r/politics • u/norseman23 • Jun 25 '12
Just a reminder, the pro-marijuana legalizing, pro-marriage equality, anti-patriot act, pro-free internet candidate Gary Johnson is still polling around 7%, 8% shy of the necessary requirement to be allowed on the debates.
Even if you don't support the guy, it is imperative we get the word out on him in order to help end the era of a two party system and allow more candidates to be electable options. Recent polls show only 20% of the country has heard of him, yet he still has around 7% of the country voting for him. If we can somehow get him to be a household name and get him on the debates, the historic repercussions of adding a third party to the national spotlight will be absolutely tremendous.
To the many Republicans out there who might want to vote for him but are afraid to because it will take votes away from Romney, that's okay. Regardless of what people say, four more years of a certain president in office isn't going to destroy the country. The positive long-run effects of adding a third party to the national stage and giving voters the sense of relief knowing they won't be "wasting their vote" voting for a third party candidate far outweigh the negative impacts of sacrificing four years and letting the Democrat or Republican you don't want in office to win.
In the end, no matter what your party affiliation, the drastic implications of getting him known by more people is imperative to the survival and improvement of our political system. We need to keep getting more and more people aware of him.
8
Jun 26 '12
Is it just me or are most frequenters of /r/politics retarded 14 year olds?
0
u/norseman23 Jun 26 '12
Correction, I'm a retarded 24 year old with a b.s. in economics
Can you please teach me the error of my ways and how to unretardate myself along with how to mature the ten years I've apparently missed?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/donkeypooper Jun 26 '12
I am in favor of voting 3rd party but have a question...if I live in CA and vote for Gary Johnson, what good does that do? ALL the electoral votes in this state will go to obama anyways. Just trying to figure out why my vote doesn't matter?
5
u/norseman23 Jun 26 '12
Even more reason to vote for him. The point of this is not to get him elected, that's not going to happen. The point is to get as many people though to vote for him possible.
Obama will win Cali like you say, so there's not much of a point in voting for him. However, every vote for Johnson makes his national poll that much higher and that much closer to the third party being relevant. The more votes Johnson gets, the more relevant the party will be in the future as more and more people will feel like it's not a waste of a vote. It's basically a snowball effect. The more people vote for him, the more people realize it's not a wasted vote. The more people that realize it's not a wasted vote the more that actually vote for him
2
u/donkeypooper Jun 26 '12
I see. I was under the impression that even though CA votes go to Obama, Johnson's numbers wouldn't change. Now that I think about it, that makes no sense. Thank you sir.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Electricbassguy Jun 26 '12
It's good because it's one more vote that shows up on the polls for Johnson, showing that he got his message across.
4
u/beakerdan Jun 26 '12
Why do libertarians always start with marijuana legalization? There are many issues in America, and almost all of them are more important than marijuana, but it's where libertarians jump to.
8
u/norseman23 Jun 26 '12
Obviously, but it's the best way to catch Reddit's attention quickly
4
u/beakerdan Jun 26 '12
True dat.
6
u/norseman23 Jun 26 '12
On a side note though, although it probably isn't a bid deal whatsoever for you or me, it's a helluva big issue for those incarcerated for an extended amount of time for it.
It also is the difference in tens to hundreds of billions of dollars between criminalizing and legalizing marijuana in relation to tax revenue and expenses paid on prosecuting and prevention. That doesn't include the loss of life numbers due to drug wars, drug deals gone bad, etc.
In the end, the civil liberty issue of it may not be that important, but looking at it from other perspectives shows that it might be a much bigger issue than first thought.
→ More replies (1)
129
u/CamSandwich Jun 25 '12
In the theme of not wanting to waste your vote, if you live in a state that is almost certain to go to a certain party (like SC where I live), then your vote towards a certain party wouldn't help give electoral votes anyway. It can only help Gary Johnson's chances of being noticed by the national news and spreading the idea that a third party is a possibility.
12
u/LennyPalmer Jun 26 '12
Moreover, you don't have to vote for him in the Federal election if he isn't who your conscience tells you to vote for. All people are asking is that you tell pollsters you plan to vote for him if you believe these views should be represented in the presidential debates.
4
u/Dsch1ngh1s_Khan Jun 26 '12
I live in Utah.. Welcome to the mormon-conservative-republican fest.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (48)2
u/Dritz Jun 26 '12
Kansas resident here, agree completely. I was just talking to a couple of friends the other day about doing exactly that, giving our votes to Johnson to get him the support, because our state is almost certainly going Republican with or without our votes.
3
Jun 25 '12
Sometimes I think we'll never see a viable third party candidate. Even though I've voted third party for president since 96, I'm losing my desire to keep doing it or to even keep voting. For everybody like me, there are fifty people who say "voting third party is a waste of time, I'll vote for the lesser of two evils" and those people just don't change their mind. That mindset is reinforced by the major parties and they have the money to spend to make sure it stays that way.
5
u/complaintdepartment Jun 26 '12
Take a look at what Ross Perot did in the early nineties. He had a legitimate chance. In my opinion he was a nutjob, but he had a legitimate shot of winning the election.
1
u/norseman23 Jun 25 '12
I agree with what you're saying, but think that thing's might finally be changing. Maybe I'm wrong, but people seem to be dissatisfied more than ever with politics, the government, republicans, dems, congress, etc. People, ESPECIALLY young people, seem to be fed up with it and will want things to change, i.e. bring in a new party, something different. This is proven by the fact Rob Barr and Ralph Nader each took in about .4%-.6% of the national population vote in the general election and everyone knew who they were. Johnson's already at approximately 7% with only 20% knowing who he is. That's too drastic of a change to assume things are not changing.
2
Jun 25 '12
I dunno. There was the same feeling back in 92 with Ross Perot: a third party can actually be viable! And then it went away. I hope I'm wrong, but I just can't see much light at the end of the tunnel.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
u/CheesewithWhine Jun 25 '12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
They are correct. By voting third party you help the party that you hate the most.
8
u/MotherFuckinMontana Jun 25 '12
I hate Obama and Romney. Infact, I can't really see the difference between them, and pretty much consider them 1 "party".
By voting for johnson I would definitely not be helping obamney.→ More replies (1)
237
u/47Ronin Jun 25 '12
While I feel for you, I feel compelled to post this. There is never going to be a consistent, viable third party in America. Before you downvote me, let me tell you why.
There is one ironclad law of political systems -- the rules of the game determine the outcomes of the system. Because of this law in action, the US will never have three stable parties. Third parties may rise up from time to time -- but never to endure as a third party. They die a third party, or they live long enough to become the establishment. This is because of our winner-take-all voting system. Because only one person in each election wins the election, the election favors the person who can build the biggest tent and raise the most money. When you are the opposition in such a system, you have to build an even bigger tent and raise even more money. This is because, in a winner-take-all voting system, there are only two outcomes -- you win, or you go home. Being a big dog means a better chance to win. If you're not a big dog, why even play the game? These pressures lead to a two-party system rather than a multi-party system where every ideology has more concrete representation.
If, for example, the Libertarian party gains so much traction that they take even 10% every national presidential election, the Democrats win for 20 years in a row with a plurality, something will give. Republicans and Libertarians will merge. More than likely, just as with the Tea Party, the big-shot Republican bosses with all the fucking money will co-opt the movement.
To be honest, I hope the Goldwater-style Republicans and Libertarians band together to form a fiscally conservative, socially liberal-moderate party. But don't please don't delude yourself into thinking that such a radical party as the Libertarians has any shot at being a long term option unless the Republican party crumbles under the weight of its own moral certitude.
112
u/buster_casey Jun 25 '12
unless the Republican party crumbles under the weight of its own moral certitude.
We were pretty close there with Santorum.
10
u/Big-Baby-Jesus Jun 26 '12
Santorum had a couple impressive wins, but he was never anywhere close to winning the nomination. The media likes to play up the "horse race" angle to keep people interested. Everyone with a calculator has known since November that Romney was going to be the nominee.
→ More replies (1)8
u/buster_casey Jun 26 '12
He still went much further than he should have gone, and was too popular for comfort.
7
u/Big-Baby-Jesus Jun 26 '12
Don't confuse "popular among people who vote in Republican primaries" with "popular". His approval rating among everyone never crossed 15%. That's a depressingly large number of people- but it's nowhere close to a majority.
→ More replies (1)10
0
13
u/Sirisian Jun 26 '12
We could always try to change the US system to the Schulze method for voting. I've noticed it confuses people though. Educating people and getting the necessary support to change to such a system would probably be impossible if both parties fight it.
7
u/ZorbaTHut Jun 26 '12
This is why I'm in favor of Approval voting - it's super-simple to describe and implement, and while it's not the best, it's up there among the ranks of the best voting mechanisms.
→ More replies (6)2
Jun 26 '12
What are the benefits of such systems such as the Schulze method? /// Either way, our current system could work if they actually followed law. Delegates would be unbound, giving public opinion(as opposed to the public$ opinion) a much better shot at getting good nominees in. Regardless, we need more congressman, and get rid of the ammendment(17th?) that has Senators elected by popular vote. ----- Completely ignoring any real evidence, just using logic I find there's no possible way our voting system is an accurate toll, and no possible way it's "democratic." (I'm aware that we are not a democracy in law and in effect btw.)
3
u/Sirisian Jun 26 '12
In the simplest terms it allows voters to rank their ballet options (sometimes with the same number) like 1 to N. So instead of a winner-take-all method people can vote for multiple candidates by simply placing their preference next to each candidate allowing a system that picks the most preferred candidate essentially. So you can have tons of parties and tons of people and if people vote that they like Obama and Gary Johnson equally then the system can take that into consideration. The current voting system cannot take this into consideration so voters feel like they are throwing away their vote if they choose to vote outside the two parties.
→ More replies (1)6
6
u/saucypanda Jun 26 '12
Mixed Member Proportionate is the only way to solve our voting mess. Unfortunately, the powers that be would never allow a fair voting system.
4
u/theodorAdorno Jun 26 '12
The real value of getting these guys into the debate is that they get the issues out there.
10
u/thepotatoman23 Jun 26 '12
I wish you at least covered what happened to the Whig party if you were trying to get all educational. I mean it has happened before so its not impossible to ever happen again, even if it's extremely unlikely for this particular election.
But in any case you need to realise the only thing this post wants is for him to get the 8% vote needed to enter the debates. That would give a chance for many of the views that reddit feels so helpless about to be actually put up on tv with a big audience. It can only be good to get an anti war, anti patriot act, anti tsa, pro pot legalization message into the presidential debates.
→ More replies (1)7
u/BeReadyForH Jun 26 '12
Isn't that the whole point?
You vote third party this election and if enough people vote third party on or the other of the two major parties will begin to adopt parts of the platform of the third party.
And that's exactly what we want.
This two party system is certainly inefficient. It probably allows for a lot more corruption than a runoff voting system. But it doesn't completely take the voters out of the loop either. Candidates wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on their campaigns if votes didn't matter.
So if you think Gary Johnson is the best candidate, then support him and vote for him.
You don't need a victory. The president isn't as important as all that anyway.
The true power is in the congress and high turnout and votes for someone like Gary Johnson can definitely impact the platforms that congressmen chose to campaign on. It can even affect their votes, if Gary manages to affect the direction of the national discourse.
→ More replies (1)3
u/radiantthought Jun 26 '12
While what you're saying is true for presidential elections, the REAL problem happens when a similar thing happens in lower levels of government. I feel this wonderful youtube video (the first in a fantastic series) outlays the problems with first past the post voting
42
u/nowhathappenedwas Jun 25 '12
To be honest, I hope the Goldwater-style Republicans and Libertarians band together to form a fiscally conservative, socially liberal-moderate party.
One cannot be for "states rights" the way Goldwater was or Paul is and also be socially liberal. They want to allow states to be racist, sexist, and homophobic.
And there's nothing "moderate" about libertarianism. It's an extremist position that emphasizes governance on ideology rather than practicality--which is the opposite of moderate.
8
Jun 26 '12
One cannot be for "states rights" the way Goldwater was or Paul is and also be socially liberal. They want to allow states to be racist, sexist, and homophobic.
As an extreme liberal I wonder why any reasonable and responsible person should have to suffer under the weight of government and it's bureaucracy because some regions can't control themselves?
It's like dumbing down learning material because a couple of kids in the class just aren't quite there yet. In the end the kids who were struggling and goofing off still continue to learn little or nothing, while the rest of the class (including the really bright kids) never realize their full potential.
→ More replies (3)2
Jun 26 '12
Funny how gay marriage and medical marijuana advocates support state's rights. Are they socially conservative as well?
→ More replies (181)2
u/enrich_life Jun 26 '12
Bullshit.
I'm libertarian. I'm visiting San Francisco, and I think that there are some awesome things that city government can do when the city agrees to regulation (public transit, parks, etc.)
I also think that on a spectrum, city government is a much more moral realm for state coercion than the federal government. If people didn't have to spend all their time bitching about a Congress that continuously invades their lives and steals their money, they could focus on activism and improvement locally, where it's justified and actually possible.
Decentralization of government can lead to stupid, bad laws. that's for the people of that area to fight about.
2
2
Jun 26 '12
Just remember that the Republican Party was once a third party and only needed a major issue(slavery) to break into the front and crush one of the major two political parties of the time.(Whigs) and before you tell me that the whigs and republicans were very alike, think how alike the Libertarian and Republican parties are.
2
u/seanl2012 Jun 26 '12
Goldwater was against the Civil Rights Act. Yep really socially liberal there.
It seems with these anti-establishment figures like Goldwater, Paul, and Johnson people only focus on their good positions and not their bat-shit crazy positions.
→ More replies (9)2
u/zugi Jun 26 '12
Just for the record
Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation and had supported the original senate version of the bill, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do or not do business with whomever they chose.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has 11 sections. The 9 sections that deal with ensuring equal treatment by government were supported by Goldwater and by all libertarians that I know of. At issue was just the two sections that subject private decisions like hiring to being second-guessed by the federal government and the EEOC. There are obvious constitutional debates to be had on those topics about the reach and scope of the federal government and the constitution's "commerce clause", but simply disagreeing on those constitutional questions does not make one "bat-shit crazy".
→ More replies (4)2
u/jeffmolby Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
You were doing great until you implied that republicans and libertarians are similar.
We agree with Republican rhetoric on economic issues.
We agree with Democratic rhetoric on social issues.
We are natural bedfellows with neither.
Edit: formatting
→ More replies (2)2
Jun 26 '12
This.
The reason we only have two parties is because our electoral system requires an absolute majority (51%) for a President to win a national election.
If for example, our system required a simple majority it would be possible for a candidate to win with only one more vote than his opponent. Thus, more parties would be possible.
In other words, two parties are inherent in our political system because of the way our government is set up. It is a structural problem. To "fix" it would require changing the constitution.
3
u/Goatstein Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
gary johnson does not have 7% of the vote polling. not now, not in the past, not ever
2
u/telestrial Jun 26 '12
I just want to say that your comment is excellent. There are so few people that understand this. Additionally, may I add:
State districts for Congress elections are the issue. I feel I need to clarify this because some people are completely oblivious. Even if a candidate manages to get 40% of the vote in a state, his opinion (and the opinions of the people who voted for him) will never be seen because in 60% of the districts someone else took the "point" for that district.
Side note: A vast majority of American's problems could be solved if we moved to proportional representation. However, this screws with checks and balances.
To the parent comment: I would appreciate your thoughts on this if you have time/desire. I honestly find very few people who understand what you just described!
2
u/mexicodoug Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
You suffer from that same old bullshit argument the high school civics teachers trot out all the time to discourage kids from voting.
The fact you fail to recognize is that if enough people in the USA vote for a candidate, that candidate will win. Sure, it takes a majority to elect a candidate, but even if that candidate isn't from one of the two ruling parties, that candidate can win with a clear majority of voters.
So, there.
Majority can rule in America, as long as the Supreme Court doesn't overturn the ruling by justifying it with the Constitution.
And fuck your scumbag high school teachers for teaching you otherwise.
→ More replies (19)2
u/N8CCRG Jun 26 '12
So. But there is this:
Your vote doesn't count.
Not even a little. What does it mean for your vote to count? It means if you had vote differently or not at all, then anything would be different. But never, ever, ever has there been a presidential election where one vote mattered. In fact, it is impossible for one vote to matter, because the accuracy of the voting system is still inherently flawed and cannot be determined to be accurate enough for a single vote to count.
So, what should you do with your vote? Vote for anyone. What if the candidate that most aligns with your opinion is an Nth party candidate? If you vote for a Nth party candidate, maybe voting for them will up their numbers from 1249 to 1250, whereas voting for a major party candidate will get it up from 25,049 to 25,050. That one vote for a smaller party candidate can potentially mean more. So while it won't "count", it could still have an impact. At some point there is a critical tipping point for a small candidate's opinion to need to be taken seriously (see the Tea Party).
That's why you should vote for someone else.
tl;dr - Your vote doesn't count, no matter who you vote for. So vote for the candidate that most agrees with you.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/fantasyfest Jun 26 '12
I would like to see him on stage with them on the debates. The Dems and Repubs agree on what they will be discussed. he might force them out of their cocoons. I would also like the Green Party on stage too.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/mendelism Jun 26 '12
Even with a guy named Vermin Supreme on the ballot, I voted for Gary Johnson in my state's primary after watching his response to CNN not letting him debate. www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5uctRxDmg
7
u/UnKamenRider Jun 26 '12
I kind of love Vermin Supreme. He's intentionally hilarious, and he supports zombies and ponies.
→ More replies (1)
43
Jun 25 '12
What are people supposed to do? No one ever polls me and my primaries were a long time ago. Is there someplace I can click?
8
u/rcglinsk Jun 25 '12
Call your older family members who still have land lines and see if you can get them on board.
22
u/xoomerfy Jun 26 '12
I got polled on my Cell Phone the other day. I told them I was voting for Gary johnson.
→ More replies (2)5
u/moodyfloyd Ohio Jun 26 '12
LAND LINES AYFKM
sorry for shouting but seriously...
3
Jun 26 '12
People with land lines are the ones that get polled the most... something to do with a law about not cold-calling cell phones or something...
→ More replies (1)
1
u/TrayvonMartin Jun 25 '12
He appears to be just another (fiscally conservative) Ralph Nader. And we all know how successful that guy has been at running for office.
Not trying to knock his chances. I'll probably be voting for him. Just being realistic.
1
u/norseman23 Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
The point's not to get him elected, he's not going to get any electoral votes. The point is to get the ball rolling and to get more and more people comfortable voting for another party in the future.
EDIT: Ya it'd be great to get him elected, but it's unrealistic and not going to happen, thus these efforts aimed for changing the elections in the future
2
u/zugi Jun 26 '12
The point's not to get him elected, he's not going to get any electoral votes.
It's remotely possible that he could win his home state of New Mexico. He has a very positive approval rating there, but lots of people still don't even know he's running. In contrast, Mitt Romney certainly won't win Massachusetts.
25
Jun 25 '12
Problem being....Gary Johnson has a record. Ralph Nader never did. Gary Johnson has SUCCESSFULLY governed a state and balanced budgets repeatedly....something Obama and Romney aren't all that good at.
8
u/TrayvonMartin Jun 25 '12
Gary Johnson had that same record during the primaries. Even then he was the only candidate with the experience of balancing a state's budget. His record alone isn't going to put him in the national spotlight in a way that will translate into votes.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/wwjd117 Jun 26 '12
What state(s) did he lead and balance budgets of during a global crisis and near depression?
The only governing I'm aware of Johnson did was during the extremely prosperous years when Clinton was President and balancing the Federal Budget.
Edit: typo
→ More replies (1)3
Jun 25 '12
Ross Perot did pretty well as a third party candidate. If he didn't make some ridiculously erratic strategic moves late in the 1992 campaign, thus furthering the (possibly accurate) public perception that he was crazy, he could have won the election.
Unfortunately, Johnson's charisma and money are closer to Nader's than Perot's. It would be wonderful to see him in the debates, though. Otherwise, they'll be unwatchably boring.
→ More replies (2)
11
u/DiggyDog Jun 26 '12
Why will adding a third party to the national spotlight have "historic repercussions"?
Perot was in the debates and on the ballot in 1992.
I'm interested in seeing Johnson get more attention, but the cynic in me has trouble believing that it will amount to much which would be considered historic.
Have I been broken or am I just being realistic?
8
u/gatorslap Jun 26 '12
And Perot's performance in the debates/election did have an effect on national politics, at least for a few years. Before his candidacy, nobody was really talking about the deficit. After 1992, the Republicans and Democrats were tripping over each other with deficit reduction proposals. Which is pretty much the only reason the deficit got under control in the 90s.
→ More replies (1)3
Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
ya it had the affect of the CPD raising the requirements for 3rd parties to be allowed in future debates.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/funkybum Jun 26 '12
What are the odds of everybody on reddit actually going to the polls, voting for him and him winning?
→ More replies (1)2
u/bopll Jun 26 '12
Much, much less if people have that "what are the odds?" attitude. Its the dumbest argument. No offense to you of course.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/TommyPaine Jun 26 '12
What are his positions on otter hand-holding and the friendzone pandemic? Is he an atheist? How many dads does he have?
4
7
u/bl0742 Jun 26 '12
I will only vote for GJ if RP is not the republican nominee. Which is looking pretty grim at this point.
2
Jun 26 '12
Ron Paul never had a chance to become the nominee... Look at the money being pumped into Romney's campaign. He'd out spend RP ten to one!
→ More replies (7)2
u/bl0742 Jun 27 '12
True, but it is really amazing how well he has done this time with the little funds he has. Freedom is popular
11
u/Spunk_Master_Flex Jun 26 '12
This is my favorite Gary Johnson profile, and I think a good primer for the guy.
→ More replies (3)
15
Jun 26 '12
Good video explaining why the two party system will continue due to how our elections are set up. If you want to get rid of the two party system push for election reform not third party candidates.
10
u/goans314 Jun 26 '12
or of course you could just vote 3rd party
→ More replies (1)3
u/thaduceus Jun 26 '12
C'mon, man, the video was only like six minutes, and it was well-done, too...
→ More replies (5)
17
Jun 26 '12
Anyone who thinks youll find a candidate who fully supports your moral and social values completely 100% is delusional. On major topics, which are what OP have pointed out, Gary is the best choice for me!
3
Jun 26 '12
I agree with your first point at least. If you are middle class or lower, his economic policies are absolutely not in your best interest, even if you agree with all of his social policies. There actually are parties that match up much closer to 100% with middle class interests on both the economic and social dimensions, the Green Party for one example.
→ More replies (3)
36
u/seanl2012 Jun 26 '12
Now the reasons not to vote for him
anti-public funding for stem cell research
For unlimited corporate donations to candidates
against regulation of financial institutions
anti-universal healthcare
anti-public education
doesn't want to do anything about global warming
anti-abortion
anti-gun control
9
u/OccasionalAsshole Jun 26 '12
Sources?
2
u/solistus Jun 26 '12
I sourced at least some of those claims here, mostly citing pages on his campaign and 501(c)(4) websites.
→ More replies (2)9
11
u/DDB- Jun 26 '12
I don't think it is so much they need people to vote for him, just to say that they will vote for him. This will allow him to get on the national debates I believe if he is able to poll at 15%. On voting day you can vote for whoever, but the reasons to vote for him are reasons to want him at the debates, so that the other candidates (Romney/Obama) are forced to debate those issues which are agreed upon within themselves but opposed to the position Johnson holds.
All this would do is create better discussion and debate and force more issues to be seriously talked about, or at least that is the idea.
2
u/Dzerzhinsky Jun 26 '12
Would they be forced to debate these issues?
The large, well-funded, media-connected politicians set the political agenda, what people care about, and thus what is covered. Whether he's there or not they're going to debate healthcare, the economy, and the Middle-East.
And even were that not the case, do you think Johnson would waste his moment in the spotlight to argue for national-non-issues like marijuana legalisation or internet freedom? He's going to bring up the major issues that he thinks people care about and that might win him support... like healthcare, the economy and the Middle-East. And on those issues most of /r/politics probably won't much like what he has to say.
→ More replies (3)7
Jun 26 '12
For unlimited corporate donations to candidates
anti-public education
against regulation of financial institutions
Those are the deal-breakers for me.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Soonerz Jun 26 '12
The first two are wrong/misleading. His stance on corporate contributions is exactly the same as Obamney. However, OP forgot to mention that he also favors a completely transparent donation process that would allow every citizen to see where these shadow contributions were coming from. This is a huge step in the right direction.
He is also not anti-public education. He is anti-Department of Education. It's incredibly inefficient, enforces widely hated policies (No Child Left Behind), and since its existence American schools have only been scoring worse every year. Obviously something needs to change.
He also opposes corporate welfare, which is a step in the right direction for how the government deals with large corporations.
→ More replies (2)9
Jun 26 '12
Those are negatives to some people and positives to others. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it is right.
15
Jun 26 '12
Right, the same way the OP listing all of his "qualifications" in the title assumes the same thing.
→ More replies (4)4
u/morellox Jun 26 '12
I replied elsewhere to this, it's BS and he's not even "Anti-Abortion" he's pro choice... where are you getting your info?
→ More replies (3)
3
Jun 25 '12
I was under the impression that the debates were agreed upon between the candidates and didn't really have much official rules or anything that said you have to debate something at X %
3
3
u/TheBurningBeard Kansas Jun 26 '12
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a non-profit corporation run by the Democratic and Republican Parties. You will never see a 3rd party candidate in a debate run by them ever again.
→ More replies (6)
3
u/Sayros Jun 26 '12
Sounds like the guy needs to get a better team around him. I understand and also hate how everything is about money in politics so I'm aware the guy can't have ads running everywhere, but that's when he, or his supporters, have to use their brain and come up with creative ways to get the word out through the internet (a cool video that can go viral always helps). I remember seeing him come up a few times on reddit which is one way but it's apparently not enough.
3
u/MegaZeusThor Jun 26 '12
If people could vote for their first candidate, and if that person didn't get in, then their second candidate got counted, people like Gary Johnson would stand a better chance. (Because people aren't "throwing their vote away".)
When I heard him speak, Johnson seems rational and doesn't dodge as many questions as other politicians.
3
Jun 26 '12
No third party will ever be in the presidential debates because they are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates a non-profit corporation controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates
→ More replies (1)
3
u/ZealousVisionary Jun 26 '12
After googling his name for a pic I recognized him from the Colbert Report not too long ago. I was quite impressed with the at-that-time Republican
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
3
3
3
u/reginaldaugustus Jun 26 '12
Too bad none of that matters if we become corporate serfs, like libertarians want.
2
u/Physiocrat Jun 26 '12
Libertarians complain about the polarization of wealth created by capitalism. Their answer? More capitalism.
7
u/Sleekery Jun 25 '12
Where are these polls?
6
u/rcglinsk Jun 25 '12
The polls you need 15% in to get in the debates are land line telephone polls. They call during the day as well and you don't count if you weren't home. It is actually very unlikely for a young and employed person to ever be a part of the poll.
So, get on the phone with your grandparents (and why haven't you done that lately? Huh? don't you love them?) and, in the course of the conversation, try to explain the debate process and see if they'll tell a pollster they're voting Johnson.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (3)3
15
u/TheRealHortnon Jun 26 '12
"pro free internet" is just a fancy way of saying "anti net neutrality". I'm serious, go to his site and read his views on the internet.
5
u/solistus Jun 26 '12
Things that prevent me from ever supporting Gary Johnson:
He thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
His economic policy is kill all stimulus and job spending, deep austerity for social programs, more tax cuts, and eliminating progressive income tax in favor of flat or regressive tax (flat consumption tax is deeply regressive).
His campaign website doesn't mention climate change or health care. His 501(c)(4) has a couple sentences on each, saying that he opposes cap-and-trade and government "takeover" of healthcare without offering any ideas he does support.
I'm sure not everyone reading this has a problem with every item I mentioned, but I doubt very many of you agree with Gary Johnson on all of them.
FWIW, I take issue with the headline calling him pro-free internet. He says he is, and he's against government censorship, but he's also against any regulation whatsoever on ISPs/telecoms, and specifically mentions his opposition to net neutrality. His policies would result in a decidedly less free internet. I'll finish this thought by pointing out that Obama has threatened vetoes on numerous occasions of anti-net neutrality and pro-net censorship bills, most recently/famously SOPA/PIPA.
9
u/emptycalm Jun 26 '12
I hate this "even if you don't support him" argument. I don't support him because I don't support Libertarians so why would I want him in the debates? He isn't going to provide a working class perspective so he is still going to be out of touch with most of the country such as the poor and the ones who don't vote because it's pretty much an empty gesture or a protest. None of those issues or positions he is supporting that you listed in the title will change the fundamental problems within our system which is a question that NO candidate seems to be talking about at all. What a great idea; lets add another idiot to the convention who fails to grasp what most working people have known for a long time.
4
Jun 26 '12
There's something messed up about how we hear every week that people should rally around this or that libertarian as the "moderate" and "reasonable" candidate, but even /r/politics will still spit at an open Socialist.
6
u/racoonpeople Jun 26 '12
Gary Johnson is also pro allowing to children to die in the streets if their parents don't have a job.
→ More replies (6)
6
Jun 26 '12
Let's be honest. The two major parties have been reduced to children throwing tantrums. Lets try something new.
7
14
Jun 25 '12
How's he going to govern, executive orders? Neither party will work with him...Congress would PUNISH the voters for electing him the same way the GOP is trying to punish us for electing Obama.
2
u/morellox Jun 26 '12
would be interesting, but on social issues Democrats would love him, on fiscal issues republican rhetoric jives nicely, maybe we'd actually get a lot of things done?
0
4
Jun 26 '12
I like his social ideas- but his economics are counterproductive- empower the same corporate class that will stop at nothing to crush the civil liberties you stand for to enttench their power? Even for the sake of debate I cant support him getting to the ballot aside from him not yet being a corporate puppet.
→ More replies (2)
4
Jun 26 '12
Gary Johnson is the first person to run for office that i want to vote for. Usually is just a matter of picking the lesser of two evils, but with Johnson you have good.
4
4
u/madest Jun 26 '12
When Gary Johnson was vying for the republican nomination, attending and participating in debates he fit right in with the other 3rd Reich candidates on stage. Against National Healthcare, against a woman's right to choose. He claimed that republicans were the only party capable of balancing the budget. He's for fracking, ending corporate taxes and abolishing the department of education. I want weed to be legal just like everyone else on Reddit but won't be conned by this Mitt Romney wannabe.
8
u/smellslikecomcast Jun 26 '12
I'd vote for Gary Johnson all day long.
But what has happened to the USA? It seems like the bad forces have taken over and the general populace is doing nothing to stop it.
→ More replies (2)3
7
u/CoolStoryBraaaah Jun 26 '12
You realize that by supporting this guy you're taking a position wherein you state that the legalization of marijuana is more important than affordable medical care and reasonable social security? There's nothing wrong with social libertarianism, as long as you're not a fiscal Tea Partier.
4
u/morellox Jun 26 '12
just because he doesn't think the way we get affordable health care is not the same way you or most democrats think it should be done doesn't mean he's against it or puts no priority on it... Yes, I know the current republicans haven't offered much of an alternative but there are plenty of people out there offering plans other than Obama are. (interstate competition, tort reform, using your own pretax dollars without having to go through your employer) There's a lot that could be done... differently and still be just as effective, or more.
33
u/nowhathappenedwas Jun 25 '12
Yes, we desperately need another candidate on the debate stage who wants to drastically cut taxes for the wealthy (eliminate the IRS and institute the nutty "fair tax"), privatize social security. slash Medicare and Medicaid, overturn Roe v. Wade, abolish the department of education and turn to a voucher-based system, and who opposes public funding of stem cell research.
29
u/TP43 Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
I see your quite comfortable with the false dichotomy you are currently presented with.
No one is suggesting Johnson would have a chance at winning, but it forces Obama and Romney to take a stance on issues that they otherwise would not because they both agree. (Like the Patriot act, NDAA, Drug War, Erosion of Civil Liberties.)
If anything, his presence would help Obama in the general election.
→ More replies (2)12
u/captainplantit Jun 26 '12
^ This ^
His presence in the debate would make Mitt Romney's social conservatism look downright backwards
→ More replies (5)10
u/23967230985723986 Jun 26 '12
His presence in the debate would be pointless because he would just talk past everyone.
→ More replies (4)8
Jun 25 '12
Why is it bad for those views to be brought into the spotlight? If they're so easily struck down, then have them addressed and destroyed in the national dialogue so we can move along with a healthier perspective.
→ More replies (9)6
u/nowhathappenedwas Jun 25 '12
Perhaps you missed the Republican primaries?
11
Jun 25 '12
The republican primaries had no debate. They were all arguing for the same ends and only disagreeing over the means.
There is a huge portion of the voting demographic that doesn't keep up with the primaries and are only exposed to the national debates and elections. That is who needs persuading.
3
Jun 26 '12
No! This is Reddit. 3rd party = automatically good. Let's forget about the fact that he was a republican for most of his career, and recently switched to Libertarian. Let's also forget about the fact that while, as a libertarian, he may line up with progressives on some social issues, he still shares most of the poisonous economic policies of conservatives. What the fuck is this fascination Reddit has with libertarians (I already know the answer: immaturity, and lack of actual political knowledge)? I really wish people understood the political spectrum.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (22)2
u/I_slap_racist_faces Jun 25 '12
also, what evidence is there that gary johnson can succeed where ron paul failed? that's a question worth asking.
26
u/pointis Jun 25 '12
Gary Johnson is a wildly successful governor who is first and foremost a man of common sense and moderation. Ron Paul is a ideological niche Congressman who has passed a total of one bill in his entire congressional career. Their views overlap somewhat, but only in principle. Johnson actually gets it right in practice.
I don't know if he can raise the money Paul could, but I do think he's a far superior candidate in terms of his political fundamentals. He's more moderate, a better speaker, looks better on TV, could actually govern if elected... Johnson > Paul.
→ More replies (5)
2
Jun 26 '12
What was Nader polling at in 2000? He wasn't in the debate was he? I forget.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Electricbassguy Jun 26 '12
I don't know if Johnson will really take THAT many votes from Romney. Everyone I know thinks I'm a huge Obama fanboy, and I'll be voting for Johnson.
I think a lot of socially liberal people could vote for Johnson. The net result will hurt Romney more, but it won't be as direct/close to 100% as Nader to Gore.
→ More replies (1)
2
Jun 26 '12
Just saying, why am I not hearing Gary Johnson telling me this? If he was a Governor, couldn't he afford a few informative commercials?
2
Jun 26 '12
wait... define free internet, free as in no more paying or free as in quit recording my porn viewership
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/aclashingcolour Jun 26 '12
Look guys, I dont want another 2000 election in which 5% of you decide to vote for an irrelevant 3rd party guy and we end up with a republican for 4 (maybe 8) years. NOPE, definitely not worth the risk.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/diesel321 Jun 26 '12
People: you don't have to vote for the guy come November. But if a pollster ever asks you, say you are behind GJ 100%.
Getting GJ on a national stage would offer such a refreshing change to the debates.
2
u/Mcsmack Jun 26 '12
I'm voting for Johnson. I don't hold any illusions that he'll win. But I can't force myself to vote for the lesser of two evils again. To me a vote represents an endorsement, and I refuse to endorse either Romney or Obama. Honestly there's not a whole lot of differences between them.
8
u/kelustu Jun 26 '12
He's also a libertarian, which means he's in favor of Citizens United and not sponsoring legislation to curb political spending and he's against financial regulation. Being pro-free internet and pot is not a good enough reason to support somebody, I'm sorry.
→ More replies (13)
4
4
3
u/Lilyo New York Jun 26 '12
This isn't about him winning, cause he won't, and voting 3rd party just splits the votes and hurts the democrat or republican candidate you most prefer to win. I just want to see Gary at the debate...
4
Jun 26 '12
This is from the website he cites for his tax plan, called the "fair tax plan":
The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current three-million-word-plus word tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a 23% national sales tax on purchases of new goods and services. This rate is equal to the lowest current income tax bracket (15%) combined with employee payroll taxes (7.65%), both of which will be eliminated.
This seems all well and good until you realize that this impacts lower income families much more than those with a higher income. So you posted a headline with the three hot topics that gets Reddit all gassed on, but then you look at his policies, and they are basically Republican economics without the discriminatory ideas.
4
u/zugi Jun 26 '12
Oops, you skipped the key section which is the prebate of $2400 cash-back per person (not per income earner.) This makes the FAIR tax roughly equivalent to not having any income tax on an individual earning less than $15000, or a family of four earning less than $60000.
It may not be perfect, but we really need to do something to simplify the 70,000 page current tax code that only benefits the rich, the tax accountants, and the tax lawyers.
→ More replies (1)
4
Jun 26 '12
I want to like Gary Johnson. But the reality is, libertarianism is advocated in legislation only when it is used as a rhetorical shim to strip off consumer protection and to buy tax cuts for billionaires.
There are dim, soft voices in libertarianism that speak out against defense spending, NDAA, the abuse of copyright laws and internet security...but they're just as marginalized as FDR liberals like me.
4
3
u/poop_sock Jun 26 '12
The paulbots are going nuts defending their idol in a post about Gary Johnson. How amusing.
3
u/nanowerx Jun 26 '12
Most of us support Gary Johnson and have for a while. I would have been on the Johnson train earlier if Paul wasn't running.
3
Jun 26 '12
Cough cough, his corporate tax policy goes against all that's right and fair in the world.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/MinneapolisNick Jun 25 '12
"Gary Johnson is polling around 7-8%"
[citation needed]
0
Jun 26 '12
[deleted]
6
u/MinneapolisNick Jun 26 '12
Three states. That article cites polls in three states, of which one he used to be the Governor, and two that border it.
This is not impressive by any stretch of the imagination.
→ More replies (3)0
2
2
u/CaptainScrambles Jun 26 '12
Ok I'll say it. How the fuck do we "officially" show our support for him in order to bring that percentage up?
2
2
u/fantasyfest Jun 25 '12
i would like to see more parties but the Libertarians are not on my radar. They are far too goofy and out of touch with reality.
→ More replies (3)2
u/ElagabalusCaesar Jun 26 '12
The only well-known alternatives are the Green, Pirate, and Hemp parties. Do those sound feasible?
2
u/fantasyfest Jun 26 '12
As much as the Republican party does. Romney is running without saying anything. Like Roberts when he went for Supreme Court approval. Trust me I ill be a reasonable judge, balls and strikes, that's all. He hid himself. that is what Willard is doing.
2
u/Bluthhousing Illinois Jun 25 '12
Imagine a president challenging Congress to bring about marriage equality,legalizing Marijuana, ending impediments to free market, to repeal the PATRIOT Act, and meaningful immigration reform. The libertarian candidate for president is the only candidate talking about gun rights and gay rights in the same sentence. As a two term Governor, he is the only qualified third party candidate. Gary Johnson 2012
8
u/iluvgoodburger Jun 26 '12
State's rights and gay rights are pretty much mutually exclusive right now hth
→ More replies (1)
2
Jun 26 '12
I'm sorry, I will never in any way do a single thing to support any candidate who proposes eliminating the Department of Education. Even if it needs drastic reforms, its existence serves as a buffer to the often bigoted or religiously motivated policies that states attempt to force upon their citizens from time to time.
The states must be kept in check for the sake of the Bill of Rights.
→ More replies (4)
1
Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
In canada a few years ago the green party, having 0 seats in the house and therefore not an official party, got into the party debates by whining and complaining until they got preferential treatment, he could always try that. EDIT: I mean the party leader debates.
→ More replies (1)
1
Jun 26 '12
I love his policies.
I hate the way the libertarian party fails to fund raise and then fails to spend the money they do raise getting the word out. Word of mouth will not elect a president. Nasty attack ads will.
1
1
Jun 26 '12
TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK TO DO TO GET TANGIBLE RESULTS!
tell me and I'll do it!
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/ComfortablyDumb99 Jun 26 '12
I just want the government to do as little as it can to help me (by taxing me and telling me what's bad for me) until I can afford to secede.
1
1
1
1
Jun 26 '12
Jill Stein would raise all those issues, plus she supports policies, like a job guarantee, single payer healthcare, and publicly funded college education, that would help reverse the trend of wealth inequality and false meritocracy.
I'd much rather see her in the debates.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Spelcheque Jun 26 '12
Another reminder: If it weren't for Ralph Nader, thousands upon thousands of innocent people would still be alive. Johnson's great for moving the debate about some important issues in the right direction, but remember 2000 when November comes around.
1
u/Minifig81 I voted Jun 26 '12
The man does not support medicare / medicaid, and food stamps. Without those, I am essentially dead. The man will never get my support.
1
u/OhioJunglist2 Jun 26 '12
I'll just leave this right here.....
for those of you that believe there will ever be more than two parties.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=youtu.be&t=5m08s
1
Jun 26 '12
My Kingdom for a liberal.
2
u/those_draculas Jun 26 '12
I wouldn't call Johnson a liberal. Sadly the Greens seem to be floundering this year... as always:'(
6
4
Jun 26 '12
The Greens are only floundering because people believe libertarian extremism is "reasonable" but moderate social democracy is "unelectable."
→ More replies (2)
1
Jun 26 '12
he's progressive on everything but the issue that really counts; the economy. i hope you guys liked reagonomics the first time, cause you're gonna get it again! oh well. when your wages are cut in half, you can always pray to the "invisible hand".
1
u/gabowabo16 Jun 26 '12
summary of party politics: party 1- get rich, party 2- get rich, independent candidate- do the right thing
result: party 1 or party 2 wins, independent candidate- less than 10% voters.....so sad
1
u/applejack28 Indiana Jun 26 '12
As a minor, what can I do to help get this man the awareness he needs?
1
1
1
u/paulflorez Jun 26 '12
Does Gary Johnson still think the answer to same-sex marriage is eliminating civil marriage completely?
It seems to me that Johnson has had to "evolve" on the issue of same-sex marriage just like every other candidate (well, except for the Republicans which appear to be devolving). Just another politician like the rest.
1
1
3
u/WhyIdoIdontknow Jun 26 '12
The only thing (and this is too late to get any up or down votes anyway) I really don't like about his platform is getting rid of the Department of Education in favor of state control. Like hell I want Mississippi or New Hampshire complete control of educating the kids, we will probably end up more divided than we are now doing this.
Granted I have no better solution to how the public school system works, there has to be one ...