Comments:New polls show third party U.S. presidential candidates varying radically in popularity

This just in: "New poll shows 99% that Nader, Paul, and Barr have no chance of winning" - Let's keep that in mind.

"Keeping that in mind" is the main reason third parties have such a hard time getting anywhere. That, and the two-party system has stacked the deck against them with districting, ballot access restrictions, debate participation requirements, and so on. Better to vote for ANY third party than either major party, if only to let them know what we really think, rather than fall into the lesser-of-two-evils trap. The only wasted vote is one for a Democrat or Republican; it will only bring more of the same, and it will only continue to get worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.238.26 (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I've been waiting my ENTIRE life to vote for somebody like Charles Jay from the Boston Tea Party, or better yet, Gene Amondson of the Prohibition Party. I can't wait to see them win! They always say "votes don't get counted in elections", like in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) but voting third party just about seals up the fact that you FOR SURE go unnoticed in practicing the greatest American right - voting. I believe that if you aren't settled on a candidate the minute you pick up that pencil in the voting booth, or you decide to vote for somebody simply in protest (third party, "none of the above") you shouldn't have even bothered making the effort to drive/walk to the election center because nobody cares about that vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.175.146 (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The point may not necessarily be for a particular candidate to actually get elected. A strong showing by a third party of any stripe can shake up the duopoly. With the relatively small shocks from the likes of Jesse Ventura, Ross Perot, to some degree Ralph Nader, and lately Ron Paul, they've reacted with the measures mentioned above to make it harder than ever for any voice but that from the major parties to be heard (and yes, the singular grammar there is intentional) -- and it would also seem the Libertarian Party has been nicely infiltrated, as evidenced by recent events. But if there's any actual point of voting at all, if the system even in any diminished and distorted capacity still somehow reflects the will of the people, then the more people that cast votes for third-party and independent candidates, the more the established powers are forced to respond. Ultimately, the Green Party or the Libertarian Party or whomever doesn't need to actually win, but votes for them will influence the direction the major parties take. The positions and philosophies (and buzzwords and rhetoric) can be assimilated. (Of course, whether the major parties would actually live up to their new promises, and whether the public would take them to task for their failure to do so, is quite another problem ...) To suggest that someone should vote for one major party simply as a vote against the other major party -- which is the ultimate effect of what you're saying, since the winner is so obviously certain to be one of the two, so why bother to vote for one unless it's because, for whatever reasons you might think you have, you hate the other so very much? -- is to say that voting should not be a reflection of what you believe, but simply a defensive measure. Personally, I think if there's any point to voting, it is specifically because (and assuming the system is not COMPLETELY fake) it's a chance, however remote, to bring your beliefs to bear in the world. All the water-cooler chatter and blogging and Wikinews comment editing ultimately boils down to the vote (again, at least in theory), and you should really MEAN it. If more people did that, rather than shrug off third parties as wasted votes, it could actually make some kind of difference. And if it doesn't, we've got bigger problems than who you voted for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.238.26 (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: keep in mind this poll is w.r.t. people from the John Birch Society. Fephisto (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)