Support of third parties. (1 Viewer)

[dstebbins]

Why is it that no one supports the party they TRULY belong to? Everyone's got it in their heads that if they don't vote either democrat or republican, they're vote won't win. I cannot count the times I've asked a friend who they would vote for last year (before the election, that is), and they said "Bush and Kerry both suck so I'm not voting."

Wtf? Well vote for Ralf Nader for God's sake! Everyone's got it in their head that only the Dems or the Reps have a chance of winning, and if more people saw politics from the veiw I see them, we'd have much more diverse results than just Dem or Rep every damn time.

I'm my own party. One that I would like to start someday, if I ever found out how (unfortunately, no party leader will give me hints because of fear of competition). I call myself a populist. I believe the government should do whatever the people want, the constitution allows, and common sense agrees with. They can't pass laws that forbid minorities to excersise free speech, no can they do something radical like up the speed limit in a school zone to 150mph or lower income taxes to .5%, but anything that makes sense and is constitutional, the government should do simply for fear of reelection.

If I came accross a candidate that shares my views, I would proudly vote for him and encourage others to do the same, because the Dems and Reps have brainwashed us into believing that they're the only hope of taking office, and it's rediculous.

 

[Hornburger]

Well...that's mostly because of America's two party-system (which is, btw, retarded), and so it really only leaves room for democrats and republicans to have a really chance until one of those parties crumbles...sooo yeah.

 

[Old and wise]

Do you really want to confuse Americans by having more than two parties?

Even with only two parties they are too stupid to elect the right person.

 

[UtahBill]

Do you really want to confuse Americans by having more than two parties?

Even with only two parties they are too stupid to elect the right person.

I suspect it is worse than that. When it comes down to the basic functions of government, I don't see either party as being successful for more than a few weeks in a row.
I think a 3rd party could work, if it was a center leaning party, of moderates perhaps, with no far lefties or far righties allowed in.
Certainly the minority parties that we have now are little more than a collection of wingnuts.

 

[libertarian_knight]

UTAH, Well I wouldn't sy Dems and Reps are contrary ideologically. They are the same side of the same coin. therefor something in the "center" of either of those, is not going to help.

As to the topic in general, bah Nader. Nader is Celebrity, I mean look how horrid the Greenies did after he wasn't under their banner. Anywho, you can guess my party.

As far as the USA being "two party" yes and no. I mean it's not simply consitutional (electoral college) that makes america two party. It's no coincidence that the two major parties (or the one "incumbant partY) also write election laws that favor the two major parties. Ballot access, Congressional districting rules, federal debates and money, Campaign finance laws, all benefit dems at reps at the expense of the american voter. Oh and so does the low statutory limit of federal representative. Used to be one rep for 20,000 - 30,000 poeple, now it's roughly 1 rep for 400,000 - 600,000 people. By limiting the number of reps, the number of "risky" (third party) options is lowered too, since no one wants to let "the other guy" (HA!, dem or rep) win. So smaller parties can't really build a national track record.

 

[UtahBill]

UTAH, Well I wouldn't sy Dems and Reps are contrary ideologically. They are the same side of the same coin. therefor something in the "center" of either of those, is not going to help.

Seems to me that the extremists have hijacked the party away from moderates/centrists, in both parties, of course.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Seems to me that the extremists have hijacked the party away from moderates/centrists, in both parties, of course.

Of course, that's what they want you to think. Democrats and Republicans both seek to control people, they just disagree about how.

D=Democrat, R=Republican, o=middle

|------------o---D-R------|

I want to know, with all the historical animosity between classic left-wing liberals vs. socialists how the socialists elements came to be know as left wing?

Read what some of the old liberals wrote about socialist, and what the old socialists wrote about liberals. These two words should never have been virtual synonyms. American Politics is like once having day (liberalism) and night. Now it's like having 11:00 PM and 1:30 AM, and centrism is now considered 12:15 AM. "Night" and "More Night" and we'll comprise as "A little less than More Night, but a little more than just Night"

It's the Hegalian Dialectic.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Like I stated in another thread, I'm optimistic about the growth of the Libertarian party in the near-future. While it's unlikely a Libertarian candidate will be elected president, the issues pressed would certainly spark a change among mainstream American politics. More and more people are becoming sick of the extreme polarization of both ends of the political spectrum these days.
Unfortunately, a rise of the Libertarian party would mean less votes for Republicans and more Democrats elected to office. :doh

 

[galenrox]

Yeah, I didn't choose who I was voting for until like a month before the election. Up until then I couldn't decide, cause I hated Bush's stupid plans and blatant plays to the christian right, and I hated that Kerry didn't seem that he could be effective at all as a president because he kept rolling over in attempts not to offend the moronic fans of Bush.
In the end I traded votes with my mom, since I was voting in a state where it mattered, while my mom was voting in Illinois, so my mom voted for Nader in Illinois and I voted for Kerry in Iowa.

 

[TheBigC]

D=Democrat, R=Republican, o=middle

|------------o---D-R------|

IMO, the standard 2D model of political science is too limiting. I came up with a 3D model...

You have Conservative and Liberal on the X-axis, Secular and Sacred on the Y-axis, and Paragon and Missionary on the Z-axis.

To explain the labels on my two new proposed axes:
"Secular" at the extreme is an atheist, while "Sacred" is someone with deep personal spiritual or religious beliefs.

"Paragon" is one who believes in embodying their beliefs and principles with an *individual* focus, while the "Missionary" believes in the virtue of spreading that belief to others.

Distance from the center (0,0,0) implies which of the three axes takes precedence to the individual. Someone who would put their secular instincts over a conservative principle would be positioned farther out on the Y-axis than on the X-axis. (1,-3,1) for example.

It seeks to explain people who are not easily explained by the linear (left or right) model, such as Catholics who vote Democratic in the Northeast but who don't support a Constitutional ban on abortion. (Sacred, Liberal, Paragon)

The people in the green cube in the center are most folks, people who have no real idea of what they stand for, they just know it when they see it. Thoughts?

 

[libertarian_knight]

That's kind of funny, because I was thinking of a way to develop the same thing, but more a 3D variant of the X-Y nolan chart. I know a linear mechanism is way lacking for the true complexity of American Politics, but then again, this forum is pretyy lacking too, as are my 3d Rendering skills.

 

[Locke006]

The current situation of third parties being rejected reminds of a reference in the Hitchiker's guide to the Galaxy. He is talking about a planet ruled by lizrds that are cruel to humans. The interesting thing is it is a democracy in which humans have the majority. They keep voting for the lizards to insure the wrong lizard isn't in charge.

Although that is a comic exaguration the model is essentially the same. Most people disagree with the way that the Republicans and democrats are running things, but for some reason believe that would waste their vote. they are afraid the wrong one would get into office if they voted for a third party canidate. When it comes to the presidency these people are probably right, however when voting for congressmen people should vote for who they really want. It wouldn't be hard to elect a third party canidate, people have just been conditionned that it is impossible. People need to know that it isn't!

 

[libertarian_knight]

Locke006, there are a couple trends that are killing not just minor parties, but American Politics as a whole. One, is just what you sugessted: since Dems and Reps have gone to great length to Ensure that Dems and Reps rule, they construct a dualistic paradigm, and liken it to Good v. Evil, and the other guy is always evil, or at least more evil. So the logical choice is to oppose the more evil guy, and not necessarily support the candidate they voted for. This was most realized last presidential election, in the "Anybody But Bush" crowd. This plays on third parties by having poeple vote for the greatest opposition, rather than the one closer to thier views: "I like the candidate, but if I vote for them, the other (bad) guy will get in."

Also, there is an OTB factor. Off Track betting. A fair proportion seem to treat elections with making the right choice for winner, not becuase they want the guy to win, but because they like having made the right bet, on who was going to be winner. As if having voted for the guy who wins, either get's the voter a prize, or special favor with the politican. Of course, it doesn't grant jackpots and well, the candidate would never know the difference if you did vote for them or not, since it's anonymous still. Some of this attitude shows when people aren't willing to "risk" voting on a loser, whose politics they prefer. i.e. "I like the candidate but they can't win."

Hmm, I like to type...

 

[The Real McCoy]

3rd parties in American politics today hurt their own cause. Most (but not all) tend to focus on particular issues which siphon off votes from the major party that advocate those issues. Such was the case in the 2000 election. Al Gore is one of the biggest champions of environmental protection and most greens would have voted for him had Nader not run. It's pretty much a certainty that Gore would have become president, Nader got over 100,000 votes in Florida.

 

[libertarian_knight]

TheRealMckoy,

That pisses me off more than anything. Near 1/2 of the American Voting Age Population (VAP) does not vote,, and people blame minor party candidate for a major party losing. Al Gore Lost because Al Gore couldn't get 1000 Florida of non-voters to turn out, let alone 1% of total non-voting VAP. Al Gore lost, because Al Gore sucked. (court rulings aside). In fact, if the Al Gore campaign would have been better at their jobs, no third party, voting board, or court could have stopped him.

America lost of course, because the major choises were a Gore, Kerry and Bush.

a robot, lurch and chimp walk into a bar.....

oh yeah, and don't forget, it was the reform party many people attribute to Clinton getting into office in the first place... which then allowed Al Gore a shot.

 

[The Real McCoy]

TheRealMckoy,

That pisses me off more than anything. Near 1/2 of the American Voting Age Population (VAP) does not vote,, and people blame minor party candidate for a major party losing. Al Gore Lost because Al Gore couldn't get 1000 Florida of non-voters to turn out, let alone 1% of total non-voting VAP. Al Gore lost, because Al Gore sucked. (court rulings aside). In fact, if the Al Gore campaign would have been better at their jobs, no third party, voting board, or court could have stopped him.

America lost of course, because the major choises were a Gore, Kerry and Bush.

a robot, lurch and chimp walk into a bar.....

oh yeah, and don't forget, it was the reform party many people attribute to Clinton getting into office in the first place... which then allowed Al Gore a shot.

You obviously missed what I said about the 100,000 votes that Nader won in Florida. You're right, Gore did suck and there were many factors contributing to his loss. The fact remains that if Nader had not run, Gore would most likely have become president.

The only reason Kerry entered the spotlight is because Bush won and Gore lost. If Gore had won, who knows how events would have unfolded during the 2004 election?

And I certainly haven't forgot that Ross Perot is the reason Clinton ever became president in the first place.

This illustrates my point: that 3rd parties tend to hurt their own cause.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Naw, I saw what you said about the 100,000 votes Nader recieved. That doesn't change the fact that Nader was stronger to those 100,000, and Gore was so weak he couldn't get 1000 more "non-voters" to his side. After the first count Gore would have had 1500 vote lead, instead of 500 vote lead, and the recount fiasco may never have happened, or been as drawn out.

Gore lost because Gore lost, period, same with GHW Bush. If the margin of victory in an election is so small, that the other guy can win by a fluke, then the first guy has no real business being president anyway. of course, the other guy should feel lucky, and that guy has no real claim to the throne, as it were. I personally think there should be special runoffs if a cadidate doesn't get more than 50% vote, or even 66% VAP turnout.

 

[Arts&Sciences]

There is an excellent site (Third Party Central) that matches you with one of seven political parties. Granted, the Reform and Natural Law parties have essentially gone out of existence, but the ranking of the other five is always interesting. There is also a good site that attempts to find your core political ideals, including how they match with four political parties (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian and Green). Here are the links:

http://www.3pc.net/matchmaker/quiz.html

http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home&action=Test&choice=Long

I think that the results of both could be very interesting in terms of studying ideology vs. party loyalty.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Naw, I saw what you said about the 100,000 votes Nader recieved. That doesn't change the fact that Nader was stronger to those 100,000, and Gore was so weak he couldn't get 1000 more "non-voters" to his side. After the first count Gore would have had 1500 vote lead, instead of 500 vote lead, and the recount fiasco may never have happened, or been as drawn out.

Gore lost because Gore lost, period, same with GHW Bush. If the margin of victory in an election is so small, that the other guy can win by a fluke, then the first guy has no real business being president anyway. of course, the other guy should feel lucky, and that guy has no real claim to the throne, as it were. I personally think there should be special runoffs if a cadidate doesn't get more than 50% vote, or even 66% VAP turnout.

Yes but you're still failing to acknowledge my point about 3rd parties, which is very true in politics today. This IS a thread discussing 3rd parties. If you want to bash Gore, go to the basement and start a thread and I'll gladly join you! :mrgreen:

 

[GarzaUK]

America can never become truely democratic until they embrace other parties than the American people want to represent them.

The UK has at least 10 different parties in it's parliament, fair enough only 3 parties have any clout to them but people are getting who they want.

Americans can only have two parties, that is why your politics is so partisan as it is spilt into two factions.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Yes but you're still failing to acknowledge my point about 3rd parties, which is very true in politics today. This IS a thread discussing 3rd parties. If you want to bash Gore, go to the basement and start a thread and I'll gladly join you! :mrgreen:

Of course, I am not ackowledging it, because I am dismissing it as whiney trash dems and reps repeat to themselves for having poor candidates. Beucase a major party candidate, with all the money and power they have, loses because a minor party snuck in a snagged a few votes, that's the major parties fault. They have the power, the restrict voting access, ballot access, debate entry, federal and state monies, commercial time, restrict media access in roundabout ways, fuind raising and a host of other things to minor parties. The Field is HUGELY stacked in favor of dems and reps, they start 1/2 the distance to the finish line and have the gaul to say the guy WAYYYYYYY in the back slowed them down. garbage.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Of course, I am not ackowledging it, because I am dismissing it as whiney trash dems and reps repeat to themselves for having poor candidates. Beucase a major party candidate, with all the money and power they have, loses because a minor party snuck in a snagged a few votes, that's the major parties fault. They have the power, the restrict voting access, ballot access, debate entry, federal and state monies, commercial time, restrict media access in roundabout ways, fuind raising and a host of other things to minor parties. The Field is HUGELY stacked in favor of dems and reps, they start 1/2 the distance to the finish line and have the gaul to say the guy WAYYYYYYY in the back slowed them down. garbage.

You have a unique view of the political process. Perot "snuck in" and snagged a "few" (18% of the ****ing popular vote) votes. He certainly wasn't limited by this mysterious conspiracy you allude to. And today, the 2 major parties are so equally polarized that it doesn't take too many 3rd party votes to shift the balance. Accept it or not, the fact remains that 3rd party candidates do actually have an adverse affect on their own cause, especially as of late.

 

[galenrox]

You have a unique view of the political process. Perot "snuck in" and snagged a "few" (18% of the ****ing popular vote) votes. He certainly wasn't limited by this mysterious conspiracy you allude to. And today, the 2 major parties are so equally polarized that it doesn't take too many 3rd party votes to shift the balance. Accept it or not, the fact remains that 3rd party candidates do actually have an adverse affect on their own cause, especially as of late.

I have to disagree some. I think they DID have power, but not so much with us being as polarized as we are. Nader got almost 5% of the vote in 2000 and less than 1% in 2004, mostly because people who voted for Nader realized that if it weren't for Nader, Gore would've been president, no questions asked, and now people believe that if they don't vote for one of the two major parties their vote will be wasted, and people now actually feel like their votes count, considering how close the last 2 elections have been. We'll have to start going one way pretty regularly as a nation, and have people sufficiently unterrified of the other side to let the 3rd parties regain any sort of power.

 

[teacher]

How friggin long have I been screaming this on this site? dstebbins, you've managed to illicit a responce. Way to go. I've started several threads of the same nature. They don't last long. People would rather argue than think. I'm a Libertarian myself. When you hold BOTH parties feet to the fire you generally end up being ignored. It's just too much for the minions marching lock step with the two parties rhetoric. They can only ape the talking points made on TV. They can't express new, positive ideas. They haven't been told to think such. Proof the two parties have seceded in their goal. Unquestioned power in the hands of the few. No matter which way you vote the status quo is maintained. Best of luck with this thread. Though I don't wish it, I predict it's failure.

 

[teacher]

I voted for Kerry in Iowa.

Pus mongering gonad gobbler. Your evil ways never cease to shock me. Ever heard of Harry Brown? The guy who represents the political views you claim? If ignorance is bliss you must be undergoing a neverending mental orgasm. I see my work educating you on libertarianism is far from finished.