we have these things called "aircraft carriers"

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Starla

I've already said Obama will probably win this.

Nader's votes were not the entire reason for Gore's loss. You realize that at least half of the registered dems in FL that election never bothered to vote? I voted Gore that year, even though I didn't really care for him. We need to keep a third party option open..... we need to get rid of a two party system.

Let me quote myself here. "Nader, from one point of view, cost Gore the election..." If you subtract the Nader factor, Gore wins. So what I said is true. And despite this, dems have barely moved to woo the environmental voting block at all. I know people who won't vote for Obama because of his failures on climate change. Fact is the mosquito bite party theory doesn't work.

You also can't seem to logic out a reasonable answer for how voting for Johnson is helping to dissolve the two party system. As long as there is an electoral college, there will never be a viable third party candidate. Your best bet is to keep voting for dems who want to change the Constitution on that. My main point was that you are insisting you are helping to change things by voting third party, when in fact, you are performing a futile action to make yourself feel better

[Order 66]

you need a larger than life figure to be winnable third party candidate. i'm too young to remember perot but he was allegedly that (and rich). teddy was a quintessential example of this, even though he lost.

but more importantly they need to be about something. not saying none of these candidates have good ideas, they do, but in the end it ultimately adds up to 'both sides are bad! legalize it!' and its been proven time and time again that's not going to cut it. yeah corporatism plays a role in drowning their voice but the onus is on them to resonate with people.

anyway.. my point is, i dont see why there needs to additional parties right now because the more libertarian side will caucus with the republicans and the more socialistic side will go to the democrats. so you're pretty much back to square one

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Order 66

you need a larger than life figure to be winnable third party candidate. i'm too young to remember perot but he was allegedly that (and rich). teddy was quintessential example of this, even though he lost.

perot is the best modern example of a successful third party candidate. He netted almost 20% of the popular vote, a huge amount!

Electoral votes won by Ross Perot: 0

[Order 66]

i just think the two party system is baked into america's ideological spectrum, which happens to be evenly split at left and right..so you'll never see a real 3rd party candidate, and its because of fundamentals, not problems with 'the system' or whatever. i.e. dont hate the player(s) hate the game

i think 2012 was supposed to be the bellwether test for another party to show up because it was the ultimate "meh vs. meh" contest for most of the electorate but we're still split pretty evenly down the middle

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Starla

I've already said Obama will probably win this.

Nader's votes were not the entire reason for Gore's loss. You realize that at least half of the registered dems in FL that election never bothered to vote? I voted Gore that year, even though I didn't really care for him. We need to keep a third party option open..... we need to get rid of a two party system.

It isn't much of a two-party system really. When bee sting parties crop up like the Green Party or Tea Party, they get absorbed into the bigger parties. The issues a party stands for change greatly over time. Hell, do you know what the GOP looked like when it started? Moreover the two parties have changed from different parties multiple times. Damn Free Soil Party! Still better than the Whig Party and the Know Nothng Party though....

[duovamp]

People who complain about the "two-party system" strike me as the kinds of people who think South Park is insightful.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

Let me quote myself here. "Nader, from one point of view, cost Gore the election..." If you subtract the Nader factor, Gore wins. So what I said is true. And despite this, dems have barely moved to woo the environmental voting block at all. I know people who won't vote for Obama because of his failures on climate change. Fact is the mosquito bite party theory doesn't work.

You also can't seem to logic out a reasonable answer for how voting for Johnson is helping to dissolve the two party system. As long as there is an electoral college, there will never be a viable third party candidate. Your best bet is to keep voting for dems who want to change the Constitution on that. My main point was that you are insisting you are helping to change things by voting third party, when in fact, you are performing a futile action to make yourself feel better

You know, I realize a lot of dems want to hate Nader for Gore's loss and they blame him, but that's not gonna fly. Gore is responsible for his own defeat. I voted in that election, so what I remember is Gore hardly addressing his constituents on issues that Nader did. Even though Gore was a senator for his state, he couldn't even win it. He barely managed to carry around what.... 6 or 7 states? NM, Iowa, Minnesota... and others he didn't bother to dedicate his time to. I don't have the time to look everything up.... but I clearly remember that much. There were also a lot of black voters disenfranchised in FL by the republicans. I really think Gore had a rough time getting support on a lot of issues back then.... I don't think he was much of a progressive.

You can't seem to logic out why you are voting for a war president when you claim to be a pacifist. Obama is going to keep nukes, he will continue killings of innocents in Pakistan, he will continue adding on to Bush's insane policies etc. Yeah... makes sense to kill hundreds of innocent people in order to catch a hand full of terrorists. Are you not concerned with NDAA at all? I don't understand why someone would give their vote to more of the same.

Some day you may be glad that elections are open to a 3rd party. Time will tell.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by duovamp

People who complain about the "two-party system" strike me as the kinds of people who think South Park is insightful.

Yeah, well I stopped watching south park back in 2003.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Order 66

i just think the two party system is baked into america's ideological spectrum, which happens to be evenly split at left and right..so you'll never see a real 3rd party candidate, and its because of fundamentals, not problems with 'the system' or whatever. i.e. dont hate the player(s) hate the game

i think 2012 was supposed to be the bellwether test for another party to show up because it was the ultimate "meh vs. meh" contest for most of the electorate but we're still split pretty evenly down the middle

I think someday we just might see one. After the last election, I decided I'm going to vote for who I think the best candidate is, regardless of their party. If the dems put someone up next time that I think will be the best, I'll vote dem, etc.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Starla

I've already said Obama will probably win this.

Nader's votes were not the entire reason for Gore's loss. You realize that at least half of the registered dems in FL that election never bothered to vote? I voted Gore that year, even though I didn't really care for him. We need to keep a third party option open..... we need to get rid of a two party system.

WE CAN'T GET RID OF THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM BY VOTING FOR THIRD PARTIES. THIS IS POLITICAL SCIENCE 101. IF THIS IS YOUR GOAL AND YOU THINK YOU ARE FURTHERING IT, YOU ARE WRONG.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

WE CAN'T GET RID OF THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM BY VOTING FOR THIRD PARTIES. THIS IS POLITICAL SCIENCE 101. IF THIS IS YOUR GOAL AND YOU THINK YOU ARE FURTHERING IT, YOU ARE WRONG.

We will never get rid of the two party system if we continue to allow them to monopolize the political system. I believe if we one day have a strong third party candidate, that a large majority of Americans will get behind, I think we might have a chance some day at changing the game. It will never happen as long as people continue to vote for the lesser of two evils. It also divides our country. The two party system is more about the party itself, with little interest in fixing problems rather than creating more of them.

Speaking of political science, or history.... you may find this interesting:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

[Starla]

It's going to be interesting to see the Obama voters back here complaining about him again in a year or two. I promise I won't say "told you so".

[Eulogy]

I know I'll complain about him. That's not the fucking point Jesus Christ.

Push for fundamental electoral reform. That's how you get what you want. Not by upping Romney's chances of winning.

[MyOneAndOnly]

the two party system is in large part a consequence of the structure of both the Electoral college and the congressional/senate system.

third party advocates bitch an moan every 4 years about being shut out of the national election, and there's some truth to that when it comes to televised debates and media coverage. But there's a broader issue, namely that no third party has EVER been able to take and hold seats in the congress. That's because the structure of our government supports INTEREST group politics, not party politics. Despite the superficial ideological split between the two parties, the real power within the two parties is in specific interest groups. Those groups ******* everthing from non profits to unions to businesses.

In every instance where a third party has shown some success with the electorate, one or both of the dominate parties have coopted the themes and issues that those third parties championed.

Putting Ralph Nader or some libertarian or socialist into the TV debates won't change that.

[MyOneAndOnly]

one thing is for sure, there will never be a conservative 3rd party as long as libertarians and teabaggers are so intent on voting republican

[Eulogy]

You realize that can be turned on us too, right? I'm left of the democratic party but I will still vote for it.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

You realize that can be turned on us too, right? I'm left of the democratic party but I will still vote for it.

yes.

i have no illusions about a left third party. I think it's pointless. I've long been an advocate of building a stronger Progressive caucus within the Democratic party. 20 years ago I was very active in The Democratic Socialists of America, which started doing just that back in the 80s. I'm nolonger active in that group, but I think that approach makes the most sense for progressives.

third parties in the US seem only to get traction when they're focused on one big issue that the main parties are both ignoring. When it comes to a broad range of issues, I just don't see any value in wasting energy and influence in a third party.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

the two party system is in large part a consequence of the structure of both the Electoral college and the congressional/senate system.

third party advocates bitch an moan every 4 years about being shut out of the national election, and there's some truth to that when it comes to televised debates and media coverage. But there's a broader issue, namely that no third party has EVER been able to take and hold seats in the congress. That's because the structure of our government supports INTEREST group politics, not party politics. Despite the superficial ideological split between the two parties, the real power within the two parties is in specific interest groups. Those groups ******* everthing from non profits to unions to businesses.

In every instance where a third party has shown some success with the electorate, one or both of the dominate parties have coopted the themes and issues that those third parties championed.

Putting Ralph Nader or some libertarian or socialist into the TV debates won't change that.

The electoral college doesn't enter into it so much as the democratic republic.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

one thing is for sure, there will never be a conservative 3rd party as long as libertarians and teabaggers are so intent on voting republican

what makes you think libertarians vote republican? socially libertarians are left of democrats and economically right of republicans

[TuralyonW3]

For Nimrod, at the behest of J0hn B0ns0r:

http://www.cato.org/publications/com...g-libertarians


Swing-Voting Libertarians

by David Boaz

This article appeared in The European on October 4, 2012.

For more than a decade now politicians and pundits have talked about a polarized electorate — red-state conservatives and blue-state liberals. Both parties focus on turning out their "base."

Commentators often overlook evidence that millions of Americans don't line up neatly in these red and blue boxes. Many of them are conservative on fiscal issues like tax and spending but moderate or liberal on "social issues" like abortion rights and gay marriage. (And some of course are liberal — that is, American-style welfare-state liberal — on economic issues and conservative on social issues.) You might say those voters want government out of their personal lives and out of their businesses.

The Gallup Poll finds that about 20 to 23 percent of Americans fall into the fiscally conservative, socially liberal — or libertarian — group. Using tighter criteria, David Kirby and I have found in a series of studies that about 15 percent of Americans can be classified as libertarian voters.

David Boaz is the executive vice president of the Cato Institute and has played a key role in the development of the Cato Institute and the libertarian movement.
More by David Boaz

The libertarian voters have often given about 70 percent of their vote to Republican candidates, though they've shown more willingness than most Americans to vote for independent candidates such as John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996. They preferred George W. Bush over Al Gore by 72 to 20 percent. But the election of 2004 saw a dramatic swing away from the Republicans, with libertarian support for Bush dropping from 72 to 59 percent, while support for the Democratic nominee almost doubled to 38 percent. Bush's record on war, spending, entitlements, and social issues certainly pushed libertarians away.

That weakened support for Republicans lasted into the 2006 congressional elections. In a survey conducted for the Cato Institute by the Zogby firm, 59 percent of libertarians voted for Republican candidates for Congress, and 26 percent voted for Democrats.

Compared to the previous off-year election in 2002, that was a 24-point swing to the Democrats.

Data from the American National Election Studies show an even stronger swing away from Republicans from 2002 to 2006. The margin for Republican House of Representatives candidates among libertarians dropped from 47 to 8 points, a 39-point swing. And the margin for Republican Senate candidates dropped from 59 to 4 points over that period, a 55-point swing. Those are far bigger swings than will be found among conservatives, the religious right, union members, or other more-studied voting groups.

In 2008, fearing unified Democratic Party control of the federal government, libertarians voted heavily against Barack Obama. And they formed a vital part of the tea party movement that shook up American politics in 2009 and 2010.

This year Rep. Ron Paul rallied millions of libertarian voters in the Republican primaries, though he fell short of the nomination. Where those voters go in November will have a huge impact on the results. A poll in 2008 showed that the more a voter liked Ron Paul, the less likely he was to vote for Republican nominee John McCain. The Mitt Romney team should take note of those results. A lot of Ron Paul's voters are considering staying home or voting for Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson. Romney needs to find a way to keep them in the Republican camp, and he doesn't seem to be making the sale.

You might think Obama would have trouble holding on to civil-liberties voters after his drone attacks, stepped-up deportations of immigrants, assassinations of American citizens, and unconstitutional war in Libya.

But there seems no evidence that civil libertarians have wavered in their support for the president.

A Washington Post poll in August found that about a third of all voters call themselves independents. But "nearly two-thirds of Americans who describe themselves as independents act very much like partisan Republicans or partisan Democrats." Another quarter have a low interest in politics and are unlikely to vote.

Which leaves 13 percent of the independents, or about five percent of the total electorate, designated by the Post as "Deliberators," people genuinely open to candidates of both parties. More than half of them say they've voted for candidates of both parties in the past, and right now Obama and Romney claim only about 30 percent each.

And what do those voters want? Well, only 26 percent of them like President Obama's health care plan, and 64 percent say they prefer "smaller government with fewer services" to "larger government with more services" — and 63 percent favor gay marriage. So they seem like classic "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," or libertarian, voters.

A new Reason-Rupe poll finds Romney with 77 percent of the libertarian vote, better than I would have predicted. It probably reflects libertarian enthusiasm for budget hawk Paul Ryan and strong rejection of Obama's health-care takeover and trillion-dollar deficits. But Romney aides should note: when the poll mentioned Gary Johnson as a choice, he pulled 14 percent of the libertarians.

Both parties are working hard to turn out their base votes. They should devote equal effort to appealing to the independent libertarian-leaning voters who are still undecided.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

what makes you think libertarians vote republican? socially libertarians are left of democrats and economically right of republicans

They are not left of leftist Dems on social issues. Blue dogs, sure.

[duovamp]

Nah bro they're all about increasing spending on education. And putting even more tax dollars toward infrastructure and research. And increasing government regulation of industries such as health care.

[Starla]

[TuralyonW3]

I'm sure Romney's first order of business when he gets in office will be to call off the drone attacks

[TuralyonW3]

y'know after meeting with the Democrats to repeal Obamacare

[redbreegull]

guys she's changing the system

[duovamp]

So what's the optimal way to deal with the threat of terrorist attacks on the US? I mean I'm pretty sure everybody here has experience with the CIA so let's just discuss it and solve it today.

[redbreegull]

The optimal way is to stop militarily interfering in Islamic countries and get all US troops off the Arabian peninsula while gently encouraging political reform in extremist countries

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

guys she's changing the system

And what are you doing, rbg? Voting for more of the same?

[Starla]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

I'm sure Romney's first order of business when he gets in office will be to call off the drone attacks

Well, maybe rbg should vote for him, since he's the pacifist.