jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to tiger72
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"
said by tiger72  :Really? You really can't believe they did this? Partisanship has only hidden the reality of politics. Each side points and cries "THEY are horrible!". When it comes down to it, both parties do the same crap, just under different banners. Stop voting (D) Stop voting (R) Vote on the issues, and this will stop. Until then, it'll continue to be business as usual. I just want to see a national debate with a 3rd party participating. We generally keep voting the incumbents back into office over and over again and we are going nowhere. There is very little separating a Democrat from a Republican other than the direction the mud is being slung. I keep hearing how I am wasting my vote by casting mine for anything other than R or D each election, but I know in my heart that I am really doing the right thing, and we have to start somewhere. |
|
MrMoody
But the Grinch ... did Not.
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
 ·Embarq
 ·Skype
·magicjack.com
| said by jmn1207 :I just want to see a national debate with a 3rd party participating. Me too. Unfortunately neither the Ds, Rs nor media want this to happen, therefore it doesn't.
I keep hearing how I am wasting my vote by casting mine for anything other than R or D each election, but I know in my heart that I am really doing the right thing, and we have to start somewhere. You said it, brother. I am sick of this, and I fully intend to vote for any third name that gets on my ballot, or write in someone (probably Nader) if there isn't. They have virtually no chance of winning, but if enough of us do it, maybe people will take heart and they will have a chance next time ...
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207 : I keep hearing how I am wasting my vote by casting mine for anything other than R or D each election, but I know in my heart that I am really doing the right thing, and we have to start somewhere. I tend to agree with the Democrats so in general have no problem voting for them.
If you find neither Republican nor Democratic acceptable then I think voting for a third party candidate is a good idea, better then not voting. With our winner take all system it is hard for third party candidates to gain enough traction to be elected. However they can and do influence the debate. In that role even though they do not win elections they perform a valuable service and voting for them provides a strong message to incumbents about popular sentiment.
/tom |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | it could happen if they didnt a ton of money nationally.
spend it in the states that matter and go from there. If you can win the states that matter or even maybe 2 of them then the other parties could have problems. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to tschmidt
said by tschmidt : With our winner take all system it is hard for third party candidates to gain enough traction to be elected. I disagree. What hurts third parties is the lack of a runoff, requiring > 50% of the vote. Third parties can always be portrayed as a "wasted vote" or "voting for the greater of two evils by not voting for the lessor."
What we need is a tiered-ranking ballot where you could indicate your first, second, third, etc. choice. You could vote the Green candidate as your first choice. Then the Dem as your second. The tallying software would accumulate everyone's first choices, and if it isn't > 50%, discard them and proceed to the 2nd choice.
I think a lot of people would vote for third parties if they didn't feel "the worst of two evils" might get into office as a result.
But, modern Americans are pretty stupid. If they can't punch a pre-cut hole in a card (Florida), their heads would probably explode if they had to cope with 1 through n choices.
Mark |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to jmn1207
Ross Perot came the closest in recent years.
I think TK is right about this... They need to start at the local and state level so they can build a base to propel them to the Federal Level. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to amigo_boy
Imagine if Americans actually took their duty to vote seriously, and we got 85% of the populace to vote.
That right there would cause some real changes. It would at least shake things up. I'm not sure Brad Pitt would make a good President, but hey, it's be different... 
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
MrMoody
But the Grinch ... did Not.
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
·Skype
·magicjack.com
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :Ross Perot came the closest in recent years. I think TK is right about this... They need to start at the local and state level so they can build a base to propel them to the Federal Level. Yeah, and if a loon like him* could get as far as he did in '92, imagine what someone more level-headed could do using the same strategy.
*Or at least he came off that way-how much due to media?
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| I don't believe he was that loony.
His style allowed him to be portrayed as kind of a bumpkin BUT we have other Presidents from Texas ... anyway, both parties went after him and tried to make him seem like a loose cannon.
Question, a man who hires mercenaries to rescue employees held hostage overseas.... is that really a sign he's a loon? Or maybe a loyal boss! ...Or a President who wants to invade a country? Which is worse?
Anyway, both parties went after him and tried to label him in two ways. 1: A fringe loonie and 2: Voting for Perot is "Wasting" your vote and helping the "Other" party win. BOTH parties preached this. I think this was the main reason people didn't vote for him...
Personally, I don't think a guy who becomes a billionaire and does it on his own really could be a stupid loon.
Either way, he failed... but he did make a big impact considering the relatively small amount of money he spent compared to the Republican and Democrat fund-raising juggernauts.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by KrK :Question, a man who hires mercenaries to rescue employees held hostage overseas.... is that really a sign he's a loon? I thought it was his Ron Paul'ish dismissal of complicated issues with "if it's broke, you gotta fix it." And then the part about his house being attacked by black-helicopter people, and he withdrew from the race, and then re-entered.
Personally, at the time I wished he would be elected just to shake things up. But, he really was a nut job.
Mark |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| This is, it is broke, we should fix it. Also not sure about the Black Helicopter thing.... but it wouldn't surprise me.
Could of been just about anyone....
Yeah, he never should of left the race then re-entered. He claimed he didn't want it to be about him, but of course he was the icon of the movement, so of course everything was concentrated on him.
If he had been elected President, I think it would of been proof the system can be shaken up... but I expect the two party system in Washington would of tried VERY VERY HARD to lame-duck him and make him seem like an incompetent.
Who knows how it would of worked out. If the people liked him, Congress would have to get in line, but if Congress could make him seem stupid and incompetent, the people, especially party faithful, would buy it hook line and sinker. You'd see a impeachment in such a circumstance. Remember they also had the Unlimited office of Special Persecution back then, too. Something this administration has never had to face.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
ultracooldave
@verizon.net
| reply to amigo_boy
"What we need is a tiered-ranking ballot where you could indicate your first, second, third, etc. choice. "
That's what they have in Australia, EVERY vote counts eventually, it seems good in theory but it does not lead to a real third party even there. They also make it illegal not to vote (with a small fine) and get a large % voting- does it help- nope, the mega rich worldwide control everything anyway!
The only place I know of where peoples vote actually counts against all that money and power is Singapore where it is illegal for any politician to accept ANYTHING, if you do you go to jail! I believe in China you could get the death sentence but they don't have a problem helping our politicians.
The system we have reduces the value of a vote in direct proportion to the money raised by the politicians, something that has been raised to a new level with Bush (and the Congress)--(transferring 5 trillion somewhere) and seems to be locked in now with both parties.
So go ahead with the voting, just remember that a $1 million contribution from the oil barons to McCain IS going to lead to $5 Billion in benefits to them! |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy : What we need is a tiered-ranking ballot where you could indicate your first, second, third, etc. choice. You could vote the Green candidate as your first choice. Then the Dem as your second. The tallying software would accumulate everyone's first choices, and if it isn't > 50%, discard them and proceed to the 2nd choice. I think a lot of people would vote for third parties if they didn't feel "the worst of two evils" might get into office as a result. Interesting idea. An idea I had was this: You know how our elected officials normally don't do jack for us, but once election year rolls around, they actually start doing their job, for fear of getting voted out of office? I say make every year an election year. Maybe then we could keep these bastards on their toes. Maybe if their jobs were in constant jeopardy, rather than only once every four years, we could get them to actually do something for us.
Then again, too many people can't be bothered to vote once every four years, let alone every year. And I have to admit, until about three years ago, I was no better. A politically-minded friend got me to finally start voting, at the age of 36.
said by amigo_boy : But, modern Americans are pretty stupid. If they can't punch a pre-cut hole in a card (Florida), their heads would probably explode if they had to cope with 1 through n choices. This may be the first time I actually find myself agreeing with you, but there's no arguing with that statement. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :What we need is a tiered-ranking ballot where you could indicate your first, second, third, etc. choice. You could vote the Green candidate as your first choice. Then the Dem as your second. The tallying software would accumulate everyone's first choices, and if it isn't > 50%, discard them and proceed to the 2nd choice. I'd be happy with a choice of "NONE OF THE ABOVE" included on every ballot. Even if we could not decide what actions should be taken if that result became the majority, at least it would raise the volume of our collective voices, the world would realize that many of us do not support the current government, and the actions of these leaders would not seen as mandated by the masses. |
|
ultracooldave
@verizon.net | We desperately need "none of the above" !!!!!! Time is running out for the middle class. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by ultracooldave :
We desperately need "none of the above" !!!!!! Time is running out for the middle class.
I don't understand what "none of the above" would do. If it's just meant to make a statement, that same statement is already being made when 75% of the adult population doesn't vote.
If it's meant to really vacate offices by electing no one, that would be unconstitutional. The way offices are filled is prescribed by the constitution. And there is a prescribed way to amend the constitution. Using the ballot to elect nobody would be circumventing the amendment processes which is made difficult and time consuming for a reason.
Mark |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| said by amigo_boy :said by ultracooldave :
We desperately need "none of the above" !!!!!! Time is running out for the middle class.
I don't understand what "none of the above" would do. If it's just meant to make a statement, that same statement is already being made when 75% of the adult population doesn't vote. If it's meant to really vacate offices by electing no one, that would be unconstitutional. The way offices are filled is prescribed by the constitution. And there is a prescribed way to amend the constitution. Using the ballot to elect nobody would be circumventing the amendment processes which is made difficult and time consuming for a reason. Mark What I basically would like to see is an election where the people were choosing a candidate that they truly supported, if only a little. Today it seems that I am always left with a decision to pick the candidate that is the lesser of two evils. Our government seems more and more like a corporation, and just like most things offered by conglomerates, competition and consumer choice is largely non-existent.
The powers that have gained control of our resources need to be removed, or at least introduced to a third member that offers similar checks and balances that our founding fathers attempted to instill in our existing government. Unfortunately, this same group holds the keys to any doors leading to change in the system. It will be difficult, and amazing, to create some drastic modifications. And I am certain that whatever it is that brings about this change will most likely have many people longing for the way things are now. |
|
ultracooldave
@verizon.net
| "None of the above" is simple, if that choice gets the majority of the votes, no candidate is allowed to run again for that office, a run off election must be held and the current office holder would retain that office until a new election. If "none" wins again whoever got the most votes wins.
It is not going to happen without a referendum and being upheld by the Supreme court-very unlikely. Every politician would be against it! |
|
ultracooldave
@verizon.net
| I might add that I could not see any need for term limits with the "none", the voters need to be able to "fire" politicians they do not want, at least 1 chance to do so every election but in the interests of having a government "none" should only be able to be used once, the risk is that the new candidates may be worse but it gives voters tremendous power.
This is similar to a no confidence vote in the British system. |
|
MrMoody
But the Grinch ... did Not.
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
·Skype
·magicjack.com
| Here's a hypothetical question. Some are saying the president actually makes little difference, but what would the US and world be like today if we had no term limit and Clinton had been reelected in 2000? How would he have reacted to 9/11 and reports of Iraqi WMDs? What would the price of oil be? The national debt? Maybe he wouldn't have won after the sex scandal and IT bubble burst, but he still had a 65% approval rating and I would've voted for him.
I think term limits are counterproductive. The incumbent has no advantage when he's a screw-up.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. |
|
