[MARenzulli]

Suppose you would really like to vote for some minor party candidate but feel that you have to vote for the Republican so that the Democrat won't win. Perhaps you know someone who would also like to vote for some minor party candidate but feels like he has to vote for the Democrat so that the Republican won't win.

The VoteBuddy.org solution is that you and the other person promise to each other that neither of you will vote for a major party candidate. Both of you are now free to vote for which ever minor party candidate you prefer. If you would like to verify that the other person doesn't cheat and vote for the major party candidate, you can fill out and mail absentee ballots in each other's presence.

In 2000, the VoteBuddy.org web site provided a sort of matchmaking service for people who wanted to find a Vote Buddy. The web site is not yet offering the matchmaking service this year, mainly because the service was provided manually by the webmaster, and it took too much time. If someone has the interest and expertise to automate the process, please contact the webmaster of that site and offer your services.

[So Cal Rocket]

Oh yeah... those Donks are so trustworthy, they'll NEVER vote for a Donk just because they said so on some webpage.

[cripplecreek]

Ridiculous and disgusting means of debasing our political process more than it already is. I'll cast MY VOTE MY WAY.

[FractalMan]

This would only work if paired vote buddies are in the same state. Nevertheless, I like the idea.

[Ditter]

Hillary is that you?

[GSlob]

And how could you trust them [or they trust you], and not be taken for a sucker? The way around it would be to have votes [or valid obligations/assignments of future votes] actually tradable on, say, a stock exchange or something like that. Then a third party, having gotten enought of these, would indeed get stronger. Suffice it to say, we do not have that, and even a small Congress with only 535 members is not quite reliable in its internal and informal horsetrading. And to extend the informal system to 100+ million strong electorate?

[mysterio]

There is no such thing as a wasted vote if you vote for the candidate that most closely reflects your views.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I PROMISE to vote for the stalking horse.

Honest!

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Sheeple who do that would not vote anyway!
***

We in America do not have government by the majority.
We have government by the majority who participate.

Thomas Jefferson

[Chi-townChief]

That's pretty funny!

[RightWhale]

Last major national election in 2000 there were about six of these third parties.

[SteveMcKing]

A losing vote is very noble. Too bad nobility is just a scam to make us feel good.

Losing is losing, and wasted is wasted.

If your party loses, then do other things with your time. Don't be idle.

[Elyse]

Here's an idea - actually come up with a 3rd party candidate that is worth voting for and maybe a majority of the people will vote for him. It's bass-ackwards to opt out of the system to try to force an opening for just any Tom, Dick or Harry 3rd party candidate.

[finnman69]

dumbest idea ever

only a Rat could come up with an idea like this

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Sorry. Not going to happen.

My vote can not be bought, threatened, coerced, cajoled, stolen, adjusted, traded, wagered, or wasted.

If you want it, you EARN it.

If you can't EARN it, you will NEVER get it.

I'm not one who simply follows the herd, that's for sheep and cattle. Oh, and broken glass voters incapable of reason.

[hosepipe]

Won't work... The system is weighted for democrats and republicans and by the way incumbents.. ONLY way to increase 3rd party power is to bite the bullet and be out of power for a time to build gravitas power.. i.e. let the bad guys run the show and hope you don't get a president for life like Papa Doc Duvalier or a Hildebeast..

[plain talk]

This idea is estupido.

[Killborn]

The liberals through incrementalism, propaganda, and fascist tactics have gotten to the point that an entire political party belongs to them. They don't need thrid parties. That's why they could shun Miller, Lieberman, and others.

THese so called "blue dogs" are just a ruse. If they are true dogs they wouldn't vote for the useless, wussy "we bendover to IRan and Syria" resolution. Nor would they let Piglousy become Speaker. They would prge Reid, Murtha, and Jefferson. Their actions speak volumes about their "conservatism".

We are far from that state and have to fight tooth and nail in every primary to put in conservatives and in every election to put in GOP guys.

[x]

There's also the "pairing" that's done in Congress.

A Senator or Representative from one party or side of an issue may miss a vote on the understanding that a counterpart from the other party or side will do the same.

The classic example of it happening -- or not happening -- was when John Kennedy, in the hospital during the vote that censured Joseph McCarthy, didn't "pair" with a Republican Senator, which would have announced his opposition to McCarthy.

Is the VoteBuddy idea a good one? I don't know. If there's a really good third party candidate, but one doesn't want to tip the election to the Democrats, there might be some sense to it.

One possible outcome is that people will vote as carelessly for a third party candidate as they now do for major party ones. I don't see that Badnarik or Peroutka were really better choices than Bush in 2004, or that they would have deserved the extra votes.