Political parties

[scr4wl]

Sure, there are challenges, but the idea that a third party vote is wasted or disruptive guarantees that nothing will ever change. That's exactly what the powers that be want people to think, because it keeps them in business. Special interests win whether its Republicans or Democrats.

 

Nothing ever changes by doing the same things you always do. Every new path is blazed by pioneers, eventually everyone else sees that the path is safe and will take it. No pioneers means no change. I choose to be a pioneer. I encourage every voter who wants real change to do the same.

 

Hey man I agree with you. My point is just that until the electoral college is gone, (I heard talk about voting for it this year, dunno if that's true it not) no third party is gonna get elected. Until that time comes might as well voice your opinion on the candidates that the college currently cares about.

[Phil]

Hey man I agree with you. My point is just that until the electoral college is gone, (I heard talk about voting for it this year, dunno if that's true it not) no third party is gonna get elected. Until that time comes might as well voice your opinion on the candidates that the college currently cares about.

The President isn't the only office where you can vote third party. In many ways the makeup of Congress is more important.

 

I just can't agree with going with the flow until something changes. Voting is one of the few ways we have to force change, we need to use it to tell people we're not going to take it any more.

[scr4wl]

The President isn't the only office where you can vote third party. In many ways the makeup of Congress is more important.

 

I just can't agree with going with the flow until something changes. Voting is one of the few ways we have to force change, we need to use it to tell people we're not going to take it any more.

 

Again I agree with you, for some reason I was under the impression this topic was about the presidential elections.

 

However, I don't think "force change" is the correct term to be used. You can force change with the constitutional amendment initiative and the statue law initiative. Voting for a third party however isn't forcing change unless you can actively convince third party voters to vote for a single third party. Otherwise, as it goes now, they're just drawing votes.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the government needs to change, and that we NEED different parties, but just voting third party isn't doing it. Here is a breakdown of congress: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html as you can see there are actually less third parties in office now then there were when republicans and democrats came around.

 

This isn't exactly a fair comparison because a lot of people currently in congressed are of a mixed breed.

[Boinker]

well apparently ghandi and I would get along great.... Dang, realize that test is weird in a way.

[Stonerboy779]

well apparently ghandi and I would get along great.... Dang, realize that test is weird in a way.

Haha I took the test and I am there with you and ghandi is well what does that mean who would I vote for if I was in the states.

[IVIYTH0S]

I agree with you, I don't think either party should exist. However, because of the electoral college, and the way candidates base their campaigns around it, I don't see this happening anytime soon. In my opinion, voting for a third party is just drawing votes away from someone who actually has a chance to become president. I'm not saying don't vote for what you believe in, but the electoral college makes the popular vote more or less irrelevant anyway so you might as well voice your opinion on the two people that actually have a chance.., just my 2 cents.

I cannot argue with this... as I stated before it is all just labels for the people... I think they need to do a few things in my mind to help fix the issue....

 

1) Add "D: NONE of the Above" to all Ballots (or whatever letter would be the last after all Candidates are on the Ballot) they always say if you dont one candidate vote for the other but if both are Evil should you still vote evil... if the Goverment wanted a certain person for president all they have to do is get someone worse than the one they want to run against them...

 

2) get rid of the Electoral college... its old technology and was invented back int he day of old to no technology... we have the means no a days to tally each and every vote and let the mass majority decide as it should be...

 

there are more but thats all I am giving for now.............

John Kerry....never forget... lol

 

Sure, there are challenges, but the idea that a third party vote is wasted or disruptive guarantees that nothing will ever change. That's exactly what the powers that be want people to think, because it keeps them in business. Special interests win whether its Republicans or Democrats.

 

Nothing ever changes by doing the same things you always do. Every new path is blazed by pioneers, eventually everyone else sees that the path is safe and will take it. No pioneers means no change. I choose to be a pioneer. I encourage every voter who wants real change to do the same.

Yeah we really need, as a people, to push towards removing the electoral college by the very government itself

[malmsteenisgod]

Yeah we really need, as a people, to push towards removing the electoral college by the very government itself

 

I couldn't agree more. It is currently possible for a presidential candidate to receive 22% of the popular vote and become president. Now that's highly improbable; the candidate would have to receive 50.1% of the vote in just enough small states to win the presidency and 0% of the vote in all the big states. But just the fact that someone could reasonably win 55-60% of the popular vote and still lose the presidency scares me.

 

But removing the electoral college isn't good enough. Currently we have a debate commission that is its own private corporation, and they pick who debates and who doesn't. Guess which parties they always pick.

 

Then we have a system where you have one vote, and most people use it not for electing who they want in office, but to elect the guy other than the one they don't want in office. This can easily be fixed with a runoff vote. Voters can rank their candidates in order of preference. This would allow people to vote with their conscience, and prevent third parties from being "spoilers."

 

Then we need media reform. All the American media outlets are run by the corporations who keep these two parties in power.

 

Then we need campaign finance reform. The Citizens United and Freespeechnow.org Supreme Court cases are absolute bullshit decisions. Now corporations can dump as much money into campaigns as they want through Super PACs and there isn't a thing the voters can do about it. Our elections are now a complete mockery as projected campaign spending is expected to reach $1 trillion for each party this election year. Just think of what people and corporations could do with that money to fund schools and hospitals rather than making sure that their side wins.

[Phil]

The point I've been trying to make is that IMO it's wishful thinking to believe that change is possible from within the system without some serious pushing from outside. Nothing will happen until the elected officials fear the consequences of not heeding the wishes of the people. They've got lots of reasons ($) not to listen, we need to give them reasons to listen. The people still have the power, but we've forgotten how to act collectively.

[scr4wl]

I couldn't agree more. It is currently possible for a presidential candidate to receive 22% of the popular vote and become president. Now that's highly improbable; the candidate would have to receive 50.1% of the vote in just enough small states to win the presidency and 0% of the vote in all the big states. But just the fact that someone could reasonably win 55-60% of the popular vote and still lose the presidency scares me.

 

But removing the electoral college isn't good enough. Currently we have a debate commission that is its own private corporation, and they pick who debates and who doesn't. Guess which parties they always pick.

 

Then we have a system where you have one vote, and most people use it not for electing who they want in office, but to elect the guy other than the one they don't want in office. This can easily be fixed with a runoff vote. Voters can rank their candidates in order of preference. This would allow people to vote with their conscience, and prevent third parties from being "spoilers."

 

Then we need media reform. All the American media outlets are run by the corporations who keep these two parties in power.

 

Then we need campaign finance reform. The Citizens United and Freespeechnow.org Supreme Court cases are absolute bullshit decisions. Now corporations can dump as much money into campaigns as they want through Super PACs and there isn't a thing the voters can do about it. Our elections are now a complete mockery as projected campaign spending is expected to reach $1 trillion for each party this election year. Just think of what people and corporations could do with that money to fund schools and hospitals rather than making sure that their side wins.

 

Link to the $1 trillion projected spending please.

[Waco]

Link to the $1 trillion projected spending please.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-usa-campaign-spending-idUSTRE77T3ZX20110830

 

 

$6 Billion. A LONG FREAKING WAY FROM $1 TRILLION. Don't ya think?

[Tjj226_Angel]

Well, this is interesting

 

Your realize that Plato found that one out eons ago right? In fact he said that the best thing for us would be a philosopher king. Which basically means a king who isn't a prick.

[scr4wl]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-usa-campaign-spending-idUSTRE77T3ZX20110830

 

 

$6 Billion. A LONG FREAKING WAY FROM $1 TRILLION. Don't ya think?

 

Yah, that seemed a bit high...