Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 4/14/2006 9:01:24 PM EST
I've seen the question asked: "what if we're faced with McCain vs. Clinton in 2008?"

why is there such a problem here? why not vote 3rd party? are you afraid that your vote is going to go toward the dems? why not try to get your lib neighbors who arent too happy with hitlery to vote 3rd party as well? it's this kind of stupidity that is keeping the USA a two party state.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:02:10 PM EST
Because the R & D's ballot access laws have successfully held down "Third" parties for quite some time.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:05:28 PM EST
unless there is some otherwise uber repuplician Pro MG pres. canidate, I will be voting 3rd party.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:10:29 PM EST
I'll be voting Libertarian if it is a decent candidate.................i.e. not Anti-war
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:13:16 PM EST
Most 3rd parties on the fringe of the political spectrum.

Call it what you want, they are not "professional" politicians and have no idea how to effectively organize and offer a coherent message.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:14:28 PM EST
Because it's stupid to vote for someone who has no chance of winning.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:15:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By GoGop:
Because it's stupid to vote for someone who has no chance of winning.



so you will instead vote for someone who will keep the status quo of eroding your rights and taxing you further to support 3rd world shitholes. great plan sir!
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:15:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By GoGop:
Because it's stupid to vote for someone who has no chance of winning.


They only have no chance because everyone thinks that way.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:19:41 PM EST
Eventually, though, I'm tellin' ya, it'll happen, folks will get soooo fed up with the Dems and Reps that a third party will materialize around a charismatic figure seemingly overnight and elect that party into power. It takes a character that folks can identify with combined with a lack of faith in the status quo. Get those two things goind and folks will consider another alternative, "it can't be worse than what we have now".
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:22:05 PM EST
HISTORY

In the over 200 year history of the Republic, only ONE third party has been successful, when the Republicans took over from a dying Whig party just prior to the Civil War. All other third parties have done nothing more than split the vote of one block or the other, and paved the way for success for the other side.

For those of you pissed at the Republican's, think of this. What if a Liberal like Kerry gets elected, and due to private industry we have another great economic boom like happened to Clinton. The Dems may get credit for being the "responsible" party on economics and gain real dominance, complete with gun control and mandatory homosexuality. If you really want to change the system rather than bitch, get active in the primary process. That's where the battle is won or lost these days.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:23:20 PM EST
All true, but ignoring the truth doesn't change it. The only way it'll ever change is for someone to become so well known and well liked throughout the country that they'd win without a major party backing them.
I don't see it ever happening, because the majority of voters don't pay any attention to politics until very shortly before the election.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:24:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By happycynic:
HISTORY

In the over 200 year history of the Republic, only ONE third party has been successful, when the Republicans took over from a dying Whig party just prior to the Civil War. All other third parties have done nothing more than split the vote of one block or the other, and paved the way for success for the other side.

For those of you pissed at the Republican's, think of this. What if a Liberal like Kerry gets elected, and due to private industry we have another great economic boom like happened to Clinton. The Dems may get credit for being the "responsible" party on economics and gain real dominance, complete with gun control and mandatory homosexuality. If you really want to change the system rather than bitch, get active in the primary process. That's where the battle is won or lost these days.




which is great, but the republican party is failing us and rotting from within. perhaps their time has come?
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:26:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By happycynic:
HISTORY

In the over 200 year history of the Republic, only ONE third party has been successful, when the Republicans took over from a dying Whig party just prior to the Civil War. All other third parties have done nothing more than split the vote of one block or the other, and paved the way for success for the other side.

For those of you pissed at the Republican's, think of this. What if a Liberal like Kerry gets elected, and due to private industry we have another great economic boom like happened to Clinton. The Dems may get credit for being the "responsible" party on economics and gain real dominance, complete with gun control and mandatory homosexuality. If you really want to change the system rather than bitch, get active in the primary process. That's where the battle is won or lost these days.




which is great, but the republican party is failing us and rotting from within. perhaps their time has come?



So whats the realistic alternative? The constitution party or the libertatians have about as much chance of success as the green party. People voting third party got Clinton elected, glad to see that worked out so well.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:27:23 PM EST
and is mccain going to be any better? the guy is a shitbag who is riding on his "I'm a POW" high horse.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:27:35 PM EST
For the first time since I started voting 20 years ago, will I not vote Republican again unless there
are some major changes with the current administration very soon. I dont want to hear promises of what someone will do IF THE WIN ELECTION. We have put the Republicans in TWICE. They have the power but they sit on their hands because they believe they know better...

SECURE THE BORDERS NOW !

Bottom line is we need to start VOTING MORE CONSERVATIVE and not voting for the lesser
of two devils.

LB

Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:28:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 9:29:20 PM EST by Chairborne]

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
and is mccain going to be any better? the guy is a shitbag who is riding on his "I'm a POW" high horse.



As much as I might dislike McCain, I'd vote for him without batting an eye 100 times before I would waste my vote on a third party candidate and assure a victory by the Demo candidate.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:30:02 PM EST
and that is exactly the reason why the republicans are going to keep fucking us over, people will vote for them out of fright.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:32:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mattl:
I'll be voting Libertarian if it is a decent candidate.................i.e. not Anti-war



+1
Libertarian all the way!!
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:32:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

So whats the realistic alternative? The constitution party or the libertatians have about as much chance of success as the green party. People voting third party got Clinton elected, glad to see that worked out so well.



The realistic alternative ain't here because the correct combination of factors haven't materialized yet

Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:38:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 9:39:35 PM EST by TheTracker]
The current two parties have really betrayed this great nation that was founded,
but I think only a two party system works. Can you imagine if we had 10
different parties running for office. Theoretically 11% of the nation could pick a president.
The problem is not the two party system it's the politicians that are not listening to the people
that put them in office.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:39:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By happycynic:
HISTORY

In the over 200 year history of the Republic, only ONE third party has been successful, when the Republicans took over from a dying Whig party just prior to the Civil War. All other third parties have done nothing more than split the vote of one block or the other, and paved the way for success for the other side.

For those of you pissed at the Republican's, think of this. What if a Liberal like Kerry gets elected, and due to private industry we have another great economic boom like happened to Clinton. The Dems may get credit for being the "responsible" party on economics and gain real dominance, complete with gun control and mandatory homosexuality. If you really want to change the system rather than bitch, get active in the primary process. That's where the battle is won or lost these days.




which is great, but the republican party is failing us and rotting from within. perhaps their time has come?



So whats the realistic alternative? The constitution party or the libertatians have about as much chance of success as the green party. People voting third party got Clinton elected, glad to see that worked out so well.



People Voting Nader got Bush elected....So What!

Im not Voting for either of the two parties Unless they produce some one like Ron Paul, and I dont see it happening
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:43:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By TheTracker:
The current two parties have really betrayed this great nation that was founded,
but I think only a two party system works. Can you imagine if we had 10
different parties running for office. Theoretically 11% of the nation could pick a president.
The problem is not the two party system it's the politicians that are not listening to the people
that put them in office.


The problem with the 2 party is system is we shouldn't be limited to two lousy choices... multiple party systems work well for other countries, so why not here?
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:47:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 9:49:47 PM EST by TheTracker]

Originally Posted By sWs2:

Originally Posted By TheTracker:
The current two parties have really betrayed this great nation that was founded,
but I think only a two party system works. Can you imagine if we had 10
different parties running for office. Theoretically 11% of the nation could pick a president.
The problem is not the two party system it's the politicians that are not listening to the people
that put them in office.


The problem with the 2 party is system is we shouldn't be limited to two lousy choices... multiple party systems work well for other countries, so why not here?



Which countries does it work well for?
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:49:36 PM EST

Which country does it work well for?


Israel
Switzerland
Engla­nd
Italy
France
Netherlands
Spain
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:50:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By mytwocents:

Which country does it work well for?


Israel
Switzerland
Engla­nd
Italy
France
Netherlands
Spain­



You think the politics of these countries are doing well?
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:54:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By TheTracker:

Originally Posted By mytwocents:

Which country does it work well for?


Israel
Switzerland
Engla­nd
Italy
France
Netherlands
Spain­



You think the politics of these countries are doing well?


They pursue the goals of their electorate. Most of those countries have a parlimentary system with direct voting though. I dont see the electorial college being split three ways in one state. I think their heads would explode...
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:55:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By TheTracker:

Originally Posted By mytwocents:

Which country does it work well for?


Israel
Switzerland
Engla­nd
Italy
France
Netherlands
Spain­



You think the politics of these countries are doing well?



I suppose the lesser of two evils is more attractive to you than having the Constitution Party weighing in with its whopping 5% or so. I'd rather have somebody... ANYBODY... toeing the line and saying how it should be in the Presidential debate, rather than watching Kerry and Bush swing from cock to cock like it was a game of Pitfall.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 9:57:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 10:01:32 PM EST by Manic_Moran]

Originally Posted By TheTracker:

Originally Posted By mytwocents:

Which country does it work well for?


Israel
Switzerland
Engla­nd
Italy
France
Netherlands
Spain­



You think the politics of these countries are doing well?



Well, Ireland is multi-party with a single transferrable vote. The government may not be particularly well-thought-of right now, but there has never, to my knowledge, been any controversy over the elections or over people having unsatisfactory candidates, unlike a certain large North American country I could think of.

In the US, I don't vote for who I think will do the best job. I find myself voting whatever way I think will result in the situation not getting much worse. i.e. I vote against the candidate I don't want to get in.


I dont see the electorial college being split three ways in one state.


Don't see why you'd need to. Most states have a 'winner take all' system, you just have to have a third-party candidate which can do it.

Daft legal question: Is it possible for an state to individually decide how it wants to come up with its electoral college results? i.e. as long as they meet the federal age requirements, one-man, one vote and whatnot? So if they wanted to go to the single transferrable system to determine the state's Electoral College, could they do it?

NTM
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:03:15 PM EST
Because we've seen the Dems slaughter themselves.

Are you seriously telling me, this last election that
any candidate besides Kerry couldn't have beaten GW?
We got LUCKY!

You want to vote third party, go ahead.

In a hundred years, when, our children have no rights,

Thank yourself.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:06:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

Originally Posted By TheTracker:

Originally Posted By mytwocents:

Which country does it work well for?


Israel
Switzerland
Engla­nd
Italy
France
Netherlands
Spain­



You think the politics of these countries are doing well?



I suppose the lesser of two evils is more attractive to you than having the Constitution Party weighing in with its whopping 5% or so. I'd rather have somebody... ANYBODY... toeing the line and saying how it should be in the Presidential debate, rather than watching Kerry and Bush swing from cock to cock like it was a game of Pitfall.



Like I posted before the problem is not the two party system, it's the politicians in the two
systems. If some hard liner did run for president and told it the way it is, you very well know
99% of the members on this board would vote for a man like that, the majority of the country wouldn't . We now live in a sissified nation. And a politically correct one . Just the way it is my Friend
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:10:21 PM EST
Because most people by nature see thing as Black or White. There are no shades of grey in the middle. It's unfortunate but true.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:12:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By TheTracker:

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

Originally Posted By TheTracker:

Originally Posted By mytwocents:

Which country does it work well for?


Israel
Switzerland
Engla­nd
Italy
France
Netherlands
Spain­



You think the politics of these countries are doing well?



I suppose the lesser of two evils is more attractive to you than having the Constitution Party weighing in with its whopping 5% or so. I'd rather have somebody... ANYBODY... toeing the line and saying how it should be in the Presidential debate, rather than watching Kerry and Bush swing from cock to cock like it was a game of Pitfall.



Like I posted before the problem is not the two party system, it's the politicians in the two
systems. If some hard liner did run for president and told it the way it is, you very well know
99% of the members on this board would vote for a man like that, the majority of the country wouldn't . We now live in a sissified nation. And a politically correct one . Just the way it is my Friend



Well I tell you what. I don't care much for the CP's religious bent, but I will be voting a straight CP ticket at my next opportunity. I will place a call to Boxer's office and tell them that her Yea vote on teh immigration thing was the deciding factor for me, and because of that vote, I will cast my vote for whatever whackjob is running for the Senate in the Constitution Party in California. I'm going with my convictions.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:12:29 PM EST
2 choices are enough for mercans.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:15:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mattl:
I'll be voting Libertarian if it is a decent candidate.................i.e. not Anti-war



You won't find a pro-war Libertarian candidate, might as well look to another party if that's what you're all about.

Those if you that are voting R out of fear, I am praying for you, and I hope one day you see the light and realize that the only vote wasted is one not cast.

It has to get a whole lot worse before it can get better. Let them pass all the gun grabbing laws they want. This country is due for another tea party, and they can pry mine from my cold dead fingers. Maybe then, when a few of us patriots are dead, you whiners can decide if our rights are worth dying over, or if you're just going to submit to whatever tyrant is in office.

I'm voting for LIBERTY, and that means that I cannot, in good faith, waste my vote on a major party candidate.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:20:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:


I dont see the electorial college being split three ways in one state.


Don't see why you'd need to. Most states have a 'winner take all' system, you just have to have a third-party candidate which can do it.

Daft legal question: Is it possible for an state to individually decide how it wants to come up with its electoral college results? i.e. as long as they meet the federal age requirements, one-man, one vote and whatnot? So if they wanted to go to the single transferrable system to determine the state's Electoral College, could they do it?

NTM


Aye winner take all. Winners are determined by majority, with multiple parties you could end up with no one taking the majority. Say that it goes 30% dems, 30% republicans, 20% constitutionalists and 20% libertarians. Who is the winner?

I dont quite understand the second question...
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:26:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
and is mccain going to be any better? the guy is a shitbag who is riding on his "I'm a POW" high horse.



McCain has no chance, because there are too many conservatives in the primaries. He may be polling well now, but at this point polls are just "hey, I recognize that name." Which is why the Hildebeast and Kerry have strong poll numbers as well. Lets not write off the Republican party until we at least SEE WHO THE NOMINEE IS. I know that many of you are frustraited by Bush, and I am as well, and was back in 2000 when he first ran. Bush got elected because the Republicans wanted a safe candidate to ensure that Gore didn't win, so we got a moderate, middle of the road guy. This upcoming cycle people are pissed about immigration, which is a great opportunity for a more right wing candidate to capture the nomination, like Reagan did for the 1980 election. I'm as frustrated as the rest of you, but remember that political change in a society of 300 million people takes time. The libs dominated politics from the 1930s up until the 1980s, and they still (thankfully) didn't get all of their agenda through.

I know it sounds trite, but Rome really wasn't built in a day. The important thing is that now we are more on the right track than the wrong track on most issues (with immigration a big exception). We have more gun freedoms, less taxes, fewer welfare leaches, and for all his faults, Bush is at least willing to bomb foreigners, which is more than you can say for Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. Hell, the dems haven't fielded a non-pussy president since Kennedy.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:35:08 PM EST
People fear change.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:38:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By happycynic:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
and is mccain going to be any better? the guy is a shitbag who is riding on his "I'm a POW" high horse.



McCain has no chance, because there are too many conservatives in the primaries. He may be polling well now, but at this point polls are just "hey, I recognize that name." Which is why the Hildebeast and Kerry have strong poll numbers as well. Lets not write off the Republican party until we at least SEE WHO THE NOMINEE IS. I know that many of you are frustraited by Bush, and I am as well, and was back in 2000 when he first ran. Bush got elected because the Republicans wanted a safe candidate to ensure that Gore didn't win, so we got a moderate, middle of the road guy. This upcoming cycle people are pissed about immigration, which is a great opportunity for a more right wing candidate to capture the nomination, like Reagan did for the 1980 election. I'm as frustrated as the rest of you, but remember that political change in a society of 300 million people takes time. The libs dominated politics from the 1930s up until the 1980s, and they still (thankfully) didn't get all of their agenda through.

I know it sounds trite, but Rome really wasn't built in a day. The important thing is that now we are more on the right track than the wrong track on most issues (with immigration a big exception). We have more gun freedoms, less taxes, fewer welfare leaches, and for all his faults, Bush is at least willing to bomb foreigners, which is more than you can say for Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. Hell, the dems haven't fielded a non-pussy president since Kennedy.



Yup.
I pray to god it doesn't come down to him as POTUS nominee.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:39:00 PM EST
The democraptic candidate applauds your third party vote. Vote your consience, you'll be sleeping well at night as your rights are slowly eroding.

Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:40:35 PM EST
Two words: Ross Perot
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:41:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
The democraptic candidate applauds your third party vote. Vote your consience, you'll be sleeping well at night as your rights are slowly eroding.

img83.imageshack.us/img83/346/9016932wf.jpg



Yeah, like bush and his phone tapping isn't an infringement on my rights.

Get your head out of the sand, PLEASE!
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:43:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
The democraptic candidate applauds your third party vote. Vote your consience, you'll be sleeping well at night as your rights are slowly eroding.

img83.imageshack.us/img83/346/9016932wf.jpg



Yeah, like bush and his phone tapping isn't an infringement on my rights.

Get your head out of the sand, PLEASE!



Only if you were calling your terrorist buddies in Afghanistan. You do know that was the only assholes being listened to, right? Good thing you fell for the MSM BS on that one. You probably have your panties in a twist about the "Dubai ports deal" too.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:46:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
The democraptic candidate applauds your third party vote. Vote your consience, you'll be sleeping well at night as your rights are slowly eroding.

img83.imageshack.us/img83/346/9016932wf.jpg



Yeah, like bush and his phone tapping isn't an infringement on my rights.

Get your head out of the sand, PLEASE!



Only if you were calling your terrorist buddies in Afghanistan. You do know that was the only assholes being listened to, right? Good thing you fell for the MSM BS on that one. You probably have your panties in a twist about the "Dubai ports deal" too.



Nope. I don't give a fuck who I'm talking to. Get a warrant or get out of my life. My rights are NOT waiverable for ANY reason.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:51:11 PM EST
You dummies really think the Dems won't nominate some
Hillary-esque candidate?

Boy oh boy.......

Let's make it an ARFCOM deal..Post your vote.

Post your vote so we know who to blame.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:53:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By Goonboss:
You dummies really think the Dems won't nominate some
Hillary-esque candidate?

Boy oh boy.......

Let's make it an ARFCOM deal..Post your vote.

Post your vote so we know who to blame.



The dummocrats obviously can't beat us in a fair fight, so they are using the only tool at their disposal, the MSM, to divide the conservatives. Seems like its working wonderfully, divided we fall, indeed.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:54:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:


Nope. I don't give a fuck who I'm talking to. Get a warrant or get out of my life. My rights are NOT waiverable for ANY reason.



I bet you have a whole house full of illegal machine guns too, since your RKBA is not waiverable for ANY reason.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:56:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Goonboss:
You dummies really think the Dems won't nominate some
Hillary-esque candidate?

Boy oh boy.......

Let's make it an ARFCOM deal..Post your vote.

Post your vote so we know who to blame.



The dummocrats obviously can't beat us in a fair fight, so they are using the only tool at their disposal, the MSM, to divide the conservatives. Seems like its working wonderfully, divided we fall, indeed.



Ever think that some of us have a more complex ideology and thus are neither "Liberals" nor "Conservatives"?

It's the major political parties telling you that you can ONLY be one or the other that is the problem, not the media's bias, which is obvious and the people will not be fooled.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 11:27:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 11:30:29 PM EST by Young-Kiwi]
I find it an interesting thread, having been down this road before.

In New Zealand we reached the point where more people disliked the two major parties than liked them. We had a standard FPP (first past the post) electorial system.

In 1993 85% of (registered) New Zealanders Voted, of that 35% of that (29.75% of registered voters) voted for National (republician type party) They got the most votes (and seats) and ruled the country.
The country woke up and went WTF! there's a problem here.

The result is we chucked out the entire electoral system and introduced a new one.
The type of thing you can do in a country of only 4 million people.
Based on the German model of MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) There's a 5% minimum vote level to keep the real flakes out. The voting is a lot more fair, the amount of say the parties have in parliment is directly representative of the number of people who voted for them.
So law making tends to better reflects what people really want.
(it's far from perfect, but I think it went in the right direction, I think it's a better system)

Australia still uses a FPP system. I still have my AR15, my cousins in Australia don't. I choose think it's related.
Legal gun owners are about 9-10% of the population in NZ, in a MMP environment that counts.


BTW for my 2 cents, I see about 0% chance of Electoral Reform in the USA.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:38:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
I've seen the question asked: "what if we're faced with McCain vs. Clinton in 2008?"

why is there such a problem here? why not vote 3rd party? are you afraid that your vote is going to go toward the dems? why not try to get your lib neighbors who arent too happy with hitlery to vote 3rd party as well? it's this kind of stupidity that is keeping the USA a two party state.



Our system is a binary system.

A third party will always play spoiler, but will NEVER win. The only time third parties have success is when one of the existing major parties has already imploded. (E.g., the whigs).

Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:39:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By sWs2:

Originally Posted By GoGop:
Because it's stupid to vote for someone who has no chance of winning.


They only have no chance because everyone thinks that way.



No, it is true because in a zero-sum voting system, a third party can never win. Its just that simple.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:48:59 AM EST
<-- voting Libertarian
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top