NationStates Jolt Archive

Michael Badnarik rocks.
Ralph Nader rocks.
David Cobb rocks.

And yet, were I old enough to vote, I would not be voting for any of them. I would be voting for John Kerry. Not because he rocks even more, but because Bush is endangering our security, our society, and our democracy. The two-party system makes it so that a vote for John Kerry is the only vote against Bush. The two-party system provides no televised debates from any but two of the candidates. The two-party system just sucks.

It has to go.

So, this election, vote Kerry. But in 2008, vote third party! Libertarian, Green, Independent, heck, vote The Official Free Pony and Ice Cream party if that floats your boat, but vote third party! My hope is that soon, a state will have more third party votes than from the primary two. Hopefully, a third party candidate will receive electoral votes soon as well. And hopefully, before I turn 40, we'll see a third party president.

As I said, vote Kerry this year. But then, we mobilize the third party bandwagon!

Two party system helps prevent the "tyranny by minority" situation and forces both parties to take moderate stances. I wouldnt mind seeing some libertarians voting in the senate, for example, but i wouldnt like a libertarian senate or executive branch, that just invites extremism.

Not that third parties cant achieve sucess every now and then. The republicans were a third party who suceeded in the face of Democrats and Whigs. But at the current time the bipartisan system needs to stay, for the good of the country.

How does a two-party system prevent tyranny by majority?

I think there should be more verity in parties. Two isn't really enough. What if you don’t agree with either of the sides? Then who do you turn too? They should have at least 5 or 6 I reckon.

Binary choice is no choise








And think BEFORE you vote.

If you do not live in a battleground state, then you SHOULD vote for third party (or Bush or Kerry, if they float your boat). It's not like your vote counts anyways, it's more of a statement.

the only true reason we have a 2 party system is simple, most people are dumb enough to see only 2 views for a problem, and both republicans and democatates take oppseing views, and thats why a 3rd party will never sneak in.

Another example that Kerry's voters are actually voting against Bush...

Another example that Kerry's voters are actually voting against Bush...
Or that they are right to vote against Bush...

whatever you like

The problem is, there are a whole lot of "battleground states". There probably not even fifteen states that are all sealed up.

I'm still hoping that my dad's prediction comes true: The polls will seem close, but then Kerry wins by a landslide because a lot of people not considered likely voters will vote because they're pissed off at Bush.

you know, i live in one of those states, its really nice to see poltical ads inbetween every single tv show.

The problem is, there are a whole lot of "battleground states". There probably not even fifteen states that are all sealed up.

Actually, I'd be willing to bet $100 on the outcomes of all but 8 states.

I'm still hoping that my dad's prediction comes true: The polls will seem close, but then Kerry wins by a landslide because a lot of people not considered likely voters will vote because they're pissed off at Bush.

More likely, the undecideds who were planning to vote anyways would go towards Kerry. Undecideds typically break 2-1 for the challenger, but it could be higher this year, who knows. Take comfort in that most polls bias towards Republicans.

I'm still hoping that my dad's prediction comes true: The polls will seem close, but then Kerry wins by a landslide because a lot of people not considered likely voters will vote because they're pissed off at Bush.

Yeah me too. That would be the ideal situation. But I doubt it will ever happen, even though bush is so unpopular. He managed to buy his way into power last time and he'll do it again.

As long as I'm ranting about inadequacy in our electoral process, I should mention that I think we should be able to vote either for someone or against someone. Or maybe both. But in accordance with one vote per person, we should be able to choose. That way we can actually vote against Bush rather than for Kerry.

Not that Kerry sucks or anything. He's a decent candidate and I know plenty of people vote for him because they like him. It's just I'd rather not have to vote for my 4th choice just to kick out the monkey servant to the devil.

The problem is, there are a whole lot of "battleground states". There probably not even fifteen states that are all sealed up.

I'm still hoping that my dad's prediction comes true: The polls will seem close, but then Kerry wins by a landslide because a lot of people not considered likely voters will vote because they're pissed off at Bush.

You know, contrary to Populist belief, there is no great universal hatred of Bush.

Another example that Kerry's voters are actually voting against Bush...

Or that they are right to vote against Bush...

whatever you like

Yet another example that Kerry's voters are actually voting against Bush...

What bothers me is the fact that some people are doing all they can to prevent third party candidates from being on ballots. What's next? A one-party system?

What bothers me is the fact that some people are doing all they can to prevent third party candidates from being on ballots. What's next? A one-party system?

Yup. The Democrats try to keep Greens off the ballot, and the Republicans try to keep Constitutions and Reforms off the ballot. Both parties want Libertarians off the ballot.

You know, contrary to Populist belief, there is no great universal hatred of Bush.


Yeah, but he has made a lot of decisions that could easily inflame apathetic citizens that might not otherwise vote.

Besides, it was my dad's prediction, not mine. My dad is Libertarian BTW (although he opposes gay marriage which doesn't make any sense with his party to me anyway).

I agree. The Democruds and Replicons are so identical it's scary.

(NO FLAMING IF YOU DISAGREE)

I agree. The Democruds and Replicons are so identical it's scary.

(NO FLAMING IF YOU DISAGREE)

I'll say that in 1996, I couldn't tell the difference between the moderates Clinton and Dole.

But now? We have probably the most conservative president ever facing the most liberal senator. Big difference, this year.

I'll say that in 1996, I couldn't tell the difference between the moderates Clinton and Dole.

But now? We have probably the most conservative president ever facing the most liberal senator. Big difference, this year.

Oddly enough, I have heard Bill Clinton called the most conservative President. I guess it has to do with the budget balancing thing. And really, Bush is not that conservative.

I'll say that in 1996, I couldn't tell the difference between the moderates Clinton and Dole.

But now? We have probably the most conservative president ever facing the most liberal senator. Big difference, this year.

Lol, Clinton and Dole, moderates? :p

Lol, Clinton and Dole, moderates? :p
He means compared to nowadays and how Bush a conservative unbalanced the budget and is adding to deficiet.

Compared to Bush Clinton is a moderate. Basically Bush (+1) - Clinton (-1 if youthink he acts left wing) = 0 (Moderate).

Michael Badnarik rocks.
Ralph Nader rocks.
David Cobb rocks.

And yet, were I old enough to vote, I would not be voting for any of them. I would be voting for John Kerry. Not because he rocks even more, but because Bush is endangering our security, our society, and our democracy. The two-party system makes it so that a vote for John Kerry is the only vote against Bush. The two-party system provides no televised debates from any but two of the candidates. The two-party system just sucks.

It has to go.

So, this election, vote Kerry. But in 2008, vote third party! Libertarian, Green, Independent, heck, vote The Official Free Pony and Ice Cream party if that floats your boat, but vote third party! My hope is that soon, a state will have more third party votes than from the primary two. Hopefully, a third party candidate will receive electoral votes soon as well. And hopefully, before I turn 40, we'll see a third party president.

As I said, vote Kerry this year. But then, we mobilize the third party bandwagon!

while I disagree with most third party opinions, three parties would be more interesting... :-P

but I'm 13, so I have to wait until the 2012 election.

He means compared to nowadays and how Bush a conservative unbalanced the budget and is adding to deficiet.

Compared to Bush Clinton is a moderate. Basically Bush (+1) - Clinton (-1 if youthink he acts left wing) = 0 (Moderate).

Kerry is more liberal than Clinton. Bush is more conservative than Dole. That's how I see it at least, that may be open to debate.