What is your favorite 3rd party?

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

"Proportional Representation"? How do we get that? We've got four candidates running for one seat representing a half million people. You got a Democrat, who's a socialist. You've got a Republican, who's a socialist. You' got a Green, who's a socialist, and you've got a Libertarian, who's not a socialist, but who won't win anyway in the real world.

Since only one man can wear a crown, wield the One Ring of Power, or represent a congressional district at a time, it's pretty clear that the district will be represented by a socialist, and be damned to all the other people in the district. This holds true for all 435 Congressional districts. Now, I'll concede that the degree of socialism varies among candidates, but no one can win a seat without the taint.

I'm all for proportional representation. Time to outlaw socialism to let the other people have a chance?

 

[Kelzie]

You have some good points but I believe they only hold to a certain extent.
For one, they hold up well if the next election were the last election, but there will be many more. As seemingly divided as our country is politically, the actions of the politicians are much more closely aligned. They appeal to different segments of society for votes, this is true, but their actions seem to be the same old status quo. They cling to failing beaurocracies and resist any meaningful change for fear of the next election cycle and for fear of losing their cash cows. Therefore, even if "your guy" lost the next election, not much would change from a policy standpoint. There really is not that much to lose if the other guy wins. There is however, much to lose if the two party system becomes so thoroughly entrenched that it cannot be broken.

We have had the EXACT same two parties in power since after the Civil War. It ain't changing. The system won't allow multi-party systems. I think the Populist Party was around for maybe a decade? The governmet in the US was made to move very slowly, for better or for worse. It just isn't suited to rapid change of they kind necessary to bring about a third party.

Now if a few election cycles, where people voted for who represented them best were to take place, the percentage of support for the third party guy would begin to approach that of the Big Two. Now comes the big platform strategy question. Do you continue to strive for the middle or do you make a break in order to distinguish yourself ? Given the fact that the third party is likely further from the center than the other two, I would bet you would see some political distinctions begin to blossom.

You have political distinctions now. But the fact is that the party closest to the center that appeals to the most number of people is going to win everything. If I support the Greens (which I did) I have to be realistic that they're not going to win (which I wasn't). They don't appeal to enough people. If I vote for them, I throw away my vote. And most people know this, so they engage in strategic voting: voting for the person closest to your belief that stands a chance. In this case Democrats or Republican.

You are right, this country is not likely to see proportional representation.
Also in a proportional system, wouldn't there need to be some weighted basis for decision making, with the guy with the most support holding the most authority ? In practicality, would this be much different than a system where the legislative, executive and judicial branches were composed of folks with multiple party/philosophical associations ?

In a PR system, the party with the most votes would have the most authority. However, other parties would have a say in the government also. I'm not sure a PR system could work with a non-PR president that has so much power (like ours).

Just wondering ? I feel this is a very important issue if there is to be a future for this country. One thing for sure, if we if we continually fail to risk
letting the "other guy" win, we will all lose. Something has to change.
We as a people need to find the starting spot, and quickly.

It cannot change. The country's too divided in ideology to pick a successful third party that appeals to enough people to beat the Dems and Reps. Although a friend of mine had the idea of starting the "Go America" party. Come on, who's not going to vote for Go America? Freakin commies, that's it. :mrgreen:

 

[Kelzie]

Anarchy is anarchy, it ain't libertarianism.

Libertarians recognize that freedoms cannot exist without a government able to prevent the exploitation of one individual by another. People claiming to be libertarians and promoting anarchy are confused on one issue or the other, or even both.

You and I both know they're out there.

"Proportional Representation"? How do we get that? We've got four candidates running for one seat representing a half million people. You got a Democrat, who's a socialist. You've got a Republican, who's a socialist. You' got a Green, who's a socialist, and you've got a Libertarian, who's not a socialist, but who won't win anyway in the real world.

Since only one man can wear a crown, wield the One Ring of Power, or represent a congressional district at a time, it's pretty clear that the district will be represented by a socialist, and be damned to all the other people in the district. This holds true for all 435 Congressional districts. Now, I'll concede that the degree of socialism varies among candidates, but no one can win a seat without the taint.

I'm all for proportional representation. Time to outlaw socialism to let the other people have a chance?

Well, you couldn't have single member districts. We could either have one vote for the US and divide up the parties representation based off of that vote, or do district elections (I believe Germany does this) with PR...say our representatives are now voted for by the entire state. You wouldn't vote for the person you want to represent you, you'd vote for the party. The reps. would be divided based off the percentage of votes their party got.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

We have had the EXACT same two parties in power since after the Civil War. It ain't changing. The system won't allow multi-party systems. I think the Populist Party was around for maybe a decade? The governmet in the US was made to move very slowly, for better or for worse. It just isn't suited to rapid change of they kind necessary to bring about a third party.

Well, they've got the same names, anyway. Neither of them would be recognized by their founders, I bet. Heck, neither of them really look like what they were a hundred years ago, or fifty.

But, the disadvantage of entrenched power is the fact of entrenched corruption. And no, the system isn't geared towards more than two parties. That's just a fact of life. And both major parties do all they can to stifle what they view as dissent from within their own ranks that may lead to a third party splinter. The Dems stifled Nader, who's my hero only because he saved us from Gore, and the Repubs stifle others on their side.

As for "wasting" votes, that's a form of scare tactic. By definition of "wasted vote", if you didn't vote for the guy that actually won, you wasted your vote. So when I voted for the Libertarian Badnarik in the last election, I wasted my vote in the eyes of the Republicans because I didn't help Bush lose by a smaller margin (California went for Kerry by what? A million votes?), and in my eyes, if I use their definition, the Republicans wasted their vote because Kerry took the state. Under the electoral college, that's all that matters.

In reality, my vote raised the tally for the Libertarians, and if enough people stupid enough to vote Republican in a state where only a liberal Republican can win the election voted Libertarian, the Republicans would start losing and they'd have to start paying attention to the issues the Libertarians are raising. So, I didn't waste my vote.

 

[Kelzie]

Well, they've got the same names, anyway. Neither of them would be recognized by their founders, I bet. Heck, neither of them really look like what they were a hundred years ago, or fifty.

But, the disadvantage of entrenched power is the fact of entrenched corruption. And no, the system isn't geared towards more than two parties. That's just a fact of life. And both major parties do all they can to stifle what they view as dissent from within their own ranks that may lead to a third party splinter. The Dems stifled Nader, who's my hero only because he saved us from Gore, and the Repubs stifle others on their side.

As for "wasting" votes, that's a form of scare tactic. By definition of "wasted vote", if you didn't vote for the guy that actually won, you wasted your vote. So when I voted for the Libertarian Badnarik in the last election, I wasted my vote in the eyes of the Republicans because I didn't help Bush lose by a smaller margin (California went for Kerry by what? A million votes?), and in my eyes, if I use their definition, the Republicans wasted their vote because Kerry took the state. Under the electoral college, that's all that matters.

In reality, my vote raised the tally for the Libertarians, and if enough people stupid enough to vote Republican in a state where only a liberal Republican can win the election voted Libertarian, the Republicans would start losing and they'd have to start paying attention to the issues the Libertarians are raising. So, I didn't waste my vote.

It's wasted in the sense that the person you voted for didn't get in. A pure PR system has no wasted votes. Most PR governments have some sort of threshold for gaining a seat, so they still have some wasted votes, just not as many.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You and I both know they're out there.[?quote]

Yeah, I know. Their false claim gives libertarianism a bad name.

Well, you couldn't have single member districts. We could either have one vote for the US and divide up the parties representation based off of that vote, or do district elections (I believe Germany does this) with PR...say our representatives are now voted for by the entire state. You wouldn't vote for the person you want to represent you, you'd vote for the party. The reps. would be divided based off the percentage of votes their party got.

So then we'd have corrupt party hacks picking the legislators? I can't see but how that would increase the distance between the ruling elite and the masses.

What I'd say to do, especially given today's modern technology, is to increase the size of the Congress so that a Representative is actually a known face to his constituents, say limit the coverage to 1:100000 voters.

Or, create a multi-tiered system in which local representatives are elected, by about a 1000 people, who then select from among their members who will be their "congressman". Except those same Selectors can meet during their term and recall their representative at any time. I haven't worked out the details on this one, but you'd have about 450 people voting on a Congressmen from their number, and each of those 450 would be answerable to a small enough number that things can get personal.

 

[Kelzie]

So then we'd have corrupt party hacks picking the legislators? I can't see but how that would increase the distance between the ruling elite and the masses.

Yup. Though in theory, you would't vote for the party if they picked bad legislatures. PR creates a lot more accountability.

What I'd say to do, especially given today's modern technology, is to increase the size of the Congress so that a Representative is actually a known face to his constituents, say limit the coverage to 1:100000 voters.

Or, create a multi-tiered system in which local representatives are elected, by about a 1000 people, who then select from among their members who will be their "congressman". Except those same Selectors can meet during their term and recall their representative at any time. I haven't worked out the details on this one, but you'd have about 450 people voting on a Congressmen from their number, and each of those 450 would be answerable to a small enough number that things can get personal.

Sounds good in principle, but in practice I feel Americans are too lazy to enable the system to work.

 

[taxedout]

It cannot change. The country's too divided in ideology to pick a successful third party that appeals to enough people to beat the Dems and Reps.

Thanks to an ever increasingly ignorant, dependent population the prospects are becomming slim.

Half of the country thinks the democrats are looking out for the little guy. They are waiting for someone else's wealth to be distributed to them.
The other half thinks that the republicans differ from the democrats. They are waiting for smaller government, and reduced taxes so that they can pay their bills on time, without being dependent on the government.

Neither half is correct. Both parties are rapidly redistributing our wealth upwards and outside of the US. Both are creating dependency at an alarming rate. Wait until the next election. We will be voting for the guy who can give us the most necessities. It's a beautiful scheme. First create the dependency, then offer the solution.

Throwing in the towel, and continuing to support the same two parties
because you feel that the "system" can't be changed is worse than not voting at all. Might as well send the village idiot to vote in your place.
He would have the same probability of pulling one of the same two levers.
Instead of voting for your beliefs, just save all of your political saviness for the political debate forums, where it'll be sure to make lots of change.

Imagine, in the land of the free, so many free thinkers pulling one of the same two levers. We should be so proud of ourselves.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Sounds good in principle, but in practice I feel Americans are
too lazy to enable the system to work.

And that's why less government is best government.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Might as well send the village idiot to vote in your place.

In 2000 we had the option of Bush or Gore. In 2004 we could choose between Kerry or Bush.

No matter who had won, it was pretty plain that we'd have been better off with the village idiot.

 

[taxedout]

In 2000 we had the option of Bush or Gore. In 2004 we could choose between Kerry or Bush.

No matter who had won, it was pretty plain that we'd have been better off with the village idiot.

AMEN !!!!!!!

 

[Kandahar]

What I'd say to do, especially given today's modern technology, is to increase the size of the Congress so that a Representative is actually a known face to his constituents, say limit the coverage to 1:100000 voters.

Or, create a multi-tiered system in which local representatives are elected, by about a 1000 people, who then select from among their members who will be their "congressman". Except those same Selectors can meet during their term and recall their representative at any time. I haven't worked out the details on this one, but you'd have about 450 people voting on a Congressmen from their number, and each of those 450 would be answerable to a small enough number that things can get personal.

I don't see how that would solve anything. If people are stupid enough to elect the idiots that they currently send to Congress, they'd also be stupid enough to elect idiots who would be stupid enough to elect idiots to Congress. In fact it might make things worse, since Congressmen would face even less accountability to the public than they currently do.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I don't see how that would solve anything. If people are stupid enough to elect the idiots that they currently send to Congress, they'd also be stupid enough to elect idiots who would be stupid enough to elect idiots to Congress. In fact it might make things worse, since Congressmen would face even less accountability to the public than they currently do.

It's hoping that the gauleiter's will be from a small enough group that those he represents can find him beat him with bats, slash his tires, and otherwise show disapproval of his refusal to get rid of the clown he named.

That's why my preferred method doesn't even include elections. First off, it's a known fact that anyone that wants to be elected is a criminal, and they should be shot on site for being a threat to the public liberty.

To get a trustworthy candidate, the qualifications for a particular office would be used to sort the citizen registry, and a list of eligible names is compiled. From that list the computer selects on random name and that person gets a telephone call: "Hey, you wanna be a congressman (dog catcher, president) for a term? You have one hour to decide."

The candidate can accept or decline. That candidate will be paid a salary twice what he currently gets, the taxpayer will pay his employer whatever reasonable fee is needed to replace him, and the candidate will be able to resume his position after he leaves his one term of service. he'll live in a government housing during the term, with no contact with lobbyists or other members of the criminal class.

Of course, this would never fly in today's world. A revolution will be needed, and naturally no revolutionary is going to throw away power like that. America came close, but the propertied men that led the revolution made sure they got to run things after.

An easier solution to the problems we're facing with today's government is to stop the spending and stop the taxing. That's as likely to happen as lunar mining of green cheese.

The people need to wake up and put an end to the corruption in Washington by replacing all the lackeys (536 of 'em) with totally fresh faces, and then replace them on a regular basis. This will require the people to stay awake. Good luck America!