[rockwool]

....the Green Party, or any non parliamentary party at all??

I find it very peculiar that people in the US think that only two parties can represent 300million people. Are there really such small differance of thought among you there so that it mainly fits the difference of only two parties?

I wonder because, as a comparison, in the lovely perfect country of Sweden we currently have 7 parties in the parliament, and in the next election there will probably be a new one that's sneekily anti-immigrant. I can think of two other parties that were parliamentary within the last 15-20 years.

As big of a change Obama might be since, errr, ever in modern US history?!! A third party within the parliament bringing forth a view not currently represented within the other two would be even more important for the whole nation (specially for domestic policies I belive).

Me, I've voted for non-parliamentary parties for the last three elections. So, who's taking the big leap?

 

[FlyinPolack]

Sadly enough the Democrats & Republicans are the only ones that get Delegate votes. Without Delegates 3rd party candidates cannot win. Ever. No matter how many people vote for any candidate the Electoral college actually chooses the President no matter what we say. This is why our local elections are really the only ones that actually matter. Al Gore won the popular vote, but Bush had more Delegates so he won. (where would we be now?!?) The Electoral college should be done away with & forgotten...

 

[johnbryanpeters]

For starters, we don't have a parliment electing a prime minister.

Vermont has an independent, ex-socialist, Bernie Sanders, in the Senate and I vote for him.

Given the structure of our government and established political system it's pretty hard for third parties to establish enough clout to have much effect on the current balance of power.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Sadly enough the Democrats & Republicans are the only ones that get Delegate votes. Without Delegates 3rd party candidates cannot win. Ever. No matter how many people vote for any candidate the Electoral college actually chooses the President no matter what we say. This is why our local elections are really the only ones that actually matter. Al Gore won the popular vote, but Bush had more Delegates so he won. (where would we be now?!?) The Electoral college should be done away with & forgotten...

You're confusing party conventions, which have delegates, with the electoral college, which has electors.

A third party candate could win if they garnered enough votes. Bush stole the election through voting fraud, notably in Florida, and a stacked supreme court. The fact that we stumbled ahead as a body politic, however miserably, speaks to the core stability of our total poiitical system.

 

[Defenestrated]

I hate the two party system, we are 1 party from a dictatorship.

 

[cannondalejunky]

usually there's quite a bit of talk about the 3rd party people during the elections, but i haven't heard anything about any of them at all this election. i don't even know who is then the green party

 

[splat]

I live in Mass , so it doesn't matter who I vote for , it will show up as a vote for the Democrates , I think Mickey Mouse may get my vote this year.


This may sound Odd , but Currently this country is not divided enough to support a 3rd part candidate getting enough votes in any region to garish enough support to win a state.

You're confusing party conventions, which have delegates, with the electoral college, which has electors.

A third party candate could win if they garnered enough votes. Bush stole the election through voting fraud, notably in Florida, and a stacked supreme court. The fact that we stumbled ahead as a body politic, however miserably, speaks to the core stability of our total poiitical system.

I Diagree with you about the stolen election, I do agree with you that is it does speak to the Stability of our voting system.

However the problem with More then one party is you can wind up with the cluster F*** that happened in 1824

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824

seveal Approaches have been made to circumvent toe electoral system , the Most unique I think was back in 1836

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1836


So now the question is who was the Last candidtae to Come in 3rd in the electroal Voting system ? ( And I mean one who actually got an electoral , Not just on the national Ballot )

 

[ire]

I Diagree with you about the stolen election, I do agree with you that is it does speak to the Stability of our voting system.

You should watch Hacking Democracy....they were stuffing the ballot boxes in Florida. One of my coworkers recently came to us from Volusia County, FL (the county that had a ton of problems) and she talks about how deep rooted the corruption is, in all aspects of the County.

 

[splat]

You should watch Hacking Democracy....they were stuffing the ballot boxes in Florida. One of my coworkers recently came to us from Volusia County, FL (the county that had a ton of problems) and she talks about how deep rooted the corruption is, in all aspects of the County.

I'm Not disagreeing with you there, unfortuantly the corruption is Country wide, deep and Both parties are guilty. Just do a Little research and find out how many Dead people are voting. in every state of the union.

I'm pretty sure I saw some in my Own district, We use paper ballots which are suppose to be feed in to a reader and Read right then. well I Gave them Mine and he didn't put it through the reader , he put in through another slot in the back of the box , when I questioned him , he had no idea he said the supervisor told him too, So I asked the supervisor , who didn't know either and then said well that machine must be broken ,they will be counted later So I asked why not use one of the others , at that point I was asked to leave, and a Police officer came over and escorted me out. . I didn't buy it so I reported it to the election commission, was told I would Be contacted , to this day I have herd nothing.

 

[TheMontashu]

I'm voting for a socialist, I'm sick of having my politicians working for the rich its bull****

 

[RenegadeRick]

If people are looking at 3rd party candidates, consider:

or

I really like both of their platforms. Then again... is it really important who you vote for for president? You kids are right about the Electoral College. They are the folks who really elect the President. Guess Americans™ must be too stupid to do it for themselves.

 

[Defenestrated]

I used to be straight up anarcho-capitalist Libertarian, and back then I would have thought about voting Bob Barr but now I'm more anarcho-socialist/libertarian socialist.

So there really isn't anyone who represents me.

 

[splat]

Then again... is it really important who you vote for for president? You kids are right about the Electoral College. They are the folks who really elect the President. Guess Americans™ must be too stupid to do it for themselves.

If you actually understood the Where's why's and Hows of the electoral college you'd understand it, and see that in fact it actually does work.

 

[TheMontashu]

I live in Mass , so it doesn't matter who I vote for , it will show up as a vote for the Democrates , I think Mickey Mouse may get my vote this year.

This may sound Odd , but Currently this country is not divided enough to support a 3rd part candidate getting enough votes in any region to garish enough support to win a state.

I Diagree with you about the stolen election, I do agree with you that is it does speak to the Stability of our voting system.

However the problem with More then one party is you can wind up with the cluster F*** that happened in 1824

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824

Cluster ****??? Look at europe, look at israel, japan, canada, pretty much the rest of the so called democratic world has thriving multi party systems.

 

[TheMontashu]

If you actually understood the Where's why's and Hows of the electoral college you'd understand it, and see that in fact it actually does work.

ummm, when some one in Alaska's vote is worth more than more than mine in California you have a system that does not work. I don't know how the hell it works that they get more of a vote than me. As well in most republican, and mostly democratic states people don't vote because they feel like no matter what happens there vote is going to go the same way.

 

[splat]

ummm, when some one in Alaska's vote is worth more than more than mine in California you have a system that does not work. I don't know how the hell it works that they get more of a vote than me. As well in most republican, and mostly democratic states people don't vote because they feel like no matter what happens there vote is going to go the same way.

you don't understand hte How's and why's of how it works .

and the reason a vote in alaska is worth more then yours is just for that reason, so the Larger States, or more to the point one region does not have too much control over everything. a balance between Population and States rights.

OK say there is no electoral college , how would have the last 5 Presidential elections turned out ? MAJOR cluster F***

 

[dante]

Cluster ****??? Look at europe, look at israel, japan, canada, pretty much the rest of the so called democratic world has thriving multi party systems.

Wait a second, did you just use the Knesset as an example of a multi-party system that works???? When was the last time the government actually made it it's full term instead of collapsing in disarray? The governing coalition is always made up of one big party (Likud, Labor, Kadima) and enough small radical religious parties (Shas, United Torah) that can be bribed to join the government. This is the reason for government support of settlements, numerous benefits for religious families such as exemption from the draft, government stipends, and straight up cash for how big your family is. Israelis as a whole aren't supportive of the way the government treats its religious groups, but no government can say a damn thing since they've had to bribe Shas, UTJ, National Union, etc in order to get a ruling coalition. This is the LAST system of government that I want, constant intra-party fighting, outright bribery, and a large drop in the stock market every time one small group feels it hasn't been bribed enough and calls for a vote of no confidence leading to new elections.

Having a 2 party parliamentary system is only marginally better (see the UK), since you don't have to worry about coalition's collapsing, you just have to worry about overall public acceptance of your rule. Basically, the government will continue till the ruling party feels it's most favorable to call new elections. Things going poorly? Screw it, government continues. Couple bits of good news such as an improving economy or progress in Iraq? Snap elections, hopefully so that your party will gain some seats. Absolute disgust at the PM? He steps down, new one comes on with no elections. Hopefully by the time he can get his feet under him (cough cough, Gordon Brown) you can call elections and improve on your current seats.

I'm not saying our system is perfect, but if your only complaint is "but I want to vote for someone who is marginally closer to my views" you should be going to bed every night thanking god that that's your only problem...

 

[Secret Squirrel]

2 posts of ignorant crap...

stuff...that is NOT crap...

Montashu...I'm gonna pull an SNL on you...which I never do...cause it hasn't been really funny since Belushi... but you deserve it.

The weekend update where they did the "Really?!?" segment.....this is for you.

Basically, take your posts, put "Really?!?!?!" after them (in the same sarcastic tone)...then take another read through of this thread and your posts...

 

[black noise]

ummm, when some one in Alaska's vote is worth more than more than mine in California you have a system that does not work. I don't know how the hell it works that they get more of a vote than me. As well in most republican, and mostly democratic states people don't vote because they feel like no matter what happens there vote is going to go the same way.

Dude, your vote counts as much, it's just ignored because California is, and will be for a long time, a solidly blue state. Candidates ignore us, and Massachusets, and New York, etc because those states are mostly spoken for. Notice Obama isn't reaching out to any tofu-eating Prius drivers and McCain isn't focusing hard on the redneck vote. Why? Not because they're less important, it's because their minds are made up. Therefore, the attention is on people (and states) who are on the fence like AK, Ohio, Florida, etc.

But I agree, I would prefer 1 person, 1 vote. The electoral college seems needlessly complex.

 

[RenegadeRick]

If you actually understood the Where's why's and Hows of the electoral college you'd understand it, and see that in fact it actually does work.

Sure does. It works to suppress independent candidates, and it works to maintain the status quo.

In Illinois, where I live, we are a democratic stronghold. Obama has Illinois all locked up and my presidential vote makes no difference at all. There is simply no other possibility. I know this is true because the mainstream media told me so. The mainstream media is the 4th pillar of our democratic republic. They are entrusted with representing the interests of the people and making certain that government works for the people. That's right, the people, not the corporations. Shame on you for even thinking such a thing.

I believe everything the mainstream media tells me. They are never wrong. Iraqi WMD, safe air quality levels in NYC post 9-11, Ivins did the anthrax, you name it... all the "stories" that are told by the mainstream media are carefully vetted and fact-checked for accuracy. One can feel confident that news anchors never simply repeat white house talking points, they EARN their multimillion dollar salaries through tireless investigation.

That's why when they tell me it's all decided and my vote is irrelevant, I know it is true. Well unless they are running one of those government-funded Public Service Announcements that proclaim that every vote counts. Then I will know that my vote does matter after all. Do not think that these positions are contradictory. Through mastery of doublethink it is simple to hold multiple divergent opinions to be true simultaneously. When they telly you something is true, believe it. When they tell you the opposite is true, believe that too. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

 

[splat]

But I agree, I would prefer 1 person, 1 vote. The electoral college seems needlessly complex.

OK lets say 1 person 1 vote and it just comes down to that No electoral College , Just Popular vote , However we keep the rest of the rules of the Constitution. since in the last 5 Presidential elections Niether Candidate has had over 50% of the popular Vote ( 3rd party Candidates have taken 2-3 % of the vote ) so By the rules set forth in the Constitution , No one Wins, the Decision now goes to Congress., LIke I trust those Bozo's !!!

 

[johnbryanpeters]

OK lets say 1 person 1 vote and it just comes down to that No electoral College , Just Popular vote , However we keep the rest of the rules of the Constitution. since in the last 5 Presidential elections Niether Candidate has had over 50% of the popular Vote ( 3rd party Candidates have taken 2-3 % of the vote ) so By the rules set forth in the Constitution , No one Wins, the Decision now goes to Congress., LIke I trust those Bozo's !!!

Which brings us to the instant runoff idea...

 

[splat]

Which brings us to the instant runoff idea...

and back to a 2 party system

 

[DRB]

Everybody should vote for themselves.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Everybody should vote for themselves.

shadduppayoumout'

 

[ire]

Everybody should vote for themselves.

I'll sell you my vote

 

[DRB]

I'll sell you my vote

See if we all vote for ourselves, we are president.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

See if we all vote for ourselves, we are president.

Pest, president and fvcktard.

 

[1000-Oaks]

The Electoral college should be done away with & forgotten...

Sure, do away with the electoral college if you truly believe the votes of people in sparely-populated states shouldn't count at all. The founding fathers designed the system so that EVERYONE would have a say, not just the large urban centers.

Of course, many democrats want to do away with the Electoral College because it will eliminate votes from rural areas, where folks tend to rely less on government assistance and don't vote democrat as often. But if you look at it without party bias, you'll see that it's a brilliant, unbiased system.

Read up on it.

 

[Defenestrated]

Sure, do away with the electoral college if you truly believe the votes of people in sparely-populated states shouldn't count at all. The founding fathers designed the system so that EVERYONE would have a say, not just the large urban centers.

Of course, many democrats want to do away with the Electoral College because it will eliminate votes from rural areas, where folks tend to rely less on government assistance and don't vote democrat as often. But if you look at it without party bias, you'll see that it's a brilliant, unbiased system.

Read up on it.

Basically what your saying is that if you live in states with larger populations your vote should matter less than someone from a sparsely populated state.

The electoral college is a throwback to the days where states rights was only used to justify slavery and sparsely populated territories where being lured into the union.

A vote should be an representative of an entire individual's opinion independent of their location.

 

[Transcend]

OK lets say 1 person 1 vote and it just comes down to that No electoral College , Just Popular vote , However we keep the rest of the rules of the Constitution. since in the last 5 Presidential elections Niether Candidate has had over 50% of the popular Vote ( 3rd party Candidates have taken 2-3 % of the vote ) so By the rules set forth in the Constitution , No one Wins, the Decision now goes to Congress., LIke I trust those Bozo's !!!

Clearly the electoral college is taken into account in the constitution. To change the system, the constitution would have to be changed. That is what amendments are for.

The electoral college is an absolute joke and is part of the reason for low voter turn out in the US. All it does its maintain the balance power for the 2 main parties. The whole idea of state rights is ridiculous. It worked to form the union, but the country as a whole should now be the focus. Pretty sure the only ones who will disagree are the state legislatures.

People feel like they do not have a voice. In reality, they don't. The College members are actually responsible for who gets elected, and they have been known to NOT vote along their electorates will. Rare, but not unheard of. California has more people than Alaska. It SHOULD have more weight, the exact thing the electoral college was created to make sure didn't happen.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Clearly the electoral college is taken into account in the constitution. To change the system, the constitution would have to be changed. That is what amendments are for.

The electoral college is an absolute joke and is part of the reason for low voter turn out in the US. All it does its maintain the balance power for the 2 main parties. The whole idea of state rights is ridiculous. It worked to form the union, but the country as a whole should now be the focus. Pretty sure the only ones who will disagree are the state legislatures.

People feel like they do not have a voice. In reality, they don't. The College members are actually responsible for who gets elected, and they have been known to NOT vote along their electorates will. Rare, but not unheard of. California has more people than Alaska. It SHOULD have more weight, the exact thing the electoral college was created to make sure didn't happen.

Wait... did you just agree with me?

 

[splat]

California has more people than Alaska. It SHOULD have more weight, the exact thing the electoral college was created to make sure didn't happen.

Umm last time I check Californina does have more weight in the electorate than Alaska.

 

[FlyinPolack]

Clearly the electoral college is taken into account in the constitution. To change the system, the constitution would have to be changed. That is what amendments are for.

The electoral college is an absolute joke and is part of the reason for low voter turn out in the US. All it does its maintain the balance power for the 2 main parties. The whole idea of state rights is ridiculous. It worked to form the union, but the country as a whole should now be the focus. Pretty sure the only ones who will disagree are the state legislatures.

People feel like they do not have a voice. In reality, they don't. The College members are actually responsible for who gets elected, and they have been known to NOT vote along their electorates will. Rare, but not unheard of. California has more people than Alaska. It SHOULD have more weight, the exact thing the electoral college was created to make sure didn't happen.

I couldn't have said this better myself. (& probably wouldn't have been able to..)

Sure, do away with the electoral college if you truly believe the votes of people in sparely-populated states shouldn't count at all. The founding fathers designed the system so that EVERYONE would have a say, not just the large urban centers.

Of course, many democrats want to do away with the Electoral College because it will eliminate votes from rural areas, where folks tend to rely less on government assistance and don't vote democrat as often. But if you look at it without party bias, you'll see that it's a brilliant, unbiased system.

Read up on it.

Populations make decisions, not land masses.
1 person, 1 vote. If the Rural states want more weight in the election process they should build more Business & industry. Like New York or California.

I'm no Democrat, & I have read up on it.

 

[ohio]

where folks tend to rely less on government assistance

heh, prove it (and don't forget to factor in farming subsidies and earmarks, AND correct for tax revenues per capita).

 

[TheMontashu]

Umm last time I check Californina does have more weight in the electorate than Alaska.

Per person Alaska does have more weight

 

[dante]

heh, prove it (and don't forget to factor in farming subsidies and earmarks, AND correct for tax revenues per capita).

that'd be a LOFTY proof, since it's blatantly false.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Rural states get far more federal funding than places like CA or NY.

 

[Transcend]

Umm last time I check Californina does have more weight in the electorate than Alaska.

As a state, but not per capita. Which is absolute ridiculous.

 

[rockwool]

Interesting discussion!

A thing that I find to limit, or rather fault, our systems is that they are representative democracies instead of being direct democracies. I found it out most important that to get people to feel that their vote counts, and that they actually can influence desisions, a constant strive/evolution for a more direct democracy is imperative.

Your system I find to be extremely unfair mostly because of the 'winner takes all parliamentary seats', which obviously mean that those that voted for the losing party, who might have got upto 49% of the votes in that state, in practicality voted for the dustbin.




Do you have a minimum percentage of the total votes that a third party must fullfill to get into parliament, or doesn't it work that way at all? In Sweden we have 4% as the minimum limit that parties must obtain to 'make it' to parliament.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Interesting discussion!




Do you have a minimum percentage of the total votes that a third party must fullfill to get into parliament, or doesn't it work that way at all? In Sweden we have 4% as the minimum limit that parties must obtain to 'make it' to parliament.

There is no parliament.

Congress is divided into two houses: Senate and Representative

Senate = 100 members (2 from every state)
Representative = 435 members (that's 1 per 693,000 residents as of 2007)

The only third party is classified as "Independent" (No "Socialist Party" or "Commie-Pinko Bastards"). I suppose there could be someone elected that ran a specific platform that would deviate from the normal 2 + 1 but....there hasn't been in recent memory...I'm sure $tinkle will chime in with some obscure stuff...

They usually vary little from the party line, but enough so that they can't be easily classified as repub or dem.

^^^ That definition is very loose. I don't want to post a freakin' diatribe so if you want to flame away, have at. I don't care... irate2: