on the ballot.
Because they are not informed of what those parties stand for, and they are typically on the extreme ends of the political/belief spectrum. Most people are middle of the road with their views.