Time to vote for Independents/3rd Parties?

[reefedjib]

The Whig Party is a centrist party. We now have our first candidate running for Congress in Virginia. He has not yet announced his adoption of the Whig Party, which just happened this past week, but we are working on going public. At that time, I will announce it here.

 

[samsmart]

So basically a return to states rights...

Not at all. I think state governments are just as corrupt as the federal government.

I'm talking about popular initiatives on the federal level, where voters can directly make legislation. At the very least, I think the people should be able to use popular initiatives to override unpopular laws made by the federal government. While the people may not deserve the power to write laws, they should at least have the power to recall them.

 

[samsmart]

The Whig Party is a centrist party. We now have our first candidate running for Congress in Virginia. He has not yet announced his adoption of the Whig Party, which just happened this past week, but we are working on going public. At that time, I will announce it here.

I've looked at the Whig Party for my state, and it is too conservative for me. While I support Congress taking back more of it's power from the Presidency, I do not support things such as repealing the direct election of Senators and their stance on taxation.

Unfortunately, there is not an independent party whose platform is close to my political views. I see myself as left-leaning, but few independent parties are left-leaning; most of them are on the far-left.

 

[reefedjib]

I've looked at the Whig Party for my state, and it is too conservative for me. While I support Congress taking back more of it's power from the Presidency, I do not support things such as repealing the direct election of Senators and their stance on taxation.

Unfortunately, there is not an independent party whose platform is close to my political views. I see myself as left-leaning, but few independent parties are left-leaning; most of them are on the far-left.

Where was there an expression of support for repealing direct elections of Senators? I oppose this completely.

What is the stance of taxation that you don't agree with?

The issue is that we are such a new small party that we attract moderates of all stripes and some of the ideas that have been floated are not moderate in my humble opinion. They are not part of the official philosophy. We want to be open enough to attract a membership, but certain things we need to keep in balance. To this end, we have consciously chosen to not specify explicit issues. Instead we express principles.

 

[samsmart]

Where was there an expression of support for repealing direct elections of Senators? I oppose this completely.

What is the stance of taxation that you don't agree with?

The issue is that we are such a new small party that we attract moderates of all stripes and some of the ideas that have been floated are not moderate in my humble opinion. They are not part of the official philosophy. We want to be open enough to attract a membership, but certain things we need to keep in balance. To this end, we have consciously chosen to not specify explicit issues. Instead we express principles.

As I said, this was the stance of the state Whig Party, which may or may not be affiliated with the national convention for the Modern Whig Party.

While I support the Modern Whig Party in increasing in order to bring about more political diversity in the U.S., it seems to be a bit more conservative that my personal politics, which is why I can't join it as a member in good conscience. I'd probably just wind up splitting from it anyways if I were to join.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Having more third parties adds in a new political problem. ... More political groups often means more fighting and dealing for allies rather than focusing on issues.

Really, two political parties is one too many.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I've voted Libertarian or Constitution Pty at times, but not with any expectation of winning: just because the two pragmatic choices were both so utterly morally repulsive to me that I could not bear to put my name to either.

I don't understand how you can support both of those parties at the same time. They're far more opposed to each other than the Republicans and the Democrats.

 

[VanceMack]

Not at all. I think state governments are just as corrupt as the federal government.

I'm talking about popular initiatives on the federal level, where voters can directly make legislation. At the very least, I think the people should be able to use popular initiatives to override unpopular laws made by the federal government. While the people may not deserve the power to write laws, they should at least have the power to recall them.

If your comment is that you want more control then you have one shot...reduce the role of federal government and empower the states. The citizens of the state MIGHT just be more inspired to vote if they knew their vote counted.

 

[samsmart]

If your comment is that you want more control then you have one shot...reduce the role of federal government and empower the states. The citizens of the state MIGHT just be more inspired to vote if they knew their vote counted.

I'm not talking about empowering the states. I'm talking about empowering the people.

I hate state governments. I think that they are just as prone to abuses and tyranny as the federal government is. After all, it's state governments that continued segregation for 100 years, and it was the empowering of state governments by the federal government that allowed them to do so.

So no, I don't believe in empowering states' rights. I believe in directly empowering the people. And for that I think we need the ability to affect federal legislation via national legislation. Which has absolutely nothing to do with states' rights.

 

[molten_dragon]

If we had a voting system that gave 3rd party candidates a chance to actually be elected, I'd consider voting for one if their beliefs more closely matched my own than the candidates from the two main parties did. Until then, I'm not wasting my vote.

 

[VanceMack]

I'm not talking about empowering the states. I'm talking about empowering the people.

I hate state governments. I think that they are just as prone to abuses and tyranny as the federal government is. After all, it's state governments that continued segregation for 100 years, and it was the empowering of state governments by the federal government that allowed them to do so.

So no, I don't believe in empowering states' rights. I believe in directly empowering the people. And for that I think we need the ability to affect federal legislation via national legislation. Which has absolutely nothing to do with states' rights.

So am I. And you arent going to change the fed. So if you want greater legislative control of the government BY the people, it has to come locally.

 

[VanceMack]

If we had a voting system that gave 3rd party candidates a chance to actually be elected, I'd consider voting for one if their beliefs more closely matched my own than the candidates from the two main parties did. Until then, I'm not wasting my vote.

Why blamethe system? most third parties continually shoot themselves in the foot...start there when assessing blame. Then move on to "we the people". Most people in this coutry are wrapped up tight and securely in their ideologies. They vote party ticket. They tolerate the same scumbags every two and six years going back. IF they bother to vote at all.

 

[Cephus]

I'd only vote for a third party if I could find one that fit my views, which I can't, so I won't.

 

[The Uncola]

Most of the third parties I tend to see on the ballot are either extreme right (constitutionalist, libertarian) or extreme left (green). If I could find a third party that was more centrist, I would consider it.

I agree, I have zero interest in putting idiologs that are even more extreme in their craziness into our government, just so they tied it up further and then whine about it "not working." The wackadoo from my district is already too damn nuts and should be in a rubber room, not the halls of Congress.

 

[Jucon]

No.

Time to vote the Democrats out of office. They've done enough damage over the last 60 years. Time to put them in the dustbin of history, where the trash can complain about the smell.

Then, if the replacement Republicans aren't smart enough to swing to the right where they have to be, replace them.

But the FIRST priority MUST be depowering the Messiah and derailing his evil agenda.

You can still get the Democrats out of office by voting for a 3rd party candidate, but to each his own.

But what is it going to take to convince people that neither party is good for this country? Is $13+ trillion debt and a massive deficit not enough evidence for people? Last I checked both parties were responcible for this debt... not just the Democrats... not just the Republicans... both. I agree that the Democrats should be voted out of office, but I also think the Republicans should be too. Maybe if the Republicans were as conservative as they claim to be I'd consider voting for them. But I have yet to be convinced.

 

[Ikari]

Them agreeing with the right more than the left is why I consider them right wing. The extreme part comes later. You are confusing two points and thinking that they are the same.

No. You put us on a 1-D scale and called us extreme right-wing. It doesn't fit the designation given what is common with the extreme right-wing. The one who is confused is you. You want to say we're "right-wing" because sometimes at least on the most visible problems we have higher tendency to agree with the right. Then you want to add extreme because you want to try to make us out as something that easily fits your preconceived notions of what libertarians are. Thus you call us "extreme right-wing"; but we are not extreme right wing because the extreme-right wing is counter to everything libertarians stand for.

Of course. Whether a person thinks something is extreme is largely an opinion. I see no problem there. But I think you misunderstood, you guys are not extreme conservatives, you guys are just extreme and happen to have more in common with conservatives, enough that you are essentially a conservative philosophy with a bit of weird mixed in ( only wanting private roads, etc). The extremism and the conservativism are separate functions that junction (I like rhyming )

Then you're going to need another axis. Because your current designation of libertarians as extreme right-wing is incorrect and based in ignorance.

Blah blah blah

Go on and just throw out arguments you don't like. Shows your weak debate skills. But the point is that on a 1-D mapping of the political grid, libertarianism is well more in line with classic liberalism than anything else. And if we're just using one dimensional political designation then you have the extreme right on one side which has a lot of authoritative and fascist ideals and the extreme left on the other side which would have communism and socialism; both which require big State government in the end. So you have big state government on the extreme right, big state government on the extreme left. So where's the minimal State government where true liberals and libertarians would find themselves? Somewhere in the middle.

So once again, you designation of libertarians as extreme right-wing is wrong.

Because something is similar does not mean it is the same. Like I posted, liberals and libertarians tend to agree on some social stances for completely different reasons, so any correlation there is moot.

There are many issues the new liberals and libertarians (the old liberals) would agree on. It's yet another reason why libertarians are not an extreme right-wing philosophy.

Weird stuff like wanting to get rid of paper money is pretty extreme. :shrug: But again, its an opinion thing.

That's not all of us, and that's not an extreme right-wing view point. It's a minarchist view point; but you aren't allowing for that axis.

Ahh authoritative stuff. Thats why libertarians and liberals might find themselves on the same side of stuff, but for different reasons. That was part of my point. You cannot say you have much in common with liberals if you agree on stuff for completely different reasons.

So? We don't agree with conservatives all the time for the same reasons; yet you seem so much more willing to throw us in with them because we agree with them sometimes. So what is it? Does the reasoning count or no? If no, then we're even closer to center on your 1-D axis.

We will agree to disagree on this one.

You can disagree all you want, real world measurements says you're wrong. Along with your incorrect designation of libertarians as extreme right-wing.

 

[tacomancer]

I would respond to you Ikari, but you have no responded to my points, so I see no use in it, except the blah blah blah part. The reason I responded that way was because I think you should use an argument that has some bearing on what we are talking about. As for the rest, my suggestion is to reread my posts and figure out what I am actually posting.

 

[samsmart]

So am I. And you arent going to change the fed. So if you want greater legislative control of the government BY the people, it has to come locally.

No, because local and state governments are just as prone to corruption as the federal government is. Greater autonomy for state governments won't empower the people - all it will do is reduce the ability of the people to use the federal government to resist corruption in state governments. It would be better to produce a system for popular initiatives at the federal level so people can directly affect it without having state governments, which are corruptible, involved.

 

[Ikari]

I would respond to you Ikari, but you have no responded to my points, so I see no use in it, except the blah blah blah part. The reason I responded that way was because I think you should use an argument that has some bearing on what we are talking about. As for the rest, my suggestion is to reread my posts and figure out what I am actually posting.

I read what you actually posted I responded to all your argument.. You posted crap arguments and bias; that's it. I've given you every reason why a) The 1-D political mapping doesn't allow for proper designation of political platforms and b) why your designation of libertarian as extreme right-wing is incorrect.

Sorry you lost this one and now you have to run away; but that's just life. Learn to deal with it.

 

[tacomancer]

I read what you actually posted. You posted crap arguments and bias; that's it. I've given you every reason why a) The 1-D political mapping doesn't allow for proper designation of political platforms and b) why your designation of libertarian as extreme right-wing is incorrect.

Sorry you lost this one and now you have to run away; but that's just life. Learn to deal with it.

I am not running away, but I am giving up because you aren't learning, so there is no point in trying to teach you. :shrug:

However, when you counter my points or even address them, I will be happy to continue this.

 

[samsmart]

Why blamethe system? most third parties continually shoot themselves in the foot...start there when assessing blame. Then move on to "we the people". Most people in this coutry are wrapped up tight and securely in their ideologies. They vote party ticket. They tolerate the same scumbags every two and six years going back. IF they bother to vote at all.

Read up on Duverger's Law.

Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It states that the type of electoral system a nation has directly influences the party system it develops.

 

[Ikari]

I am not running away, but I am giving up because you aren't learning, so there is no point in trying to teach you. :shrug:

It's because what you're trying to teach is crap. There's no reason to sit and learn incorrect lessons. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, BTW. So when you're trying to throw those stones at me, be careful of your own glass house.

End result is that you don't have what it takes (i.e. a proper argument) to defend your position or your designation of the libertarian political platform. All you have are your preconceived notions and biases towards libertarians, and a strong desire to incorrectly label us as extreme right-wing.

 

[tacomancer]

It's because what you're trying to teach is crap. There's no reason to sit and learn incorrect lessons. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, BTW. So when you're trying to throw those stones at me, be careful of your own glass house.

Did I somehow not address your points or argue something that you did not intend? If so, than yes, we did the same thing.

 

[Ikari]

Did I somehow not address your points or argue something that you did not intend? If so, than yes, we did the same thing.

Yes, you did exactly that. In fact, you'd just get to "well have to agree to disagree" when backed into a corner about needing another axis to properly identify and catagorize libertarian politics.

 

[tacomancer]

Yes, you did exactly that. In fact, you'd just get to "well have to agree to disagree" when backed into a corner about needing another axis to properly identify and catagorize libertarian politics.

Well, if I did not address your points, I regret that, it seems we missed each other as we often do.

However, I think the crux of our argument is the word properly, you feel it is necessary, and I do not.

Of course, you also think I am posting that I think libertarians are extremist conservatives while I think libertarians are conservatives + wacky extremist ideas. Its a subtle detail but it makes a huge difference in understanding. However, your insistance on a second axis is probably necessary for you to make sense of your arguments and political ideas, but I don't need such a crutch to understand natural law and the principals derived from it. I just think natural law is a bit crazy no matter how you want to chart it. So, go ahead and argue what internally makes sense to you, but if you feel that you have proven anything, than you are only looking at this from a single point of view instead of through many.