NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a disgruntled republican turned Libertarian, who really should have been a Libertarian from the beginning. But that is another topic for another day.

CNN is reporting that 81% of the American People believe that our nation is heading in the COMPLETELY WRONG direction. If this is the case, why do they continue to vote for the two major parties that have gotten us in this mess?

There are plenty of third parties out their off the top of my head I can name the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, The Green Party, The Rainbow Party, and I am sure plenty more exist.

So my ultimate question is would you consider voting for a third party over the two major parties? Why or why not?

I am a disgruntled republican turned Libertarian, who really should have been a Libertarian from the beginning. But that is another topic for another day.

CNN is reporting that 81% of the American People believe that our nation is heading in the COMPLETELY WRONG direction. If this is the case, why do they continue to vote for the two major parties that have gotten us in this mess?

There are plenty of third parties out their off the top of my head I can name the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, The Green Party, The Rainbow Party, and I am sure plenty more exist.

So my ultimate question is would you consider voting for a third party over the two major parties? Why or why not?


Tell me that is a joke? Nobody sane would vote for those nutjobs. Have you checked their platform? Put them in and might as well kiss america goodbye.

So my ultimate question is would you consider voting for a third party over the two major parties? Why or why not?I've been considering that since even before i was old enough to vote. Thanks to Reagan, the prick.
I'm an independent moderate, and apparently, it's not attractive enough a persuasion to be more popular.
There's too much $ between the "two" "parties". Far too much. And, thusly, far too much destruction of the goodness of our country.

No party but the major two can win nationally. The system we have set up will inherently tend to a two-party system; if any other party gains prominence, one of the current two will shrivel and die, and then we'll be in the exact same situation.

not this year.

i have voted for 3rd parties in the past but now i feel that such a vote is "wasted" unless it serves to build the 3rd party to a level where it can compete. until one has a compelling candidate, that isnt going to happen.

this year i am desperate to keep john mccain out of office so i wouldnt consider voting for anyone but barack obama. luckily i LIKE obama so its not a big sacrifice.

No party but the major two can win nationally. The system we have set up will inherently tend to a two-party system; if any other party gains prominence, one of the current two will shrivel and die, and then we'll be in the exact same situation.


Or they will end the electoral college and have a straight popular vote?

seriously listen to the McCain and Obama. they both want to cut taxes. though slightly differently. they both want out of Iraq just at different time tables. they both want to keep interest rates low. with the bail out they both want to regulate the finance industry.

democrats are center even slightly right of center. republicans are right winged(not extreme).

Or they will end the electoral college and have a straight popular vote?
Stop, you tease.
*sobs*

seriously listen to the McCain and Obama. they both want to cut taxes. though slightly differently. they both want out of Iraq just at different time tables. they both want to keep interest rates low. with the bail out they both want to regulate the finance industry.

democrats are center even slightly right of center. republicans are right winged(not extreme).

Obama wants to raise corporate taxes and taxes on people above 250k. His tax cuts are aimed at the middle and lower class pretty much. But even obama said he wouldn't do all his tax plans right away.

Stop, you tease.
*sobs*



Democrats said they would.....4 years ago. Liars.

Tell me that is a joke? Nobody sane would vote for those nutjobs. Have you checked their platform? Put them in and might as well kiss america goodbye.

Apparently you missed the entire point of this tread. I wasn't asking if you though that some Third Parties had extreme views. A little side note look at the major parties both have plenty of members which hold extreme views on many issues.

I asked if you would consider a third party as a choice given the fact that the Democrats' and Republican's have wasted our tax money, neglected the American Consumer, and have become bloated and corrupt elitists that have no idea what their constitutes think or believe.

I am a disgruntled republican turned Libertarian, who really should have been a Libertarian from the beginning. But that is another topic for another day.

CNN is reporting that 81% of the American People believe that our nation is heading in the COMPLETELY WRONG direction. If this is the case, why do they continue to vote for the two major parties that have gotten us in this mess?

There are plenty of third parties out their off the top of my head I can name the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, The Green Party, The Rainbow Party, and I am sure plenty more exist.

So my ultimate question is would you consider voting for a third party over the two major parties? Why or why not?

Because if we dont vote for the lizards, the wrong lizard might get into office.[/Adams]

Apparently you missed the entire point of this tread. I wasn't asking if you though that some Third Parties had extreme views. A little side note look at the major parties both have plenty of members which hold extreme views on many issues.

I asked if you would consider a third party as a choice given the fact that the Democrats' and Republican's have wasted our tax money, neglected the American Consumer, and have become bloated and corrupt elitists that have no idea what their constitutes think or believe.


Apparently you missed the point of my post. The fact even mentioned them with a straight face sends up red flags.

Im all for third parties as long as its not the Libertarian Party.

Apparently you missed the point of my post. The fact even mentioned them with a straight face sends up red flags.

I stand corrected then and admit defeat to your greater cunning. LOL

Im all for third parties as long as its not the Libertarian Party.

or the Constitution Party....Fucking nutjobs. I'll go for one when they manage to put together a legit moderate platform.

Apparently you missed the point of my post. The fact even mentioned them with a straight face sends up red flags.

How do you kow he had a straight face? He could have been laughing maniacally when he said it...

Democrats said they would.....4 years ago. Liars.This really doesn't detract much from my point. I just, right now, hate the republicans a lot, lot, lot more than the democrats.
Kinda like when you revisit an old fling every now and again.

or the Constitution Party....Fucking nutjobs. I'll go for one when they manage to put together a legit moderate platform.

We have Major Parties to put up a moderate platform, why do you think both parties campaign the same positions, with a different spin obviously but look past the political crap and both support the same thing overall.

I am not looking for a moderate "feel good, do nothing" platform as a voter. I was looking for a platform that held fiscal responsibility and personal freedom as their priorities. Which is why I am a Libertarian, I wanted to be moderate I could go back to being a liberal Republican.

... neglected the American Consumer, ...

That is part of the problem right there. We are American citizens. Stop reducing us to nothing but "consumers." *grumble*

Between Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans, for me, it will be the least of three evils. However to vote Socialist, Green, Prohibition, Constitution, Reform, et al., would be a spoiler vote, which I refuse to do. I am a member of the American Christian Left but I have no decent representative. Obama...ha! The guy has associated with extremists (Weather Underground leader, whose name escapes me) and racists (Rev. Wright). He is fully prepared to tell people whatever it takes to get elected; he inadvertently admitted to it. His record is slim to non-existent, and some of his political mentors and allies in Illinois legislature are now in prison for fraud! I agree with the DNC on most things, but the delegates could have chosen somebody FAR better.

This really doesn't detract much from my point. I just, right now, hate the republicans a lot, lot, lot more than the democrats.
Kinda like when you revisit an old fling every now and again.

So you are saying you dislike both parties but will vote democrat because you hate the republicans more than the Democrats at the moment.

If you have problems with both parties why vote for the "lesser evil" instead of voting for finding a party that you do agree with.

Voting for a "lesser evil" is the only time you waste a vote.

We have Major Parties to put up a moderate platform, why do you think both parties campaign the same positions, with a different spin obviously but look past the political crap and both support the same thing overall.

I am not looking for a moderate "feel good, do nothing" platform as a voter. I was looking for a platform that held fiscal responsibility and personal freedom as their priorities. Which is why I am a Libertarian, I wanted to be moderate I could go back to being a liberal Republican.


You call what the Dems and Repubs put up moderate? :p

That is part of the problem right there. We are American citizens. Stop reducing us to nothing but "consumers." *grumble*

While saying that the Government neglected the Consumer I was referring to the incidents with the regulators failing to protect American's from lead paint on Chinese toys, bad produce from Mexico, ect. We pay the USDA, FDA, and the FCC to protect the consumer from bad produces and corporate abuse.

Instead they are staffed by the industries that they are suppose to regulate, and they never enforce the laws given to them by our Congress to protect us as citizens and Consumer's.

I am sorry if the comment of consumer's rubbed you wrong but the FCC protects consumers not citizens in my opinion.

So you are saying you dislike both parties but will vote democrat because you hate the republicans more than the Democrats at the moment.

If you have problems with both parties why vote for the "lesser evil" instead of voting for finding a party that you do agree with.

Voting for a "lesser evil" is the only time you waste a vote.

Idealistically, you may be correct.

But you have to be pragmatic. It is impossible, currently, for a politician running on neither the republican nor the democratic ticket to win. Voting for a Third party is essentially equivalent to not voting at all.

So you are saying you dislike both parties but will vote democrat because you hate the republicans more than the Democrats at the moment.

If you have problems with both parties why vote for the "lesser evil" instead of voting for finding a party that you do agree with.

Voting for a "lesser evil" is the only time you waste a vote.



No, wasting a vote is voting for somebody who stands less than a 1% chance of winning. I did that in the CA Gov race...Wasted my vote, think the guy I voted for came in 4th.

You call what the Dems and Repubs put up moderate? :p

Yes, when both parties, support the death penalty, oppose gay marriage, support cutting taxes, support increasing spending, support bailing out wall street.

If you look past the ideological spin each side puts on each issue both support the exact thing or almost the exact same thing, on almost all issues.

The few issues where you see a true split in the parties is issues like gun control and abortion, where their is no room to take a middle stance.

Democrats and Republicans set their platforms around votes not issues.

They will say whatever they need to get enough support to keep themselves in office.

You know, I hope Obama loses because of Third Party votes. That might give a signal to the Democratic Party that you can't keep selling out the American people to corporate interests.

Obama wants to raise corporate taxes and taxes on people above 250k. His tax cuts are aimed at the middle and lower class pretty much. But even obama said he wouldn't do all his tax plans right away.

I don't care whose taxes he is cutting. We cant dig ourselves out of this by cutting taxes. Besides he will cut the poor's, middle's taxes then the republicans will be a solid voting block against raising raising corporate and upper class taxes. A handful of democrats will dissent, because their districts will suffer from a corporate tax raise (Detroit for instance). Or an upper class tax raise Manhattan. end result will either be the upper class corporate are un touched or even get a slight cut. its just to hard to keep support in congress to raise one groups taxes and lower another's.

Not to mention we have run the low taxes and rebates from the government thing to death. time to hunker down and pay the debt off.

While saying that the Government neglected the Consumer I was referring to the incidents with the regulators failing to protect American's from lead paint on Chinese toys, bad produce from Mexico, ect. We pay the USDA, FDA, and the FCC to protect the consumer from bad produces and corporate abuse.

Instead they are staffed by the industries that they are suppose to regulate, and they never enforce the laws given to them by our Congress to protect us as citizens and Consumer's.

I am sorry if the comment of consumer's rubbed you wrong but the FCC protects consumers not citizens in my opinion.
but libertarians wouldnt put in a massive product inspection system. that would be big government.

So you are saying you dislike both parties but will vote democrat because you hate the republicans more than the Democrats at the moment.

If you have problems with both parties why vote for the "lesser evil" instead of voting for finding a party that you do agree with.

Voting for a "lesser evil" is the only time you waste a vote.Only a Sith deals in absolutes. :p

Seriously though, i'm no whelp. Ashmoria already made a good point about it, so i won't belabour it.

You call what the Dems and Repubs put up moderate? :p

Yes, when both parties, support the death penalty, oppose gay marriage, support cutting taxes, support increasing spending, support bailing out wall street.

If you look past the ideological spin each side puts on each issue both support the exact thing or almost the exact same thing, on almost all issues.

The few issues where you see a true split in the parties is issues like gun control and abortion, where their is no room to take a middle stance.

Democrats and Republicans set their platforms around votes not issues.

They will say whatever they need to get enough support to keep themselves in office.

Rationally, you "waste" your vote every time you cast one. Your vote doesn't make a difference - they might as well not count it.

Rationally, you "waste" your vote every time you cast one. Your vote doesn't make a difference - they might as well not count it.

Hah, if everybody thought that nothing would get done.

Idealistically, you may be correct.

But you have to be pragmatic. It is impossible, currently, for a politician running on neither the republican nor the democratic ticket to win. Voting for a Third party is essentially equivalent to not voting at all.

See I disagree, I do admit that as long as the major parties use the government to protect them from competition no third party will win the white house. But if the American People were to truly demand choice and put politicians in office who wanted a fair and open election process that a third party would win the presidency within my lifetime.

But besides that, I would rather vote for a candidate that had little to no chance of winning but represented my values and beliefs; then voting for a candidate that has a chance of winning but only represents some of my beliefs.

By doing that you are putting someone in office that doesn't represent your values and beliefs.

I am a disgruntled republican turned Libertarian, who really should have been a Libertarian from the beginning. But that is another topic for another day.

CNN is reporting that 81% of the American People believe that our nation is heading in the COMPLETELY WRONG direction. If this is the case, why do they continue to vote for the two major parties that have gotten us in this mess?

There are plenty of third parties out their off the top of my head I can name the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, The Green Party, The Rainbow Party, and I am sure plenty more exist.

So my ultimate question is would you consider voting for a third party over the two major parties? Why or why not?

Unless the US institutes proportional representation (which it won't, because it's not in the interest of EITHER of the big parties), there will never really be any point in voting for a third party - except as 'protest'.

Voting for a "lesser evil" is the only time you waste a vote.

Exactly untrue.

Voting for the 'lesser evil' keeps the 'greater evil' out (hopefully), so it is categorically not wasted.

The ONLY time you waste a vote, is when you have the option, and choose not to vote AT ALL.

You know, I hope Obama loses because of Third Party votes. That might give a signal to the Democratic Party that you can't keep selling out the American people to corporate interests.

we already tried that. it was glorious. and it didn't work. if anything, it seems to have made the problem worse while also enabling some really awful shit by empowering the other side.

Rationally, you "waste" your vote every time you cast one. Your vote doesn't make a difference - they might as well not count it.

This is true if you do not properly resister to vote or do not properly cast your ballot (which includes writing in a candidate that did not register as a write in candidate).

This is also true because most states give all of their delegates to whoever gets the most votes in their state. So if you are a republican voting for McCain in Massachusetts or a Democrat Voting for Obama in Texas your vote is not getting them an inch closer to the White House.

But besides those situations your vote does count and the election boards are required by constitutional law to count those votes and report them to the national election committee.

This is true if you do not properly resister to vote or do not properly cast your ballot (which includes writing in a candidate that did not register as a write in candidate).

This is also true because most states give all of their delegates to whoever gets the most votes in their state. So if you are a republican voting for McCain in Massachusetts or a Democrat Voting for Obama in Texas your vote is not getting them an inch closer to the White House.

But besides those situations your vote does count and the election boards are required by constitutional law to count those votes and report them to the national election committee.

I think you misunderstood my point:

An election of considerable size will not come down to your vote. Therefore your vote is not worth casting in "rational" terms. It gets chalked up sure, but nothing would change if it didn't.

The point is that our individual decision to vote isn't about choosing the winner of the election - our vote doesn't decide it. Therefore, looking at it in terms of affecting the result is misguided because your vote can't help but be ineffective in that regard.

Unless the US institutes proportional representation (which it won't, because it's not in the interest of EITHER of the big parties), there will never really be any point in voting for a third party - except as 'protest'.

I agree that our current system of First Past the Post makes it near impossible for third parties, and will keep a third party from the white house. But I do not believe their is no point in third parties.

I also believe that it is possible, and much harder, for a third party to be elected to any fedral or state office besides the office of President.

The only reason why President is out of reach for Third Parties is the fact that both major parties are given millions upon millions by big business and special interests to keep them in office.

we already tried that. it was glorious. and it didn't work. if anything, it seems to have made the problem worse while also enabling some really awful shit by empowering the other side.

Well, I'm not about to reward bad behavior either. I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it.

Yes, when both parties, support the death penalty, oppose gay marriage, support cutting taxes, support increasing spending, support bailing out wall street.

If you look past the ideological spin each side puts on each issue both support the exact thing or almost the exact same thing, on almost all issues.

The few issues where you see a true split in the parties is issues like gun control and abortion, where their is no room to take a middle stance.

Democrats and Republicans set their platforms around votes not issues.

They will say whatever they need to get enough support to keep themselves in office.



You're funny.:p

Rationally, you "waste" your vote every time you cast one. Your vote doesn't make a difference - they might as well not count it.

this argument always seemed silly to me. i tend to think its one of those very very frequent times where homo economicus completely misses the boat.

I think you misunderstood my point:

An election of considerable size will not come down to your vote. Therefore your vote is not worth casting in "rational" terms. It gets chalked up sure, but nothing would change if it didn't.

True, but think of the impact the 60% of American's that don't vote could make if they did not let silly and minor thinking like make them believe that they have no say in government.

I move to a small anecdote to complement this point.

Statistically people under 25 years of age rarely vote, people 26-64 are 50-50 when it comes to voting, voter 65+ almost always vote.

So the elderly vote most often and with the growing number in elderly they have a lot of votes to cast. Ironically 50% of every federal tax dollar goes to the elderly in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and other federally funded benefits. Meanwhile the programs that affect the young, such as educational loans,ect are the first to lose federal funding.

I highly doubt that this is caused by the overwhelming concern for the elderly by our federal government, and I jsut as much doubt that education is the first to the chopping block when it comes to federal dollars because the government does not care about the future of our children and young adults.

It seems to me that sense the elderly vote most often and in the largest per capita in the voting population they are taken care of most. While the demographic that votes very rarely if at all (children and young adults) receives little to nothing from the government.

So all those people who do not vote are only hurting themselves, as long as they do not participate in government by voting and being active politically. They will never ever receive any concern from the government, because the government focuses on the people they need to win elections.

Well, I'm not about to reward bad behavior either.

Then don't reward the Republicans with another four years in the White House.

I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it.

So reasoned the Nader voters. Enjoying the Bush years?

Well, I'm not about to reward bad behavior either.

So, for example, given the ream-job that the bulk of America got from it's government this decade, you will be voting Democrat to show the Republicans that their bad behaviour is going to cost them... yes?

Well, I'm not about to reward bad behavior either. I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it.

it isn't about rewarding the behavior, so much as recognizing the realistic options for making strategic advances at very little cost to yourself rather than staying 'pure' while the torture train keeps chugging.

I agree that our current system of First Past the Post makes it near impossible for third parties, and will keep a third party from the white house. But I do not believe their is no point in third parties.

I also believe that it is possible, and much harder, for a third party to be elected to any fedral or state office besides the office of President.

The only reason why President is out of reach for Third Parties is the fact that both major parties are given millions upon millions by big business and special interests to keep them in office.

I didn't say there was NO point in third parties. They are a protest, and - at a local level, they might actually be able to do something. But then - if ALL they have is local level, they're still pretty much limited to dealing WITHIN the paradigm constructed by the big parties.

Is it IMPOSSIBLE for a third party to get the presidency? Theoretically, no.

But in practise, it's as good as impossible. It's statistical. It would require so many people that already have 'brand loyalty' to one of the big parties (and America has got Americans WELL trained on that one), to choose to abandon their brand, AND to make a big enough jump to the SAME candidate...

No - in practise, it's about impossible.

So reasoned the Nader voters. Enjoying the Bush years?

*still has a nader-laduke sign*

lesson learned

this argument always seemed silly to me. i tend to think its one of those very very frequent times where homo economicus completely misses the boat.

I'm not saying "don't vote". I'm just saying that there is a difference between a functional viewpoint and a rational viewpoint and tackling it on a completely rational basis misses the point somewhat.

many people ... already have 'brand loyalty' to one of the big parties (and America has got Americans WELL trained on that one)

That is the saddest part of the major parties. They use their names and money to get votes, not their voting records and their vision for our country.

Neither party fulfills their empty promises to the people that voted for them, in most cases. Unfortunately our nation has little interest in this they are more concerned about the flashy advertisement and the celebrity endorsements.

At times it amazes me how simple and blind the American public is to the body that governs it.

That is the saddest part of the major parties. They use their names and money to get votes, not their voting records and their vision for our country.

Neither party fulfills their empty promises to the people that voted for them, in most cases. Unfortunately our nation has little interest in this they are more concerned about the flashy advertisement and the celebrity endorsements.

At times it amazes me how simple and blind the American public is to the body that governs it.

It's why I've been saying (ESPECIALLY in the run-up to November this year) that Americans need to use the inherent democracy in the system, at this election.

I'd like to think a third party could do well, but in the US - it ain't gonna happen. SO - it's ESSENTIAL that people vote against the Republicans. If you were already voting against them good, if you're not - vote against them. Voting ANYWHERE else matters, but voting for the 'opposite' party matters most, because that's where you're going to give them a spank they'll feel. And the two party system we have can ONLY work, if parties feel a threat - that they'll be punished by the voters if they do bad things.

The last election basically gave the Republicans the feeling they were getting a free ride, which is why the abuses of the first four years got even worse in the next four - they'd seen that the American people lacked the stomach to punish them.

I am a disgruntled republican turned Libertarian, who really should have been a Libertarian from the beginning. But that is another topic for another day.

CNN is reporting that 81% of the American People believe that our nation is heading in the COMPLETELY WRONG direction. If this is the case, why do they continue to vote for the two major parties that have gotten us in this mess?

There are plenty of third parties out their off the top of my head I can name the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, The Green Party, The Rainbow Party, and I am sure plenty more exist.

So my ultimate question is would you consider voting for a third party over the two major parties? Why or why not?

That is the saddest part of the major parties. They use their names and money to get votes, not their voting records and their vision for our country.

Neither party fulfills their empty promises to the people that voted for them, in most cases. Unfortunately our nation has little interest in this they are more concerned about the flashy advertisement and the celebrity endorsements.

At times it amazes me how simple and blind the American public is to the body that governs it.

Meh. Strategic considerations aside, none of the third parties you mention deserve my vote on the merits.

You have yet to give a reason why I would want to vote for a third party EXCEPT precisely as a protest against the major parties -- which is by definition little more than throwing your vote away.

No party but the major two can win nationally. The system we have set up will inherently tend to a two-party system; if any other party gains prominence, one of the current two will shrivel and die, and then we'll be in the exact same situation.

Agreed.

I'm also skeptical about strong third parties in presidential systems. They put a lot of power in someone with a lesser percentage of the vote when compared to a two party system.

BTW, for those who seem to think there is something about our political system that is inherently fixed against meritorious third parties, what exactly are you talking about?

If you are simply talking about the lack of resources that a third party has, isn't that directly correlated with a third party's lack of popular support?

I'm not saying "don't vote". I'm just saying that there is a difference between a functional viewpoint and a rational viewpoint and tackling it on a completely rational basis misses the point somewhat.

my point is that the 'voting is irrational' argument relies on a mistaken assumption of the importance we ought place on the chance of my vote being decisive and assumes that the benefit we seek to maximize is individual, which is clearly stupid.

BTW, for those who seem to think there is something about our political system that is inherently fixed against meritorious third parties, what exactly are you talking about?

If you are simply talking about the lack of resources that a third party has, isn't that directly correlated with a third party's lack of popular support?

Its the tendencies of the electoral system. First Past the Post systems tend to have two parties. Proportional systems tend to have many parties. Mixed systems are in the middle.

BTW, for those who seem to think there is something about our political system that is inherently fixed against meritorious third parties, what exactly are you talking about?

If you are simply talking about the lack of resources that a third party has, isn't that directly correlated with a third party's lack of popular support?

I'm not saying there is something inherently fixed with third parties, per se - but there are a lot of obstacles for a third party to overcome (like - why are there only two candidates at the debate...).

The problem might be that the top two parties get all the exposure, so they have the known candidates, so they get all the attention, so they get all the exposure - cycle continues.

The problem is also about representation, ability to 'do' anything in the political process, and how that is judged by the voter. How can you get known for your vicious anti-corruption stance, when you're completely shutout of any power to do anything about it? That kind of thing.

It is why candidates that were already celebrities can fare so well straight out - they're trading on a reputation they've already established.

Its the tendencies of the electoral system. First Past the Post systems tend to have two parties. Proportional systems tend to have many parties. Mixed systems are in the middle.

To a degree you may be right, but there is a difference between a system that favors two parties over many parties and a system that favors a particular two parties. People seem to be claiming the latter is true in the U.S., even though we've had different parties over time.

Idealistically, you may be correct.

But you have to be pragmatic. It is impossible, currently, for a politician running on neither the republican nor the democratic ticket to win. Voting for a Third party is essentially equivalent to not voting at all.

Worse. It's casting a vote FOR the opponent of the Democratic or Republican candidate who's position is the closest to that of the third party candidate you voted for.

BTW, for those who seem to think there is something about our political system that is inherently fixed against meritorious third parties, what exactly are you talking about?

If you are simply talking about the lack of resources that a third party has, isn't that directly correlated with a third party's lack of popular support?

To a degree you may be right, but there is a difference between a system that favors two parties over many parties and a system that favors a particular two parties. People seem to be claiming the latter is true in the U.S., even though we've had different parties over time.

Well, I made sure to point out that as soon as any Third Party becomes viable, one of the (then) three parties will have to die within a few elections. This is, of course, exactly what has happened historically.

Meh. Strategic considerations aside, none of the third parties you mention deserve my vote on the merits.

Which is fine, I am not telling anyone they must vote third party. What I was asking was if you are upset with the way both major parties have ran our country would you vote for a third party.

Which is fine, I am not telling anyone they must vote third party. What I was asking was if you are upset with the way both major parties have ran our country would you vote for a third party.

Perhaps people wouldn't vote for a third party because most people aren't upset with BOTH major parties, but rather by the policies of one or the other and by the gridlock between them.

And, as I said, because no third party deserves our vote.

What part of that needs further explanation?

BTW, for those who seem to think there is something about our political system that is inherently fixed against meritorious third parties, what exactly are you talking about?

If you are simply talking about the lack of resources that a third party has, isn't that directly correlated with a third party's lack of popular support?

Absolutely wrong. Financing for major party campaigns are not funded by the public. While anyone can contribute and I do not doubt that their is a lot of Americans that give small contributions. The bulk of federal election money for both major parties come from Political Action Committees, Corporations, and special interest groups. These groups form the bulk of major party campaign funds, which is why the major parties fight transparency in the fund raising process of a political campaign.

Third Parties have no access to this multimillion dollar source of campaign funds because they are not part of the "establishment" and will not attract these "big government" groups. Also third parties typically all strive to eliminate or drastically reduce the power of big government which is a great threat to special interests as a whole.

Hence even if a third party got broad popular support they could never match the contributions of the major parties unless corporate, special interest, and Political Action Committie donations were banned for elections.

To a degree you may be right, but there is a difference between a system that favors two parties over many parties and a system that favors a particular two parties. People seem to be claiming the latter is true in the U.S., even though we've had different parties over time.

This is not really true, we are a nation that has had two political parties since the beginning of our nations history. Names have changed and the issues have changed over time, but the two major parties have held power sense Washington didn't seek a third term.

Also if you look at history no where in our nations electoral process has any major party willingly allowed a third party access to the electoral system.

Major parties have viciously fought any attempt by a third party to be involved in the election process in any way.

Ballot Access, funding, access to airtime, every part of the electoral process is an uphill battle of third parties while the major parties are given automatic access to ballots and the media becuase they unethically set the system against third parties.

What the major parties do is wrong, if a third party candidate can get ballot access they deserve access to the debates as well as equal air time from the media.

Federal Law prohibits the media from only showing showing one major parties political ads and not the others'.

No law requires third party ads to be given any air time, and the FCC as well as the Committee on Presidential Debate (which is run by democrats and republicans) regularly blocks access to the debates and media for third parties.

The major failure of third parties is not that the establishment unethically prohibits their participation in the election process.

I believe they do this because they are afraid that if the people are allowed to think they have a choice in politics both major parties would be in big trouble.

Well, I made sure to point out that as soon as any Third Party becomes viable, one of the (then) three parties will have to die within a few elections. This is, of course, exactly what has happened historically.

Please present any evidence toward this. I have no knowledge what-so-ever that any third party has ever become viable or caused a major party to fade away.

What has happened is that over time is that the major parties have changed names and picked up new issues, as the issues important to the nation has changed over time. Since the time of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, our nation has had two major parties which can trace its root back to one of these parties that has changed with time to continue to get their party elected to office.

The most deplorable part of this is the fact that the US Constitution set our elections to stop the formation of Political Parties until the parties changed our constitution to create our current election system.

Whigs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States))

The most deplorable part of this is the fact that the US Constitution set our elections to stop the formation of Political Parties until the parties changed our constitution to create our current election system.

Setting aside my questions about the rest of your assertions, what, pray tell, are you talking about in the above passage--especially the bolded part?

People seem to be claiming the latter is true in the U.S., even though we've had different parties over time.

We've had the same two for most of our history. And the last party switch occurred in the context of the greatest national crisis we have ever had--the sectional conflicts that brought about the Civil War.

The more convincing argument here is that, while the party names may not alter, their demographic and ideological composition does, in response to political shifts among the people... but an alternative political system (say, proportional representation) would still much improve this process.

Perhaps people wouldn't vote for a third party because most people aren't upset with BOTH major parties

Well 81% of American's told the CNN polling agency that they believed that our country is heading in an absolutely wrong direction with the leadership both parties have given us in our federal government in the last 8 years.

This tells me than 81% of people are tired of seeing Democrats and Republicans deceive Americans to get office and play the expensive elitist games they play in Washington DC.

no third party deserves our vote

I will assume that you meant that no third party deserves your vote, because it would be very arrogant for you to assume you know what all American's what.

What part of that needs further explanation?

Well you have made many statements but I have yet to see anything more than opinion. So almost everything you have said needs further explanation and evidence would be nice too. Of course presenting any evidence is not the major party way, we know what is best for you dumb people who vote for us.

Well 81% of American's told the CNN polling agency that they believed that our country is heading in an absolutely wrong direction with the leadership both parties have given us in our federal government in the last 8 years.

Assuming this unsourced statement is true, it still doesn't tell us anything, because it doesn't tell us what they think is wrong.

People want different things. We will never all get what we want. We will always disapprove of much of what the society we live in does. We should be suspicious of any political system that does not have such a feature, because it suggests despotism and exclusive rule.

I disapprove of both the Democrats and the Republicans for being too far to the right... but my counterpart on the other side of the political spectrum might disapprove of both of them for being too far to the right. How is this the fault of the two-party system?

Setting aside my questions about the rest of your assertions, what, pray tell, are you talking about in the above passage--especially the bolded part?

Well if you read our constitution at all you would know exactly what I was talking about, but once again following the Constitution is not "Big Party" approved.

But to humor when the Constitution was written it had a simple but party breaking election system.

The people would vote in each state, each state would send its electors to the electoral college, electoral college would cast their votes.

Whoever got the most votes became President, the runner up would be Vice President, which meant that usually two people with different views would occupy the white house at the same time. This made party politics impossible for Presidential Campaigns.

The meant that until the 12th Amendment to the Constitution (1803) which changed the original election process to what it is today, there was no solid political parties because no party could "win" the white house.

Well 81% of American's told the CNN polling agency that they believed that our country is heading in an absolutely wrong direction with the leadership both parties have given us in our federal government in the last 8 years.

This tells me than 81% of people are tired of seeing Democrats and Republicans deceive Americans to get office and play the expensive elitist games they play in Washington DC.

Perhaps you'd care to link these poll results, because I don't think you are portraying them with 100% accuracy.

And, even if you are, I explained there is a difference between dissatisfaction with current policies and support for third parties.


I will assume that you meant that no third party deserves your vote, because it would be very arrogant for you to assume you know what all American's what.

LOL.

Um. I'm not the one calling the American public dumb for not voting for a third party.

And, of course I'm stating my opinion that no third party deserves my or anyone else's vote. What else would I be stating?

You have yet to give an opinion--let alone an objective reason--as to why I or any other American should vote for a particular third party.


Well you have made many statements but I have yet to see anything more than opinion. So almost everything you have said needs further explanation and evidence would be nice too. Of course presenting any evidence is not the major party way, we know what is best for you dumb people who vote for us.

ROTFLASTC

Well if you read our constitution at all you would know exactly what I was talking about, but once again following the Constitution is not "Big Party" approved.

But to humor when the Constitution was written it had a simple but party breaking election system.

The people would vote in each state, each state would send its electors to the electoral college, electoral college would cast their votes.

Whoever got the most votes became President, the runner up would be Vice President, which meant that usually two people with different views would occupy the white house at the same time. This made party politics impossible for Presidential Campaigns.

The meant that until the 12th Amendment to the Constitution (1803) which changed the original election process to what it is today, there was no solid political parties because no party could "win" the white house.

Man, you are funny. Completely and totally wrong about almost everything under the sun, but definitely funny.

Worse. It's casting a vote FOR the opponent of the Democratic or Republican candidate who's position is the closest to that of the third party candidate you voted for.

Eh, not really. Voting for Nader only helped Bush in that those people may have voted for Gore or Kerry. Had those people not voted at all, Bush would have won by just as much.

Please present any evidence toward this. I have no knowledge what-so-ever that any third party has ever become viable or caused a major party to fade away.

What has happened is that over time is that the major parties have changed names and picked up new issues, as the issues important to the nation has changed over time. Since the time of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, our nation has had two major parties which can trace its root back to one of these parties that has changed with time to continue to get their party elected to office.

The most deplorable part of this is the fact that the US Constitution set our elections to stop the formation of Political Parties until the parties changed our constitution to create our current election system.

Not true.

At one point, it was the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

Then, after the War of 1812, essentially because of their actions during said war, they were viewed as cowards at best, traitors at worst, and the party effectively ceased to be.

After a few elections of, essentially, a single party system, the Whig party(an entirely new party, but with a lot of the same constituents as the Federalist party) developed.

So, we were back to a 2 party system, until the Republican party arose. They were, originally, a 3rd party, an anti-slavery party. They slowly gained support at the cost of the Whigs.

And that's where we are today. (Note, I only included the parties that lasted a while. There were other 3rd parties, such as the Bullmoose party, that were fairly big players for a single election.)

How is this the fault of the two-party system?

Maybe because since 1803 both parties have used all their power to do nothing more then keep the two parties in power.

This is what I have been discussing all along, the major parties set our political system to keep them in power forever.

Because of this both parties have unlimited political power because they have made it as impossible as they legally can to allow competition in the electoral process.

As the old saying goes power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I believe that both parties seek nothing more than more and more power over the people who blindly elect them.

Third Parties offer choice and this choice is a danger to the major parties.

If the people had choice their powerful political empires could fail.
This they fear more than anything else.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. :p


Absolutely true.

We've had the same two for most of our history.

Really?

Federalists? Anti-Federalists? Democratic-Republicans? All of the various Republicans? All of the various Democrats? Whigs? Liberty Party? Free Soil Party? Populists? Progressive Party?

These all fit neatly (or primarily) into two continuous packages?

Perhaps my history is a bit rusty, but I don't think so.

The Federalists became the Whigs as you said, which once more goes toward the fact that two major parties have ruled our country and have changed over time to attempt and gain elections.

Both of these major parties have one joint goal to keep everyone but them out of elected office at all costs.

Third parties threaten to destroy the billions and billions of tax dollars they spend, and all the parties want is continued control over America.

Unfortunately, both parties have been corrupted by this power and now continue to harm this country.

There were other 3rd parties, such as the Bullmoose party, that were fairly big players for a single election.)

The bullmoose party was not big for a single election.

The Bullmoose party got about 20% of the vote (not very popular)

the only reason why this party ever existed is because Teddy Roosevelt personally made the party to resist President Taft's re-election.

Without a former president forming this party and running as the sole candidate this party ever put up for office this party would have never been know at all.

In fact the Bullmoose is probably your only knowledge of third parties.

BTW, for those who seem to think there is something about our political system that is inherently fixed against meritorious third parties, what exactly are you talking about?

If you are simply talking about the lack of resources that a third party has, isn't that directly correlated with a third party's lack of popular support?

What does their lack of public support have to do with them not being allowed to take part in the debates?

Besides, it could easily be argued that they lack public support precisely because they lack the resources to get their message out and gain it.

Third Parties offer choice and this choice is a danger to the major parties.

If the people had choice their powerful political empires could fail.
This they fear more than anything else.

No, I don't think so - I think the two big parties LIKE the way it is, with the little parties staying little, and giving LOTS and LOTS of choice. Choice is the friend of the big parties, because most people identify either with the rightwing politics of the Republicans, or the a-bit-less rightwing politics of the Democrats... and, as long as that's the case, most people will 'choose' the brandname. And some will be totally disenchanted, and this setup allows the APPEARANCE of choice, without any real worry that a third party stands any REAL chance of upsetting the applecart.


Of course, the third parties are a mixed bag. I could consider voting for a third party - maybe even in this year when it matters SO much - but I couldn't just vote for ANY third party... and that's the way the big parties like it.

The Federalists became the Whigs as you said, which once more goes toward the fact that two major parties have ruled our country and have changed over time to attempt and gain elections.

Both of these major parties have one joint goal to keep everyone but them out of elected office at all costs.

Third parties threaten to destroy the billions and billions of tax dollars they spend, and all the parties want is continued control over America.

Unfortunately, both parties have been corrupted by this power and now continue to harm this country.

Curious that you claim two parties have dominated our politics all along and cite the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists as merely precursors of our existing two major parties but at the same time argue that the Constitution prevented the existence of two major parties prior to the Twelfth Amendment, which was passed in 1803. Without time-warp technology, that isn't consistent. Not to mention bordering on tin-foil hat territory.

Further the Twelfth Amendment was not some big party conspiracy. As Findlaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment12/#annotations) explains:

This Amendment, which supersedes clause 3 of Sec. 1 of Article II, was adopted so as to make impossible the situation occurring after the election of 1800 in which Jefferson and Burr received tie votes in the electoral college, thus throwing the selection of a President into the House of Representatives, despite the fact that the electors had intended Jefferson to be President and Burr to be Vice-President. The difference between the procedure which it defines and that which was laid down originally is in the provision it makes for a separate designation by the electors of their choices for President and Vice-President, respectively. As a consequence of the disputed election of 1870, Congress has enacted a statute providing that if the vote of a State is not certified by the governor under seal, it shall not be counted unless both Houses of Congress concur.

The Federalists became the Whigs as you said, which once more goes toward the fact that two major parties have ruled our country and have changed over time to attempt and gain elections.

The Whigs are the same thing as the Republicans?

What does their lack of public support have to do with them not being allowed to take part in the debates?

Mostly because it'd be crazy to let anyone who is obsessed with politics enough be part of the debate. The hundreds or thousands of nutjobs.

What does their lack of public support have to do with them not being allowed to take part in the debates?

Um. Because it is one of the criteria by which it is determined who can participate in the debates. link (http://www.debates.org/pages/candsel2008.html)

If you want to argue that a 15% threshold for public support is too high that is one thing, but then you have to explain by what criteria we do select who can participate in Presidential debates. 'Cuz we can't have 300 million people all in the debate, so there must be some winnowing standard.

Besides, it could easily be argued that they lack public support precisely because they lack the resources to get their message out and gain it.

Lots of things could easily be argued. Nonetheless, if you are actually arguing this position, you have something of a point. But that begs the question of where such resources should come from if not from the public and/or not based on public support.

Really?

Federalists? Anti-Federalists? Democratic-Republicans? All of the various Republicans? All of the various Democrats? Whigs? Liberty Party? Free Soil Party? Populists? Progressive Party?

These all fit neatly (or primarily) into two continuous packages?

Perhaps my history is a bit rusty, but I don't think so.

Your history is very rusty, sense the end of Washington's Presidency (Washington was a fierce opponent of political parties, he saw them as the demise of a free society) our system has been classified as a 2 plus party system.

For those of you who did not minor in Political Science I shall explain. This means that we are a nation of two powerful major parties that have seen very powerless third parties rise time to time over issues and event that have affected the nation.

While our two major parties have changed name over the years, as you explained, the party structure has remained the same, and for the most part the membership stay the same. As times changed the parties picked up and dropped issues as needed to advance their political potions in government.

The last big lose of power by any party was in the Civil War, the Northern Republicans represented by Lincoln defeated the Southern Democrats (these geographical regions permanately swapped in 1980 when Ronald Regan restructured the Republican Party and the "Regancrats" joined the GOP) for the presidency.

As we all know this caused South Carolina and a few other states to Secede Lincoln threatened to invaded the seceding states and the rest of the southern states followed suit.

Long story short little until Woodrow Wilson election in the 1900's (over 40 years later) our governement was run by the Republican's (northern states).

But as usual both parties survived despite the fact that people of these two parties went to war in the most bloody and brutal war the US ever fought.

I am sorry your history is wrong Two parties have dominated our government and only two parties. They changed names and adapted their platforms to maintain power, neither major party has ever been washed away and replaced by another of a new membership base.

Really?

Yes, really. Since about 1868. That's most of our history by my count.

I'm not denying the existence of third parties, or even their influence on national politics, which has at times been significant over that period. But at no point since then have they attained the Presidency, or control of either house of Congress. More to the point of what I actually said, they have not unseated the two dominant parties.

Your history is very rusty, sense the end of Washington's Presidency (Washington was a fierce opponent of political parties, he saw them as the demise of a free society) our system has been classified as a 2 plus party system.

For those of you who did not minor in Political Science I shall explain. This means that we are a nation of two powerful major parties that have seen very powerless third parties rise time to time over issues and event that have affected the nation.

While our two major parties have changed name over the years, as you explained, the party structure has remained the same, and for the most part the membership stay the same. As times changed the parties picked up and dropped issues as needed to advance their political potions in government.

The last big lose of power by any party was in the Civil War, the Northern Republicans represented by Lincoln defeated the Southern Democrats (these geographical regions permanately swapped in 1980 when Ronald Regan restructured the Republican Party and the "Regancrats" joined the GOP) for the presidency.

As we all know this caused South Carolina and a few other states to Secede Lincoln threatened to invaded the seceding states and the rest of the southern states followed suit.

Long story short little until Woodrow Wilson election in the 1900's (over 40 years later) our governement was run by the Republican's (northern states).

But as usual both parties survived despite the fact that people of these two parties went to war in the most bloody and brutal war the US ever fought.

I am sorry your history is wrong Two parties have dominated our government and only two parties. They changed names and adapted their platforms to maintain power, neither major party has ever been washed away and replaced by another of a new membership base.

You play fast-and-lose with the difference between there generally only being two major parties at a time during our history and there only ever being two parties that have remained the same over time. EDIT: And I flatly deny the truth of the part of your answer I bolded.

And, although I don't think self-espoused internet credentials mean anything and don't wish to appeal to authority, you are right I didn't minor in Political Science. I majored in it. :wink::eek:

Yes, really. Since about 1868. That's most of our history by my count.

Good point. Of course, that does grant that we didn't have the same two parties for a significant chunk of our history.

And, as you noted to begin with, the contents of the Republican and Democratic parties have shifted significantly more than a few times since 1868.

But as usual both parties survived despite the fact that people of these two parties went to war in the most bloody and brutal war the US ever fought.

Um. Who are you saying fought in the Civil War? Which two parties?

Cat your idiocy astounds me, I said the anti-federalists were never a political party. Their was a anti federalist movement, (which resisted a strong central government, it favored strong state governments with a weak central government in case you forgot what the anti federalists were, you tool) which because the democratic republican's which later became the Democrats. The anti federalists where never a party thought and as you said (and I said before you guess your reading skill is lacking too) prior to 1803.

While the tie in 1800 and the problems of the 1796 election we causes of 12th amendment. It was still an amendment who bi product created the major parties and allowed parties to build big governement ruled by corrupt major parties.

Look you obviously love one of the major parties, this is fine. No matter what you are going to interpret the history of this great nation to make the major parties seem saintly while they rob our civil rights and liberties from us, that is your right as a free person. I believe you are naive, but that is only the opinion of one free man to another.

I encourage you to hold fiercely to your beliefs for that is the only thing that we can look foward to having to ourselves if both parties continue to attack our liberties.

We have both taken this far from the thread and this debate is becoming a endless squabble over semantics and interpretation of events in the history of this nation.

I would please ask you to keep the topic of your posts to the thread topic as much as possible or discontinue posting on this thread.

And, of course I'm stating my opinion that no third party deserves my or anyone else's vote. What else would I be stating?


And why, exactly, are you stating that 3rd Party X (who hypothetically would work towards more of what I want than the Democrats or the Republicans would) doesn't deserve my vote?

Um. Because it is one of the criteria by which it is determined who can participate in the debates. link (http://www.debates.org/pages/candsel2008.html)

If you want to argue that a 15% threshold for public support is too high that is one thing, but then you have to explain by what criteria we do select who can participate in Presidential debates

Everyone who's listed on the ballot in all fifty states.

And why, exactly, are you stating that 3rd Party X (who hypothetically would work towards more of what I want than the Democrats or the Republicans would) doesn't deserve my vote?

Among other things, I'm saying 3rd Party X (as you define it) doesn't really doesn't exist.

Which 3rd Party are you saying deserves your vote? Why?

Everyone who's listed on the ballot in all fifty states.

And who would that include? (I honestly don't know off the top of my head.)

And isn't difficulty in getting on the ballot one of the things being complained about here as an unfair hurdle for third parties?

Um. Who are you saying fought in the Civil War? Which two parties?

The north was represented by the Republican Party during the civil war, the south was the Democrats.

This trend was predominate in politics for almost 100 years.

Slowly the northeast because more democratically inclined.

The south remained largely democrat but slowly started coverting to the republican party. President Regan finished this conversion of party loyalty when he won over the southern "Regancrats" in 1980.

And who would that include? (I honestly don't know off the top of my head.)

Only the Democrats and the Republicans, I think. Nader only managed 44 in '00.

One of the reasons there is no third-party is because they don't have a regional base. Most successful third-parties start out in one specific reason, and spread. A general movement just doesn't work.

And who would that include? (I honestly don't know off the top of my head.)

The closest I can find online at the moment is people who are on the ballot in enough states that it's possible for them to actually win the election, which sounds like a good enough reason to include them in the debates to me.

Aside from the big two we have:

Chuck Baldwin/Darrell Castle Constitution Party

Bob Barr/Wayne Allyn Root Libertarian Party

Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente Green Party

Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez Independent

Cat your idiocy astounds me, I said the anti-federalists were never a political party. Their was a anti federalist movement, (which resisted a strong central government, it favored strong state governments with a weak central government in case you forgot what the anti federalists were, you tool) which because the democratic republican's which later became the Democrats. The anti federalists where never a party thought and as you said (and I said before you guess your reading skill is lacking too) prior to 1803.

While the tie in 1800 and the problems of the 1796 election we causes of 12th amendment. It was still an amendment who bi product created the major parties and allowed parties to build big governement ruled by corrupt major parties.

Look you obviously love one of the major parties, this is fine. No matter what you are going to interpret the history of this great nation to make the major parties seem saintly while they rob our civil rights and liberties from us, that is your right as a free person. I believe you are naive, but that is only the opinion of one free man to another.

I encourage you to hold fiercely to your beliefs for that is the only thing that we can look foward to having to ourselves if both parties continue to attack our liberties.

We have both taken this far from the thread and this debate is becoming a endless squabble over semantics and interpretation of events in the history of this nation.

I would please ask you to keep the topic of your posts to the thread topic as much as possible or discontinue posting on this thread.

Apparently disagreeing with you is not only a sign of idiocy and corruption, but is a thread hijack. :$:(

I would watch the direct flames, if I were you. They don't help your cause, as well as being against the rules.

I am a disgruntled republican turned Libertarian, who really should have been a Libertarian from the beginning. But that is another topic for another day.

CNN is reporting that 81% of the American People believe that our nation is heading in the COMPLETELY WRONG direction. If this is the case, why do they continue to vote for the two major parties that have gotten us in this mess?

There are plenty of third parties out their off the top of my head I can name the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, The Green Party, The Rainbow Party, and I am sure plenty more exist.

So my ultimate question is would you consider voting for a third party over the two major parties? Why or why not?

Since 1992, I have voted for President and since 1992, I have never voted for a Democrat or a Republican. I have voted for Ross Perot twice... Don't look at me like that! I was young and stupid. And I've voted for Ralph Nader twice.

I'm completely lost this time. Nader might be a safe choice for me but he seems so angry and bitter this time out and he's even older than McCain. One of the big reasons why I won't vote for McCain is because of his age. How do I justify voting for an even older Nader? On the other hand, he looks very healthy for his age.

God help me, I might actually vote for Obama. That's a big might. A really big might.

The north was represented by the Republican Party during the civil war, the south was the Democrats.

There was a Democratic Party in the north, too.

I am a disgruntled republican turned Libertarian, who really should have been a Libertarian from the beginning. But that is another topic for another day.

CNN is reporting that 81% of the American People believe that our nation is heading in the COMPLETELY WRONG direction. If this is the case, why do they continue to vote for the two major parties that have gotten us in this mess?

There are plenty of third parties out their off the top of my head I can name the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, The Green Party, The Rainbow Party, and I am sure plenty more exist.

So my ultimate question is would you consider voting for a third party over the two major parties? Why or why not?


Its time for a history lesson. After Napoleon was banished from France to St. Helena in 1815, the French people were given by the Council of Vienna the brother of the former, deposed King Louis the XVI, a man by the name of Louis the XVII (If I got the number wrong just ignore it...its irrelevant). He was, obviously, an absolutist who abolished the 1814 constitution and the Napoleonic Code, installing the "Divine Right of Kings" mandate and thus royally (heh for irony) pissed off the people. They over threw him in 1824. In 1826 the National Assembly, again, held elections. This time they chose HIS cousin, Charles X, to rule. He, initially, brought back the constitution and the Napoleonic Code, as well as made many populist reforms which made the people very happy. However, in 1830, he got tired of dealing with the NA and banished them as well as the NC. Well, he was deposed as well. In 1848 I believe it was, Napoleon III came to power and started the 2nd Republic by popular vote of the people. Well...in 1860 h founded the 2nd Empire and went around funding wars across Europe (focusing on Italy's many wars, as well as expanded France's territory in many areas). He was deposed by the Prussian Armies in 1871, and they FORCED the French to allow the National Assembly to set up the government, and subsequently a brief civil war (more frequently referred to as a large scale riot, though with 25,000 people dead as a result I'm inclined to refer to it as a bit more) between Pro-Monarchists and Pro-Republicans. In the 20th Century, by popular mandate again, the Monarchy came out of exile in, I believe it was Switzerland, to become a figure head much akin to the UK's.

Whats the moral of the story? People are TERRIFIED of change. They're willing to do irrational things like bring back dictators and elect dictators to power simply because to them its a safe option, and their familiar with it. Much of the world isn't ready for democracy, and in reality most average Europeans and Americans aren't ready for it either, hence why in Germany the German people so readily gave it up to a man who sounded nice through a microphone. Anyway...just my take on the situation. As for would I support a third party: absolutely! I believe in Ron Paul (he's a Republican but he's different...) and ESPECIALLY as an entire entity the Libertarian Party.

Nader might be a safe choice for me but he seems so angry and bitter this time out and he's even older than McCain. One of the big reasons why I won't vote for McCain is because of his age. How do I justify voting for an even older Nader? On the other hand, he looks very healthy for his age.

Is this really your criterion for choosing preferred candidates?

The Federalists became the Whigs as you said, which once more goes toward the fact that two major parties have ruled our country and have changed over time to attempt and gain elections.

They did not. The Federalists were dead for years before the Whigs emerged. They grabbed many of the same members, but it was a new party.
And the Whigs did not become the Republicans, either-- indeed, there was a time when there was both a Republican and a Whig party. (Consider the election of 1856, in which the Whigs did have a convention and endorsed a candidate-- and not the Republican candidate)

Granted, in both cases, the new parties absorbed many of the same members of the older ones, but they were not the same party. If the Greens, say, came to prominence and took a lot of members from the Dems, they'd not be the same party.


Both of these major parties have one joint goal to keep everyone but them out of elected office at all costs.

Third parties threaten to destroy the billions and billions of tax dollars they spend, and all the parties want is continued control over America.

Unfortunately, both parties have been corrupted by this power and now continue to harm this country.
It's a conspiracy!

Or maybe it's the structure of our electoral system. Who knows? (Granted, both parties try to make it harder for third parties to win, but they also try, through Gerrymandering and the like, to make it harder for each other. Shocker, a political party that wants to win.)

But really, for a Political Science minor, you seem utterly clueless about such things as Duverger's Law. Yes, both parties try to stay in power, but it cannot be denied that the basic structure of our elections will invariably tend to a two party system.

The bullmoose party was not big for a single election.

The Bullmoose party got about 20% of the vote (not very popular)

the only reason why this party ever existed is because Teddy Roosevelt personally made the party to resist President Taft's re-election.

Without a former president forming this party and running as the sole candidate this party ever put up for office this party would have never been know at all.

In fact the Bullmoose is probably your only knowledge of third parties.

I would consider 20% significant. It's enough to significantly impact the course of an election, enough that, when people study history, Teddy is listed among the candidates in contention.

But you know, maybe I should bow to your Poli Sci minor when it comes to such things. After all, I'm only a History major, what would I know about the past??? :confused:
(Granted, US history is not my focus, but I'm not clueless about it.)

Since 1992, I have voted for President and since 1992, I have never voted for a Democrat or a Republican. I have voted for Ross Perot twice... Don't look at me like that! I was young and stupid. And I've voted for Ralph Nader twice.

I'm completely lost this time. Nader might be a safe choice for me but he seems so angry and bitter this time out and he's even older than McCain. One of the big reasons why I won't vote for McCain is because of his age. How do I justify voting for an even older Nader? On the other hand, he looks very healthy for his age.

God help me, I might actually vote for Obama. That's a big might. A really big might.
I always thought your voting technique was to go into the voting booth and try to throw all the levers at once?

There was a Democratic Party in the north, too.

Hush, you idiotic tool. Facts distract from this thread. ;):D

Among other things, I'm saying 3rd Party X (as you define it) doesn't really doesn't exist.

Which 3rd Party are you saying deserves your vote? Why?

According to my research the Green party is working towards more of my goals than any other party. Thus they technically deserve my vote more than the Democrats, however I vote for the Democrats because the Greens don't stand a chance of winning in our current set up and they work towards more of my goals than the Republicans do.

What exactly makes you think that it's not possible for a third party to work towards more of a persons goals than one of the big two?

And who would that include? (I honestly don't know off the top of my head.)

And isn't difficulty in getting on the ballot one of the things being complained about here as an unfair hurdle for third parties?

Once more the only reason why you do not know is because you fail to look:

A shorthand list includes:
Ross Perot
Ralph Nader
Patrick Buchanan

This only includes elections in the last 4 races past that I have little knowledge of individual third party candidates. Getting total ballot is not a everyday event for third party candidates but happen somewhat regularly. Most cases where they do not get all 50 sates they end up with 40 - 49 states, which is still more than enough to get them the presidency. The point is even when third party candidates get on all 50 ballots they are still excluded from debates and exposure by the media, which is illegal for the major parties under federal law. (if a station airs any political ads it must air equal amount for dems and repubs, it does not have to air any third parties at all no matter how many ballots they get on or how much they poll at)

Plus you also misunderstood my statement you do not need ballot access in every state to be a viable candidate. As long as you are on enough states to get the requried amount of electoral votes you can theoretically become president at this time I believe you should be give equal access to air time and be allowed in the debates.

Is this really your criterion for choosing preferred candidates?

Far from it, but it is grounds for disqualification. *nod*

After Napoleon was banished from France to St. Helena in 1815, the French people had an election. They chose the brother of the former, deposed King Louis the XVI, a man by the name of Louis the XVII (If I got the number wrong just ignore it...its irrelevant).

Okay, first, it's Louis XVIII. Louis XVII never reigned.

Second, there was no election. The House of Bourbon was restored by the Treaty of Paris.

I always thought your voting technique was to go into the voting booth and try to throw all the levers at once?

Actually, I've tried numerous lever combinations, but I have yet to find the one that opens the secret tunnel to Dick Cheney's secret lair. But someday...

There was a Democratic Party in the north, too.

Yes the part was not confined to any geographical region but the overwhelming majority of democrats were southerns and the overwhelming majority of republicans where northerners.

According to my research the Green party is working towards more of my goals than any other party. Thus they technically deserve my vote more than the Democrats, however I vote for the Democrats because the Greens don't stand a chance of winning in our current set up and they work towards more of my goals than the Republicans do.

What exactly makes you think that it's not possible for a third party to work towards more of a persons goals than one of the big two?

It is certainly theoretically possible -- especially given the variety of goals a person may have. :wink:

I'll grant my statement was a bit overreaching. Certainly an individual could think one of the existing third parties best fits his/her goals, but I personally would probably disagree with that assessment and/or those goals. My statements were an overreaction to other posts in this thread.

As for the Greens specifically, there is much to like, but I can't take Cynthia McKinney seriously as a candidate for President. There is more to my vote than simply the issues. Character, judgment, and experience are relevant.

I also cannot rule out the possibility of a third party emerging that better meets my personal goals than an existing party -- although there would still be the problem you note of viability.

Far from it, but it is grounds for disqualification. *nod*

So, despite being generally a Nader supporter, "one of the big reasons" you won't vote for a Republican is McCain's age?

Exactly what ideological framework brings about that result?

Yes the part was not confined to any geographical region but the overwhelming majority of democrats were southerns and the overwhelming majority of republicans where northerners.

This is true of the Republicans, yes. They were an essentially regional party--Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in much of the South. But the Democratic Party had national appeal and a national constituency; that's why it split in the election of 1860.

Some Democrats were pro-war. Some were even anti-slavery.

So, despite being generally a Nader supporter, "one of the big reasons" you won't vote for a Republican is McCain's age?

Exactly what ideological framework brings about that result?

I assume it has something to do with agreeing with Nader but not liking the fact that both he and McCain are likly to die in office.

Once more the only reason why you do not know is because you fail to look:

A shorthand list includes:
Ross Perot
Ralph Nader
Patrick Buchanan

This only includes elections in the last 4 races past that I have little knowledge of individual third party candidates. Getting total ballot is not a everyday event for third party candidates but happen somewhat regularly. Most cases where they do not get all 50 sates they end up with 40 - 49 states, which is still more than enough to get them the presidency. The point is even when third party candidates get on all 50 ballots they are still excluded from debates and exposure by the media, which is illegal for the major parties under federal law. (if a station airs any political ads it must air equal amount for dems and repubs, it does not have to air any third parties at all no matter how many ballots they get on or how much they poll at)

Plus you also misunderstood my statement you do not need ballot access in every state to be a viable candidate. As long as you are on enough states to get the requried amount of electoral votes you can theoretically become president at this time I believe you should be give equal access to air time and be allowed in the debates.

1. Um. I though I was referring to the current election and saying I didn't know "off the top of my head" who might be on all 50 ballots -- which was the criteria Redwulf used in the post in which I was replying.

2. Forgive me if I'm wrong (as apparently I'm an idiot) but didn't Ross Perot participate in Presidential Debates in 1992 precisely because he satisfied the Commission on Presidential Debates criteria?

3. Are you certain that Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan were on the ballots of all 50 states in a particular election (or, for that matter, on enough ballots to have a theoretical chance of winning the electoral college)?

4. Also, could you point to this law that requires equal coverage for each of the major parties but excludes media coverage of the third parties that you keep going on about?

I would consider 20% significant. It's enough to significantly impact the course of an election, enough that, when people study history, Teddy is listed among the candidates in contention.

To me a former President only getting 20% of the vote is not signifigant in my book.

The only significance that came from theBullmoose party is that it cost Howard Taft (I believe it was Taft might be wrong) his reelection bid and put Woodrow Wilson in office (once more might be wrong about it being Wilson, but I know it was a democrat about 90% sure it was Wilson, feel free to correct as needed on this).

I assume it has something to do with agreeing with Nader but not liking the fact that both he and McCain are likly to die in office.

But why even consider McCain? Is there any resemblance at all between Nader and McCain on the issues?

For the President? Not under the current way the president is elected, I would not. Not even for senator or governor. For representative, yeah, for mayor and local positions, I'd vote a third party.

Forgive me if I'm wrong (as apparently I'm an idiot) but didn't Ross Perot participate in Presidential Debates in 1992 precisely because he satisfied the Commission on Presidential Debates criteria?

As I recall it took the support and political influence of then President Bush(41) to get Perot in on the debates. I believe that his intentions behind this was he thought Perot would take votes from the soon to be President Clinton (unfortunately he misjudged Perot's effect on the public much like he misjudged many thing in his election and re-election campaign.

Plus Perot held 50 states in most of his runs he was only allowed to debate in 1992, plus the Pat Buchanan got 50 states in 2000 and was refused access to the debates.

This year the only candidate I know of that is close is Libertarian Bob Barr who has either 47 or 48 states and is expected to get 49 states (he could not get on the ballot in Oklahoma).

So, despite being generally a Nader supporter, "one of the big reasons" you won't vote for a Republican is McCain's age?

Exactly what ideological framework brings about that result?

Simple. I think that McCain is too far removed from the demographic center of the country. He's too old, too rich and too detached from his constituents. There was a time, eight years ago, when I thought he could overcome those negatives by demonstrating some empathy with other people. He seemed approachable and had a common sense to him that made him seem capable despite these things. Over the last eight years, he seems to have lost those positive traits and retains those negatives.

By comparison, Nader is also too old. But he's far less rich and far more involved in the average american's life. He seems to form a new consumer advocacy group every eighteen months or so. However, there's an academic elitism to him that seems to be stronger than ever this year. I'm just not as convinced he can relate to the average american as much as he could even four years ago.

What, do you actually expect me to guage them on the issues? That's such bullshit. A President is a servant of the public. It shouldn't matter what he thinks about abortion or gay marriage or any other ridiculous opinion. What matters to me is his ability to support the COnstitution and the will of the People to the best of his ability. To that end, I look for a President that doesn't think he can live our lives better than we can. McCain does. The jury is still out on Obama and Nader.

I assume it has something to do with agreeing with Nader but not liking the fact that both he and McCain are likly to die in office.

I think Nader is more likely to carry out the will of the People.

For the President? Not under the current way the president is elected, I would not. Not even for senator or governor. For representative, yeah, for mayor and local positions, I'd vote a third party.

Would you mind expanding on why you would vote a third party for local and congressional elections (by representative I assume you mean the House of Representatives correct me if I am wrong). but not for President?

I think Nader is more likely to carry out the will of the People.

I think any candidate that is not a Republican or Democrat is not only more like to carry out the will of the people, but is more likely to actually make real changes to the system that neither major party will ever be willing to make.

What, do you actually expect me to guage them on the issues?

Um... yes.

:rolleyes:

A President is a servant of the public.

Right. That's why we elect the ones who will serve our will--namely, the ones who will enact the policies we want.

"Character" is not only essentially impossible to judge but is also mostly irrelevant. Judging based on it leads to a fundamentally undemocratic, image-based politics that avoids actual questions of issues... questions which will be handled instead by the lobbyists for the rich and powerful, who will be quite delighted at the public's non-involvement.

It shouldn't matter what he thinks about abortion or gay marriage or any other ridiculous opinion.

So what the President actually does with the immense power the public invests in him (or her) doesn't matter to you?

Really?

What matters to me is his ability to support the COnstitution and the will of the People to the best of his ability

But this is meaningless outside of any "issues" context. What is the will of the people? We determine it collectively, by voting for the (viable) candidate who best speaks for us on the issues. What constitutes "supporting the Constitution"? That is precisely an "issues" question--where do the candidates stand on constitutional issues like, say, signing statements or the PATRIOT Act? (Arguably, some of that is best left to the courts, but that is another discussion.)

To that end, I look for a President that doesn't think he can live our lives better than we can.

I don't even know what this means, let alone how it applies to the ends you listed or to reasonable political ends broadly.

A President is a servant of the public. It shouldn't matter what he thinks about abortion or gay marriage or any other ridiculous opinion. What matters to me is his ability to support the COnstitution and the will of the People to the best of his ability. To that end, I look for a President that doesn't think he can live our lives better than we can.

I could not agree with this more. Goofball practically took my thoughts and put them in his own words. :hail:

I think any candidate that is not a Republican or Democrat is not only more like to carry out the will of the people, but is more likely to actually make real changes to the system that neither major party will ever be willing to make.

There are limits to what the President can change about the system. He can't rewrite the COnstitution. He can't force state electoral boards to change their election criteria. However, not being tied to either party will be a big plus when dealing with COngress who have no political ties to either side with or against the President as part of a party line. They'll be free to support or defy the President on the merits alone.

I think any candidate that is not a Republican or Democrat is not only more like to carry out the will of the people, but is more likely to actually make real changes to the system that neither major party will ever be willing to make.

Not at all. Take... Libertarians, for example. Aside from the fact that it's an evil agenda, it's only representative of a tiny proportion of the population. A Libertarian politician is much more likely to carry out the will of the people... but only for a very tiny constituency.

The will of... some... people. Not THE people.

As I recall it took the support and political influence of then President Bush(41) to get Perot in on the debates. I believe that his intentions behind this was he thought Perot would take votes from the soon to be President Clinton (unfortunately he misjudged Perot's effect on the public much like he misjudged many thing in his election and re-election campaign.

Plus Perot held 50 states in most of his runs he was only allowed to debate in 1992, plus the Pat Buchanan got 50 states in 2000 and was refused access to the debates.

This year the only candidate I know of that is close is Libertarian Bob Barr who has either 47 or 48 states and is expected to get 49 states (he could not get on the ballot in Oklahoma).

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that, for the most part, Presidential debates are a modern thing and, since 1987, they've been governed by an at least putatively non-partisan Commission.

With that in mind, it appears that out of the Commission on Presidential Debates (http://www.debates.org/pages/candsel2008.html) current three criteria (constitutional qualification, ballot access, and electoral support) for participation in debates, you disagree with one of them -- electoral support. (The Commission doesn't require ballot access in 50 states, but rather access to enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2008 general election).

That's a defensible position. Would you remove electoral support altogether as a criteria or just lower the percentage required?

And, why exactly should someone that can't muster 15% of electoral support be given equal time in the Presidential debates with the candidates that can? To put it crassly, aren't debates enough of a circus without additional clowns? :tongue:

There are limits to what the President can change about the system. He can't rewrite the COnstitution.

But he can, apparently, just ignore it.

I think any candidate that is not a Republican or Democrat is not only more like to carry out the will of the people, but is more likely to actually make real changes to the system that neither major party will ever be willing to make.

Like what real changes do you have in mind?

With at least some of the third party candidates it is exactly those plans that I think so keep them out of office. ;)

There are limits to what the President can change about the system. He can't rewrite the COnstitution. He can't force state electoral boards to change their election criteria. However, not being tied to either party will be a big plus when dealing with COngress who have no political ties to either side with or against the President as part of a party line. They'll be free to support or defy the President on the merits alone.

Really? You really think that is true?

:eek:

Soheran the Constitution holds most of the answers to these issues. Our constitution was set up to limit the Governments ability to control the lives of their citizens. It also stated that any rights not reserved by the Constitution if the right of the states and the people to decide.

No where in our constitution does it say abortion, gay marriage, or any social issue if prohibited. So if you vote for look for a President to stand by the Constitution you want one who will respect the states and individual people to decide. Also a constitutional President does not wield near limit less executive power once more this power the executive branch wield has been unconstitutionally gathered over the years.

A President that respected the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land would stop using our government to micromanage its people and start getting thing back to dealing with issues that are vital to the survival of the American People. Such as firing the SEC chairman that has allowed years of unethical loan and mortgage practices that has destroyed our financial markets.

But he can, apparently, just ignore it.

Or seek to install Justices that will re-write it.

Cat your idiocy astounds me, [/B]<snip> in case you forgot what the anti federalists were, [B]you tool) <snip> and as you said (and I said before you guess your reading skill is lacking too) <snip>

Argument is fine. Abuse is not. Yellow card.

I don't even know what this means, let alone how it applies to the ends you listed or to reasonable political ends broadly.

In shorter terms, I'm more likely to vote for someone who has demonstrated that he will be a proper President and do the job with openness and integrity than one that agrees with everything I agree with but can't be trusted to follow the rules.

To me a former President only getting 20% of the vote is not signifigant in my book.

The only significance that came from theBullmoose party is that it cost Howard Taft (I believe it was Taft might be wrong) his reelection bid and put Woodrow Wilson in office (once more might be wrong about it being Wilson, but I know it was a democrat about 90% sure it was Wilson, feel free to correct as needed on this).

Yes, it was Taft and Wilson.

But, consider-- Teddy actually got more votes, as I recall, than did Taft, the candidate of one of the big two parties. And he got close to 90 Electoral college votes, I think-- more than the losing party has gotten in some US Elections (I don't think either of Reagan's opponents got that much, for example).

But he can, apparently, just ignore it.

No he can't. Not if COngress isn't lip-locked to his scrotum at least. :p

Really? You really think that is true?

:eek:

I sure do. Don't you?

Soheran the Constitution holds most of the answers to these issues. Our constitution was set up to limit the Governments ability to control the lives of their citizens. It also stated that any rights not reserved by the Constitution if the right of the states and the people to decide.

No where in our constitution does it say abortion, gay marriage, or any social issue if prohibited. So if you vote for look for a President to stand by the Constitution you want one who will respect the states and individual people to decide. Also a constitutional President does not wield near limit less executive power once more this power the executive branch wield has been unconstitutionally gathered over the years.

A President that respected the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land would stop using our government to micromanage its people and start getting thing back to dealing with issues that are vital to the survival of the American People. Such as firing the SEC chairman that has allowed years of unethical loan and mortgage practices that has destroyed our financial markets.

You seem to overlook the existence of the 14th Amendment, which limits the powers of the states to deny either equal protection of the law or due process of law (substantive and procedural).

I'm also not sure how the constititutional protections of individual liberties and equality equate to government micromanagement of the people. Aren't they the opposite of that?

EDIT: This calls for one of my favorite quotes: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

I sure do. Don't you?

Nope. Even if we got a President from a third-party, we'd still have the major parties in Congress. I don't believe that everyone would just agree to set their differences aside and judge everything tabula rosa & "on the merits."

Soheran the Constitution holds most of the answers to these issues. Our constitution was set up to limit the Governments ability to control the lives of their citizens. It also stated that any rights not reserved by the Constitution if the right of the states and the people to decide.

No where in our constitution does it say abortion, gay marriage, or any social issue if prohibited. So if you vote for look for a President to stand by the Constitution you want one who will respect the states and individual people to decide. Also a constitutional President does not wield near limit less executive power once more this power the executive branch wield has been unconstitutionally gathered over the years.

A President that respected the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land would stop using our government to micromanage its people and start getting thing back to dealing with issues that are vital to the survival of the American People. Such as firing the SEC chairman that has allowed years of unethical loan and mortgage practices that has destroyed our financial markets.

Not necessarily. The Constitution is written to enumerate the powers of government and to limit it's abuses. It protects the equality of the people and the President's job is to ensure the people have that equality protected. Not the states, not even a majority of the people have the power to remove the rights of equal treatment from a single individual. It's the Presiden't job to enforce that, even defying a majority to protect the individual if necessary.

No he can't. Not if COngress isn't lip-locked to his scrotum at least. :p

8 years tells me it's more about how you sell it than anything else.

Nope. Even if we got a President from a third-party, we'd still have the major parties in Congress. I don't believe that everyone would just agree to set their differences aside and judge everything tabula rosa & "on the merits."

Well, there'd still be plenty of pissing contests between the two parties in congress. At least until three or four parties ensure that nobody has a majority. Then things will be really interesting. But you won't get a congress beholden to a president or deadset on resisting the Executive at every turn just for the sake of party affiliation. That's a definite plus.

In shorter terms, I'm more likely to vote for someone who has demonstrated that he will be a proper President and do the job with openness and integrity than one that agrees with everything I agree with but can't be trusted to follow the rules.

This is a reasonable consideration, but only at the extremes. I would vote for a democrat whose positions I hated over an outright autocrat whose positions I loved. But I see no reason why the relatively minor, and probably mostly manufactured, differences in character among presidential candidates should outweigh the far more significant differences on the issues.

(The Commission doesn't require ballot access in 50 states, but rather access to enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2008 general election).

This statement is 100% false, a candidate needs the mathematical chance of securing the presidency PLUS 15% or more in any 5 Presidential Election Polls. The problem with this is that very few polls list third party candidates. In fact not even Perot could get the 15% poll in 5 polls and it required Bush41 (who was President at the time) to get the committee to make a one time exception to the rule to allow Perot in.

This is how the Committee on Presidential Debate (which is ironically run by the two major parties) keep virtually all third party candidates out of the debates.

Also this 15% criteria is accepted widespread by the most State's Gubernatorial Debate committees and keeps third parties out of many Gubernatorial Debates. (Off hand the only state I know of that allows third parties in Gubernatorial Debates is The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, if anyone knows any other states that openly allow third party candidates to debate please let me know)

P.S. Since Massachusetts has allowed third party candidates access to the debates (1996 I believe); membership, campaign contributions, and percentage of the vote third parties achieve in the gubernatorial election has slowly but steadily increased.

Which adds more evidence to my caser that lack of exposure to the public is one of the if not the biggest reason why third parties lack public support. It is not easy to support a party that you do not know exists.

8 years tells me it's more about how you sell it than anything else.

Which is why integrity is more important than agreement. Whats more important to a Presidential Candidate? His agenda or his job?

Not necessarily. The Constitution is written to enumerate the powers of government and to limit it's abuses. It protects the equality of the people and the President's job is to ensure the people have that equality protected. Not the states, not even a majority of the people have the power to remove the rights of equal treatment from a single individual. It's the Presiden't job to enforce that, even defying a majority to protect the individual if necessary.

Yes which is why a constitutional president would protect the rights of people to chose their partner in marriage regardless of the genders of the couples, ect.

A constitutional president's issues are already know, unless he is lying about being a president that will follow the constitution.

This statement is 100% false, a candidate needs the mathematical chance of securing the presidency PLUS 15% or more in any 5 Presidential Election Polls.

As I thought I clearly stated, the CPD has 3 criteria for participation in the 2008 debates: (1) constitutional eligibility, (2) ballot access, and (3) electoral support.

Again as I stated, your complaint is with the 3rd point.

Now care to address what I actually said and asked you? (I thought I was extending an olive branch, but apparently that failed).

Yes which is why a constitutional president would protect the rights of people to chose their partner in marriage regardless of the genders of the couples, ect.

A constitutional president's issues are already know, unless he is lying about being a president that will follow the constitution.

More to the point, a President would realize that the Federal Government is not in the business of enforcing who can and can't get married. What irks me is that it apparently is in the business of deciding that states have to recognize any legal civil contract written in any other state unless it's a marriage they happen to find icky. That's the government supporting discrimination.

Cat your idiocy astounds me, I said the anti-federalists were never a political party. Their was a anti federalist movement, (which resisted a strong central government, it favored strong state governments with a weak central government in case you forgot what the anti federalists were, you tool) which because the democratic republican's which later became the Democrats. The anti federalists where never a party thought and as you said (and I said before you guess your reading skill is lacking too) prior to 1803.

While the tie in 1800 and the problems of the 1796 election we causes of 12th amendment. It was still an amendment who bi product created the major parties and allowed parties to build big governement ruled by corrupt major parties.

Look you obviously love one of the major parties, this is fine. No matter what you are going to interpret the history of this great nation to make the major parties seem saintly while they rob our civil rights and liberties from us, that is your right as a free person. I believe you are naive, but that is only the opinion of one free man to another.

I encourage you to hold fiercely to your beliefs for that is the only thing that we can look foward to having to ourselves if both parties continue to attack our liberties.

We have both taken this far from the thread and this debate is becoming a endless squabble over semantics and interpretation of events in the history of this nation.

I would please ask you to keep the topic of your posts to the thread topic as much as possible or discontinue posting on this thread.

You may not make personal attacks on other posters. Cool it now.
You may not disinvite people from a General forum thread. If you deem them off topic, submit it to moderation for a ruling.

Ard got here first.

Yes which is why a constitutional president would protect the rights of people to chose their partner in marriage regardless of the genders of the couples, ect.

Now you have me most confused. What "rights of people to choose their partner in marriage"? I thought you said that the Constitution didn't address such rights. :confused:

A constitutional president's issues are already know, unless he is lying about being a president that will follow the constitution.

And, because most (if not all) candidates will claim they will follow the Constitution, the relevant question is what they mean by that--i.e., what are their positions on the issues. Right?

To clarify when I stated right nor reserved by the constitution I was using the actual laguage of the Constituion. This does not refer to rights as in our bill of rights. It refers to political powers or "rights' of the government to use political force (laws, regulations, enforcement, ect) to control the citizen.

What the 10th Amendment states is that and political powers not claimed by Constitution and not reserved in our Amendments is passed on the the states and invidious to decide.

Seeing that most social rights are either protected by the constitution or not covered under the Constitution.

A constitutional President could not use warrantless wiretaps, pry into our private life's with FISA, ban same sex marriage (unless the ridiculous though of a constitutional amendment was to ever pass), we could not indefinitely hold "terror suspects" in Cuba, or use rendition to escape the rights of the US constitution.

I believe the freedom of our nation depends on a government that stops abusing the US Constitution, this is why I am a Libertarian and why I believe any third party is better than the two major parties.

Argument is fine. Abuse is not. Yellow card.

You may not make personal attacks on other posters. Cool it now.
You may not disinvite people from a General forum thread. If you deem them off topic, submit it to moderation for a ruling.

You're a little late, Kat. ;)

To clarify when I stated right nor reserved by the constitution I was using the actual laguage of the Constituion. This does not refer to rights as in our bill of rights. It refers to political powers or "rights' of the government to use political force (laws, regulations, enforcement, ect) to control the citizen.

What the 10th Amendment states is that and political powers not claimed by Constitution and not reserved in our Amendments is passed on the the states and invidious to decide.

Seeing that most social rights are either protected by the constitution or not covered under the Constitution.

A constitutional President could not use warrantless wiretaps, pry into our private life's with FISA, ban same sex marriage (unless the ridiculous though of a constitutional amendment was to ever pass), we could not indefinitely hold "terror suspects" in Cuba, or use rendition to escape the rights of the US constitution.

Again, the Ninth & Fourteenth Amendments are relevant here. We agree on all the things you say a "constitutional President" could not do. I would note that the states can't do these things either.

I believe the freedom of our nation depends on a government that stops abusing the US Constitution, this is why I am a Libertarian and why I believe any third party is better than the two major parties.

You're a Libertarian, I get that. We could debate the merits of that, but I don't feel like it right now. But "any third party is better than the two major parties"? I don't think you actually believe that, but I could be surprised.

And, because most (if not all) candidates will claim they will follow the Constitution, the relevant question is what they mean by that--i.e., what are their positions on the issues. Right?

Yes their potion on issues will determine how much they value the constitution.

Yes their potion on issues will determine how much they value the constitution.

Their position on the government's role on issues will determine how much they value the Constitution. I don't care how they feel about gay marriage or abortion. I care what they think the government ought to do about em.

Yes their potion on issues will determine how much they value the constitution.

Demonstrate, surely.

Correlation, not cause.

As I thought I clearly stated, the CPD has 3 criteria for participation in the 2008 debates: (1) constitutional eligibility, (2) ballot access, and (3) electoral support.

Again as I stated, your complaint is with the 3rd point.

Now care to address what I actually said and asked you? (I thought I was extending an olive branch, but apparently that failed).

I am sorry you did not understand my answer to your question, I said that it is not a simple 15% of electorate support. A candidate is required to poll at 15% or higher in 5 different Presidential polls. It is impossible for this to happen because their is no 5 polling agencies that regularly report third party candidates.

So by both parties setting this as a requirement they are legally discriminating against the third parties.

The only way to make the system fair is to remove the third requirement.

Also I do notbelieve that the poll requirement is not made to keep unrealistic third parties from the ballot.

The requirement to be able to mathematically become President by getting enough ballot access is far more than enough.

It takes hundreds of thousands of signatures in each state to get on the ballot and in most cases third party candidates are denied ballot access unless they painstakingly collect enough information about each petitioner to satisfy the skepticism of each States' Secretary of State. In most cases their petition is denied initially and the campaign has to file a lawsuit to finally gain ballot access (though this is litigation is not the case in every state).

It takes a lot of time, support, and money to get ballot access, the polling requirements only keep legitimate candidates off the debate in order to protect the established major parties from answering to these legitimate third parties.

I blame this injustice on the fact that the Committee on Presidential Debate is run by the Democrats and Republicans.

Seems unfair that the two major parties get to set the rules on which candidates are allowed to participate in the Presidential debates.

Do not get me wrong we need requirements on who can get into a Presidental Debate if we didn't we would have dozens of candidates some from parties who only got on to on e or two ballots and literally have no chance at winning into the debates.

My problem with the system is that it sets an requirement that is unachievable, I believe it was set because both parties knew that it would be near impossible to satisfy the polling requirements and they seek to keep third parties out of the debates and out of politics.

They deceive the public by making it seem like they are the only choice, and with out a open forum for a third party to present his stance on the issues they have no shot in hell of winning office.

Their position on the government's role on issues will determine how much they value the Constitution. I don't care how they feel about gay marriage or abortion. I care what they think the government ought to do about em.

This is what I believed I was saying if my statement was not understood well. Then I apologize.

I am sorry you did not understand my answer to your question, I said that it is not a simple 15% of electorate support. A candidate is required to poll at 15% or higher in 5 different Presidential polls. It is impossible for this to happen because their is no 5 polling agencies that regularly report third party candidates.

So by both parties setting this as a requirement they are legally discriminating against the third parties.

The only way to make the system fair is to remove the third requirement.

Also I do notbelieve that the poll requirement is not made to keep unrealistic third parties from the ballot.

The requirement to be able to mathematically become President by getting enough ballot access is far more than enough.

It takes hundreds of thousands of signatures in each state to get on the ballot and in most cases third party candidates are denied ballot access unless they painstakingly collect enough information about each petitioner to satisfy the skepticism of each States' Secretary of State. In most cases their petition is denied initially and the campaign has to file a lawsuit to finally gain ballot access (though this is litigation is not the case in every state).

It takes a lot of time, support, and money to get ballot access, the polling requirements only keep legitimate candidates off the debate in order to protect the established major parties from answering to these legitimate third parties.

I blame this injustice on the fact that the Committee on Presidential Debate is run by the Democrats and Republicans.

Seems unfair that the two major parties get to set the rules on which candidates are allowed to participate in the Presidential debates.

Do not get me wrong we need requirements on who can get into a Presidental Debate if we didn't we would have dozens of candidates some from parties who only got on to on e or two ballots and literally have no chance at winning into the debates.

My problem with the system is that it sets an requirement that is unachievable, I believe it was set because both parties knew that it would be near impossible to satisfy the polling requirements and they seek to keep third parties out of the debates and out of politics.

They deceive the public by making it seem like they are the only choice, and with out a open forum for a third party to present his stance on the issues they have no shot in hell of winning office.

Um. Are you sure the bolded statement is true? I agree that 15% electoral support in 5 polls (which is the CPD requirement at the present time) is difficult for a third party to acheive, but literally impossible because there are no such polls? I don't think that level of conspiracy is going on (or would be necessary to keep third parties out of the debates).

Just for the record (and to stir up the debate) and while still setting aside the merits of the Libertarian Party per se, I wouldn't trust Bob Barr to visit the White House with a tour guide.

Although he has recently done some good work with the ACLU, Bob Barr has a long nasty record. He had a hand in some of the very abuses of government that he now claims to oppose -- like the war on drugs, DoMA, etc.

If I were a Libertarian, I would be worried about the honesty and depth of Barr's conversion to the cause, given that he only recently went from being the conservative antithesis of libertarianism.

Finally, I simply don't trust a former Clinton impeachment prosecutor. That was a Puritan, partisan witch-hunt and Barr was lead witch-hunter.

Um. Are you sure the bolded statement is true? I agree that 15% electoral support in 5 polls (which is the CPD requirement at the present time) is difficult for a third party to acheive, but literally impossible because there are no such polls? I don't think that level of conspiracy is going on (or would be necessary to keep third parties out of the debates).

Their is no conspiracy here it is just plain fact. Find me 5 polling agencies that currently include third party candidates in their polls and I will not argue that point another second and apologize for being a fool.

I do believe that politicians and political parties are very good at stacking the odds in their favor (which I believe is immoral and illegal politics should be about having many choices as constitutionally allowed) and that they are smart enough to know roughly how many polls cover third parties and then proceed to set the requirements as needed to make it virtually impossible for a third party to access the debates.

I also believe that these "requirements" are decided by each committee so they can easily be changed to allow or further restrict candidates admittance to the debates (which happened in 1992 with Ross Perot at the request of President Bush(41) ). I do admit that I cannot say this with 100% certainty but I am very confident that each committee can change, add, or remove requirements. If you find me to be incorrect please inform me promptly.

Barr was a hard line Republican in the House of Representatives and did closely follow party lines. He did vote and support many socially conservative issues that he has sense "changed" his mind on since leaving the Republican Party.

I believe that most of this "change" came from leaving the Republican Party and leaving the ideological crap behind him, of course that is all a matter of opinion.

As things stand if you want to compare Barr to Obama and McCain.

Barr is the only candidate that supports legalizing gay marraige (and admits that DoMA was a poor judgment decision of the past, kind of similar to McCain's poor judgment with immigration, gay marriage, and abortion. don forget Obama's poor judgment of character in pushing for federal money in companies he had invested in and who were ran by persons who had donated to his Senatorial Campaign)

Barr is the only candidate that promises to protect abortion rights.

Barr is the only candidate that promises to cut government spending.

Barr is the only candidate that promises to revoke FISA and The Patriot Act (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, this act allows the government to monitor communications without warrants and protects the telecommunication companies from prosecution for aiding the executive branch in invading the privacy of Americans)

Barr is the only candidate that I know of that has promised to end the illegal detainment of "terror suspects" in Cuba.

Barr is the only candidate that has a non-interventionist agenda when it comes to foreign policy to the best of my knowledge.

Barr is the only Fiscal Conservative out of the pack when it comes to Barr, Obama, and McCain.

I understand that Barr is no Saint, neither is Obama and McCain.

I believe that Bob Barr is the only candidate that will fight for American Rights and Liberties. His past is not perfect but if I was looking for candidate that has not made a bad decisions before I would have no candidate to vote for.

Plus his recent work with the UCLA has shown that he has some belief in American Civil Liberties despite his past tendencies with the Republican Party.
To go back in history a little bit Dr. Ron Paul was a card bearing and loyal Republican before he left the GOP in the 1980's and he too changed his tune about party lines, and despite running as a Republican in 2008 still firmly supports third parties and has endorsed a third party candidate.

I spent about an hour checking many polling agency websites I found none that listed Bob Barr in a General Election poll though 6 had him and Nader listed with the battle state polls. Which I use are evidence that the requirement of 15 percent in 15 percent in 5 polls is impossible given how little polling agencies include third parties.

Now personally I feel that the polling requirements are unnecessary burden to overcome anyway, but to humor the CPD I will agree with them for the point of argument. It still leaves that fact that my look into the facts, which is not 100% conclusive I doubt that half an hour on a Google search showed me every polling agency in America, that it would be literally impossible for any third party to meet the requirements. This seems to me like the CPD is unfairly discriminating against third parties and this consequently is commenting an unconstitutional act in my opinion by unfairly prohibiting a presidential candidate from debating.

Please make allowances for my non-Yank-ness, but I'm confused by the use of the term "polling agencies" in this discussion.

Does "polling agency" mean "the bunch that organises the official election" (also called "a poll") -- a non-profit permanent organisation staffed by public servants?

Or does it mean a commercial agency that rings voters up, or stops them in the street, to ask them questions about their intentions -- Gallup, CNN, whatever?

I'm assuming that commercial polling agencies wouldn't be part of the official electoral process. On the other hand, I can see that a for-profit organisation staging a debate might want the debate limited to only those speakers whom voters would want to watch, and one way of finding that out would be to run a commercial poll.

So (preferably in words of one syllable, with lots of pretty colours) which is it?

Please make allowances for my non-Yank-ness, but I'm confused by the use of the term "polling agencies" in this discussion.

Does "polling agency" mean "the bunch that organises the official election" (also called "a poll") -- a non-profit permanent organisation staffed by public servants?

Or does it mean a commercial agency that rings voters up, or stops them in the street, to ask them questions about their intentions -- Gallup, CNN, whatever?

I'm assuming that commercial polling agencies wouldn't be part of the official electoral process. On the other hand, I can see that a for-profit organisation staging a debate might want the debate limited to only those speakers whom voters would want to watch, and one way of finding that out would be to run a commercial poll.

So (preferably in words of one syllable, with lots of pretty colours) which is it?

The short answer is that the bolded part of your answer is correct.

For the long answer, let me give you the official verbiage and then see if I can explain.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004.

The mission of the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (the "CPD") is to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates are held every four years between the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States. The CPD sponsored a series of such debates in each of the past five general elections, and has begun the planning, preparation, and organization of a series of nonpartisan debates among leading candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency in the 2008 general election. As in prior years, the CPD's voter educational activities will be conducted in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, including regulations of the Federal Election Commission that require that debate sponsors extend invitations to debate based on the application of "pre-established, objective" criteria.

The goal of the CPD's debates is to afford the members of the public an opportunity to sharpen their views, in a focused debate format, of those candidates from among whom the next President and Vice President will be selected. In each of the last five elections, there were scores of declared candidates for the Presidency, excluding those seeking the nomination of one of the major parties. During the course of the campaign, the candidates are afforded many opportunities in a great variety of forums to advance their candidacies. In order most fully and fairly to achieve the educational purposes of its debates, the CPD has developed nonpartisan, objective criteria upon which it will base its decisions regarding selection of the candidates to participate in its 2008 debates. The purpose of the criteria is to identify those candidates who have achieved a level of electoral support such that they realistically are considered to be among the principal rivals for the Presidency.

In connection with the 2008 general election, the CPD will apply three criteria to each declared candidate to determine whether that candidate qualifies for inclusion in one or more of the CPD's debates. The criteria are (1) constitutional eligibility, (2) ballot access, and (3) electoral support. All three criteria must be satisfied before a candidate will be invited to debate.

B. 2008 Nonpartisan Selection Criteria

The CPD's nonpartisan criteria for selecting candidates to participate in the 2008 general election presidential debates are:

1. Evidence of Constitutional Eligibility

The CPD's first criterion requires satisfaction of the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The requirements are satisfied if the candidate:

a. is at least 35 years of age;

b. is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and a resident of the United States for fourteen years; and

c. is otherwise eligible under the Constitution.

2. Evidence of Ballot Access

The CPD's second criterion requires that the candidate qualify to have his/her name appear on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2008 general election. Under the Constitution, the candidate who receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College, at least 270 votes, is elected President regardless of the popular vote.

3. Indicators of Electoral Support

The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination. (emphasis added)

So the discussion of national public opinion polling organizations is relevant to the third criterion.

I don't know which 5 the CPD uses, but these are simply commercial or non-profit polling organizations that are out there and have reliable reputations, such as Gallup or CNN. There are many such polling groups (http://www.library.yale.edu/socsci/opinion/pollingorganizations.html) out there.

If the Republicans actually were the paragons of integrity and champions of the average person as Rush, Hannity and the like try to sell them, we wouldn't need a third party. As much as I don't like that region of the media, imagine if those blowhards (and the rest like O'Reilly) actually found someone with the requisite skills and without the greed, ignorance, religious weirdness that makes them so hard to truly believe in, and pushed for them to their audiences. I don't know if they could get a third party candidate elected, but they'd likely get one closer than Perot in 1992.

Barr was a hard line Republican in the House of Representatives and did closely follow party lines. He did vote and support many socially conservative issues that he has sense "changed" his mind on since leaving the Republican Party.

I believe that most of this "change" came from leaving the Republican Party and leaving the ideological crap behind him, of course that is all a matter of opinion.

As things stand if you want to compare Barr to Obama and McCain.

Barr is the only candidate that supports legalizing gay marraige (and admits that DoMA was a poor judgment decision of the past, kind of similar to McCain's poor judgment with immigration, gay marriage, and abortion. don forget Obama's poor judgment of character in pushing for federal money in companies he had invested in and who were ran by persons who had donated to his Senatorial Campaign)

Barr is the only candidate that promises to protect abortion rights.

Barr is the only candidate that promises to cut government spending.

Barr is the only candidate that promises to revoke FISA and The Patriot Act (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, this act allows the government to monitor communications without warrants and protects the telecommunication companies from prosecution for aiding the executive branch in invading the privacy of Americans)

Barr is the only candidate that I know of that has promised to end the illegal detainment of "terror suspects" in Cuba.

Barr is the only candidate that has a non-interventionist agenda when it comes to foreign policy to the best of my knowledge.

Barr is the only Fiscal Conservative out of the pack when it comes to Barr, Obama, and McCain.

I understand that Barr is no Saint, neither is Obama and McCain.

I believe that Bob Barr is the only candidate that will fight for American Rights and Liberties. His past is not perfect but if I was looking for candidate that has not made a bad decisions before I would have no candidate to vote for.

Plus his recent work with the UCLA has shown that he has some belief in American Civil Liberties despite his past tendencies with the Republican Party.
To go back in history a little bit Dr. Ron Paul was a card bearing and loyal Republican before he left the GOP in the 1980's and he too changed his tune about party lines, and despite running as a Republican in 2008 still firmly supports third parties and has endorsed a third party candidate.

I'll get into this with some more detail when I have time tomorrow, but I believe many of the above statements to be false.

For example, you say that Bob Barr supports the legalization of gay marriage, but the Bob Barr website (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/marriage/) says he favors leaving it up to the states AND favors continuation of a DoMA-type limit on full faith and credit.

For example, you say that Bob Barr supports the legalization of gay marriage, but the Bob Barr website (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/marriage/) says he favors leaving it up to the states AND favors continuation of a DoMA-type limit on full faith and credit.

I do stand corrected, I had a momentary laps, you are correct. The Libertarian Party fully supports legalizing all unions no matter the orientation of the couple. Barr does mention that "The federal government should neither regulate personal relationships nor discriminate against individuals for their personal preferences." His position though is to leave the decision up to the individuals states and not let on state force its decision upon another.

On this position I cannot agree with Bob Barr as I do believe in Same Sex marriage, Barr is very fickled about this because he states he believes government has no right to regulate personal relationships (which I assume includes marriage) but goes on to say each state need the right regulate marriage within there respective state, that is a flip flop of a potion. So I ultimately wrong when comparing Barr, Obama, and McCain NO candidate supports same sex marriage.

I hope you believe that this mistake was not intentional, and I do not agree with this I stand by the Libertarian Parties Platform of legalizing same sex marriage.

I once again apologize for that oversight in stating Barr's positions.

The basic problem is structural. The system performs very badly with three "viable" candidates.

Solution: National approval vote. In the mean time, they just serve as little red flags to show certain groups of voters are dissatisfied with either of the two brands.

<snip>Much interesting information<snip>

Ah, I see. Thank you, TCT, that was clear even without pretty colours. I was puzzled by the idea of for-profit bodies having a role in the official side of an election, but now I see where the crossover comes. Being from Oz, I'd forgotten about there being state ballots before the main ballot. (How could I have blanked out the mega-thread so soon? :D)

I'll get into this with some more detail when I have time tomorrow, but I believe many of the above statements to be false.

For example, you say that Bob Barr supports the legalization of gay marriage, but the Bob Barr website (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/marriage/) says he favors leaving it up to the states AND favors continuation of a DoMA-type limit on full faith and credit.

I also realise now that Barr does not take any stance on Abortion. I once again apologize for stating the Libertarian Party platform as Barr's campaign platform.

It is actually very possible that Barr is pro life, about half of the Libertarian Party is prolife.

I myself am pro-life but do not support the government having the authority to tell a human being what to do with their body, so I vote pro-choice.

The basic problem is structural. The system performs very badly with three "viable" candidates.

Solution: National approval vote. In the mean time, they just serve as little red flags to show certain groups of voters are dissatisfied with either of the two brands.

I understand this but does that justify trying to prevent third parties from participating in a "free and open election system" of a free and democratic nation?

Voting as a decision between 2 candidates is rather undemocratic. You're in a Kang/Kodos situation then. I think it is very important that you do not vote against a greater evil but for a party, which represents your viewpoint. Elections are no horse-racing where you get to bet on the winner, elections exist to determine the will of the people. If we only vote against greater evils, we can not prevent the political landscape sliding away from our favorites.

Disclaimer: I am active in a small party which has a very small chance to advance into the national parliament. This means, that I am horribly biased in this question.

I am a disgruntled republican turned Libertarian, who really should have been a Libertarian from the beginning. But that is another topic for another day.

CNN is reporting that 81% of the American People believe that our nation is heading in the COMPLETELY WRONG direction. If this is the case, why do they continue to vote for the two major parties that have gotten us in this mess?

There are plenty of third parties out their off the top of my head I can name the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, The Green Party, The Rainbow Party, and I am sure plenty more exist.

So my ultimate question is would you consider voting for a third party over the two major parties? Why or why not?

well the problem is we don't have a lot of hope of electing anyone from any of them as long as corporate economics controls both the two major ones and the most paid attention to media, that decides who to cover and thus who'se name gets in the public eye and ear the most.

and of course that's really what's broken in the american system. there WAS a bull moose ONCE. but that once was along time ago.

some of them are just as dingey as the major parties who know the corporate side is the side their bread is buttered on, but i would like to see it evolve to where the major parties were green vs libertarian.

i won't say anything is not gonna happen though. not after everything that "could never happen" that we've seen in the last ten years.

i don't know exactly what it's gonna take, but a colapse of the strangle hold of the corporate mafia due to the possible collapse of the american dollar, and possibly with it this whole illusion that symbolic value is the center of the universe.

i think the point's gonna come, and don't ask me the details of how, but sooner or latter somehow, when, well a lot of what is commonly assumed to be the foundation of how dominant cultures look at things, just isn't going to prove to be anything other then the hallow symbolism and illusion that it really is.

this monkey bussiness right now, with the collapse of the lending infrastructure and desperation excuse attempted bail out of it, well that could be the keystone knocked assunder or some such. maybe it will, bailout or no, and maybe it won't, but big things chainging SEEM to be under way.

it WILL be interesting to watch. of course at some point we may be too busy individually fighting over the last can of beans to pay much attention to the final reverberations of its fall, if that's what happens. but right up untill the very last minuete we'll be able to, it WILL be interesting to watch.

I understand this but does that justify trying to prevent third parties from participating in a "free and open election system" of a free and democratic nation?
Nope. However, most of the shutting-out is done on the level of commercial media, simply because they don't think third parties are driving ratings this cycle. Only occasionally (e.g., 1992, and 2000 after the election) does a candidate not from one of the two main parties take the limelight.

I would say the big flop of Ross Perot's candidacy (the whole withdrawal-reconsideration bit) and his subsequent (nearly ignored) 1996 run did a lot to tilt the field away from paying attention to third party candidates for president. Jesse Ventura made some waves in 1998, but then he was one of the most unpopular governors of Minnesota.

Presidential runs really don't help build a party much. State and local offices, baby. If you can't score representatives, let alone governors and senators, what makes you think you can jump up and score a presidency?

Barr is the only candidate that promises to protect abortion rights.

Obama.

Barr is the only candidate that promises to cut government spending.

McCain and Obama.

Barr is the only candidate that promises to revoke FISA and The Patriot Act (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, this act allows the government to monitor communications without warrants and protects the telecommunication companies from prosecution for aiding the executive branch in invading the privacy of Americans)

Obama

Barr is the only candidate that I know of that has promised to end the illegal detainment of "terror suspects" in Cuba.

Obama and a half hearted McCain

Barr is the only candidate that has a non-interventionist agenda when it comes to foreign policy to the best of my knowledge.

Probably true

Barr is the only Fiscal Conservative out of the pack when it comes to Barr, Obama, and McCain.

McCain claims this as well

So, you only mention ONE thing that is exclusive to Barr

Nope. However, most of the shutting-out is done on the level of commercial media

I disagree the CPD does not allow, for the most part, any third party candidates in our national debates.

State legislatures set a figurative mountain of requirements for third parties to receive ballot access, and in most cases even after these requirements are met denies access, resulting in litigation to allow ballot access.

Our very government is actively doing everything it legally can to prohibit third parties from the election process.

One great example of this is the 2008 Texas ballot. Texas laws states that any party wishing to place their candidate on the Ballot in Texas, must submit in writing their nominee for President, Vice President, as well as their parties electors for the electorate college to the Texan Secretary of State. the deadline to submit this year was 5pm on August 25 (the 70th day before elections).

The problem is simple neither Democrats or Republicans had nominated their candidate yet and neither submitted the required paperwork in time. They legally could not be on the ballot.

As always though money talks and shit walks, Texas decided major parties are about the law. Barr filed a lawsuit to the Texas Supreme Court and it was dismissed without comment.

What really pissed me off is that in West Virgina he missed the August 1st deadlines that was set up for third parties in the state. Besides that fact that having a filling deadline just for third parties is unconstitutional because it is discriminatory, Barr was not given the same consideration that the major parties were given in Texas.

Why do our major parties not only get to set the rules but then not follow them if they like?

If our major parties don't have to follow the rules why do third parties do?

God, this coming from a former libertarian...Bob Barr is a FAKE. He's no more libertarian than Reagan or Bush were.

I would like to see your evidence Knight.

Both Obama and McCain supported FISA and voted to reenact it. I don't see how the senators who co-sponsored the bill would all of a sudden revoke it as President, but hey crazier things have happened.

Neither candidate will be able to cut spending, McCain plans to continue in Iraq, Obama plans on pulling out and sending those troops to Afghanistan.

Both support cutting taxes while continuing to increase deficit spending.

To call McCain a fiscal conservative is a joke.

It is probably true that Obama and McCain has stated at some time to release the prisoners in Cuba, thought I have never heard them make any statements about it or seen them campaign on it. This is why I stated that I believed that Barr was the only candidate.

God, this coming from a former libertarian...Bob Barr is a FAKE. He's no more libertarian than Reagan or Bush were.

First odd to mention Libertarian, Regan, and Bush in the same sentence shows that you do not understand anything about the Libertarian Party.

Regan chased Dr. Paul away from the GOP, and incidentally to the Libertarian Party, in the 80's with his massive deficits, tax cuts, and lack of concern for civil liberties.

Both Bush's we just trying to copy the man they adored unfortunately for them, they were both terrible mimics and while sticking to the Regan policy lost face with the American People.

So I have no idea what you were trying to say but if intend to put Bob Barr in the same boat as Regan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. I highly recommend that you have a cat scan my friend.

my point is that the 'voting is irrational' argument relies on a mistaken assumption of the importance we ought place on the chance of my vote being decisive and assumes that the benefit we seek to maximize is individual, which is clearly stupid.

I don't think the benefit has any bearing on that calculation - social or personal or whatever.

I would like to see your evidence Knight.

Both Obama and McCain supported FISA and voted to reenact it. I don't see how the senators who co-sponsored the bill would all of a sudden revoke it as President, but hey crazier things have happened.

I was mostly refering to the Patriot Act, not FISA. FISA is an abomination that has no right to exist, and its my biggest bone to pick with Obama. To be fair however, the comprimise he backed doesnt allow the president to go around the law.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_backs_FISA_compromise.html

Neither candidate will be able to cut spending, McCain plans to continue in Iraq, Obama plans on pulling out and sending those troops to Afghanistan.

Exactly, and I sincerely doubt Barr would too. "Cutting spending" is a talking point that no one follows once elected.

To call McCain a fiscal conservative is a joke.

Agreed, but Id argue that there no such thing as a "fiscal conservative" and that Barr's claims are just as foolish.

It is probably true that Obama and McCain has stated at some time to release the prisoners in Cuba, thought I have never heard them make any statements about it or seen them campaign on it. This is why I stated that I believed that Barr was the only candidate.

"We need to bring to a close this sad chapter in American history, and begin a chapter that passes the might of our military to the freedom of our diplomacy and the power of our alliances. And while we are at it, we can close down Guantanamo and we can restore habeas corpus and we can lead with our ideas and our values.”
-Barack Obama, Richmond, VA, May 8th

And I was wrong, McCain apperantly doesnt feel this way, and wants to keep denying the detanies their rights, in direct violation of SCOTUS's 2004 decision in Rasul v Bush.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/06/mccain_camp_hits_obama_on_guan.html

I would like to see your evidence Knight.

Both Obama and McCain supported FISA and voted to reenact it. I don't see how the senators who co-sponsored the bill would all of a sudden revoke it as President, but hey crazier things have happened.


Like McCain voting against his OWN immigration bill?

... I highly recommend that you have a cat scan my friend.


Uh-uh. I highly recommend that you read The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023), particularly the bits about "flame" and "flamebait".

You can rubbish the pollies other posters admire. You can rubbish the other posters' arguments. But you can't address personal remarks to the person behind the post. That's why you got an infraction earlier.

You've obviously got something to contribute. As other posters have already said, you do actually debate and acknowledge other debaters' points instead of just nailing your colours to the mast. A libertarian poster who can do that would widen the scope of discussion.

So please don't slip into bad habits. It detracts from your arguments.

I don't think the benefit has any bearing on that calculation - social or personal or whatever.

the typical argument is that the chance of casting the decisive vote is very small, there is some cost involved in voting, and the benefit you could see from doing so couldn't be large enough to overcome the low probability washing it out. something like:

utility = (probability of casting decisive vote)*(benefit you would get from your candidate winning) - (cost of voting)

even using decisiveness as the thing we as voters aim for, if the societal benefit and difference between the options is big enough, then that more than covers what is needed to make voting rational.

the argument for irrationality necessarily assumes that the benefit we are seeking to maximize, and the only one worth considering, is our own. but if we value societal benefit, then we get to multiply out whatever value we think we personally get to cover the rest of the nation too. and at that scale, the benefit isn't washed out by the extremely small chance of our vote being decisive.

using dollars just for the hell of it, if we think the relative benefit of party S over party Q is something on the order of $300 billion, and the chance of my vote being decisive is 1 in 10 million or so, then we get $30k minus the cost of voting as the utility of me going and casting a vote. i'd be stupid not to!

on top of that, the chance of my vote being decisive just plain isn't the only relevant factor, though it certainly counts for something. but so do mandate building, party building, social solidarity, civic duty, etc.


(unless you are thinking of some other argument that purports to show the irrationality of voting - the above just addresses the common one)

You've obviously got something to contribute. As other posters have already said, you do actually debate and acknowledge other debaters' points instead of just nailing your colours to the mast. A libertarian poster who can do that would widen the scope of discussion.


Indeed, Id prefer he stuck around for these reasons. He doesnt just gave us the same libertarian tripe that we should all fall to our knees in awe of His Majesty Our Lord The Free Market.

And he hasnt been scared off by me and my very hostile anti-libertarianism, so thats a plus;)

Exactly, and I sincerely doubt Barr would too. "Cutting spending" is a talking point that no one follows once elected.

Then why did you say McCain was a fiscal conservative too. Now I know the GOP has lost it's fiscal conservative roots, but the Libertarian Party has not. Barr is the chosen candidate for the Libertarian Party and because of this leads my party. I doubt that he would have been nominated if we was against one of the two founding principals of his Party.


Agreed, but Id argue that there no such thing as a "fiscal conservative" and that Barr's claims are just as foolish.

So let me try and understand what you are implying. Your statement was wrong (you stated McCain is a fiscal conservative) so in response you assume that because you were wrong (which normally would mean I am right), everyone is wrong.

That type of logic belongs in the Bush Administration.

Uh-uh. I highly recommend that you read The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023), particularly the bits about "flame" and "flamebait".

You can rubbish the pollies other posters admire. You can rubbish the other posters' arguments. But you can't address personal remarks to the person behind the post. That's why you got an infraction earlier.

You've obviously got something to contribute. As other posters have already said, you do actually debate and acknowledge other debaters' points instead of just nailing your colours to the mast. A libertarian poster who can do that would widen the scope of discussion.

So please don't slip into bad habits. It detracts from your arguments.

I hope you did not mean my comment as a personal attack and it was not intended to be taken that way. It was meant to add a little humor to the discussion at the expense of the complexity of the discussion.

Barr was a hard line Republican in the House of Representatives and did closely follow party lines. He did vote and support many socially conservative issues that he has sense "changed" his mind on since leaving the Republican Party.

I believe that most of this "change" came from leaving the Republican Party and leaving the ideological crap behind him, of course that is all a matter of opinion.

As things stand if you want to compare Barr to Obama and McCain.

Barr is the only candidate that supports legalizing gay marraige (and admits that DoMA was a poor judgment decision of the past, kind of similar to McCain's poor judgment with immigration, gay marriage, and abortion. don forget Obama's poor judgment of character in pushing for federal money in companies he had invested in and who were ran by persons who had donated to his Senatorial Campaign)

Barr is the only candidate that promises to protect abortion rights.

Barr is the only candidate that promises to cut government spending.

Barr is the only candidate that promises to revoke FISA and The Patriot Act (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, this act allows the government to monitor communications without warrants and protects the telecommunication companies from prosecution for aiding the executive branch in invading the privacy of Americans)

Barr is the only candidate that I know of that has promised to end the illegal detainment of "terror suspects" in Cuba.

Barr is the only candidate that has a non-interventionist agenda when it comes to foreign policy to the best of my knowledge.

Barr is the only Fiscal Conservative out of the pack when it comes to Barr, Obama, and McCain.

I understand that Barr is no Saint, neither is Obama and McCain.

I believe that Bob Barr is the only candidate that will fight for American Rights and Liberties. His past is not perfect but if I was looking for candidate that has not made a bad decisions before I would have no candidate to vote for.

Plus his recent work with the UCLA has shown that he has some belief in American Civil Liberties despite his past tendencies with the Republican Party.
To go back in history a little bit Dr. Ron Paul was a card bearing and loyal Republican before he left the GOP in the 1980's and he too changed his tune about party lines, and despite running as a Republican in 2008 still firmly supports third parties and has endorsed a third party candidate.

On the other hand, Libertarians run on a platform of:

Complete removal of social aid
Selling of federal land
Drilling/mining/industry in national parks
Opposing assault-rifle bans
Deregulating healthcare
Removing central control of drug administration
Privatising schools
Deregulating businesses
Privatising Social Security

There are issues I agree with them on - like legalising drugs, but you'll never see a party elected on that platform. And just things like their platform on social security, social aid, healthcare and deregulation of business make it impossible to vote for them.

The Libertarian Party is an unnecessary evil.

Then why did you say McCain was a fiscal conservative too. Now I know the GOP has lost it's fiscal conservative roots, but the Libertarian Party has not. Barr is the chosen candidate for the Libertarian Party and because of this leads my party. I doubt that he would have been nominated if we was against one of the two founding principals of his Party.




So let me try and understand what you are implying. Your statement was wrong (you stated McCain is a fiscal conservative) so in response you assume that because you were wrong (which normally would mean I am right), everyone is wrong.

That type of logic belongs in the Bush Administration.


And here I was defending you:rolleyes:

No, what I said was, the label "fiscal conservative" does not exist in politics. As such, anyone can claim to be a fiscal conservative, making McCain just as much of a fiscal conservatve as Barr.

I never said McCain was one, just that he claimed to be one.

democrats are center even slightly right of center. republicans are right winged(not extreme).

Republicans are really right wing, and by slightly different timetables are you referring to John McCain's "100 years" policy?

Republicans are really right wing, and by slightly different timetables are you referring to John McCain's "100 years" policy?

Not that my two cents matter but I believe he is trying to point out that the overall base for both major parties stay close to the center of the spectrum. I believe he is also referencing the fact that an American Deomocrat is a lot more conservative than the true definition of the political left (or liberals in the United States)

The political left is varying degrees of communism (starting with moderate socialism and working its way to pure communism where the state controls all forms of capital), the Democrats (the United States political left) has never advocated these views. The support a regulated market, and prefer private ownership of capital over public ownership of capital.

So in the US the left side of the spectrum not very far left at all.

What's wrong with the libertarian party? I'm a conservative independent who has some libertarian views, if you check out their site, they do have some extreme views (such as supporting legalization of most recreational drugs), but most of their ideas on government make good sense, and they are the most Constitutionalist of all the American politicial parties. If you really study the Constituion, you will find that the Republican and Democratic parties are merely paying lip service to the Constituion

By the way, the Libertarian party's website is www.lp.org, check it out.

First, Bob Barr is the Libertarian nominee for President. Given that Barr was a staunchly conservative and rabidly partisan Republican, it is amusing to see him re-packaged as the Libertarian candidate.

I wonder which of the following "Libertarian" positions appeal to you:

Fiercely anti-choice
Believes same-sex marriage "should be left to the states" (but authored the Defense of Marriage Act)
Beleives in banning gay adoptions
Believes in amending the Constitution to prohibit flag "desecration"
Supports restrictions on habeas corpus and other appeals of criminal convictions, especially in capital cases
Long history of support for the War on Drugs
Supports prayer in schools
Supports bans on physician-assisted suicide
Voted for the Patriot Act, but now regrets it
Still believes Clinton should have been impeached -- was an impeachment prosecutor
Sponsored bill declaring English the US's official language

link (Bob Barr on the issues) (http://www.ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm)

Apparently we aren't supposed to judge Barr by his record, just by what he says. Oh, wait, we aren't even supposed to go with what Barr says when it disagrees with the Libertarian Platform. :rolleyes:

Second, the Libertarian party has cleaned up its platform so it is vague and no longer includes some of the specific inanity it used to include (see below), but I'm not so optimistic that a coat of paint will cover the rusty positions for long. Borrowed from an old post of mine, here are some excerpts from the previous incarnation of the Libertarian Platform (unfortunately, the links don't work anymore and NOTE: the bold is my, perhaps unfair, characterization of the quoted passages):

1. No FDA, no regulation of medicine, and legalize child porn?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/victcrim.html

the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances

repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material

2. No involuntary commitment of anyone, ever; no mental health programs; and no insanity defense

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/govement.html

We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated.

We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment. We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the guilty of their responsibility.

3. No searches – even with warrants – without consent; criminals run free

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/protpriv.html

The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.

4. Repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/consmili.html

We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military.

5. No immigration laws or controls of our borders whatsoever – terrorists, come on down!

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/immigrat.html

We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/intetrav.html

We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas or other papers required to cross borders

6. Return pretty much the entire nation to the Indians

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/amerindi.html

Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.

7. No legal tender?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/infldepr.html

We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

8. Environmental protection only through litigation?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/pollutio.html

Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

Solutions: We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.

Transitional Action: We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses.

9. More litigation is good?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/monopoli.html

In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions.

10. Child prostitution is A-OK?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/populati.html

We call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies.

11. And no child labor laws for the kiddie whores

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/famichil.html

We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.

12. Unilateral disarmament and withdrawal of all overseas troops

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/milipoli.html

U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems.

We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea.

13. Complete isolationism

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/foreinte.html

The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling.

Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

Pretty wacky stuff. Granted, they no longer say this stuff directly, but did the leopard really change its spots?

What's wrong with the libertarian party? I'm a conservative independent who has some libertarian views, if you check out their site, they do have some extreme views (such as supporting legalization of most recreational drugs), but most of their ideas on government make good sense, and they are the most Constitutionalist of all the American politicial parties. If you really study the Constituion, you will find that the Republican and Democratic parties are merely paying lip service to the Constituion


Why is it that people that say things like this invariably don't understand the Constitution?

Regardless, please give us some examples of where the Libertarian Party is right on a constitutional issue and the Democratic Party is wrong? (And, for kicks and giggles, you could do the same for the Republicans on here.)

Why is it that people that say things like this invariably don't understand the Constitution?

Because if they actually understood the Constitution, they wouldn't say those things.

Duh.

I disagree the CPD does not allow, for the most part, any third party candidates in our national debates.

State legislatures set a figurative mountain of requirements for third parties to receive ballot access, and in most cases even after these requirements are met denies access, resulting in litigation to allow ballot access.
I'd ask you for a specific incident, please. A Russian news source says Nader's on the ballot in over 40 states - and that's after two failed runs. I usually see several "third party" candidates for various offices on the ballot in NC.
Our very government is actively doing everything it legally can to prohibit third parties from the election process.

One great example of this is the 2008 Texas ballot. Texas laws states that any party wishing to place their candidate on the Ballot in Texas, must submit in writing their nominee for President, Vice President, as well as their parties electors for the electorate college to the Texan Secretary of State. the deadline to submit this year was 5pm on August 25 (the 70th day before elections).

The problem is simple neither Democrats or Republicans had nominated their candidate yet and neither submitted the required paperwork in time. They legally could not be on the ballot.
Small distinction: This is giving the Dems and Republicans a free pass, not Barr being discriminated against as a Libertarian by the state of Texas.
As always though money talks and shit walks, Texas decided major parties are about the law. Barr filed a lawsuit to the Texas Supreme Court and it was dismissed without comment.
Above, not about. It would have been interesting to see the lawsuit go through, though.
What really pissed me off is that in West Virgina he missed the August 1st deadlines that was set up for third parties in the state. Besides that fact that having a filling deadline just for third parties is unconstitutional because it is discriminatory, Barr was not given the same consideration that the major parties were given in Texas.
The "major" parties are indeed given some special considerations. This also includes federal election funds, recognition on registration forms, et cetera.

And the way to change that is by working from the bottom up. It is quite feasible for an individual state to switch to (say) approval voting for all its major offices. It is pretty much impossible to mandate that at the federal level.

If the Republican party would do me the favor of disintegrating back into factions (the Democrats are quite healthy this year), it might be very easy to build popular support for a better election process. Every "third party" that wants to change things should be focusing on that; change the structure of elections, and media coverage will adjust to suit as people get used to it.
Why do our major parties not only get to set the rules but then not follow them if they like?

If our major parties don't have to follow the rules why do third parties do?
Mainly because of the practical (but indeed unfair) routine of trying to filter out the noise. Do you know just how many "third" parties are active in the US?

First, Bob Barr is the Libertarian nominee for President. Given that Barr was a staunchly conservative and rabidly partisan Republican, it is amusing to see him re-packaged as the Libertarian candidate.

I wonder which of the following "Libertarian" positions appeal to you:

Fiercely anti-choice
Believes same-sex marriage "should be left to the states" (but authored the Defense of Marriage Act)
Beleives in banning gay adoptions
Believes in amending the Constitution to prohibit flag "desecration"
Supports restrictions on habeas corpus and other appeals of criminal convictions, especially in capital cases
Long history of support for the War on Drugs
Supports prayer in schools
Supports bans on physician-assisted suicide
Voted for the Patriot Act, but now regrets it
Still believes Clinton should have been impeached -- was an impeachment prosecutor
Sponsored bill declaring English the US's official language

link (Bob Barr on the issues) (http://www.ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm)

Apparently we aren't supposed to judge Barr by his record, just by what he says. Oh, wait, we aren't even supposed to go with what Barr says when it disagrees with the Libertarian Platform. :rolleyes:

Second, the Libertarian party has cleaned up its platform so it is vague and no longer includes some of the specific inanity it used to include (see below), but I'm not so optimistic that a coat of paint will cover the rusty positions for long. Borrowed from an old post of mine, here are some excerpts from the previous incarnation of the Libertarian Platform (unfortunately, the links don't work anymore and NOTE: the bold is my, perhaps unfair, characterization of the quoted passages):

1. No FDA, no regulation of medicine, and legalize child porn?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/victcrim.html

the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances

repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material

2. No involuntary commitment of anyone, ever; no mental health programs; and no insanity defense

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/govement.html

We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated.

We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment. We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the guilty of their responsibility.

3. No searches – even with warrants – without consent; criminals run free

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/protpriv.html

The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.

4. Repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/consmili.html

We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military.

5. No immigration laws or controls of our borders whatsoever – terrorists, come on down!

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/immigrat.html

We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/intetrav.html

We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas or other papers required to cross borders

6. Return pretty much the entire nation to the Indians

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/amerindi.html

Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.

7. No legal tender?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/infldepr.html

We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

8. Environmental protection only through litigation?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/pollutio.html

Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

Solutions: We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.

Transitional Action: We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses.

9. More litigation is good?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/monopoli.html

In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions.

10. Child prostitution is A-OK?

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/populati.html

We call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies.

11. And no child labor laws for the kiddie whores

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/famichil.html

We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.

12. Unilateral disarmament and withdrawal of all overseas troops

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/milipoli.html

U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems.

We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea.

13. Complete isolationism

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/foreinte.html

The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling.

Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

Pretty wacky stuff. Granted, they no longer say this stuff directly, but did the leopard really change its spots?


Why do you hate the Constitution?

(How could I have blanked out the mega-thread so soon? :D)
It was for your own sanity, we all understand :p

And here I was defending you:rolleyes:

No, what I said was, the label "fiscal conservative" does not exist in politics. As such, anyone can claim to be a fiscal conservative, making McCain just as much of a fiscal conservatve as Barr.

I never said McCain was one, just that he claimed to be one.
I'm not a fiscal conservative, but I play one on TV :D

Why do you hate the Constitution?
...It started it ...?

the typical argument is that the chance of casting the decisive vote is very small, there is some cost involved in voting, and the benefit you could see from doing so couldn't be large enough to overcome the low probability washing it out. something like:

utility = (probability of casting decisive vote)*(benefit you would get from your candidate winning) - (cost of voting)

even using decisiveness as the thing we as voters aim for, if the societal benefit and difference between the options is big enough, then that more than covers what is needed to make voting rational.

the argument for irrationality necessarily assumes that the benefit we are seeking to maximize, and the only one worth considering, is our own. but if we value societal benefit, then we get to multiply out whatever value we think we personally get to cover the rest of the nation too. and at that scale, the benefit isn't washed out by the extremely small chance of our vote being decisive.

using dollars just for the hell of it, if we think the relative benefit of party S over party Q is something on the order of $300 billion, and the chance of my vote being decisive is 1 in 10 million or so, then we get $30k minus the cost of voting as the utility of me going and casting a vote. i'd be stupid not to!

on top of that, the chance of my vote being decisive just plain isn't the only relevant factor, though it certainly counts for something. but so do mandate building, party building, social solidarity, civic duty, etc.


(unless you are thinking of some other argument that purports to show the irrationality of voting - the above just addresses the common one)

What I was trying to say is that the chance of your vote counting (taking into account numerous miscounted votes and other factors that make it basically impossible for it to count) meant that there can be no situation in which its worth voting - if there's a referendum on whether you should get shot or not, you'd be better off enjoying what might be your last few hours.

Of course there's a million reasons why he should turn out which leads to your second point - and possibly the bit where we got our wires crossed? I divided the "rational" and the "functional" in to two categories - what I was saying is that if you want to approach voting cynically (more aligned with the "rational") then I think you're misguided because really most people vote for functional reasons, some of which you mentioned above.

...It started it ...?

"Stupid Constitution, you made me look bad"

They are if the party of the first part is trying to get some private time in with the party of the second part...


...or if there's been entirely too much drinking going on at party one and party two, so all you have at party three is sleeping, puking, or drunken confessions of undying love.

you're crappy poll tricked me - I was answering no to third parties being that bad.


I'm a fan of a lot of the Green Party platform, but sometimes you gotta make a short term decision to support the best choice you have at the moment while working on the better choice further down the line.

you're crappy poll tricked me - I was answering no to third parties being that bad.


I'm a fan of a lot of the Green Party platform, but sometimes you gotta make a short term decision to support the best choice you have at the moment while working on the better choice further down the line.

There was an article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-fairest-vote-of-all)in Scientific American several years ago that discussed several different voting methods. (You have to subscribe to read the entire article, sorry.) The article mentioned how most places with more than two viable parties have a ranked vote, where you pick your first choice, second choice, etc. The US system is basically this, only it is assumed the voter's choice is his first choice and that all other candidates are tied for his second choice. A ranked vote would people to vote for Nader while at the same time making clear if Nader doesn't win, Gore is their second choice.

There was an article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-fairest-vote-of-all)in Scientific American several years ago that discussed several different voting methods. (You have to subscribe to read the entire article, sorry.) The article mentioned how most places with more than two viable parties have a ranked vote, where you pick your first choice, second choice, etc. The US system is basically this, only it is assumed the voter's choice is his first choice and that all other candidates are tied for his second choice. A ranked vote would people to vote for Nader while at the same time making clear if Nader doesn't win, Gore is their second choice.

Isn't that runoff voting or something?

I like that idea.

Isn't that runoff voting or something?

I like that idea.It's called "instant runoff" if you have your second choice marked on the ballot. That way the "runoff" (a whole 'nother election, with only the top two advancing from the first round) doesn't actually have to be held, sparing a lot of money and time.

It's called "instant runoff" if you have your second choice marked on the ballot. That way the "runoff" (a whole 'nother election, with only the top two advancing from the first round) doesn't actually have to be held, sparing a lot of money and time.

I say we scrap the electoral college altogether and go for something like this.

I say we scrap the electoral college altogether and go for something like this.

I say we skip that altogether too, and have a direct proportional representation - if a candidate gets 1% of all votes cast, he/she gets 1% of representation in government.

That way, you can still have whoever gets the most votes being president, but a vote for another party isn't wasted.

I say we skip that altogether too, and have a direct proportional representation - if a candidate gets 1% of all votes cast, he/she gets 1% of representation in government.

That way, you can still have whoever gets the most votes being president, but a vote for another party isn't wasted.

How would they get 1% representation? Lkke a number of votes in congress kinda thing?

How would they get 1% representation? Lkke a number of votes in congress kinda thing?

Yes - obviously there's a realistic limitation in terms of the actual proportionality - unless you change the set-up such that you have exactly a hundred seats in each House... And even then, you'd still have rounding errors.

Isn't that runoff voting or something?

I like that idea.

Sometimes it's run-off voting, but it would work just as well with awarding points (Borda count) or ranked pair. Ranked pair is the one the authors of the article I linked believe is best, and Wikipedia has a pretty good example scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_Pairs#An_example) on how it works. (Actually, all of the Electoral methods articles have good examples; the category is unusually unified for Wikipedia.)

No.

Most third parties either take away votes from good candidates that seem to be a shoo-in (Gore anybody?) or are too freaking insane to even be considered for any office anywhere for any reason.

What needs to happen, however, is a complete re-evaluation on how we do things in America.

The trouble with the nation is political parties. Any candidate has to do what the billionaires say, or else she cannot run. The people running the Libertarian party do not have so much control, so they look better, but if the party ever became large, I assure you it would be as corrupt as the other two. So even though I am a member of the Libertarian party, I shall never be enthusiastic about it.

[QUOTE=Steelternia;14057191]Most third parties either take away votes from good candidates that seem to be a shoo-in (Gore anybody?)

He took away votes from the third parties.