What that third party vote does......greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread
I had sent the following e-mail to an e-mail list that I'm on...... "Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm rather green to the nuts and bolts of this, my husband told me that the reason Pat Buchanan got $12m campaign spending is because the Reform Party gathered 12% of the votes last election. Is this true, or something to that effect? If so, we really need to go encourage folks that--either way--a vote for Pat is never, ever a wasted vote!....We must also remember that, come what may this Nov., we ARE building a platform for TOMORROW!!! Can't get short sighted on this!"
This was a reply that I got........ "Very good point about future party building. Every vote counts, particularily in states that Gore may have double digit wins (the traditioanl liberal states.)...The Federal Election Laws in 1973 set up a general election grant to the major parties with a major party defined as receiving over 5% (up to 25%) of the popular vote in 50 states plus DC.The grant formula is set that for each 5% in popular vote, the party convention commitee receives $2.5 m for their convention, and the party nominees campaign receives $12.6 m. These figures adjust up for inflation. If Pat Buchanan receives 15% of the popular vote this time, the party will receive $8 m for our 2004 convention, while the party nominess campaign will receive $39 m. While I'm not certain, if the Reform Party receives over 25% of the vote, then we obtain automatic 50 state ballot access for the general elections. Robert Bowes RPUSA Northeast Regional Representative
-- Beth Weber (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 07, 2000
Thank You Beth!
Just one more reason to cast your vote for a 3rd party that represents your values.
-- Iron Man (email@example.com), October 08, 2000.
I have no problem with a third party getting funding but just remember that had the people that voted for Perot cast their ballots to the republican party we wouldn't have Clinton! Please don't help elect Gore. With the presidential race this tight can we afford to take the chance?
-- Amanda Seley (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 08, 2000.
You have got to vote your heart, not what the imagined consequences will be. Any change has to start somewhere, it does not occur overnight without many set backs, delays, and falsestarts. The revolution starts with you speaking YOUR mind, and voting YOUR vote, not with who the media tells you to vote for. If enough people get fed up, mad, disguted, and otherwised outraged at the current status quo, things WILL change, if enough of us demand it. Vote, and vote for change, not just the lesser of two evils. Annie in SE OH.
-- Annie Miller (email@example.com), October 10, 2000.
I heard Jesse Ventura on the radio a few weeks ago. He said that he had ~70% of the popular vote in Minnestota.(help me out here, Minnesotans, as I'm pretty far away.)How did he ever get elected? :)
According to him, in his state there are ~ 15% hardcore Republicans and ~15% hardcore Democrats. He says the big party strategists aren't stupid! SO....they of course want you to believe that you have to vote for either a Republican or a Democrat, or else you are "throwing away your vote." In reality, there is a huge amount of folks !!!70%!!! who are undecided. 70 Percent is a lot of horsepower to put behind a third party candidate! Therefore, the traditional parties want to scare you into thinking you are wasting your vote unless you vote for a Rep or Dem. So they tell you so-and-so will be elected unless you vote for their candidate! And we respond by believing them, and then voting out of fear.
I know I'm too tired to make a lot of sense here, but hopefully, you see what scare tactics are being used. Personally, I am having trouble deciding between a main party candidate and TWO third party candidates! But isn't that great!? Tell this to somebody in Yugoslavia and they would cheer for you!
-- sheepish (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 2000.
I am glad to see that some other parties are making headway in this country, but I must say that I am totally disgusted with the idea that any party recieves any of my tax dollars to campain. WHY do we allow this to happen? There should be absolutely NO "grant" money available to presidential wannabees. If a party wants to sell the man, let "them" come up with the dough.
If a party want's my money, just come and ask me. Show me your platform, and convice me that it is right for me. Right now, your tax dollars are supporting "ALL" of the candidates. If my party was trying to reform the government, I would think that they would refuse to take the tax payers hard earned money!
-- Wayne (email@example.com), October 12, 2000.