1. Government is more transparent than it's ever been. "Corruption" is such an overused word that I don't even see it having value. What do you mean? Bribes? Lobbyists? Conspiracies? Define your terms.
Yes, just look at the Citizens United decision. Or the fact that huge amounts of money are being put into propaganda on T.V. ads. Are you happy with the fact that your congressional representative has to spend the VAST majority of their time lobbying for money? Or giving concessions to donors? I'm really not sure what you think is transparent. Campaign reform is a huge issue. How come we don't even SEE third party or independents in the debates? It's not like the government is doing anything to fix it.
2. Overreach of the government? How so? I see attempts to legislate many things, but they already within the provenance of the government. Or are you talking about things like SOPA and the NDAA? Again, what are some specific gripes?
3. And you think civil liberties are being eroded? Really? Which ones - because I'm quite sure that more people have more freedom than ever. Whose speech is being oppressed moreso than it has before?
Furthermore, if you think Obama is really all that different when it comes to changes in economic policies, things haven't really changed much.
You can say that I believe in magic, or that I'm irrational and spout hyperbole. But at the very least, I'm not diluted into thinking that the two parties actually present me with a fucking choice.
We agree! We hate all of these things you mention! What do we do? But saying that there is no choice is silly. We have a choice, it just a very minimal one.
I don't agree it's a minimal choice. Judicial nominations alone make a huge difference in the long run. I'm not even talking about SCOTUS. All those federal nominations across the nation make a huge, if usually unnoticed sway, especially when it comes to corporations and how regulations are applied (or not) to them.
As for SCOTUS, there has been so many 5-4 decisions lately that who the next President is will decide how the court acts for at least the next decade.
Why not first support popular elections (I linked to it previously), then work on getting something like the Schwartz voting model, AND then, we can talk 3rd party candidates.
Why not first support popular elections (I linked to it previously), then work on getting something like the Schwartz voting model, AND then, we can talk 3rd party candidates.
Curious, just how do you expect the current parties to pass this type of reform?
Certain states are already experimenting take ca for example they have a joint primary where everyone votes and the top two vote getters go at eat other in the general which means if the area is pretty darn liberal you have a chance a having two valid options to choose between
EDIT: Florida wouldn't have been affected, but there was another swing state that would have. I still think 1912 is a better example, though.
I'm not so sure. Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Nader had 97,421 votes. If all those Nader votes went to Gore, it probably would've been a large enough margin to avoid the recounts that led to all the related BS.
In Florida alone? I had read that it was large enough to turn it Gore, but not large enough to avoid recounts.
Yes, in Florida alone, according to Wikipedia.
Stop being afraid of losing and stop playing the game. Or, just continue and vote for whoever does the least amount of damage.
So how come you are bitching on an Internet forum instead of actually doing something that matters?
No, because as I explained, until you can get the word out on 3rd parties to the masses, screaming about voting for them in an Internet forum won't do squat. If you really want them to have a legitimate chance, then go out and volunteer for them. Start fundraising for them. Donate money to them. Do something other than just telling a couple dozen or so people in an Internet forum to vote for them.
3rd parties are far from an original idea, y'know. We had third and fourth parties in this country some time ago - and the political system evovled to the current two-party configuration.
Breaking the two-party system is a literally regressive policy.
So how come you are bitching on an Internet forum instead of actually doing something that matters?
All I'm advocating is to not vote for someone with an R or D. It's not hard.
You really do believe in dragons and magic. Is it inconceivable that a Reoublican or Democrat could be a good candidate?
You still haven't explained how a third party could affect change where the majors could not. Governance at the functional level is still a process of negotiating laws into existence.
Also funny where is this mythic third party? That is not filled will loons and ideologes of one stripe or another. The Green Party? Libertarian party? Constitution party? Ron Paul? I like Gary Johnson but not as much as Obama, Jill stein? Meh. Virgil Goode? Burn him with fire.
Also funny where is this mythic third party? That is not filled will loons and ideologes of one stripe or another. The Green Party? Libertarian party? Constitution party? Ron Paul? I like Gary Johnson but not as much as Obama, Jill stein? Meh. Virgil Goode? Burn him with fire.
What part of Vermin Supreme do you not understand?
Also funny where is this mythic third party? That is not filled will loons and ideologes of one stripe or another. The Green Party? Libertarian party? Constitution party? Ron Paul? I like Gary Johnson but not as much as Obama, Jill stein? Meh. Virgil Goode? Burn him with fire.
What part of Vermin Supreme do you not understand?
Why he doesn't get a bigger boot. The one he's got is clearly too small, and it's going to give him a headache to wear it too long.
Dude, are you a survivor of one of the Balkan revolutions? You seem to be really afraid and angry.
Of course I don't want a power struggle. I want a Constitutional Amendment. The trouble is I'm not sure we can get one.
The term "any means necessary" implies that you find violence an acceptable option. I was under the impression you were arguing for violent revolution. I hear people talking like we are on the verge of bloodletting and succession all the time. It worries me. My apologies if I came off as a bit over zealous.
We are, and it SHOULD worry you. We are one more Supreme Court decided election away from widespread rioting at a minimum, in my opinion.
Yeahno. I'd like it if we were that close to violence. The fact is, the American public is complacent and submissive.
I think you underestimate how pissed off certain rednecks and certain OWS people are getting, but time will tell (or not).
OWS is too full of "peace, love, and understanding" ex-hippies to worry too much about violence from them. They also have no staying power or organizational skills. On the other hand though, the rednecks have beer and guns, so they are a more likely threat.
OWS is full of a lot of genuine hippies and a lot of severely pissed off young men who are trying their damnedest to seem really chill and pick up ladies.
Also funny where is this mythic third party? That is not filled will loons and ideologes of one stripe or another. The Green Party? Libertarian party? Constitution party? Ron Paul? I like Gary Johnson but not as much as Obama, Jill stein? Meh. Virgil Goode? Burn him with fire.
The Justice Party. If you do happen to vote 3rd party, Rocky Anderson seems like the best choice.
As to Andrew's points, voting 3rd party in a winner-take-all presidential election is simply not a viable strategy for reform - at best, all it does is a symbolic message that can simply be ignored. Granted, if you live in a non-swing state, then you might as well send that symbolic message, but it simply isn't worth it otherwise. This kind of thing needs to happen from the ground up; it needs to start with local and regional candidates who are willing to acknowledge the issues with the system, and who are willing to band together to exert some actual influence on that system.
Certain states are already experimenting take ca for example they have a joint primary where everyone votes and the top two vote getters go at eat other in the general which means if the area is pretty darn liberal you have a chance a having two valid options to choose between
Without some kind of ranked voting system, that's a bad idea. This can easily cause issues where multiple candidates that are (between them) preferred overall by the electorate fail to go through to the general election due to splitting of the vote.
For example, let's say there's 3 liberal candidates and 2 conservative candidates, while 57% of the people are staunchly liberal, and 43% are staunchly conservative. It the liberal candidates get 20%, 19%, and 18% of the vote, while the conservatives get 22% and 21%, you end up with two conservative candidates and zero liberals in the general election, even though any one of the liberal candidates would have soundly beaten any one of the conservatives.
Comments
Furthermore, if you think Obama is really all that different when it comes to changes in economic policies, things haven't really changed much.
You can say that I believe in magic, or that I'm irrational and spout hyperbole. But at the very least, I'm not diluted into thinking that the two parties actually present me with a fucking choice.
But saying that there is no choice is silly. We have a choice, it just a very minimal one.
As for SCOTUS, there has been so many 5-4 decisions lately that who the next President is will decide how the court acts for at least the next decade.
(edit: that is to say, one step at a time)
Breaking the two-party system is a literally regressive policy. You really do believe in dragons and magic. Is it inconceivable that a Reoublican or Democrat could be a good candidate?
You still haven't explained how a third party could affect change where the majors could not. Governance at the functional level is still a process of negotiating laws into existence.
As to Andrew's points, voting 3rd party in a winner-take-all presidential election is simply not a viable strategy for reform - at best, all it does is a symbolic message that can simply be ignored. Granted, if you live in a non-swing state, then you might as well send that symbolic message, but it simply isn't worth it otherwise. This kind of thing needs to happen from the ground up; it needs to start with local and regional candidates who are willing to acknowledge the issues with the system, and who are willing to band together to exert some actual influence on that system.
For example, let's say there's 3 liberal candidates and 2 conservative candidates, while 57% of the people are staunchly liberal, and 43% are staunchly conservative. It the liberal candidates get 20%, 19%, and 18% of the vote, while the conservatives get 22% and 21%, you end up with two conservative candidates and zero liberals in the general election, even though any one of the liberal candidates would have soundly beaten any one of the conservatives.