On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:26:33 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:25:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't
vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win.
As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit
and curse the darkness".

That's what the Republicans said when they sued to make sure Ralph got on
the ballot. Odd that. g

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/n...e_20040826.htm


If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the
Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed.

And they were in '92.........

The two big
parties will do whatever they think will get them the votes, even if
it means supressing a vote for a third-party candidate.

You acknowledge this, yet you tried to deny that third party
candidates had any effect on the outcome of the election.


I said nothing of the sort. I simply question how much influence they
had, and how that influence compares the the amount of voting fraud.


The only thing
this proves is that neither one of the parties have any interest in
free and open elections, which is what I have been saying all along,
and also why I don't vote for either of them.

So which is it then Frank? Do third party candidates shift votes away
from "the big 2" or not?


Not in my case. If I'm limited to those two choices (or even just one
choice) I simply won't vote for that position, and that's exactly what
I did with a couple races in this last election. But if you want to
gaze into your crystal ball and divine the intentions of other voters
then don't let me stop you.