Third party voting

[Chucktshoes]

The way you break the two party stranglehold on the nation is by moving from a first past the post voting system like we currently have to an alternative vote (aka instant runoff) style election. The quick and dirty version is that you rank the candidates numerically from 1st to last. If their is no clear majority, the candidate with the least number of votes is taken out and those votes are then given to the voters' next choice. This continues until someone has more than 50% of the vote.

[jtmaze]

Right. To Nebraska. I know there system is more complicated but what would be wrong with TN has 11 electoral votes and the Rs win 55% of the votes then the Rs get 6 votes and the Ds get 5.


JTM
Sent from my iPhone

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name='Sam1' timestamp='1352333008' post='841450']

It's like having $10,000 in your pocket, riding a bicycle to the car lot and trying to buy a Ferrari. When they say you can't have a Ferrari for that much, but here's a new Z06 Corvette, you say no thanks, hop back on your bicycle and ride off.[/quote]
I think a more accurate assessment would be it is like haggling over whether or not you are going to get a reach around.

[TMF]

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1352337612' post='841520']
I think a more accurate assessment would be it is like haggling over whether or not you are going to get a reach around.[/quote]

The results are in. You just won this thread. Edited November 8, 2012 by TMF

[RobertNashville]

There is nothing wring with the "system" we have...we will never have better candidates to chose from unless better candidates run...that's not a function of the parties (two or four or twelve) nor is it a problem with the electoral college (thank God we HAVE an electoral college rather than electing on popular vote.

As much as some want to make him out to be, Romney just wasn't that bad but you know, when you have six or eight candidates running for the same spot it's usually going to be the one who is the most "middle of the road" who is going to get the nod because all the ones who are a bit "out there" are usually just going to split a finite number of votes among many candidates.

I don't pretend to have answers here but I haven't heard anyone else with any either, be it here or from those who are supposed to be the "experts" on such things.

[gregintenn]

Third party voters didn't beat Romney. We had the choice of two liberals. Romney beat himself. You do realize he got his butt kicked in his home state as well as Ryan's home state, right?

If we're going to have a lib president, I don't know why anyone would prefer a lib Republican over a lib Democrat. At least the Dem isn't trying to pretend he is something he isn't.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='gregintenn' timestamp='1352389188' post='841787']...We had the choice of two liberals...If we're going to have a lib president, I don't know why anyone would prefer a lib Republican over a lib Democrat. At least the Dem isn't trying to pretend he is something he isn't.
[/quote]
Wow am I tired of hearing that "we had a choice of two liberals"...I swear if GW himself were alive and running and not "conservative" enough for someone they would chime in with that statement.

I'd take a TRUE and COMPLETE liberal of either party any day, who has morals, values and who actually likes the country, over anyone of any party without those attributes.

[S&WForty]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352389760' post='841792']
Wow am I tired of hearing that "we had a choice of two liberals"...I swear if GW himself were alive and running and not "conservative" enough for someone they would chime in with that statement.

I'd take a TRUE and COMPLETE liberal of either party any day, who has morals, values and who actually likes the country, over anyone of any party without those attributes.[/quote]

You just said a mouthful. I especially like your first paragraph.

[S&WForty]

[quote name='Hozzie' timestamp='1352329407' post='841398']
Time to move on and either be part of the solution or continue to be part of the problem.[/quote]

In all seriousness, how?

[QuietDan]

I guess I'm a little irritated, so I will be blunter than usual.

I'll make a comparison to Baseball, to make it a little easier on folks. I'll try to use little words.

There is Baseball, and there are fans of Baseball, and there are rules in Baseball. We support this team, or that team and it's all straightforward.

Except it's not. There's a little concept called "Inside Baseball." This has a lot to do with the intrigue between the team owners, and the buying and selling of players, and a lot of other strange stuff that affects the outcome of Baseball, even though it's not "Baseball" itself.

I imagine it's possible for a Baseball fan to enjoy the game, and never think twice about "Inside Baseball." And yet, to pretend that "Inside Baseball" doesn't have an impact on the game and scores and outcomes of Baseball, is, well, VERY STUPID. I have very little respect for someone that can't grasp that basic concept.

In Politics, there are Major Parties and Third Parties and a lot of stuff involved in the game of Politics. And there is "Inside Politics" and "Inside Inside Politics" and "Inside Inside Inside Politics," probably 10 layers down. And, all this "Inside Politics" stuff affects Politics. So, among other problems, otherwise well-meaning individuals who vote for Third Parties in General Elections out of principle, or loyalty, or personal desire, are not creating the outcome they expect or desire. In many cases, due to "Inside Politics" they are working against their own best interests. They are being used by Powerful People who are playing "Inside Politics." Little People who do this to themselves, I am very sorry to say, are VERY STUPID. There really is no other way to put it.

It is necessary to put your heart and soul into Politics and work to get your particular point of view incorporated in the views of one of the two Major Parties competing in the General Election. You will never get just exactly what you want, but there are millions of people in this country and more or less like-minded people need to compromise and cooperate to get some part of their views into the views of one of the two Major Parties, because of the millions of People, No One is getting just exactly what they want. To not do this, to not understand this, is VERY STUPID.

If you are so VERY STUPID as to make this fundamental error, it is best that you just stick with Baseball. Voting for Third Parties in a General Election is a lot like playing Baseball in the PARKING LOT of the Baseball Stadiums where the real teams are playing Baseball. It uses up players and energy and resources that could be better used by one of the real teams inside the stadium. It would be a lot smarter to get a player or two, or a tactic or two that you want onto one of the two teams playing in the Baseball stadium. Edited November 8, 2012 by QuietDan

[Guest TNBrat]

[quote name='Mr. Brooks' timestamp='1352336315' post='841500']Personally I would love to see more states with Maine and Nebraska style electoral vote systems.[/quote]

I think I said that in another thread.

We were watching, on line, states go back & forth between light blue & light red...MI is where my Dad lives & I know he voted 3rd...when it finally turned blue I wanted to call him & say "So, how did that 3rd party vote work out for ya?". We did talk later & he said that he knew that it wouldn't do any good but he voted his conscience. Gotta respect a man for that.


TNBrat Hiding in the woods…

[RobertNashville]

[b][i][color=#ff0000]I think this guy gets it.[/color][/i][/b]


[size=5][font=times new roman,times,serif][i][b]THIRD-PARTY PIPE DREAMS[/b][/i]:

I saw a Facebook post that argued that all the presidents on Mount Rushmore were third party guys. This can hardly be true for George Washington who had no party affiliation. Political parties were in their infancy when Thomas Jefferson was elected. It seems a new party was being started every election cycle. Jefferson belonged to the Democratic-Republican Party that he organized along with James Madison in 1791. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and dominated American politics from 1800 to the 1820s.

The Republican Party, founded in 1854, was strictly a northern party that had success broader than the presidency. “[I]t enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities, by 1858, in nearly every Northern state.” Try getting conservative evangelicals, libertarians, and various factions within the Republican Party to get a new party started. Do you recall that during the primary season that as each Republican candidate bit the dust, their supporters made it clear that they would not vote for one of the other guys.

If there’s one thing liberals can count on. Their supporters will stick with them through thick and thin. Look what happened to Todd Akin when he slipped up on a question about rape and abortion. Desertion and derision from enough Republicans that he lost the election.

No matter how bad it got for Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat Senate nominee in Massachusetts, the Democrats never deserted her. They stuck with her through thick and thin. She’s now a senator.

Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party ticket, but he had national name and political recognition. He had been elected President in 1904 and had been a Vice-President before that, having become president after William McKinley was assassinated. In the 1916 election, however, Roosevelt supported the Republicans.

How many people has the Constitution Party gotten elected? One. In 2006, Rick Jore of Montana was the first candidate elected to a state-level office. Good enough until the Constitution Party of Montana disaffiliated itself from the national party a short time before the election. These third parties are an embarrassment. Even so, I’m supposed to vote for a third-party guy out of “principle.”

The Constitution Party’s 2012 presidential nominee was Virgil Goode. Goode had a long history of electoral experience. He served as a member of the United States House of Representatives representing the 5th congressional district of Virginia from 1997 to 2009 as a Democrat. In 2000 he switched to the Republican Party. Then he lost his seat in the 2008 election to a Democrat. Goode then joined the Constitution Party. Mr. Goode is probably a very nice man, but he had no business running for president. Goode received 98,755 votes nationwide.

In reality, America’s problem is not political parties; it’s the people. They want what government has to offer. Until the people change, we will not see an appreciable change in politics.[/font][/size]

[color=black][font=Times New Roman","serif][size=3][url="http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/11/third-party-pipe-dreams/#ixzz2BeOl5I9j"][color=#003399]http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/11/third-party-pipe-dreams/#ixzz2BeOl5I9j[/color][/url][/size][/font][/color]

[gregintenn]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352389760' post='841792']
Wow am I tired of hearing that "we had a choice of two liberals"...I swear if GW himself were alive and running and not "conservative" enough for someone they would chime in with that statement.

I'd take a TRUE and COMPLETE liberal of either party any day, who has morals, values and who actually likes the country, over anyone of any party without those attributes.
[/quote]

All I'm looking for is someone who intends to adhere to the U.S. Constitution in which they are sworn to defend. That isn't too much to ask. If that candidate isn't Dem or Rep, then they won't get my vote. There are several other people out there who feel the same. We are, however, not the majority, so third party is the only way to have our voices heard at all. Keep ignoring us, and keep losing elections.

[RobertNashville]

Yeah...you'll keep being ignored.

You will [i][b]NEVER[/b][/i] get the perfect candidate....let me repeat that...[i][b]YOU WILL NEVER GET THE PERFECT CANDIDATE[/b][/i].

Your "third-party" vote will always be wasted [i][b]and will never give you the results you claim you want[/b][/i].

But that's okay...you can ignore me and everyone who doesn't agree with you and keep doing what you are doing...maybe one day you will get that chocolate cake our of the oven. Edited November 8, 2012 by RobertNashville

[gregintenn]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352396016' post='841863']
Yeah...you'll keep being ignored.

You will [i][b]NEVER[/b][/i] get the perfect candidate....let me repeat that...[i][b]YOU WILL NEVER GET THE PERFECT CANDIDATE[/b][/i].

Your "third-party" vote will always be wasted [i][b]and will never give you the results you claim you want[/b][/i].

But that's okay...you can ignore me and everyone who doesn't agree with you and keep doing what you are doing...maybe one day you will get that chocolate cake our of the oven.
[/quote]

I expect I will continue to be ignored; just as the Republicn party will keep trying to foist turds upon us, and keep losing. Sounds like neither of us are gaining any ground, huh?

Isn't it great we all get to vote? Edited November 8, 2012 by gregintenn

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

As far as I was concerned, I knew that my vote wasn't gonna get Johnson the win. However, I believe he was the best qualified. I said to friends and family on election day that no matter who won, I would be acquiring more silver, guns and ammo. More or less, prepare for the worse case scenario over the next 4 years. Lets all hope that the SHTF does not happen in the next 4 years.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Third party voting may/do cost the two major political parties, but they do signal or symbolize a trend for the
major parties to pay attention to. If a party can't get it's base out, it has to look at why they didn't come out
for the vote. A third party might be an indicator in the Republican party that it is speaking to the wrong message.

This election brought Obama ten million less voters, but it also brought less by a similar amount to Romney.
The third party vote didn't kill this election, but it did send a message to the Republicans that they may have
gotten their platform and message off base. Will it ever change? Maybe, when the GOP changes leadership
or understands they have to fine tune their message and leave out some hot topic issues like abortion and
health care. It doesn't matter to the evangelicals if it isn't mentioned, but that same group is looking for a solid
candidate they think they can trust. This isn't necessarily about Romney, except that he played it too safe and
tried to coast in the debates after the first one.
Elections are about numbers, and nothing else. Someone has to make it across the finish line. Obama did it by
some unscrupulous methods and it worked. Republicans have to fine tune their process and shorten the primary
process and limit candidates, but not to the effect of killing a true conservative from entering the race. I don't
know how the Republicans will win another race unless they adopt a similar approach. I'm not saying go all negative,
but much more aggressive like attacking the opposition's record and platform. I'm also not sure the Republicans
have it in them until the ideal conservative candidate. I'm hearing talk of people like Marco Rubio being the next
candidate, but I don't think so. I don't see a possible candidate in the Republican Party for next time, yet, but he
needs to be able to articulate like Reagan, but be even more conservative. It will be about the economy next time.

The welfare state killed Romney, not third party voters. This cycle may have never been prevented. We will have
to see a real decline in our economy, like I think Obama is trying to head us, then a real challenger can emerge
and defeat the welfare state. There is no way it can sustain itself, numerically or otherwise.

If the Republican Party can win the senate in 2014, it has the ability to build back a country, but only if it adopts
the principles of conservatism completely. Otherwise, a new party needs to spring up and fight and the GOP
needs to die. If only the Libertarians would build a base, and fine tune it's message. I heard Ann Coulter on Beck,
this morning about how Barry Goldwater killed the conservatives in the Republican Party. She may have been
right. He was too much for the country to digest, at the time. Reagan learned from Goldwater about fine tuning
a message. I wonder when it will ever happen.

I think it won't until the economy collapses and people see they can't live after other people's money runs out.
And we get back to our roots. Our country is too arrogant and defiant to the wrong ideals. That will cost us, dearly.

We get the best government every time we vote. We deserve it every time. Painful sometimes, isn't it?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[quote name='gregintenn' timestamp='1352396272' post='841866']
I expect I will continue to be ignored; just as the Republicn party will keep trying to foist turds upon us, and keep losing. Sounds like neither of us are gaining any ground, huh?

Isn't it great we all get to vote?
[/quote]I hate to say it, but you are right. When the Republicans ignore you, they are losing their base. Most Republicans
want that, too, but they are being disenfranchised. I really think Romney would have been a decent president, but that
didn't get him across the finish line. More Republicans sat it out because they felt that way.

[mav]

Ever since I was first able to vote (1992), I have voted straight line Republican. Over the last year or so, I came to realize that there are only a few differences between the parties. Other than those few differences, the parties are pretty much the same; they are for big government.

For example, all we heard from Republicans during this election cycle was repeal Obamacare, repeal Obamacare, repeal Obamacare. From Mitt, it was [u]repeal and replace[/u]. If Republicans hated it has much as the vast majority of the citizens of this country, then why the heck didn't they defund the damn thing. The House controls the purse strings, and Republicans control the House, so what is the problem? The answer is they didn't want to do it. Republicans wanted to use it as a political tool to get reelected. Therefore, when people complain about Obamacare, they should point the finger at both parties. Those that screwed us by passing it, and those that screwed us by failing to defund it when they had the opportunity.

I have become so disillusioned with our federal government. Both parties are out for the same and only thing, power. That is why I could not vote for either party in this election. In many cases we are forced to choose between a s**t sandwich, and a s**t sandwich with various condiments to make it appear more appealing.

I have listened to several of the establishment talking heads over the last couple of days, which includes some of the news radio talk show mafia, and I don't think they understand why they lost. All I hear is that we should have ran this guy, next time we need to run this guy, we should have done this, or next time we will do this to pander to this group or that group. Really? Is the answer really to become more and more like the Democratic party? If they do that, which I believe they will, the Republicans will never get back into the White House, nor will they regain my vote.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You may be right, mav. They may lose a lot of us until they get it.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='mav' timestamp='1352397397' post='841881']
Ever since I was first able to vote (1992), I have voted straight line Republican. Over the last year or so, I came to realize that there are only a few differences between the parties.
[/quote]

"The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike."

Dmitry Orlov
Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century

- OS

[leroy]

The Republicans will never win until they get rid of the "Blue Noses" at the top who are polititians first, northeast elites second, and Demorat lite third. The sad truth is the OhShoot's post above RE: the Russian evaluation of our system is uncomfortably true.

For a lot of years ive made my political guesses on the theory that the country wuz divided politically as follows: 1/3 demorat, 1/3 republican, 1/3 asleep; and that for the most part, folks wanted to work. Those who were asleep woke up every four or so years and voted for someone. It appears now that the split is 1/2 takers, 1/2 producers. The producers got slightly out voted. It showed up bigger than it really is with the electorial college thing.

This does not bode well for this country or the producers living in "non producing" states. I think it does bode well for the individual states that contain a majority of producers. Producers livin in "non producing states" who want more than the gubmt cheese and nobama i-phones will move to states friendly to business so they can have more stuff. The takers will sit down and wait for the cheese and i-phone wagon to ride up to their door; if the druggies dont kill 'em first.

My guess is that in the long run; the blue states will get bluer and the red states will get redder. The split between the federal givernment (...yeah, i meant to spell it that way....) and the state governments will get sharper, and at some point there will be a showdown. There is a fight looming out on the horizon over the regulation of business by the federal government. My guess is that some smart governor and state attorney general will continue to slap the various federal organs of givernment over the next four years, limiting the power of the alphabet organs (...NLRB, OSHA, and IRS (...hopefully...)) to meddle in state affairs (...think public unions here, right to work states, state enviornmental rules, etc...). The big winners in this election may well be the lawyers. They will stay busy doin all this stuff.

I also believe there is a day comming when the handling of federal tax revenue generated within the various states will have to be returned to that individual state in the exact dollar for dollar collected vs returned system (...think entitlements here; medicare, medicade, welfare....) in "block grants" to be used for the various entitlement purposes (...if there are any...) by that individual state in accordance with individual state laws. The states will set the criterion for elgibility, not the federal government operatives.

The specter of John C. Calhoun and states rights vs federal oppression is rising again.

leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I didn't think it would come this quick, but I think it may be time for that party to rise out of the ashes from the
Republican Party. I kept thinking what John Boehner said on TV to Diane Sawyer and decided he would give
anything to keep his seat in Congress. He tried to get rid of Michelle Bachman and probably had the same
attitude about Allen West. I'm not so sure how much of a Republican I am, anymore, and worry for our country
with fools like him and others.

Even Charles Krauthammer, Bill Cristol and other pundits are saying some of the most stupid things about the
direction of the party, right now, it's getting to the point I want nothing to do with them. They are blaming everything
on immigration reform and the "old white voter" in the party and that's buzz word for the Tea Party. That's the
same people who spearheaded the taking backing of the House, and I resent the Hell out of that.

People coming together to help and get involved to improve a situation and they get get slapped directly in the
face and blamed for a party's direction. All the way up to the top of the leadership should be stripped of rank
and "removed and replaced", as far as I am concerned, or the party should be dissolved and some other party
rise up and put this country back together.

I vote for the Tea Party, and that should include real conservatives and libertarians. Our message needs to be
heard!

If Boehner remains as Speaker of the House, I won't claim to be a Republican. CPAC was the one naming the
old white people in the party that caused the defeat, Tuesday. If Cardenas calls himself a conservative, I must
not be one, then.

It doesn't pay for me to listen to Mark Levin. As every minute went by, I thought every Republican was betrayed
by those so-called Republicans. I was ashamed of them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Leroy, it isn't 1/3,1/3, 1/3. It's a nation of more than half receiving gifts from Santa Claus, year round, and less than
half paying for it. We can't break that without serious change and throwing out the hope. The Republican Party just
betrayed its members. We are killing ourselves off with that kind of leadership and compromise.

[RobertNashville]

I have always been a Republican because it was the only party that was the most aligned with my views. However, I stopped calling myself a "Republican" quite a long time ago. About three presidential elections ago I stopped giving any money to the "party" at all and instead, gave only to specific candidates and PAC/organizations that I believed in.

At this point, I'm just about done with the whole stinking mess.

About 6 years ago, a good friend from my Ohio high school days who was VERY politically active retired and moved to Alaska. He was an Air Force pilot and then went to work for FedEx out of Memphis. After moving to Alaska he has totally disengaged himself form all politics or anything that looks like politics.

He says he's never been happier or more content.

That's looking pretty good to me right now.

I can't afford to just "retire" and move to Alaska but I do think I can disengage (and keep my weapons handy and fully charged).