Should the US have a third party?
The British government of George III had more support from the original 13 colonies at the time of the US Revolution than the current US government does from its own citizens.
A recent New York Times poll found that a record 84 percent of Americans disapprove of how Congress is handling its job, the highest since the Times began polling in 1977. The poll further found that 89% of Americans distrust the government to do the right thing. That’s even higher disapproval than the ratings after the 1995 government shutdown.
These ratings make President Obama’s lackluster 46% approval rating seem like a love-in by comparison.
In addition, nearly all Americans remain fearful that the economy is stagnating or deteriorating further, and two-thirds of the public said that wealth should be distributed more evenly in the country. Seven in 10 Americans think the policies of congressional Republicans favor the rich. Two-thirds object to tax cuts for corporations and a similar number prefer increasing income taxes on millionaires.
At the same time as a majority of Americans are against corporate tax cuts, corporations have become persons and their rights are enforced under the 14th amendment – an amendment originally made to protect the rights of the freed slaves after the Civil War.
Not only have corporations become people, they get more money from the government than do the veterans who have served our country in the Iraq/Afghanistan and other wars. Financial and other institutions that were bail-out recipients still owe the taxpayer
94 billion dollars. By contrast, the entire annual budget for the Veteran’s Administration is
66.7 billion.
Who loves ya, baby? Congress will take the banks over the men and women who have served their country anytime.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies,” - Thomas Jefferson.
Where’s old Tom when we need him?
So, now what? Does the country need a third party untarnished by affiliation with the two current major parties and corporate interests? Is such a party even possible in present day America? What would the platform of a viable third party look like?
Thoughts?
I think we need a Halloween party.
Yes, even though your sources are pretty biased.
You're right. One of my sources is from the government itself! :p:
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
Bumper sticker nomination.:thumb:
I saw it on a car just last week.
Its been all over FB for months. Occupy has T-Shirts for sale and posters galore.
Its really been catching on as of late.
I also saw a button somewhere...
Here's the problem with congressional disapproval...
"I fucking hate Congress...but my Congressman is awesome!"
And there you go. If people would just say, "You know, you all suck and have to go," then we might see some real changes.
Well, I for one have no respect what-so-ever for anyone currently "serving" in Congress. The incredible cost of an effective election campaign ensures the corruption of anyone elected. No one can get into congress without spending millions. Special interests step in to fill the war chests and incidently buy themselves a congressman.
My congressman can smile and shake hands with the best of them, but his soul belongs to the Cattleman's Association and Coors beer along with a couple of giant financial outfits. :eyebrow:
My congressman is an idiot. But I've voted for him in every general election. I've voted against him the one time someone challenged him in a primary, but the challenger was actually worse than my congressman was, and he lost. I voted for him just because a change would have been good.
Today my congressman was in the paper because he was introducing a circus animal rights bill while flanked by Bob Barker on one side and Jorja Fox from CSI on the other. Don't we have some more serious issues facing the nation right now?
I think term limits would be a good idea. At every level of government. Two terms should be enough for every position. (Although I can see a small town having trouble finding enough qualified people to serve on a town board.)
My congressman is Boehner. 'Nuff said.
i voted revolution.
I'm totally ready.
Me too.
Besides...a third party? I didn't get invited to the first two parties. :mad2:
Me three. ;)
The last time a third party won the White House it was back at the turn of the last century when Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party took the White House by storm. Bully!
I'd like to see a party that actually represented the American people for a change, but the chances of that are slim.
I think Teddy won as a repubican, then lost as a bull moose.[/picky]
I think Teddy won as a repubican, then lost as a bull moose.[/picky]
Thanks for clarifying that. My Teddy Roosevelt knowledge is a tad rusty. I loked him up on Wikepedia, and while he indeed was elected on a Republican ticket, he promoted a populist agenda, especially when he stepped up to the presidency after McKinley's assassination. He continued to extol populism when he ran for president a second time.
The final time Teddy ran, that was with the Bull Moose Party. While he didn't win, the Bull Moose Party came in second, something no third party has done before or since.
(End of history lesson)
They really need to execute George Soro's political parties.....
Correct me if I'm wrong but the USA do have other political parties. It is the indirect election system that prevents most of them to come to the front.
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htmYes, of course. Probably ~ 50
The US was formed as a republic (representative government),
while France came in as closer to a democracy.
But, third parties just don't succeed, here or elsewhere... they end up as coalitions,
with a minority holding excessive power via threats to move to the other side.
Remember Italy just a few years ago...
elections every other week because coalitions would form and dissolve over small issues.
To my eye, it's up the the Republican's+TeaParty's to decide what the Republican party is going to be.
Then, it's up to voters to decide which party has their best interests at heart.
Then, it's up to voters to decide which party has their best interests at heart.
Ahh, that's one of those Zen riddles which has no answer better than "a fish!".
A third party in the current system would be exposed to the same corrupting environment that the other two exist in. That is what needs to be changed.
Each candidate
has to sell out for "campaign contributions" because if they don't, the other will, and will blow them out of the water. So they both do. The solution, of course, is to [size=1] mumblemumblemumble [/size].
Although you might seriously consider preferential voting, at least for the Presidential election. And abolishing that electoral colleges business to eliminate the "battleground state" effect.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the USA do have other political parties. It is the indirect election system that prevents most of them to come to the front.
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
Well, sure - there are any number of parties out there. But none of them have the clout to stand up to the two parties which now comprise corporate congress.
I for one would love to have a third choice that had an actual potential to win the elections. I understand that's just some fantasy. I just threw it out there to stir up a discussion. ;)
Ahh, that's one of those Zen riddles which has no answer better than "a fish!".
A third party in the current system would be exposed to the same corrupting environment that the other two exist in. That is what needs to be changed.
Bingo! A fish it is!
What is desperately needed is election reform. Create a public pool from which each candidate draws the same amount. Anyone caught using money from any other source to finance their campaign gets to go to jail.
Naturally, this isn't going to happen either. Corporate congress would never pass a law which removes power from special interests and financial gains for themselves.
I love this country but our political system sucks. The US is headed down a very dark road. :(
A Constitutional Amendment requirement on every ballot issue:
None of the Above (_X_)
Well, sure - there are any number of parties out there. But none of them have the clout to stand up to the two parties which now comprise corporate congress.
I for one would love to have a third choice that had an actual potential to win the elections. I understand that's just some fantasy. I just threw it out there to stir up a discussion. ;)
Preferential voting!
What if we just got rid of political parties all together?
Hah! What if we just got rid of politicians all together?
A basic question... If ALL politicians are bad, were they bad before they were elected ?
That is, does it take a certain internal "bad-ness" for a person to work
their way up through the civic organization offices (e.g., PTA), County,
State, and then Federal.
Or is it primarily the degradation of holding public office that erodes the person.
I've worked in State governments and found most State
employees were trying and actually did do a good job,
but the public view of government workers is really poor.
(ETA: was a reply to SamIam)
I recently watched (much of) a fascinating documentary series called Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace. It was mostly about how machine technology has affected our thinking.
At one point it discussed the counter-culture movement of the sixties and the communes they formed. These were deliberately designed to be de-political. There was to be no leader, no council, no alliances; just individuals interacting as individuals.
They all failed. Some lasted up to three years, most less than six months.
Turns out some people are stronger, smarter, more ruthless, more confrontational, less sensitive, etc than others. With nothing to restrain this, these "stronger" ones became dominant bullies. Constant intimidation and fear killed the communities.
Modern communes and "intentional communities" have recognisable power structures - usually some kind of group meeting or seniors committee - which has the power to uphold group standards. The weak band together to restrain the strong.
Turns out, to make a community anything more than a tyranny, some kind of government is necessary. That does lead to politicians (and is why extreme libertarianism is untenable).
Politicians are a necessary evil.
This is not to say the situation cannot be better than it is now. Politicians could be a lot better behaved than they are. IMHO, lobbyists and massive "campaign contributions" are a much better target for massive restraint.
A basic question... If ALL politicians are bad, were they bad before they were elected ?
That is, does it take a certain internal "bad-ness" for a person to work
their way up through the civic organization offices (e.g., PTA), County,
State, and then Federal.
Or is it primarily the degradation of holding public office that erodes the person.
I've worked in State governments and found most State
employees were trying and actually did do a good job,
but the public view of government workers is really poor.
In the course of my career, I was employed by the state of Colorado for 7 years and the city of Colorado Springs for 4. I agree that government workers do not deserve the public's dim opinion of them. In my experience we did the very best we could with very little to begin with. I have also met members of the Colorado State Legislature who were decent, honorable people doing the best they could for their constituents. I honor them for their hard work and their integrity.
Congress, however, is an entirely different ball game. Election campaigns are incredibly expensive on the national level. Not always, but most of the time, the candidate who spends the most money is the one who wins. Therefore:
1) Anyone who aspires to national office must be wealthy, have wealthy friends and great corporate connections. Most members of the current corporate congress were millionaires before they ever ran for office, and they're even wealthier now. But I don't believe millionaires are inherently evil. Its the second requirement for national office that separates the sheep from the goats.
2) Because of requirement #1, anyone who aspires to national office must be willing to sell themselves to the highest bidder while at the same time making a convincing show of being concerned for the voter. Once in office, the successful candidate shows his gratitude by voting for laws that favor whatever special interests paid into his campaign chest. The people be damned. If you don't believe me, try sending an e-mail to the republican co-chair of the Super Committee.
I won't spoil the game by providing any helpful links. Anyone who wants to play gets to run through the Internet maze like any other American who will be impacted by the Super Committee's decisions - ie everybody. OK, go! (and I'm not staying up for anyone's hypothetical return). Oh, anyone from the co-chair's home state gets a "get out of jail free" card. The rest of you are on your own.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'll wrap this up. Due to requirement no. 2, those now in national office are in it for their own self interest and they are practiced liars and deceivers. They probably were from childhood on. I have no respect for them.
PS I did finally manage to send an e-mail to the co-chair and I
bookmarked it for future reference. :eyebrow:
And surprise! I never got so much as an impersonal computerized reply in return. Write "your" congressman? You bet. :right:
I've written my congressman and two others. Every time I got a canned response - weeks later, I might add.
I once wrote a paper-letter to my Senator, about the
US Dept of Interior's plan to discontinue their free-passes
to National Parks that were available for Disabled and Senior Citizens.
Weeks later, I received a copy of a letter the Senator had written
to the Head of the Dept of the Interior, objecting to their plan.
And, he included a copy of the Notice that the Dept had canceled those plans.
You know he's getting my vote for his re-election.
A basic question... If ALL politicians are bad, were they bad before they were elected ?
Their desire for political office shows a need for power over others which they can either manage or not. Many, once elected, can't manage. Government employees can be under similar pressures but most are simply pursuing a career and are not corrupt people.
I got an FU from my freshmen Republican House Rep... at least someone reads his mail.
What if we could replace human politicians with robot politicians?
They could weigh the pros and cons of an argument and make decisions based on the greatest good, they'd be impervious to bribes and creature comforts, they'd have no loyalty except to the people! Well, we'd have to make sure the programmers programmed them that way...but, still. I think it's a good idea. If one turned evil we could just deactivate it!
I really like the idea, Bri, but the flaw is obvious. Someone has to program them, and the world is full of Dr. Smiths. We'll have robotoid politicians running around drinking cognac, smoking cigars, and stomping on the little people.
Danger Will Robinson, indeed!
;)
The problem with a third party, as I see it, is that it would be an farther to the right or left. My feeling about the majority of Americans is that they would be happier with a third party that is moderate. Of course there's no newsworthiness in that.
I once wrote a paper-letter to my Senator, about the
US Dept of Interior's plan to discontinue their free-passes
to National Parks that were available for Disabled and Senior Citizens.
Weeks later, I received a copy of a letter the Senator had written
to the Head of the Dept of the Interior, objecting to their plan.
And, he included a copy of the Notice that the Dept had canceled those plans.
You know he's getting my vote for his re-election.
Wow!
What if we could replace human politicians with robot politicians?
Or maybe we could clone Lamplighter's Senator?
What if we could replace human politicians with robot politicians?
They could weigh the pros and cons of an argument and make decisions based on the greatest good, they'd be impervious to bribes and creature comforts, they'd have no loyalty except to the people! Well, we'd have to make sure the programmers programmed them that way...but, still. I think it's a good idea. If one turned evil we could just deactivate it!
Try Plato's "Republic" (a horrible translation of "
Res Publica", "On the Constitution".
Philosopher Kings. That's what you want.
What if we could replace human politicians with robot politicians?
Asimov was a fan of that idea.
Hmmm... the problem right now is that human politicians are representing recently humanized mega-corporations so to solve this robot legislators will represent human interests? I think we're looking at this the wrong way. We may need our own parallel government... anarchy is looking better every day.
Since corporations are now people with their rights protected under the 14th Amendment (passed after the Civil War to protect the rights of slaves), they should have to obey the laws just like every other person in the US and be held accountable.
If they don't pay their income tax, the Federal Revenue should seize their property and assets just as they do to a person who refuses to pay taxes. If they have unsafe working conditions and one or more of their employees dies, they should be charged with murder and sentenced to life without parole just like a person would be. In fact, let's hold the trial in Texas where the corporation could be executed just like a person. If a corporation uses illegal business and financial practices - far from being bailed out - they should be tried for embezzlement, fraud, conspiracy to commit a crime and everything else a good prosecutor would charge a criminal person with who did what these corporations do.
Once upon a time, we all stood equal before the law. Now this person called a corporation has become more equal than the rest of us.
What SamIam said!
Also, it is my considered opinion that we as a nation have made a total hash of two parties. We are not mature enough to handle three. Ask again in a few more decades.
Alas, corporate tax dodging is not an illegal "refusal to pay". It is exploiting existing legal loopholes to minimise the bill they get. And lobbying congress to make sure those loopholes do not get closed off. Grr.
I'm not sure if this goes here or in the"Occupy" thread. For what its worth:
Occupy has started a
fledgling third party. Interesting…
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Occupy Wall Street movement in protest of the perception of corporate influence in government has spurred demonstrators in Cincinnati to form their own political party.
Spokesman Tyrone Givens tells The Associated Press that he and other Cincinnati-based protesters traveled to New York's Occupy site to pitch the idea. He says the party is vetting six potential candidates for local office from Ohio, New York and Kentucky.
The party's website lists a 10-point platform, with items including reversing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision granting corporations the right to spend an unlimited amount of money on political campaigns, limiting the influence of lobbyists and prosecuting those responsible for the recent recession.
Romney proposed we should have executed GM. Maybe they are people.
A little bit of quick research into the percentage of the population that votes shows that since 1960 there have been only 13 years that voter turn out has been over 50 percent and only 3 years since 1960 has that average edged up over 60 percent. Which means that less then 30 percent of the U.S. population, probably closer to less then 25 percent of the U.S. population elects any given Government official.
If 84 percent of Americans are not happy with the officials in office then some one is being a bit of a hypocrite. I say the system is working just fine. If they don't want to vote, but want to bitch about what the guys in office do with their time in office....fuck em.
The biggest reason that third party will not currently work is because of this low voter turn out.
I've avoided this thread for too long.
Yes, I think the US should have a third party despite the inevitable hangover.
The biggest reason that third party will not currently work is because of this low voter turn out.
You don't think there's a possibility you have your cause and effect mixed up there?
That just sounds like a vicious circle.
If 84 percent of Americans are not happy with the officials in office then some one is being a bit of a hypocrite. I say the system is working just fine. If they don't want to vote, but want to bitch about what the guys in office do with their time in office....fuck em.
You are making the assumption that these people can elect someone they will be happy with.
I'm only making the assumption that 90-100 percent of a voting population can impact the vote greater then 50-60 percent.
If you wanna improve the 'system' (aside from just plain scrapping it): ban all political parties (when someone is elected, 'he' or 'she' is elected, not the bandwagon he or she climbed on to), and, implement a *real 'none of the above' option in every election from the federal level all the way down to the municipal.
*'Real' in that if NotA gets the majority vote, then all the losers go home and cannot participate in that particular election again in that particular cycle. This might mean a post would remain un-filled for quite a while...it might also mean the machine of governance will be stymied from time to time, for goodly chunks of time: fine by me.
I'm only making the assumption that 90-100 percent of a voting population can impact the vote greater then 50-60 percent.
Especially if that additional 40-50% all cast their votes for a third party.
Here ya go Sam ...
The Bull Moose Party Progressives
We are a small group of individuals who believe neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are accurately serving
“the people” we are of the belief that we can improve the U.S. Government democratically. Some of us were
inspired by the Occupy movement while others have come to the same conclusion from other roads, and that is we
need another party to choose from. Ours will be a party based upon the belief that wealth, whether personal or
corporate does not give one the right to govern. Our system has become corrupted by allowing "our politicians" to
be bought by lobbyists. It cannot continue or we will find ourselves existing as only "Consumers". As of right now
the Bull Moose party consists of myself and a very few other dedicated individuals, that’s it, but we welcome all to
join us if you are of a similar persuasion- we have a charter for this party which outlines our stance on the major
issues, and our bylaws will shed some light on how we will function as an organization.
Bully! Go, Teddy, go! He was a great character and a great American Progressive. But even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't get elected running as a third party candidate. (sigh) The resurrection of the Bull Moose Party does have a certain quaint charm, though.
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_democracythat 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'.
**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.
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.
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.
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.
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 like this idea better... the best 2 out of 2<X.
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. :/
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.
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?
That could end up with a prez and a VP who hate each other's guts and have completely opposite positions.
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.
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'.
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
On CBS Sunday Morning last week Ben Stein said the current zombie craze is due to Congress.
A few weeks ago, a close friend came to me and wanted advice about putting iron bars in front of his windows. I asked him why he needed bars on his windows in Beverly Hills in the first place. "So the zombies try to come into my house, I can keep them out," he said. "You just need the right kind of iron."
My friend is a bit scattered, so he never quite finished the conversation.
But here's the amazing part: When I tell other friends about this, they say things like, "What kind of iron bars did he get?" Or, "What did he do to make the zombies mad at him?"
No one except my sensible wife said, "What's he talking about? Zombies? The walking dead? There is no such thing. That's voodoo, it's not real." But my wife is in the minority (at least in my crowd).
The Internet is jammed with stories and survival guides about how to deal with zombie attacks. My son reads them avidly.
Where did this belief in zombies suddenly come from, exploding and growing upon the nation?
I think I know.
The first branch of the United States government, the most important deliberative body on the planet, the United States Congress - THEY are the inspiration for the zombie craze.
Now obviously, no one but a madman would REALLY think that iron bars could keep a Member of Congress out of a taxpayer's home. That's not what this story is about.
It's about the congressional walking dead.
They get elected. They might LOOK as if they're alive, might LOOK as if they respond to stimuli like living people, but they're actually in another realm, where crises present themselves and the zombies just stagger past them, accomplishing little or nothing. The debt crisis doesn't get resolved on time? So what? Time doesn't mean a lot to a zombie.
Again, I don't really want to talk about bars and senators in the same breath, but maybe they need a little something - a little pick-me-up, just something that would give them a ZAP so they actually get something done about the deficit or mortgages or jobs.
But I'm not sure you CAN wake them up, because they're not sleeping. They're, well, not quite in the land of the living. And they keep coming at us ... and getting closer and closer and ... I'm scared!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57331683/ben-stein-on-the-congressional-undead/Good.
Gum up the works...slow that train down (even more).
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.
That could end up with a prez and a VP who hate each other's guts and have completely opposite positions.
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.
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.
;) 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: )
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...
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.
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)
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.
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 PartyI 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.
I want to form the keg party.;)
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. ;)
Didn't realize you were another Ohioan. By birth or by choice?
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.