Third Party Debates Moderated by Larry King: Discuss 221
Since the two big guys got their three debates covered, and the last third party debate kind of fizzled due to technical difficulties, we invite you to discuss the third party debate happening at 9 p.m. EDT tonight. Candidates from the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and Justice parties will be debating in the same room with Larry King moderating. It would appear that C-SPAN is rebroadcasting it, so you catch it using rtmpdump if you happen to not use Flash. Since third party politicians are still politicians, remember to print out some Logical Fallacy Bingo. Topics for the debate include climate change, the drug war, and civil liberties.
Update: 10/24 02:32 GMT by U L : It turns out there will be a final third party debate next Tuesday on foreign policy between two of the candidates. To determine who will be in the debate Free and Equal is holding an IRV vote until 10:30 p.m. EDT October 24.
Why bother without IRV (Score:5, Interesting)
It is so incredibly sad that we don't have some type of IRV (Instant Runoff Voting). If we wanted real change, this is the only way to get it because it is the only way to have a real possibility of electing someone other than a Republicrat (or a Demolican).
Imagine a system where your vote actually counted, no matter who you vote for... I guess I can dream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting [wikipedia.org]
http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting [fairvote.org]
http://www.instantrunoff.com/ [instantrunoff.com]
Re: (Score:3)
If we wanted real change,
The system we have today fights against meaningful change...
Re:Why bother without IRV (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.electology.org/approval-voting [electology.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Approval voting on the first part and then a runoff voting between the top two candidates would be ideal, IMHO. Narrowing down allows for more focused debate and as a sort of check. Given the importance of selecting a president, I'd say it's warranted.
Re:Why bother without IRV (Score:4, Interesting)
All voting systems, in which more than two choices are present, suffer from spoilers and strategic voting. It is mathematically provable [wikipedia.org]. In approval voting, for example, if candidates A, B, and C are running and are all very close, and I really like A, sorta like B, and hate C, should I vote for B? If I do, I risk B beating A, but if I don't, I risk C beating B with A in third.
That being said, almost anything would be better than our current system, but good luck changing it.
One thing that might actually be attainable would be proportional representation with regard to House elections. Most states are gerrymandered to hell and back. Why not use proportional voting for those elections? It could be done at the state level for a few states that are more open to change, and could probably garner support from the current out-party (to get away from the problem of gerrymandering). Plus state level politicians are easier to affect with grass roots movements. It would let us get some 3rd party candidates into Congress, who could then push for further reform. The Senate would block it for many years, of course, but if we had a few dozen 3rd party representatives in the House, it could open more people up to third parties.
Re:It's all in a name (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with "approval" voting is that it asks me which candidate I approve of.
Looking down the list of all candidates, no matter the party, I don't see one that I approve of.
Re:Why bother without IRV (Score:4, Insightful)
IRV is not that different to the current system in the US. You need a proportional [wikipedia.org] system, which allows other parties to get to at least have some representation and everyone’s vote count (except for those lost in rounding).
PR has its problems but most of those already are present in the US system anyway. What kind of backwards system allows only voters in the small number of "swing states" to have a vote that actually ends up mattering in deciding you president.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does proportional mean I am effectively voting for a party rather than an individual? That seems like a pretty significant downside.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
There are plus and minus with America's first past the post system. What I like about it is that I get a clear chocie between 2 moderate people. I don't have to worry what type of deals they will cut to get into a political coalition - I have less to worry about political hacks cutting inside deals. I am voting for an individual.
That being said, I am sadden by the recent trend of extreme left / right people hijacking the primaries.
Which means I am looking at WA top 2 primary voting system, whe
Re:Why bother without IRV (Score:4, Insightful)
"There are plus and minus with America's first past the post system. What I like about it is that I get a clear chocie between 2 moderate people. I don't have to worry what type of deals they will cut to get into a political coalition - I have less to worry about political hacks cutting inside deals. I am voting for an individual."
This is the same FUD argument that was used in the UK, but the problem is it's exactly that - FUD.
By voting for an individual, particularly under first past the post, you're basically saying the largest minority gets an effective 100% of that power pool. So if you have 3 candidates, one gets 35%, another gets 33%, and another 32% then the one getting 35% wins effective 100% of that power meaning he can push his agenda without any kind of care or concern for what the 65% of people who didn't vote for him want. This is exactly the problem we have in the UK with our First Past the Post system and the problem scales from both the individual MP to the whole government. Meaning the whole government can get in with sometimes as little as 30% of popular support and yet gain 100% of power in the face of the 70% of the population who didn't want them.
Proportional representation means that the individual representative has to work to try and ensure they follow a set of policies that is good enough for at least half of their electorate forcing them to be much more representative of the electorate. At a government level this may well mean coalitions, but that ultimately means those backroom deals you talk about are moderating principles that ensure laws are past that at least somewhat please half the population, rather than serve minorities and often self-interests.
In the UK for example we got our first coalition in a long time and whilst it's not been particularly rosy it's been far more moderate than a purely Conservative government would've been - for example whilst the Lib Dems allowed tuition fee increases to go through, they were only £9,000 whilst the Conservatives wanted £12,000 fees. Similarly the NHS changes whilst not pleasant are still much more moderate than a purely Tory government wanted. In other words, the coalition has had a moderating influence and it's the same elsewhere where there is proportional representation.
You only have to look at Canada to see the problem - when they had a minority Conservative government things weren't great, but now Harper has a majority the country has gone massively downhill in no time at all in terms of the quality of it's law making, with the wingnuts crawling out the woodworking and recommending/passing some really awful bills.
Re: (Score:2)
There are systems like STV where you are still voting/ranking individuals but if your happy with the candidates that make it though R or D selections then you are probably happy with the current system.
The WA system seems weird and to enforce a two party state. can you have a liberal indepent win the other primary as a RINO and then have a final election.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a weird thing to keep two parties in power. It is a run off method, so it shares some characteristics of the IRV. There is a better chance that an independent will win then FPP, so less likely to enforce the 2 party system.
Heck, there is even a chance that 2 people from the same party will be running against each other – and I like that idea. I am a moderate Republican who lives in a congressional district which is deep blue and where the Democratic primaries are controlled by the hard left.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be mixing two very different situations.
You can't have a proportional system when voting for one person, for president.
Also, you can't have a proportional system when voting for two people per state, for the Senate.
Perhaps a proportional system might work in the House, but even then, I think that IRV would work well. The bigger issue there is that the number of Representatives was capped at 435 in 1911. So while each Rep in 1789 represented around 30,000 people, a Rep in 2012 represents around 7
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah i know i did, i was meaning a general change for US to create some change or allow other parties some influence. Its all hypothetical anyway not like it will change too much tradition and no incentive for the current politicians. The main problem is the stupid EC system for electing presidents that needs to go first and even a national FPP system would work.
There no point to IRV if there are still two only parties, IRV still converges to two parties just like FFP they just you need make sure your candi
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of a proportional system.
However, I disagree that IRV is pointless if there are only two parties. There are already more than two parties, as is the basis of this entire thread. IRV simply makes is easier for "third parties" to get elected.
But in my last point, I think that it is incredibly important to not only specify the minimum population of a congressional district (which is at least 30,000), but to specify a maximum population as well. This, to a certain degree, wou
Re: (Score:2)
But, IIRC, you are NOT going to vote for the president.
You are going to vote to decide for which presidential candidate your state is going to vote (I think it is called "electoral college".
Unless there is one of such votes in that electoral college, then you can use a proportional system without much problem (of course, there is always a little issue with rounding, but that is unavoidable). Or, alternatively, just elect the president by popular vote.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of backwards system allows only voters in the small number of "swing states" to have a vote that actually ends up mattering in deciding you president.
The United States is a Republic, a collection of 50 individual and fully sovereign states. Each state is entitled to a number of votes in the electoral collage, roughly based on their population. You may think it would be preferable to base the election of POTUS on the popular vote alone, but that would ultimately undermine the very theory of the United States. Do you also regard it as "backwards" that Pennsylvania (population: 12.7 million) has the same number of US Senators as Vermont (population: 630k
Re: (Score:2)
I am aware of how it works, we recently rejected with other systems it in a referendum. That video would be how it could work in almost ever other democracy, though its completely contrived situation.
The US has unique political problems that would make it extremely difficult for a third party to be anything more than a protest vote. It is an improvement but like every where else all it does disincentivise the two dominate parties don’t run poor candidates. You could settle for that if you want but as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, approval voting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People who are for IRV in the US have no idea how different US elections are from foreign elections.
In most countries you only vote for one or two offices at a time. If it's two offices then they're either two houses of the same Parliament (Australia is an example) or two sets of seats for the lower House (the Bundestag in Germany, for example, is divided between Party List seats and individual seats). Everyone who goes to your polling place gets the same ballot, and each race is on a separate sheet of pape
Re: (Score:3)
Only a few percent of the popular vote in the US is for anyone other than the Republicans and Democrats. No fancy electoral system resembling any kind of democracy is going to solve your problems for you.
Re: (Score:3)
This might just mean third parties get 10% instead of 4% which will end up making no real
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as the major parties notice they are losing votes to third parties they will start changing their habits. Sure it could mean that "the other party" wins this election, but the losing party will most certainly be analyzing why it lost.
I don't see very many situations where people in power would vote to change a law in a way that it gives them less chance to reach their position, and even less when it means parties would do so. We have our own set of problems here in Finland even though our choice i
Re: (Score:2)
Opinion polling puts the third party candidates at around 1-3% each, which puts zero well within the margin of error. Gallup in September put each of the third party candidates tied at 1%, +- 2%, in a poll of registered voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Supposing that all of these candidates were on the ballot in your state, which one would you be most likely to vote for.
I can't speak for the other opinion polls (not sure exactly which you are referring to) but they may have similar issues with the way they ask the question. This doesn't mean changing the question would result in a huge difference but we won't know until we ask the question.
If you want change, get on your congressman (Score:2)
It isn't magic, it won't happen if people just wish or complain hard enough. We'd need to amend the Constitution. It prescribes how presidential elections will be done. That would most likely start with congress. The states can start an amendment process directly but it has never happened.
So if you want it, it is the kind of thing to start working on. Get on your congress people, start making others aware. It'll be a long time in coming, since it takes 66% of both houses of congress and 75% of the states. S
Re: (Score:2)
No one will ever seriously vote for a third party candidate in large enough volume that they actually have a possibility to become president. This is because everyone who isn't dreaming of some utopia knows full well that a president has very little real power to create change other then influencing party members in congress. No third party is serious about getting members in congress or even at local positions.
The main parties will continue to run their top of the line scum candidates that make used car sa
Re:Why bother without IRV (Score:4, Insightful)
>"The properties of IRV seem to be less preferable to a Condorcet voting system or even a system like range voting or approval voting. What makes IRV better than these methods in your opinion?"
Generally, most people (myself included) throw all "alternative" voting systems into the IRV category. Just about ANY type of voting system is better than the simple majority system in use by 99+% of the governments of the USA (and most countries).
That said, I have spent many hours reading about many of the various preferential voting systems out there. I don't know which one is "best" overall. I am not a statistician (having only about 6 credits of university stats) nor a subject matter expert, so I am not going to pretend I am qualified to compare them. But any intelligent person will quickly realize just how incredibly poor our current system is; I would jump at the chance to use even the *WORST* "IRV" solution over what we currently use.
Re: (Score:2)
I would jump at the chance to use even the *WORST* "IRV" solution over what we currently use.
Don't you think that's a problem? As bad as plurality voting is, it's always possible to make things worse, so maybe we'd better talk to some statisticians and subject matter experts before we jump at anything.
Re:Why bother without IRV (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's not really possible to make things worse than they are now (without going to something ridiculous like throwing darts at a wall). The simple plurality voting commonly used really is the worst system for greater than two candidates. For exactly two options it's the perfect method, but for more it's the worst of all the voting systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not really possible to make things worse than they are now
You underestimate both the incompetence and the malice of politicians. They can find a way to make it worse. And they'll sell it to you as "reform" because you don't care what it is as long as it's different.
Re:Why bother without IRV (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with IRV is we elect too god-damned-many politicians to actually count all the IRV races we need to count.
Count the races you're supposed to vote on next time you vote. I guarantee you it will be in the dozens.
I would love it if it if somebody with power proposed that we go over to a less-American, more Westminster syetem that would allow luxuries like IRV/Concordet but nobody does. Nobody says "hey let's make all these Judges Gubenatorial appointees," or "It's fucking stupid that we let these guys run the library system, but we insist on referendums anytime they want to pay for a new library," or "Why the fuck do we have both a State Senate AND a State House?"
They just bitch that nobody pays attention to their vanity campaign for Governor.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about "99+%" ... and of course the president isn't really decided by plurality anyway. However ... some states do have a runoff system for state and local offices. I recall runoffs in Texas when I was living there. Of course the President has to be handled according to the US Constitution (the electoral college and all that), the state has no say in that.
Re: (Score:2)
the basic rule that a lower ranked vote for a candidate should never hurt your higher ranked choices makes it preferable, to me, than approval or a "true" condorcet method.
IRV is break-able... all electoral systems are. but it's much, much less breakable than 1 person 1 vote. and it allows a voter to express an actual preference.
a place to read up on this stuff is here: http://www.fairvote.org/ [fairvote.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't recall anything at the federal level specifying how exactly the electors from the states are selected for the electoral college.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My understanding of the United States legal system is that we don't actually have any federal elections; instead, we have state elections which decide federal positions indirectly. In fact, states are not even required to hold a presidential election, other methods of choosing electors [wikipedia.org] have been used in the past. More recently, there has been discussion of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [wikipedia.org] which would make states give their electors to the winner of the national popular vote instead of to the win
Re: (Score:3)
President is the wrong office to be voting for if you really want to change the voting system in place, as he has 0 power to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
actually, in maine the democrats have realized IRV is important. strong independents just keep running and they finally got it. last time in state committee it was a party line vote to go to an IRV system.
what it will take to get the republicans on board, I'm not sure. it's cost them elections too. but here I think they assume the math favors them without IRV.
so now we're just waiting for a democratic majority again. if it's soon, we may even pass it next time.
No Modern Whig? (Score:3)
Why not the Modern Whig Party? You know the group that is actually on a platform of being moderate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can always write in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No Modern Whig? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you so much. I've just spent about 30 minutes trying to find actualy information about who was running and all I could find was campaigning and Republican/Democrat conventions.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that makes you feel better, but there's no evidence to support that assertion. Since at least the time of Bill Clinton, and probably further back than that, the Democratic party main stream has been intensely friendly to business.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that makes you feel better, but there's no evidence to support that assertion.
I'm actually astonished that in the conservative echo chamber that slashdot has become, he wasn't moderated up for saying that.
Since at least the time of Bill Clinton, and probably further back than that, the Democratic party main stream has been intensely friendly to business.
You must be new here. We don't let facts get in the way when politics are being discussed on slashdot. If you aren't at least as conservative as ron paul, you're a damned commie in these parts.
Third-party topics for third-party candidates (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is Rasmussen's list of things that the voters care about:
Economy
Health Care
Gov't Ethics and Corruption
Taxes
Energy Policy
Education
Social Security
Immigration
National Security/War on Terror
Afghanistan
Or a similar list from NBC/WSJ [pollingreport.com]:
"Climate change, the drug war, and civil liberties" are not on either list. The mainstream candidates don't care about them because the voters don't care about them.
It's of no use getting wrapped up in our Slashdot bubble and insist that the things that are important to us must be the top priorities of the nation. A President has to be picked by half the country (or a bit less). We can rant and rave all we want that their priorities are wrong, but all that gets us is the joy of ranting and raving.
Democracy sucks, but less than the other options. We're stuck here in a country that cares more about Afghanistan than about getting their junk groped at the airport. Unless they're service members, or their family, the odds are that the latter affects them more. But it's no use telling me that. Tell them.
I suppose this debate is going to try to do that, and maybe it'll change something. But it's not going to suddenly propel a minority issue into a game-changer.
Re: (Score:3)
Climate change is part of energy policy, government ethics and corruption are inextricably tied to abuse of civil liberties (corrupt governments oppress), and the war on drugs is probably part of national security (I mean, given the whole "open warfare between cartels in mexico" and "central america").
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is part of energy policy
I guess we would use a little more electricity with global warming. I'm not seeing the grouping otherwise.
government ethics and corruption are inextricably tied to abuse of civil liberties (corrupt governments oppress),
It doesn't even make sense to speak of government ethics, if such abuses are allowed to fester.
the war on drugs is probably part of national security (I mean, given the whole "open warfare between cartels in mexico" and "central america")
More as blowback which the US public and government seems to have successfully ignored for some time.
There does seem a reasonable connection, but I imagine it's a case of compartmentalization. We're concerned about what we think about and don't connect that to related affairs. I imagine there are a few peop
Re: (Score:2)
No, the war on drugs is part of the economic policy. The policy is, money by any means necessary. We've got to keep those privatised prisons full if certain evil people are going to get their third yacht and their chinese sex slave.
Re: (Score:3)
Democracy sucks, but less than the other options.
Every system has advantages and disadvantages. For example, democracy has the theoretical advantage of allowing change to happen without wars, but this only works as long as the popular parties don't cartelize. Once they do, it becomes a kind of aristocracy, but without the vantages an actual aristocracy provides, such as the long run personal involvement a noble has on policies and their outcomes, so you end up stuck with the worst of both worlds rather than the best of either.
Re:Third-party topics for third-party candidates (Score:5, Insightful)
"There are many important issues in this presidential campaign. When it comes to deciding for whom you will vote for president, which one of the following is the single most important issue in deciding for whom you will vote? The economy. Social issues and values. Social Security and Medicare. Health care. The federal deficit. Foreign policy and the Middle East. Terrorism." If "all": "Well, if you had to choose the most important issue, which would you choose?"
Climate change, the drug war, and civil liberties aren't even options in the poll! You can't use a poll that doesn't allow these options to conclude that people don't care about these options.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
marijuana and the psychedelics should be legal (not addicting) but you will find those who will claim it should be possible to use drugs like cocaine and meth and heroin freely. these are people who only see the constraints on their personal freedom, and not costs to society: lots of addicts who can't take care of themselves. even if you buy the dubious claim that someone can take a drug like heroin or cocaine or meth only occasionally with no ill effect on their relationships or employment, such an outlier
Re: (Score:2)
Though I admire your use of paragraphical form, the context of your prose combined with your profound lack of capitalization causes me to believe that you are nothing but a lazy stoner.
I have therefore decided to ignore everything that you wrote. Thanks for trying!
Re:Third-party topics for third-party candidates (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean I agree it's stupid, but it has zero effect on me or anyone I know.
That's what we call observation bias. If the people you know had gotten caught with drugs and jailed, then you probably wouldn't know them.
There's a lot of people, a significant percentage of the US, who get lost in the drug war. I gather it's something like 300-400k in jail [drugwarfacts.org] solely for drug related offenses (something like half of all federal prisoners plus about 20% of state level prisoners). In addition there's a lot of people on parole for such offenses.
In addition to prison time, there are other fines (assets used in commission of drug related offenses are routinely seized and sold off by police departments and governments) and punishments (such as being unable to vote, if you commit a felony).
It's worth noting that certain ethic groups, particularly, African Americans make up an inordinately large portion of this population.
I don't think it's fair to them that they should suffer from the various heavy criminal or social penalties for getting caught when so many others do not. It's a sort of bizarre anti-lottery where those caught lose out on many opportunities in life for the sole reason that they were the ones who got caught and couldn't get out of it.
It has a huge effect on you and all of us (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean I agree it's stupid, but it has zero effect on me or anyone I know.
That is utterly false.
The attempt to curtail drug trafficking is a HUGE source of the pain we all experience at airports, or crossing the border anywhere.
It has driven a huge number of illegal immigrants to the U.S.
It also provides a baseline reason for lots of stops and searches from police officers.
It also is the source of vast sums of money being spent by federal and local governments, which could have meant lower taxes or greater services for everyone including you.
There are countless ways that the drug wars affect people who do not care a whit for drugs. I have never used a controlled substance but I am for curtailing all drug laws. Yes, ALL drug laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually a savvy group in the US with 10% can totally dominate everyone. The more extreme pro-life position -- no abortion or abortion like birth control anywhere, for anyone, even rape victims -- for example, is only held by 15-20% of the country. But they always vote, and they only vote on that issue, therefore instead of the left position being "let's give free abortions to rape victims," it's "let's not make it illegal for rape victims to get abortions." Gun control works the same way. By the polls a ma
Re: (Score:2)
They have formed a coalition when they joined the parties bowing to them. The only difference is if a vote is needed first.
The major parties are major parties because they are big tent. They are not single issue parties which a lot of third parties are, they have a position and say about most all situations that crop up.
Top Two System (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't realize there was a national move toward top two primaries [wa.gov], closing the election process even more... well, at least these four folks can agree to oppose that.
Also, they are behaving a lot better so far than Obama/Romney did. Maybe it's because of Zombie Larry King.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I didn't realize there was a national move toward top two primaries [wa.gov], closing the election process even more... well, at least these four folks can agree to oppose that.
Also, they are behaving a lot better so far than Obama/Romney did. Maybe it's because of Zombie Larry King.
The 3rd party's opposition to top two primaries is actually a major reason I can't take them seriously.
With one very simple tweak this would be the best thing ever to happen to those parties. If there was only one guy from every party on the ballot then in most GOP Districts the Libertarians would come in second, which means that if there was an October Surprise for any Republican they actually win an election. Same with the Greens and the Dems. And every year somebody screws up.
But these chuckle-heads don'
Re: (Score:2)
Californians are so self-centered.
How does one implement PR in a state that only has two or three Congressional seats?
Re: (Score:3)
In theory you're right.
In practice it's very difficult for a third party to come in second in any district because most districts a) are 2/3 Dem b) 2/3 GOP or c) 2/3 Dem + GOP. In districts of the first type you get two Dems running, in districts of the second type you get two Repubs, in districts of the third you get one of each.
If any third party was at all savvy politically they'd put all their resources in Cali into a single State Assembly district with a vulnerable incumbent, and totally ignore the Gub
Drug War (Score:3)
The verdict is in: everyone but Virgil Goode wants to end the drug war. The libertarian dude admitted to inhaling even, totally disqualified from office. Jill Stein is using science, woah.
Re: (Score:3)
But we gotta keep that drug war rolling, it's th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but possession of Marijuana- even smoking it, is not a felony unless it is over a certain amount.
NDAA (Score:3)
Hey, finally Virgil Goode agreed with everyone: NDAA is terrible and needs to be repealed.
Larry King? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He retired, he didn't die.
Still Undecided (Score:2)
After watching the rest of the presidential debates I didn't know who to vote for because I didn't like either candidate. After watching the Third Party debate tonight, I don't know who to vote for because I liked all the candidates.
It's not throwing away your vote! (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not understand why people think that voting for a third party is throwing away your vote. I don't understand why third party candidates don't point out that even if they do not get enough electoral voters to win, that if they get enough electoral voters to swing the vote they could make a huge difference.
With the way the electoral college is set up if Obama wins 250 electors, Romney wins 249 electors, and Johnson wins 39 electors, guess what? Johnson's not going to win, but he could ask his electors to cast their votes for one of the other two guys. That's quite a bit of power and influence. Not a bad method of actually representing the will of the people either. Of course the problem here is that with the exception of Maine and Nebraska the electors in other states are picked in a winner-take-all fashion. Also, about half of the states impose some minor penalty for electors voting for anyone other than who they were chosen to vote for.
Personally, I would hate to see election by popular vote. I would hate to see the country being run by someone that only 51% of us chose. I'd much rather see the country run by the guy that 40% of chose and who had to make concessions to the guy that the other 20% of us voted for. It really is a much better representation of a larger portion of the population. but I guess we haven't really had a representative government for some time now. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Very few states divide their electoral votes. so the third parties wouldn't be getting any electoral votes anyways. Swinging the vote is specifically why people understand that voting third party is a
Re: (Score:3)
A person voting 3rd party is different than a potential voter that stayed at home. The one that votes shows that they will vote. So if a 3rd party candidate takes enough votes from a major party to cause the other major party to win a state, then the losing major party will try to court that 3rd party vote in the next election. So voting for a 3rd party candidate can have more of an affect than a non-voter.
Re: (Score:2)
He could hold onto those 5 electoral votes and let the vote for President go to Congress. Then we can watch politics at its finest!
I want to see some uber-popular person run 3rd party. A likeable person like Sully Sullenberger. Someone who can gain 40% of the electoral votes. Then watch Congress vote for the president when a 3rd party candidate has more of the popular vote than the other two.
Re:What a waste.. it's the political Special Olymp (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually if you are living with the bulk of the populations in a non-swing state. Voting 3rd party gives you more power. Yes your candidate will not win. But with more people voting third party, It gives that party more strength, as well their views gets more credit.
For example the Green Party often effect the polices of the Democrats, and the Libertarian party effects the republicans.
I live in NY for the president probability has Obama going to win. I personally don't like Romney either. So for me I can either choose from the lesser of two evils. Or look at the third parties, and vote of the guy like the most. I prefer the Modern Whig party myself.
So other then wasting my vote on a candidate who will win and only pays attention to my state for fundraising. I might as well vote third party to get my voice on the issue I find very important.
Ok if you live in a swing state Choosing Democrat or Republican has more power. However if you live in a solid state, don't wast your vote on a winner but use it on the issue you care about and get heard better.
Non-swing-staters, vote third party! (Score:3)
Actually if you are living with the bulk of the populations in a non-swing state. Voting 3rd party gives you more power. Yes your candidate will not win. But with more people voting third party, It gives that party more strength, as well their views gets more credit.
Yes, a million times this!
If you live in a swing state, the "vote the lesser of the two evils with a chance of winning" thing makes strategic sense. You don't have enough influence to really make the changes you might want, but you have enough influence to help cut your losses at least, so it makes more sense to try for the mediocre possibility than the impossible ideal.
But if you don't live in a swing state, you're lucky! Your powerlessness gives you the freedom that could actually make a nationwide differ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your best chance was to vote for a change candidate within your own party, that was why Ron Paul attracted so many votes
Voting third party is a backup plan in case a change candidate loses the primary.
Re: (Score:2)
When they marks suchs states as non-swing states. They are often backed by some strong polling with a high degree of accuracy. For example in 2008 there was keep an eye on Virginia and North Carolina for Obama. These guys were almost always Red. however the polls have shown a change.
But right now in my State I am very sure that Obama will win the candidate and if it is that close where my vote is the decided factor, I wouldn't lose too much sleep from it. Because I voted for who I wanted for president. I
Re:third parties have no chance in the USA (Score:5, Interesting)
americans are not libertarians
Most Americans are not CEOs or wealthy investors; which party are we supposed to vote for? The problem with the Democrats and the Republicans is that both parties are basically fascist: the government is right, the policy are soldiers, and if you disagree you go to jail. Unless you run a big corporation; then you get to call the shots and command the fascist system.
When you have police officers with automatic weapons and grenades attacking civilian homes in your country, you know that the people in power probably do not represent you. When anti-aircraft missiles and considered to be part of providing Honduras with law enforcement assistance, you know that the minor differences between Democrats and Republicans are too small to really matter.
Who do you think is on the fringe -- the person who says, "Never mind the fact that the US has the largest prison population of any country, and never mind the fact that unarmed civilians are being attacked by paramilitary teams, you should be focused on whether or not the wealthy are taxed at 15% or 18%!!!!!" or the person who says, "Let's use tax money for constructive programs rather than destructive programs!!!" ?
Tea Party is libertarian, not far right (Score:3, Interesting)
The Tea Party wants exactly two things: Limited government, a lower federal spending.
A byproduct of both those things is that states can do what they want. Federal raids on marajana pharmacies? The Tea Party would be against that as wasteful federal spending, and not letting states decide what they want to do re: drugs.
Before you reduce support for the only group in America that is bringing Libertarian ideas to the public at large, re-think who it is that told you the Tea Party is far right... Yes they
Re:Tea Party is libertarian, not far right (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes they have far right members, but also many socially liberal members because the core goal overlaps with people of many different philosophical backgrounds.
Yes, and I see lots of the former and none of the latter actually in office.
Re: (Score:3)
The Tea Party wants whatever the observer wants it to want.
The core group is a bunch of old, white, reasonably well-off people who were told, by Fox News, to be frightened. And frightened they are! They howled when they were told Obama was going to destroy Medicare... hardly "small government" types. They howled more when they were told Obama raised their taxes, never mind that he had actually lowered them. They howled again when told Obama would take their guns, never mind that he never proposed any su
Re: (Score:2)
The Tea Party howled when the GOP created a GOP.com/teaparty page. It was a reaction against both big-government Republicans and big-government Democrats.
But sure, keep smoking your HuffPo. Don't pay attention to history or facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm sure they did. That little masquerade mask lets them sleep at night. They would hate for the GOP to take it off and reveal that they had been voting for Republicans all along.
Go to a Tea Party rally and see the truth (Score:2)
The Tea Party wants whatever the observer wants it to want.
That is very much not the case. There really are a core group that define the Tea Party across the nation, and as I said they are focused on limited government and reduced federal spending.
It's very true that other groups would like you to THINK the Tea Party is nothing at all.
There are people like you who latched on because you really want limited government, but you're kidding yourself. The Tea Party is just an extreme wing of the Republicans.
You
There is only the Tea Party, not a new one. (Score:2)
The Tea Party that was the angry Republicans who wanted an end to Bush TARP bailouts, or the new Tea Party
There is no "new Tea Party".
Yes the GOP has tried to latch on to the movement at times, but all of the core people are still very much in charge of the Tea Party.
It is not controlled by the GOP. It is busy reshaping the GOP, from the lowest levels. The Tea Party has wizened up that way you see - they have realized that no third party can ever really win large scale elections, so why not convert a majo
There is no tea party (Score:2, Informative)
Are the tea party for tax cuts for the rich? Yes. So are the GOP.
Are the tea party prepared to cut the military? No, only Ron Paul was demanding that, every one of them has voted for increase military spending and blocked Obama military cuts.
Are they against TARP bailouts? When they were really a movement yes, later on only against mortgage bailouts. So basically bailouts for rich people, screw the poor. Again the classic GOP agenda.
It's a GOP game, and it worked, a largely unelected Republican party from 2
Re: (Score:2)
"third parties have no chance in the USA" ...with that attitude, the US itself has no chance
Heres a spoiler: No government in the history of governments has lasted forever. At best, you get a few hundred years before either radical reform or everything crumbles.
What we have has worked pretty well (all things considered) for 200 years, and in that time no 3rd party candidate has come close to winning. If you ACTUALLY want to change things, voting on someone who isnt an option is the wrong way to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if you really want to change things, vote in the primaries.
Re: (Score:2)
From wikipedia:
In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote, approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes)
So BEST case scenario (even split between opposition), thats a 2-1 landslide for each of "the other guys" in the popular vote, and a complete shutout electorally.
I think that qualifies as "has not come close to winning".
Re: (Score:3)
I think you have no clue about the state of the private medical system in the US.. Health care in the US used to be affordable until the government got completely involved in it. Did you know that before Obamacare, the government was the single largest provider of medical coverage? They had something like 60% of all the non-elective health care market sowed up with Medicare, Medicaid, and VA services.
And it is exactly how they are involved which is why the costs are so high. The government does not pay for
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to see an animated one to see Romney's dot migrate over time like they do in those TED talks by Hans Rosling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Libertarians ARE logical fallacies (Score:5, Insightful)
You (and the mods) misunderstand.
He's not saying "we must take away personal liberty until everyone is equal", he's saying "it's impossible to have true liberty with so much inequality."
There's a move to make school focus on teaching job schools. College is becoming ever more expensive to bury you in debt. Unions are being destroyed so your employer can play you against your neighbor to pay you both less. Employers want to keep unemployment up so that you're desperate enough to work ever-longer hours for those low wages. And you'll do it, because the alternative is dying in the streets. Data mining allows them to charge you the max amount you're willing to pay. Their contracts require you to waive your right to sue. If you want to retire, you're forced to invest money, where it will be systematically skimmed off by Wall Street firms.
What freedom do you think you have? The freedom to work for someone else's benefit until you die?
The only freedom you'll ever know will come from ganging up with your neighbors, and fighting back. Call it a union, or a government -- either way, it's the people against the powerful. That's how it's been every since the biggest strongest men in the tribes realized they could take the fruits and berries gathered by the other members.