It's not a third party that needed, but...

http://nota.org/

"If 'None of the Above; For a New Election' receives the most votes, no candidate is elected to that office and a follow-up by-election, with new candidates, is held. Note that even candidates running unopposed must obtain voter consent to be elected."

...and...

...no-party politics...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy

that would make for a lot of shaking up. what good do you suggest would come from having roles unfilled?

there are examples in our government (indeed, any organizational structure) where there was work to do but no one to do it. That doesn't guarantee a more efficient organization, though it often means more work for the people around that hole. Additionally, elections are expensive and slow paced, how would we function if many NOTAs were "winners"? Unlike you, I don't believe there should be no government.

"what good do you suggest would come from having roles unfilled?"

At least in part: NotA (binding, as described at the site) removes the finality/fatality of voting for the lesser of two evils (or incompetents). Consider NotA a training device for any and all potential candidates (you have to step up with something other that the tried/tired and true/trite).

In the same way: banning formal political parties forces potential candidates to 'think' and 'consider' rather than simply 'adopt'.

Together: NotA and no-party politics makes for a better grade of candidate and a better grade of voter...certainly: not all the problems get solved but the two together make for one helluva start.

#

"how would we function if many NOTAs were "winners"?"

How do you function now?

Governance (American) was never meant to be the foundation for an individual citizen's living. Largely: you are meant to be left alone to do what you can and will and like.

#

"Unlike you, I don't believe there should be no government."

As I've said before: proxyhood (hiring/electing folks to oversee and maintain the American esoteric and physical infrastructure) is preferable to 'governance' (governors directed the governed).

Tricking the people into the type of government, or the lack of government you desire, is a form of tyranny.

UT, is that addressed to me?

If so: I can't see how anything I've suggested amounts to trickery.

Quite the opposite: NotA and non-party politics removes much of the capacity for parties and individuals to run amuck, and, restoring extremely limited governance (proxyhood) is a simple return to the letter of the blueprint (the fed constitution).

Again: not seeing the tyranny.

Or: is expecting folks to take care of themselves, for themselves, largely by themselves, tyrannical?

The trick and the tyranny is turning the presidency and congress into 'directors' when, properly, they all should be *'janitors'.

The trick and tyranny is demanding my participation in anything beyond the minimal up-keep of what is supposed to be a bare bones infrastructure.

*shrug*










*only keeping the toilet of America **unclogged, not redecorating the whole damned house.










**frankly: as long as the status quo IS the status quo, I'm glad the toilet is clogged and overflowing...as long as the 'governors' squabble and in-fight they leave 'me' alone.

Well you've put out NOTA as a voting alternative, and now you've determined that it means "no governance". As opposed to what it normally means: "Neither of these bozos, let's roll again with two new selections".

Whatever is offered to the voters must be transparent and obvious. Tyranny is the outcome of elections that don't represent the will of the voters.

"Whatever is offered to the voters must be transparent and obvious."

Can't see how implementing binding NotA and banning political parties (no party politics) does anything but make things more transparent and obvious.

#

"Tyranny is the outcome of elections that don't represent the will of the voters."

Giving voters a choice beyond the lesser of two evils/incompetents, and, removing the obfuscating shadow cast by parties, it seems to me, does nothing but clarify and extend 'the will of the voters'.

But they don't leave you alone and they don't leave me alone: they pick more pennies out of every handful you or I acquire and they don't leave you alone. I'm not even talking taxes. The price of everything is up. More pennies here, more pennies there, so the corporations can make more, so they can give more to their official du jour, so they can devise better ways to completely NOT leave 'us' alone (so they can get more pennies, so they can...)

If you think you're being left alone you are seriously not paying attention!

'Being left alone' is not synonymous with 'isolation', but -- yeah -- compared to most, mainly as a result of how I order and discharge my life (myself): I am left alone.

Most of what folks find absolutely necessary: I find luxurious and promoting of indolence.

Minimalism carries one a long way to living 'in' or 'among' but not being 'part of'.

#

"...you are seriously not paying attention!"

HA!

You think so?

Maybe you're right.

Or: maybe I simply have a different perspective (stand in a different place in relation to 'this' or 'that) than most.

I think you do have a different perspective, and live minimally.

For me, I want a little bang for my buck. (insert inevitable comment on double entendre here.) ;)

Because I am one of 'most' who naively believed that if I did the right things I could live, not minimally, but not to the max either...just comfortably.

:)

Hey, I don't begrudge anyone the pursuit of what he or she sees as 'comfort'.

Each should do as he or she can and likes.

If 'comfort' is the goal, go for it...but pay the price.


And: I don't think it was naiveté... just misplaced trust (in the 'system' and the 'system' managers).

The US has always had a third party. Called people who learn facts before knowing something. Who are not told how to think. Some are also registered as Republicans. Others as Democrats. And most as independents. They are, for example, the people who got John McCain nominated.

Moderates just don't have an organized party. Have no convention. Are not manipulated by radio rhetoric that even blamed citizens in New Orleans for five days of no assistance. Moderates are a less powerful party. Organized only in something not found among the extremist. Honesty. Are disenfranchised by laws intended to empower Democrats and Republicans at the expense of moderates. Moderates are defined by a word not associated with any extremist. Patriotism.

If America was dominated by patriots, then moderates could vote in any primary. Extremists hate moderates who have a bad habit of identifying scams and propaganda. Extremists have created gerrymandering to subvert the third party. Extremists even subverted the campaign of their party's best choice for president - McCain.

Congress cannot solve problems. Extremism is why even the paper dollar bill still exists. A solution that saves $1billion annually - something that simple - cannot happen because American politics is more and more dominated by extremists. Extremist Republicans and extremist Democrats cannot even fix a problem that simple since their strongest supporters are inspired only by emotion. Wacko extremists love the paper dollar bill because extremists even fear change.

The only reason for government that even massacred almost 5000 Americans soldiers for no purpose in Mission Accomplished? Wacko extremists who hate moderates and love to harm America for their own personal gain. Had moderates been in power, then Americans would have been told facts. Not outright lies intended only to feed the most emotional.

How to further subvert the party of the most patriotic Americans? Subvert and disparaged the truth. As lesson right out of Hitler’s book Mein Kampf. Never provide numbers. Obfuscation honesty with spin. All intended to empower the least educated. And to make life as a moderate that much more difficult.

Ross Perot inspired moderates. So much so that upwards of 20% of the American public voted for him. A number that temporarily scared extremists.

An America dominated by the likes of you, tw, will be an America dominated by extremists. Real ones, not the obfuscated misdefinition you use. Where you write "extremist" anyone other than you would write "partisan, to a greater or lesser degree."

Instead of a third party, it might be interesting if things were set up to have multiple front runners, instead of just two at the general election. Mandate, say, three red and three blue at voting time. They could be the top three survivors of all the caucuses and primaries. The name of a sitting pres can be one of the three if re-election applies. All six names are added to the ballot, not just the top two. The disenchanted voter would have a better chance of picking a candidate they liked instead of just picking whoever they hated least or voting along party lines just to get it over with or not voting at all.

The candidates seem to try a but harder when pots of money are still being allocated. By keeping the field large, contributions could be more spread out or even split between candidates, reducing how much each candidate gets individually.

Cyber, check out the way California is voting this year.
The primary will be all candidates from all parties.
The top two vote-getters will be the two on the final ballot.
So there could be 2 Dems or 2 Reps or 1 of each.

I like the first part, but it's the whole 'top 2' I think we should veer away from.

I also think we should vote separately for VP, instead of a this guy/another guy ticket. This is purely anecdotal, but I know a few people who would have voted McCain but didn't because they didn't want Palin anywhere near that kind of power. It was that whole 'just a heartbeat away' thing... too close for their comfort.

It has always seemed rather strange that the, arguably second most important/powerful/influential... person in the world isn't really elected on his/her own. I don't like the package deal either.

Seems as though some have forgotten the chaos of earlier
American history when the President and Vice President
were elected separately. And how that led to the system we have now.

Yeh, I read about and understand. I was thinking more of a 2-3 guys run for pres from each party and the runner up from the winning gets the VP nod or something.

I like this idea better... the best 2 out of 2<X.

Does America need a third party?

I'm not sure. But if things continue the way they are going, we're going to need a co-signer.

It looks like the plan is to devalue all the worlds currencies. So, no worries on that loan.:right:

I'm not thinking its practical though. Then again, maybe each person could vote for up to their top two choices. The two candidates who receive the most votes are on the ballot or something.

ETA - guess this would work better for the primaries. :/

That could end up with a prez and a VP who hate each other's guts and have completely opposite positions. Nothing would get done except the hurling of childish insults. As a team it would be disfunctional.

You already have that. It is called congress. :D

So whats your point, Zen?

It's called learning from history. We already made that mistake long ago. And stopped doing it that way.

... that independently electing the Prez and Veep is not a good idea. They have to be a team. Prez nominates Veep candidate, despite its flaws, is better.

I acknowledge the issue with McCain being a plausible prez but Palin being a ludicrous Veep, and the desire to have him but not her. However, if the prez-candidate can't pick a good Veep, they're already showing poor judgement.

"As a team it would be disfunctional"
 

Good.

Gum up the works...slow that train down (even more).

Effective, efficient, government is a chain (leash) around a citizen's neck.

If the 'governors' insist on being 'full-time' then let them war with one another most of the time and leave you and me and him and her 'alone'.

On CBS Sunday Morning last week Ben Stein said the current zombie craze is due to Congress.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162...sional-undead/

Yeah, because if we need some decisive, urgent action, we'll be screwed.

"we'll be screwed"

'We' already is.

#

"decisive, urgent action"

An example would be nice.

I think the selection of VP is done more so for political benefit (read getting elected/carrying that particular state or area) than it is for anything else.

Aside from that, I pretty much agree.

Do you think GWB used that reasoning to chose Cheney ?

Wait, that's not right

Do you think Cheney used that reasoning to chose Cheney ?
.

;) Well said. I still, to this day, don't get why he was chosen.

Which "he" do you mean.

That is, GWB meekly followed Cheney's advise to be nominated,
or, Cheney recognized a GWB for what he was, to be dominated.

( Hey, that's only a one-letter substitution :rolleyes: )

:)

Here's an idea - "The Alternative Vote"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE...&feature=g-all

I've only watched the video once, but my impression is that it's an
"anyone-but him" vote. ( Merc might like that ;) )

That is, all the lesser (non-leader) votes end up going stepwise,
to the lowest non-leader.

Sort of like what is happening in the GOP primary now.
Not-Mttt - until Newt is ahead - then not-Newt ...- then Not-Herman

But, maybe I'm missing something...

Our current system already allows for the 'anyone but him' vote. Just vote for anyone else on the ballot and there you go. This one in particular allows you to rank your preferences... so you pick 1 for your top choice, 2 for your next, 3 for the next, etc until you've either filled the card or have no more preferences. Then it's just (somewhat complicated) tabulation. How it's tabulated is best illustrated in the video... I'm not even going to try to explain it in my own words... I'll make it more complicated than it is.

What's going in the GOP right now isn't even quantitative or mathematical. It's all soft science. This biased poll says this, but this biased poll says that, but this pundit believes this because that's how it was 20 years ago, and 76% of another polling pool watches pundit's show "religiously" so this poll is really indicative of something else, then the independents get polled and don't like anybody and some other pundit calls them Un-American, then the pundits start fighting, etc, etc, etc, then everyone watches American Idol instead because there's less BS.

There are already third parties in the US.

Libertarian Party

Constitution Party

Green Party

So, I went to the Constitution party page to check it out. I like our Constitution, I was thinking this might be a good place to visit. Then I read this: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted. Number 3 on the list of what this party is about and I'm already done with it. Constitution party my eye.

GONG!!!!!! (Chuck Barris would be proud)

They are a bit too socially conservative, OK way too socially conservative, I kind of prefer the Libertarians and their pro freedom stance.

I'm a member of the Coffee Party. :coffee2:

Coffee Party

I want to form the keg party.;)

there are 3rd parties that nearly nobody votes for.

the problem is the the very nature of lobbying:

someone could theoretically run without any campaign money (or at least a lot less then you need now) and get press coverage regardless - if nobody else had any campaign money to buy that air time from them. the more campaign money your oponents get, the more expensive it will be for you to get noticed.

now, let's say there's an environmentalist party (because there is), and let's say there's a labor union party (because there is). they would each have a fair chance given enough supporters, right?

wrong, because what i didn't tell you about our "imaginery" scanerio, is that there's also a 3rd party that is both supportive of labor unions and environmental movements. we'll call that party demofarts.

let's say some environmentalist campaign contributers place their money in the pure environmental party, because they might not be supportive of labor unions or not consider that a high priority, while other environmentalist give their money to the demofarts. for a first draft showing the principle working, let's call it 50% 50%. same thing with the union party - about 50% give them their campaign money but 50% give it to the demofarts.

now, which of the 3rd parties has the most contributions?

ding ding - the demofarts win.

and most contributers know this - or at the very least know that their more pure bread representitve party isn't as likely to win. so its never a 50% 50% split between it - most will go to the shared issue party. the resulting chance is that most pure one-issue parties aren't going to get noticed at all.

and this is why the system supports large groups of issues tagged together, as much as they can, which would go down all the way to a one party state except that many issues also have someone who apposes them, thus creating a conflicting interest group who will pay a party to fight against.

the natural results are 2 noticable parties.

so you want to vote liberterian but hate neocons? or you want a welfare state that plays jesus is my savior in public school? or you have a completely different idea that doesn't get touched by any of the parties?

"fuck you!" said the system.

Depending on what's in the keg, I'm all for it.

Nails, I hope.

You must have either gone to the University of Louisville or the University of Cincinnati.

Hey, maineiac! Didn't realize you were another Ohioan. By birth or by choice?

Me, accident of birth. ;)

I just kind of wound up here when I was a kid and my dad retired from the military, will be retiring in Maine though.

Yeah, Maine is awesome. I'd like to live in Maine in the summers and the Keys in the winter. :)

Me wif is from Maine. God's country....


.... from June to September....

after that it is basically just like Alaska.