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.Old and wise said: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.
libertarian_knight said: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.
UtahBill said:Seems to me that the extremists have hijacked the party away from moderates/centrists, in both parties, of course.
IMO, the standard 2D model of political science is too limiting. I came up with a 3D model...libertarian_knight said:D=Democrat, R=Republican, o=middle
|------------o---D-R------|
libertarian_knight said: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.
libertarian_knight said: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.
The Real McCoy said: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:
libertarian_knight said: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.
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.The Real McCoy said: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 said:I voted for Kerry in Iowa.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?