[Tony Soprano]

Originally Posted by pioneer461

Just a reminder, Bill Clinton was put into office both times, with only 43% of the vote. And those just coincidently were the only times Ross Perot ran for office. Coincidence? I'm not usually a conspiracy theory buff, but the Clinton machine is ruthless enough to have set the whole thing up. Third parties almost always favor the Democrats. Vote on principle, vote Democrat. Sorry, but that's the way it works out.

Could not of said it better myself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

[Quasi]

Originally Posted by pioneer461

Just a reminder, Bill Clinton was put into office both times, with only 43% of the vote. And those just coincidently were the only times Ross Perot ran for office. Coincidence? I'm not usually a conspiracy theory buff, but the Clinton machine is ruthless enough to have set the whole thing up. Third parties almost always favor the Democrats. Vote on principle, vote Democrat. Sorry, but that's the way it works out.

Aside from a minor quibble about Clinton winning with 49% of the vote in 1996, not 43%, you don't have to look farther than the 2000 election for an example of a third-party candidate (Nader and the Green Party) spoiling things for the Democrats.

I think that by voting on principle, you not only remain true to your beliefs, but you may send a message which influences both parties' positions. By supporting third-party candidates, you end up with a greater representation of political beliefs. Currently, there's probably more similarities than differences between Dems and Repubs.