« FFFT Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Would you consider voting for a third-party candidate?

By: clo in FFFT | Recommend this post (0)
Sun, 15 Jan 12 5:14 PM | 68 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Food For Further Thought
Msg. 38093 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 38091 by Riana)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

The 'winners' are bought & paid for, you won't have a third party candidate get that 'support'...

Chances are, the big money that backed Tea Party candidates in 2010, won't do it again. They have proven to act rogue, thus having our credit rating lowered. You can be sure BIG MONEY backers were NOT happy with that.

Citizens United only made this worse.

Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever

By Communications on November 5, 2008 3:19 PM

WASHINGTON -- The historic election of 2008 re-confirmed one truism about American democracy: Money wins elections.

From the top of the ticket, where Barack Obama declined public financing for the first time since the system's creation and went on to amass a nearly two-to-one monetary advantage over John McCain, to congressional races throughout the nation, the candidate with the most money going into Election Day emerged victorious in nearly every contest.

In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The findings are based on candidates' spending through Oct. 15, as reported to the Federal Election Commission.

Continuing a trend seen election cycle after election cycle, the biggest spender was victorious in 397 of 426 decided House races and 30 of 32 settled Senate races. On Election Day 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.

"The 2008 election will go down in U.S. history as an election of firsts, but this was far from the first time that money was overwhelmingly victorious on Election Day," Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said. "The best-funded candidates won nine out of 10 contests, and all but a few members of Congress will be returning to Washington."

Overall, 95 percent of House incumbents and 93 percent of senators won re-election on Tuesday. (This includes incumbents who lost their primaries but does not account for several other races featuring incumbents, such as the Minnesota Senate race, where a recount is pending in the contest between incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken.) In the prior 10 years and five election cycles, an average of 97 percent of House members and 86 percent of senators won re-election.

Average Pricetag for House Seat Exceeds $1 Million

more:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.html




Avatar

DO SOMETHING!




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Would you consider voting for a third-party candidate?
By: Riana
in FFFT
Sun, 15 Jan 12 1:37 AM
Msg. 38091 of 65535

Would you consider voting for a third-party candidate?

Yes -- I'm all for challenging the status quo. 25%
No -- It would be a waste of my vote. 57%
Maybe -- If there were any chance he or she could actually win. 16%
I'm not sure. 1%


These answers are so frustrating. Too many people believe that they must vote for the person who is going to win - otherwise their vote is wasted. Do people not understand that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy?? If enough people don't vote for a candidate strictly because it is believed he cannot win, then HE WILL NOT WIN.


« FFFT Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next