"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.