Lumberjim for President

made you look.


but really. i don't follow politics.....but sometimes, jinx makes me talk about them. So, tonight, it strikes us...

Why the hell isn't the Libertarian Party a major player? I mean, from a purely philosophical standpoint, wouldn't most of us prefer to be left alone? Why do we have to choose between war monger religious zealots and nanny state socialists?

i'd vote for me before i voted for any of the current crop. isn't that fucked up? I can't even be bothered to capitalize my sentences.

yep, that's scarey.

Most people like being told what to do. That's why there's no libertarian party.

lumberjim;383286 wrote:

Why the hell isn't the Libertarian Party a major player?

Because they aren't. If they were a major player, then they'd be a major player. :3eye:

(I'm not being a smartass--much--but ideological issues aside, you can't get elected if you're not on the ballot. And it's just too hard to get on the ballot if you're not a Democrat or Republican. Sure, it happens here and there, but under the current rules it'd be all but impossible for a third party to have a national ballot presence on a consistent basis.)

It's all about brand recognition. If someone gave the Libertarians 300 million dollars to start an advertising campaign right now, they might be able to get enough prime-time ad spots to be a viable "party" in the next election.

The problem in the meantime is, good leaders are practical and can make pragmatic decisions that aren't necessarily ideal in order to get things done. Therefore by definition all the good leaders already recognize that they need to be classfied as a Democrat or a Republican to get anywhere.

Well if you WERE elected , i know you would change the motto to
"in COCK we trust !!"

There are tons of reasons why the LP is not a major player. Electioneering is a very complex system and the LP has roadblocks at almost every part of it.

Although we *think* that the purpose of political parties is to have a general philosophy, that is way down the list. The purpose of political parties is to bring together somewhat different points of view under a unifying common bloc to wield political power.

The purpose of parties is to run candidates, not to espouse a particular political philosophy so much. That's why if the US became instantly libertarian in political philosophy, there wouldn't be one libertarian party. There would be three, and two of them would be named Republican and Democrat.

The LP's main approach has been basically to disrespect politics - it rejects common politics at this point, because common politics are unproductive to it. You notice that Radar ran for an office that he could not possibly win. The major parties tend to ignore offices they can't possibly win. If they run someone for the office, they don't fund that candidate.

I could basically write a thesis on this matter, having worked on it and studied it in great detail for a decade of my life. Ask anything you want to know.

This series of pages explains why two-way races produce the best results for people. Its conclusion was devastating to me when I had to admit that it was right.

For all its problems, the two-party democracy does a good job of producing and selecting candidates that represent an acceptable compromise between a wide spectrum of opinions. If the process is working well, then by the time of the election many voters may feel that they have very little real choice. This may seem like a failure, but actually it is a sign of success. It means that the system has produced candidates that represent the most acceptable compromise of the conflicting opinions of the voters.

That's a fascinating analysis of the two-way race UT, thanks.

Either that graph is way to simplistic to make any sense to me or I am too simplistic.

That said I think regardless of political partys our basic fundemental freedoms this country allows gives us the width and breath to think and voice a different way of going about things. Ultimately this may only be between you and your family within the walls of ones own home.

You are shaping the values of your children and from what I can see you have a fine family LJ so in a small way you are president of our own life. Yeah that's simplistic because I am. A die hard romantic and idealist.

lumberjim;383286 wrote:

...
I mean, from a purely philosophical standpoint, wouldn't most of us prefer to be left alone?

But they also want to tell other people what to do, and what not to do. :mad2:

lumberjim;383286 wrote:

i'd vote for me before i voted for any of the current crop....

Vote? Just name yourself king --- King Cock.

Spexxvet;383445 wrote:

But they also want to tell other people what to do, and what not to do. :mad2:

Well, doesn't everyone judge everyone else? And aren't opinions expressed continually? Saying stuff about people and litigating their lives is vastly different.

Spexxvet;383445 wrote:

Vote? Just name yourself king --- King Cock.

do i detect a note of bitterness?

lumberjim wrote:

Why the hell isn't the Libertarian Party a major player? I mean, from a purely philosophical standpoint, wouldn't most of us prefer to be left alone? Why do we have to choose between war monger religious zealots and nanny state socialists?

The reason is: wedge issues are touted to create an "us versus them" mentality, and we play right into it, like total dumbasses.

Electoral College voting is one way our country perpetuates the two party system.

Third party votes are usually seen as protest votes. I for one think the electoral college voting system is outdated.

You can sign a petition to abolish the electorial college here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/ctd2000/petition.html

I've heard that only 10-15% percent of voting age Americans agree with the Libertarian ideals so that could be another reason.

The two party system isn't going anywhere for a while anyways. The only hope is if someone like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich wins in a Republican/Democrat seat when they really aren't one.

Could someone explain the electoral college thing to me please? I've had it explained before but I can't recall the rationale behind it.

One major reason behind it is it makes corruption more difficult. Say I bribe a voting commissioner in my district and add 100,000 false votes for my guy into the system. Under a straight popular vote, I've added exactly 100,000 votes. Under the electoral college, I have swung exactly one state. Doesn't matter if I add a hundred thousand or a million, I still only get that one state's vote in the electoral college. To really make a difference I would need to bribe voting commissioners in multiple states, which is much harder.

On the other hand, when elections are as close as they've been in recent years, one state is usually all that matters nowadays.

United States Electoral College

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

I see. I guess ours isn't too disimilar, in that the result goes off how many seats a party wins rather than the number of votes cast overall.

Libertarians are about personal responsibility and freedom, for reasons I cannot fathom many have issues with that concept.

Undertoad;383429 wrote:

This series of pages explains why two-way races produce the best results for people. Its conclusion was devastating to me when I had to admit that it was right.

With good pre-election polling, both candidates will be able to determine very accurately how much they need to move. If they are both willing to adjust their positions near the Best Position the outcome of the race will depend on the accuracy of the polling.

But do they really change their positions or just their campaign strategy. Campaign promises are an ongoing joke.

But do they really change their positions or just their campaign strategy.

Good point. One of the problems with the current political culture (in my country and I suspect in yours also) is that instead of coming to a postion on something and then trying to sell that position, win the argument and secure people's support for your stance, parties and politicians try to work out what people will vote for and base their policy statements on that.

Liars.

Bruce reads xkcd? *swoon*

Undertoad;383429 wrote:

This series of pages explains why two-way races produce the best results for people.

The series is correct only if the world is one dimensional. Vietnam was a classic example of two parties both being bad for America. Did we vote for Republicans who wanted more war (bomb them into the stone age)? Or vote for Democrats who simply wanted to expand that current war? Welcome to a world where reality is multi-dimensional. As a result, the whole world was watching and four dead in Ohio. Who represented the interests of the American soldier? No one on that one dimensional line.

Do we vote for the Republicans who see enemies everywhere? Or Democrats who were led by the backboneless such as Tom Daschle? If there is a good and a bad in a one dimensional world, then all choices were bad.

Why was Ross Perot so important? His 20% shook up anti-American Republicans and Democrats who suddenly realized neither was working for America.

Good and bad does not exist. The extreme left and extreme right only represent those who routinely know - facts be damned. If there is anything approaching bad, then bad are both extreme left and extreme right. A one dimensional analysis implies that a person closest to the center is the only good choice. But in America for most of the past decade, intelligent people did not even exist on that one dimensional line. Where is the politician who routinely told the truth about "Mission Accomplished"? He is nowhere on that one dimensional line.

Informed people accurately described "Mission Accomplished" for what it really was - a lie. Where on that one dimensional line was the accurate position? The line assumes good and bad - completely ignores another dimensions called accuracy, honesty, or what is called the true American patriot. Where on that one dimensional line were people who told the truth? Neither existed on that line because wacko Republicans see enemies everywhere and wacko Democrats had no backbone (went right along with the lies).

Razzmatazz13;383607 wrote:

Bruce reads xkcd? *swoon*

Back o' the line honey, xoB already has an extensive fan club.

I'm quite aware jinxy...I can lust from afar...no way I'm competin' against the lovely ladies of the cellar for it anyway.

A one dimensional analysis implies that a person closest to the center is the only good choice.

That's not what is says at all. It says the candidate that tailors his campaign promises closest to the peak of the voter curve will usually win, with two candidates.

@Razzmatazz13. Afar? Again? Why is it always from afar? [SIZE="1"]sigh[/SIZE]