Posted: 12/28/2011 9:39:56 AM EDT
|
With regard to the shit sandwich election we are looking at,I see a lot of people calling for a three party system.I used to think it was a good idea.
Here in RI,we had a 3 way election for governor,this past go round.We had a libocrat run as an independant. The winner was the lib independant,with 36.1 percent of the vote. The Republican got 33.6 percent. The Democrat got 23 percent. If you do the math,you'll see that over 56 percent of RI's voters voted AGAINST our new governor. To make matters worse,our guy is a total moonbat.He has already implemented instate tuition for illegals,legalized gay marriage,and he has refused to turn over to the federal govt,a bank robber who killed a man during the commission of the robberry,because the Fed could impose the death penalty. This jerkoff has earned the nickname governor gump.He knows he was not elected by a majority vote.He knows he will NOT be reelected.Therefore he chooses to represent NOONE,but himself.The above actions were done by decree,not by democracy,or referendum.We have instate tuition because gump says so. A third party system,if put into place,needs a safeguard,if it were to work.It would need a secondary vote,between the top two,percentage-wise.Otherwise,We as a country could end up as fucked as RI. 
|
|
Quoted:
Seems to me you'd have a democrat with 56.6 percent of the vote if you hadn't had a third party. So what's your problem? My problem is the math.Although I live (for now)in a historically dem state,my governor only got a third of the vote.That's not okay. |
|
Quoted:
With regard to the shit sandwich election we are looking at,I see a lot of people calling for a three party system.I used to think it was a good idea. Here in RI,we had a 3 way election for governor,this past go round.We had a libocrat run as an independant. The winner was the lib independant,with 36.1 percent of the vote. The Republican got 33.6 percent. The Democrat got 23 percent. If you do the math,you'll see that over 56 percent of RI's voters voted AGAINST our new governor. To make matters worse,our guy is a total moonbat.He has already implemented instate tuition for illegals,legalized gay marriage,and he has refused to turn over to the federal govt,a bank robber who killed a man during the commission of the robberry,because the Fed could impose the death penalty. This jerkoff has earned the nickname governor gump.He knows he was not elected by a majority vote.He knows he will NOT be reelected.Therefore he chooses to represent NOONE,but himself.The above actions were done by decree,not by democracy,or referendum.We have instate tuition because gump says so. A third party system,if put into place,needs a safeguard,if it were to work.It would need a secondary vote,between the top two,percentage-wise.Otherwise,We as a country could end up as fucked as RI. Bet you would be singing a different tune if it was a independent right winger |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
With regard to the shit sandwich election we are looking at,I see a lot of people calling for a three party system.I used to think it was a good idea. Here in RI,we had a 3 way election for governor,this past go round.We had a libocrat run as an independant. The winner was the lib independant,with 36.1 percent of the vote. The Republican got 33.6 percent. The Democrat got 23 percent. If you do the math,you'll see that over 56 percent of RI's voters voted AGAINST our new governor. To make matters worse,our guy is a total moonbat.He has already implemented instate tuition for illegals,legalized gay marriage,and he has refused to turn over to the federal govt,a bank robber who killed a man during the commission of the robberry,because the Fed could impose the death penalty. This jerkoff has earned the nickname governor gump.He knows he was not elected by a majority vote.He knows he will NOT be reelected.Therefore he chooses to represent NOONE,but himself.The above actions were done by decree,not by democracy,or referendum.We have instate tuition because gump says so. A third party system,if put into place,needs a safeguard,if it were to work.It would need a secondary vote,between the top two,percentage-wise.Otherwise,We as a country could end up as fucked as RI. Bet you would be singing a different tune if it was a independent right winger I'm having a hard time figuring out why noone else sees the problem.It would be pretty simple to fix,by having a secondary election,to nail down a real majority win.It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on,or at least it shouldn't. |
|
Quoted:
A third party system,if put into place,needs a safeguard,if it were to work First - Who would "put a third party system in place", other than voters deciding to vote for a third party? We do not have a "two party system", other than de facto. It's that way only because that's the way it has been. Second - What "safeguards" do you propose, to make sure that only "third party" candidates that you approve of can run or win? How do you propose to "protect" us from candidates with whom you do not agree? Lastly - Why would it be a good idea to try to protect the badly failed way we do things now? Having a bunch of dopes believe that they must vote R or D has done nothing but drag this country into the sewer. Unless I have good reason to do otherwise, I am going to be voting Libertarian. Anyone who wants to see actual change is free to join me. Anyone who's happy with the direction we're going now is free to continue to blindly flip the R-D coin. |
|
Quoted: I'm having a hard time figuring out why noone else sees the problem.It would be pretty simple to fix,by having a secondary election,to nail down a real majority win.It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on,or at least it shouldn't. viola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is sounding a lot more like a Rhode Island problem than a third party problem. Sure.Until we have a 3 way election for potus.Then it will be your problem too.  What, exactly, is so noble or wonderful about having only two candidates instead of three? What's the point of demanding that the winner must have a plurality? Let's say you have three candidates. One gets 40%, one gets 35%, and one gets 25% You could declare the guy with 40% the winner... or you could say well, we want to have an election only between two candidates, so we'll have a runoff between Mr. 40% and Mr. 35% to see what will happen. OK, what could happen? A) Mr. 40% wins anyway; or B) suddenly Mr. 35% wins. How is that outcome any better than the first outcome? Popular elections are a great danger to liberty, and our Founding Fathers went to great lengths to try to insulate us from the dangers of them. Why do we keep trying to cut those safeguards out and head straight over the cliff of a raw popular vote deciding everything? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With regard to the shit sandwich election we are looking at,I see a lot of people calling for a three party system.I used to think it was a good idea. Here in RI,we had a 3 way election for governor,this past go round.We had a libocrat run as an independant. The winner was the lib independant,with 36.1 percent of the vote. The Republican got 33.6 percent. The Democrat got 23 percent. If you do the math,you'll see that over 56 percent of RI's voters voted AGAINST our new governor. To make matters worse,our guy is a total moonbat.He has already implemented instate tuition for illegals,legalized gay marriage,and he has refused to turn over to the federal govt,a bank robber who killed a man during the commission of the robberry,because the Fed could impose the death penalty. This jerkoff has earned the nickname governor gump.He knows he was not elected by a majority vote.He knows he will NOT be reelected.Therefore he chooses to represent NOONE,but himself.The above actions were done by decree,not by democracy,or referendum.We have instate tuition because gump says so. A third party system,if put into place,needs a safeguard,if it were to work.It would need a secondary vote,between the top two,percentage-wise.Otherwise,We as a country could end up as fucked as RI. Bet you would be singing a different tune if it was a independent right winger I'm having a hard time figuring out why noone else sees the problem.It would be pretty simple to fix,by having a secondary election,to nail down a real majority win.It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on,or at least it shouldn't. As you've explained it, if there was just a Dem and Rep in your election then the Rep would have gotten his ass kicked very badly. A secondary election wouldn't have helped your guy any. The good news is that your state is roughly the size of my neighborhood, so you can move this....................................................................................far and have a different governor. |
|
Quoted: Run a better republican?Really?Have you been paying attention?We "run" whoever we are given.Generally an undesireable thief. Then there's no problem. The Republicans shouldn't be in office if that's what rises to the top. BTW, at one time the Republican party was a 3rd party.  |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: With regard to the shit sandwich election we are looking at,I see a lot of people calling for a three party system.I used to think it was a good idea. Here in RI,we had a 3 way election for governor,this past go round.We had a libocrat run as an independant. The winner was the lib independant,with 36.1 percent of the vote. The Republican got 33.6 percent. The Democrat got 23 percent. If you do the math,you'll see that over 56 percent of RI's voters voted AGAINST our new governor. To make matters worse,our guy is a total moonbat.He has already implemented instate tuition for illegals,legalized gay marriage,and he has refused to turn over to the federal govt,a bank robber who killed a man during the commission of the robberry,because the Fed could impose the death penalty. This jerkoff has earned the nickname governor gump.He knows he was not elected by a majority vote.He knows he will NOT be reelected.Therefore he chooses to represent NOONE,but himself.The above actions were done by decree,not by democracy,or referendum.We have instate tuition because gump says so. A third party system,if put into place,needs a safeguard,if it were to work.It would need a secondary vote,between the top two,percentage-wise.Otherwise,We as a country could end up as fucked as RI. Bet you would be singing a different tune if it was a independent right winger I'm having a hard time figuring out why noone else sees the problem.It would be pretty simple to fix,by having a secondary election,to nail down a real majority win.It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on,or at least it shouldn't. So you would be happier had they had a secondary election wherein your republican candidate got beat by 66ish%? Serious logic fail on your part. Maybe we should push the republicans to back real conservatives then we may be able to drum up support to beat the others. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is sounding a lot more like a Rhode Island problem than a third party problem. Sure.Until we have a 3 way election for potus.Then it will be your problem too. ... Popular elections are a great danger to liberty, and our Founding Fathers went to great lengths to try to insulate us from the dangers of them. Why do we keep trying to cut those safeguards out and head straight over the cliff of a raw popular vote deciding everything? We forget that no democracy in history has lasted long, and they all die horrible deaths. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With regard to the shit sandwich election we are looking at,I see a lot of people calling for a three party system.I used to think it was a good idea. Here in RI,we had a 3 way election for governor,this past go round.We had a libocrat run as an independant. The winner was the lib independant,with 36.1 percent of the vote. The Republican got 33.6 percent. The Democrat got 23 percent. If you do the math,you'll see that over 56 percent of RI's voters voted AGAINST our new governor. To make matters worse,our guy is a total moonbat.He has already implemented instate tuition for illegals,legalized gay marriage,and he has refused to turn over to the federal govt,a bank robber who killed a man during the commission of the robberry,because the Fed could impose the death penalty. This jerkoff has earned the nickname governor gump.He knows he was not elected by a majority vote.He knows he will NOT be reelected.Therefore he chooses to represent NOONE,but himself.The above actions were done by decree,not by democracy,or referendum.We have instate tuition because gump says so. A third party system,if put into place,needs a safeguard,if it were to work.It would need a secondary vote,between the top two,percentage-wise.Otherwise,We as a country could end up as fucked as RI. Bet you would be singing a different tune if it was a independent right winger I'm having a hard time figuring out why noone else sees the problem.It would be pretty simple to fix,by having a secondary election,to nail down a real majority win.It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on,or at least it shouldn't. As you've explained it, if there was just a Dem and Rep in your election then the Rep would have gotten his ass kicked very badly. A secondary election wouldn't have helped your guy any. The good news is that your state is roughly the size of my neighborhood, so you can move this....................................................................................far and have a different governor. Thank you for your maturity. I only bring it up here,because I've seen calls here in GD for a 3rd party.I don't have any real "love" for our two party system,but having seen us get hosed here at home,I don't want to see it nationally. Twice now,it's been brought up that the Dems would have wone either way.I'm ok with that.I'm not okay with putting a knowingly unpopular lame duck in office,to feather his own nest at the expense of us all.(which is what we have here in our neighborhood sized state. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With regard to the shit sandwich election we are looking at,I see a lot of people calling for a three party system.I used to think it was a good idea. Here in RI,we had a 3 way election for governor,this past go round.We had a libocrat run as an independant. The winner was the lib independant,with 36.1 percent of the vote. The Republican got 33.6 percent. The Democrat got 23 percent. If you do the math,you'll see that over 56 percent of RI's voters voted AGAINST our new governor. To make matters worse,our guy is a total moonbat.He has already implemented instate tuition for illegals,legalized gay marriage,and he has refused to turn over to the federal govt,a bank robber who killed a man during the commission of the robberry,because the Fed could impose the death penalty. This jerkoff has earned the nickname governor gump.He knows he was not elected by a majority vote.He knows he will NOT be reelected.Therefore he chooses to represent NOONE,but himself.The above actions were done by decree,not by democracy,or referendum.We have instate tuition because gump says so. A third party system,if put into place,needs a safeguard,if it were to work.It would need a secondary vote,between the top two,percentage-wise.Otherwise,We as a country could end up as fucked as RI. Bet you would be singing a different tune if it was a independent right winger I'm having a hard time figuring out why noone else sees the problem.It would be pretty simple to fix,by having a secondary election,to nail down a real majority win.It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on,or at least it shouldn't. So you would be happier had they had a secondary election wherein your republican candidate got beat by 66ish%? Serious logic fail on your part. Maybe we should push the republicans to back real conservatives then we may be able to drum up support to beat the others. Not hardly.The guy in office knows he will NOT be reelected,and therefore is going out of his way to fuck things up here. I'm not in favor of a 2 party system,OR a 3 party system,or a 87 party system.All I'm saying is that divided enough ways,the winner is elected by a way smaller electorate,ensuring that the majority are NOT represented. 
|
|
Quoted: You still fail at logic. The run off would have been between your republican and the guy that won and the guy that won would have had even more votes so you would have ended up with what you already have. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: With regard to the shit sandwich election we are looking at,I see a lot of people calling for a three party system.I used to think it was a good idea. Here in RI,we had a 3 way election for governor,this past go round.We had a libocrat run as an independant. The winner was the lib independant,with 36.1 percent of the vote. The Republican got 33.6 percent. The Democrat got 23 percent. If you do the math,you'll see that over 56 percent of RI's voters voted AGAINST our new governor. To make matters worse,our guy is a total moonbat.He has already implemented instate tuition for illegals,legalized gay marriage,and he has refused to turn over to the federal govt,a bank robber who killed a man during the commission of the robberry,because the Fed could impose the death penalty. This jerkoff has earned the nickname governor gump.He knows he was not elected by a majority vote.He knows he will NOT be reelected.Therefore he chooses to represent NOONE,but himself.The above actions were done by decree,not by democracy,or referendum.We have instate tuition because gump says so. A third party system,if put into place,needs a safeguard,if it were to work.It would need a secondary vote,between the top two,percentage-wise.Otherwise,We as a country could end up as fucked as RI. Bet you would be singing a different tune if it was a independent right winger I'm having a hard time figuring out why noone else sees the problem.It would be pretty simple to fix,by having a secondary election,to nail down a real majority win.It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on,or at least it shouldn't. As you've explained it, if there was just a Dem and Rep in your election then the Rep would have gotten his ass kicked very badly. A secondary election wouldn't have helped your guy any. The good news is that your state is roughly the size of my neighborhood, so you can move this....................................................................................far and have a different governor. Thank you for your maturity. I only bring it up here,because I've seen calls here in GD for a 3rd party.I don't have any real "love" for our two party system,but having seen us get hosed here at home,I don't want to see it nationally. Twice now,it's been brought up that the Dems would have wone either way.I'm ok with that.I'm not okay with putting a knowingly unpopular lame duck in office,to feather his own nest at the expense of us all.(which is what we have here in our neighborhood sized state. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: With regard to the shit sandwich election we are looking at,I see a lot of people calling for a three party system.I used to think it was a good idea. Here in RI,we had a 3 way election for governor,this past go round.We had a libocrat run as an independant. The winner was the lib independant,with 36.1 percent of the vote. The Republican got 33.6 percent. The Democrat got 23 percent. If you do the math,you'll see that over 56 percent of RI's voters voted AGAINST our new governor. To make matters worse,our guy is a total moonbat.He has already implemented instate tuition for illegals,legalized gay marriage,and he has refused to turn over to the federal govt,a bank robber who killed a man during the commission of the robberry,because the Fed could impose the death penalty. This jerkoff has earned the nickname governor gump.He knows he was not elected by a majority vote.He knows he will NOT be reelected.Therefore he chooses to represent NOONE,but himself.The above actions were done by decree,not by democracy,or referendum.We have instate tuition because gump says so. A third party system,if put into place,needs a safeguard,if it were to work.It would need a secondary vote,between the top two,percentage-wise.Otherwise,We as a country could end up as fucked as RI. Bet you would be singing a different tune if it was a independent right winger I'm having a hard time figuring out why noone else sees the problem.It would be pretty simple to fix,by having a secondary election,to nail down a real majority win.It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on,or at least it shouldn't. So you would be happier had they had a secondary election wherein your republican candidate got beat by 66ish%? Serious logic fail on your part. Maybe we should push the republicans to back real conservatives then we may be able to drum up support to beat the others. Not hardly.The guy in office knows he will NOT be reelected,and therefore is going out of his way to fuck things up here. I'm not in favor of a 2 party system,OR a 3 party system,or a 87 party system.All I'm saying is that divided enough ways,the winner is elected by a way smaller electorate,ensuring that the majority are NOT represented. Once again real, real slow for you, THE SAME GUY WOULD HAVE WON AND WOULD STILL BE DOING THE SAME DAMN THING HE IS. I am not sure why you are hung up on some ideal that a run off would have changed a single fucking thing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is sounding a lot more like a Rhode Island problem than a third party problem. Sure.Until we have a 3 way election for potus.Then it will be your problem too. ... Popular elections are a great danger to liberty, and our Founding Fathers went to great lengths to try to insulate us from the dangers of them. Why do we keep trying to cut those safeguards out and head straight over the cliff of a raw popular vote deciding everything? We forget that no democracy in history has lasted long, and they all die horrible deaths. This.I don't have a viable solution,but I DO see some of the problems. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is sounding a lot more like a Rhode Island problem than a third party problem. Sure.Until we have a 3 way election for potus.Then it will be your problem too. ... Popular elections are a great danger to liberty, and our Founding Fathers went to great lengths to try to insulate us from the dangers of them. Why do we keep trying to cut those safeguards out and head straight over the cliff of a raw popular vote deciding everything? We forget that no democracy in history has lasted long, and they all die horrible deaths. This.I don't have a viable solution,but I DO see some of the problems. Today: Space bar. Tomorrow: Fix the world. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You still fail at logic. The run off would have been between your republican and the guy that won and the guy that won would have had even more votes so you would have ended up with what you already have.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With regard to the shit sandwich election we are looking at,I see a lot of people calling for a three party system.I used to think it was a good idea. Here in RI,we had a 3 way election for governor,this past go round.We had a libocrat run as an independant. The winner was the lib independant,with 36.1 percent of the vote. The Republican got 33.6 percent. The Democrat got 23 percent. If you do the math,you'll see that over 56 percent of RI's voters voted AGAINST our new governor. To make matters worse,our guy is a total moonbat.He has already implemented instate tuition for illegals,legalized gay marriage,and he has refused to turn over to the federal govt,a bank robber who killed a man during the commission of the robberry,because the Fed could impose the death penalty. This jerkoff has earned the nickname governor gump.He knows he was not elected by a majority vote.He knows he will NOT be reelected.Therefore he chooses to represent NOONE,but himself.The above actions were done by decree,not by democracy,or referendum.We have instate tuition because gump says so. A third party system,if put into place,needs a safeguard,if it were to work.It would need a secondary vote,between the top two,percentage-wise.Otherwise,We as a country could end up as fucked as RI. Bet you would be singing a different tune if it was a independent right winger I'm having a hard time figuring out why noone else sees the problem.It would be pretty simple to fix,by having a secondary election,to nail down a real majority win.It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on,or at least it shouldn't. As you've explained it, if there was just a Dem and Rep in your election then the Rep would have gotten his ass kicked very badly. A secondary election wouldn't have helped your guy any. The good news is that your state is roughly the size of my neighborhood, so you can move this....................................................................................far and have a different governor. Thank you for your maturity. I only bring it up here,because I've seen calls here in GD for a 3rd party.I don't have any real "love" for our two party system,but having seen us get hosed here at home,I don't want to see it nationally. Twice now,it's been brought up that the Dems would have wone either way.I'm ok with that.I'm not okay with putting a knowingly unpopular lame duck in office,to feather his own nest at the expense of us all.(which is what we have here in our neighborhood sized state. Where do do get that?The R voters whose guy lost,would split their votes between the dem,and the ind. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You still fail at logic. The run off would have been between your republican and the guy that won and the guy that won would have had even more votes so you would have ended up with what you already have. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: With regard to the shit sandwich election we are looking at,I see a lot of people calling for a three party system.I used to think it was a good idea. Here in RI,we had a 3 way election for governor,this past go round.We had a libocrat run as an independant. The winner was the lib independant,with 36.1 percent of the vote. The Republican got 33.6 percent. The Democrat got 23 percent. If you do the math,you'll see that over 56 percent of RI's voters voted AGAINST our new governor. To make matters worse,our guy is a total moonbat.He has already implemented instate tuition for illegals,legalized gay marriage,and he has refused to turn over to the federal govt,a bank robber who killed a man during the commission of the robberry,because the Fed could impose the death penalty. This jerkoff has earned the nickname governor gump.He knows he was not elected by a majority vote.He knows he will NOT be reelected.Therefore he chooses to represent NOONE,but himself.The above actions were done by decree,not by democracy,or referendum.We have instate tuition because gump says so. A third party system,if put into place,needs a safeguard,if it were to work.It would need a secondary vote,between the top two,percentage-wise.Otherwise,We as a country could end up as fucked as RI. Bet you would be singing a different tune if it was a independent right winger I'm having a hard time figuring out why noone else sees the problem.It would be pretty simple to fix,by having a secondary election,to nail down a real majority win.It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on,or at least it shouldn't. As you've explained it, if there was just a Dem and Rep in your election then the Rep would have gotten his ass kicked very badly. A secondary election wouldn't have helped your guy any. The good news is that your state is roughly the size of my neighborhood, so you can move this....................................................................................far and have a different governor. Thank you for your maturity. I only bring it up here,because I've seen calls here in GD for a 3rd party.I don't have any real "love" for our two party system,but having seen us get hosed here at home,I don't want to see it nationally. Twice now,it's been brought up that the Dems would have wone either way.I'm ok with that.I'm not okay with putting a knowingly unpopular lame duck in office,to feather his own nest at the expense of us all.(which is what we have here in our neighborhood sized state. Where do do get that?The R voters whose guy lost,would split their votes between the dem,and the ind. The runoff would have been between the independent and the republican unless you are proposing some fucked up system where the guy who got the most votes and the guy who got the least ran off instead of the top two. |
|
Several Latin American countries have a secondary election to ensure the winner has a majority of the popular vote. It is not uncommon, and the logic there is sound- what if the country were extremely divided and the president ended up being someone with 20% of the vote in a country with a much weaker government than the US?
Many European countries also have found ways to allow third parties into their politics more effectively. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. Personally, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest having more is better or more fair than having fewer, and depending on how the elections are structured the results can be rather ridiculous. Look at the UK- Labour and Conservative parties lead the country with both seats held and popular vote percentage, but here's the breakdown on last couple of election's results. 2005 Labour- 35.2% of the vote, 355 seats Conservative- 32.4% of the vote, 198 seats Lib Democrat- 22.1% of the vote, 62 seats 2010 Labour- 29% of the vote, 258 seats Conservative- 36.1% of the vote, 306 seats Lib Democrat- 23% of the vote, 57 seats There are some extremely major details I'm leaving out here (The district system and how representatives are assigned to districts, for instance) and the election process between the UK and US are not so similar as to allow you to apply these details loosely, so I would urge you to look more closely into elections in other countries that have a significant third party (or third parties), but you almost always end up with two big parties, and then a third party that may hold a very substantial portion of the vote, but relatively little actual representation in congress. Notice how liberal democrats went up in terms of number of popular votes received- but lost 5 seats. That seems to suggest to me that fringe voters on either side of the aisle are better off playing buddy-buddy with a larger party and ensuring their interests are safeguarded, rather than flying solo, so to speak. Coalitions are more common in European legislatures than in the US, for sure. A lot of that is because enthusiasm for the less mainstream parties is often present, but it isn't concentrated, and therefore it makes getting seats a lot harder. If everyone in Texas, for instance, voted on all of the Congresscritters of Texas, Ron Paul probably wouldn't have a job, or any other more extreme candidate who is either to the right or left of their respective parties. However, he is in office because his particular area is able to support him. That's not a very good example, but I think you can understand the point. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: In a "serious" 3 party system the house of representatives would be choosing our President. Check your copy of The Constitution. If memory serves that's how Wison became President because Teddy R. ran in the Bull Moose Party. According to wiki his first term was a landslide with 435 electoral votes, His second term he had like 275. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You still fail at logic. The run off would have been between your republican and the guy that won and the guy that won would have had even more votes so you would have ended up with what you already have.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With regard to the shit sandwich election we are looking at,I see a lot of people calling for a three party system.I used to think it was a good idea. Here in RI,we had a 3 way election for governor,this past go round.We had a libocrat run as an independant. The winner was the lib independant,with 36.1 percent of the vote. The Republican got 33.6 percent. The Democrat got 23 percent. If you do the math,you'll see that over 56 percent of RI's voters voted AGAINST our new governor. To make matters worse,our guy is a total moonbat.He has already implemented instate tuition for illegals,legalized gay marriage,and he has refused to turn over to the federal govt,a bank robber who killed a man during the commission of the robberry,because the Fed could impose the death penalty. This jerkoff has earned the nickname governor gump.He knows he was not elected by a majority vote.He knows he will NOT be reelected.Therefore he chooses to represent NOONE,but himself.The above actions were done by decree,not by democracy,or referendum.We have instate tuition because gump says so. A third party system,if put into place,needs a safeguard,if it were to work.It would need a secondary vote,between the top two,percentage-wise.Otherwise,We as a country could end up as fucked as RI. Bet you would be singing a different tune if it was a independent right winger I'm having a hard time figuring out why noone else sees the problem.It would be pretty simple to fix,by having a secondary election,to nail down a real majority win.It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on,or at least it shouldn't. As you've explained it, if there was just a Dem and Rep in your election then the Rep would have gotten his ass kicked very badly. A secondary election wouldn't have helped your guy any. The good news is that your state is roughly the size of my neighborhood, so you can move this....................................................................................far and have a different governor. Thank you for your maturity. I only bring it up here,because I've seen calls here in GD for a 3rd party.I don't have any real "love" for our two party system,but having seen us get hosed here at home,I don't want to see it nationally. Twice now,it's been brought up that the Dems would have wone either way.I'm ok with that.I'm not okay with putting a knowingly unpopular lame duck in office,to feather his own nest at the expense of us all.(which is what we have here in our neighborhood sized state. Where do do get that?The R voters whose guy lost,would split their votes between the dem,and the ind. The runoff would have been between the independent and the republican unless you are proposing some fucked up system where the guy who got the most votes and the guy who got the least ran off instead of the top two. You are of course 100% correct.I screwed that up.Apparently my typespacing isn't my only flaw. 
In my opinion,dividing the dem votes would work better. Put simply,I have a problem with two thirds of voters voting aginst the winner.Maybe I'm a dope. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Proportional representation and run-off elections FTW? You mean like in Europe were they vote for the party instead of a specific asshole and where they party is given a % of gov base on the % of people that voted for them? Fuck that noise! Kind of, yeah. I should have added a  to my initial reply. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Proportional representation and run-off elections FTW? You mean like in Europe were they vote for the party instead of a specific asshole and where they party is given a % of gov base on the % of people that voted for them? Fuck that noise! Kind of, yeah. I should have added a to my initial reply.
There are several types of proportional representation systems, both like you describe, and different. Germany has a particularly... let's call it, interesting, system!
I don't think its any better than our system, and one of the largest complaints about overly complex PR systems is often that of voter education and not knowing what you're voting for. |
|
Quoted:
Should have run a Republican that was capable of beating such a poor candidate, hmmm? Wow. 1st post. If there was a Repub candidate worth even just one fuck, one whole fuck, the third party idea would be moot. As it stands, the Republicans are incapable of mustering a conservative. |