What is your political affiliation?

Quote:

Our constitutional system is based upon a two party system and it really disturbs me when "other" parties or independents are allowed to participate.

Our constitution is NOT based on a two party system at all. You do need a Political Science class!

Again, the reason we have 2 main Political Parties is the Election Rules. We can have as many Politcal Parties as we want. Look at the Presidental Ballot closely and you'll usually see about 6 or 7 parties. All but 2 are ineffective however.

As far as you being a Fiscal Conservative - How's that workin for ya!!

[FreeBird]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat Our constitution is NOT based on a two party system at all. You do need a Political Science class! Again, the reason we have 2 main Political Parties is the Election Rules. We can have as many Politcal Parties as we want. Look at the Presidental Ballot closely and you'll usually see about 6 or 7 parties. All but 2 are ineffective however.* As far as you being a Fiscal Conservative - How's that workin for ya!!

OK, I conceed that I'm (proudly) not a constitutional "expert".* But even with the "election rules" I still seem to get the same result, as you said, "All but 2 are ineffective however"... sounds like the end result is still a two party sytem to me and I'm not even completely college edu-ma-cated!!*

[TomSimpsonAZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat Our constitution is NOT based on a two party system at all. You do need a Political Science class! Again, the reason we have 2 main Political Parties is the Election Rules. We can have as many Politcal Parties as we want. Look at the Presidental Ballot closely and you'll usually see about 6 or 7 parties. All but 2 are ineffective however.* As far as you being a Fiscal Conservative - How's that workin for ya!!

I'm sure Jefferson is extremely happy with the subsidies that the government gives the two major parties also.

[TomSimpsonAZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat This post is for all those that did not take a Political Science class in College. If you decide today that you are anything other than a Republican or Democrat, your vote is mostly worthless! - except for the candidate that is most opposite your political views. This has nothing to do with the current parties 'squelching' the smaller politcal parties, but merely a Fact of the Election Rules of the U.S.A* *- The U.S.A. decides the winner of elections based on a Plurality, not a Majority.* This is really basic Political Science 101. If a Third Party should ever emerge that is stronger than either of the two existing political parties, then it will only drive out one of the existing politcal parties. There will only be 2 Major Political Parties in the U.S, as long as the election is decided by Plurality. It's always been that way! Most of the time, if a major politcal force comes forth, 1 of the 2 parties will adopt that platform rendering a new 3rd party unnessary. The reason most people think it is fashionable to hate both parties, is that neither represents 'Their personal views'* - This is also nothing new. Try ordering a Pizza with 10 people and you get a piece of crust with some tomato sauce and velveeta cheese on top! - A pizza that no one likes! So, if you want to participate in the Politcal Process, you have to choose either the Democrats or the Republicans! - Political Science 101! No, you're not Smarter than everyone in Washington and neither is Arnold Schwartznegger or Jesse Ventura or John McCain or Ralph Nader or any other 3rd Party 'Savior'.

Unfortunately I can no longer tell the difference between the Democratic and Republican party....both are trying to sell me a set of rules that works for the entire country instead of rules that work for 50 fairly independent states, some of the states operating much like those on this board(pretty damn cheap, nice pickup truck) and others that operate like my buddy with an apartment and a bmw.

[retire@40]

Quote:

Originally Posted by () I'm 99% sure i'm smarter than jesse ventura.* Maybe arnie too.

Is that just your gut feeling, or can you back that up with scientific proof?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomSimpsonAZ Unfortunately I can no longer tell the difference between the Democratic and Republican party....both are trying to sell me a set of rules that works for the entire country instead of rules that work for 50 fairly independent states, some of the states operating much like those on this board(pretty damn cheap, nice pickup truck) and others that operate like my buddy with an apartment and a bmw.

If you don't think the election of 2000 offered a choice, I don't see much help for you.

If Gore was President, we would not have invaded Iraq and wasted Billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

If you think the current Supreme Court nominee would have been the same guy that Al Gore would have picked, you're not paying attention.

There is a big difference and a Choice, but you have to educate yourself.

[retire@40]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat If Gore was President, we would not have invaded Iraq and wasted Billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

Where is Al anyway? I haven't heard a peep from him in years. I wonder how the US and world would look today if he had been president for a term and a half. Too bad we can't live in a parallel world.

[TomSimpsonAZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat If you don't think the election of 2000 offered a choice, I don't see much help for you. If Gore was President, we would not have invaded Iraq and wasted Billions of dollars and thousands of lives. If you think the current Supreme Court nominee would have been the same guy that Al Gore would have picked, you're not paying attention. There is a big difference and a Choice, but you have to educate yourself.

True, but we would have spent the money on different types of welfare other than oil. I'm just not a big fan of welfare/subsidies in any form.

[sgeeeee]

The Republican Party is like the Democratic Party today because they both tend to spend too much money. Al Capone is like a J-walker because they both broke the law.

[ladelfina]

Third party candidates can be interesting when they have enough momentum to force the Dems and the Repubs to start talking about issues they wouldn't have otherwise. A serious John-Anderson-type might have a chance in a Jeb Bush / Hillary Clinton race. (Perot and Nader were too loony.)

[brewer12345]

I'm registered as a Democrat, but in the last few elections I have voted republican in my local elections and democrat for state/national office. Much to my surprise, the democrats are starting to win in my town and county. The town council went from being all rep with a rep mayor to being 50/50 with a democrat mayor this year.

[peggy]

Quote:

If you decide today that you are anything other than a Republican or Democrat, your vote is mostly worthless! - except for the candidate that is most opposite your political views.

I think the Bush(41) v. Clinton and Bush(43) v. Kerry elections challenge that assertion.

Ross Perot took as much as 17% of the vote in some states--and Clinton won with a plurality of 43% (IIRC). Many of the Perot voters (myself included) would have voted for Bush(41) if Perot had not been on the ballot. That would have given the election to Bush(41), who would have become a two-term president.

Something similar happened with Ralph Nader--I'd bet most people who voted for Nader would have voted for Kerry, thus giving the presidency to Kerry.

In those two instances, at least, it seems you have to thank/blame a third party for the president we ultimately got.

Me, I'm just wishing that "None of the Above" mattered--meaning, if NotA got the majority of the votes, ALL the candidates on that ballot were thrown out and we started the process over. THEN a vote could count.

[ladelfina]

..or a preferential system.. i.e, all the candidates ranked.
If 90% of the people chose an independent as their "second" choice, the independent might win...

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by retire@40 Is that just your gut feeling, or can you back that up with scientific proof?

I can run a study for ya!

[TomSimpsonAZ]

I wish all candidates had to take a physical and some standard aptitude tests. It wouldn't be used as a qualifier or anything, but it would just be nice to see the scores before you vote.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat If Gore was President, we would not have invaded Iraq and wasted Billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

As opposed to when he was VP and we had at least one carrier battlegroup on station year-round doing the same thing every night?

Sure, I miss Professor Gore, and the Internet seems to run poorly without his supervision...

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Too bad he didnt run again in '04. Seeing "Bush and Gore" in '00 always made me chuckle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peggy I think the Bush(41) v. Clinton and Bush(43) v. Kerry elections challenge that assertion. Ross Perot took as much as 17% of the vote in some states--and Clinton won with a plurality of 43% (IIRC). Many of the Perot voters (myself included) would have voted for Bush(41) if Perot had not been on the ballot. That would have given the election to Bush(41), who would have become a two-term president. Something similar happened with Ralph Nader--I'd bet most people who voted for Nader would have voted for Kerry, thus giving the presidency to Kerry. In those two instances, at least, it seems you have to thank/blame a third party for the president we ultimately got. Me, I'm just wishing that "None of the Above" mattered--meaning, if NotA got the majority of the votes, ALL the candidates on that ballot were thrown out and we started the process over. THEN a vote could count.

If you read my post, I said it was only helpful to the candidate that was furthest from the Third Party candidate. And yes the 1992 and 2000 elections prove that. Perot voters helped Clinton and Nader helped Bush.

So if it is your intention vote for a third party canidate to help 1 of the 2 major party candidates that you disagree with the most, then your vote is not worthless! So we agree, you just misread my post.

But, why would you want to do that?

[justin]

I gave some serious thought to donating a chunk of change to the Green Party in 2000. I figured they are so strapped for cash that what little I had to give would be put to better use (luring voters away from Gore) than if I donated to the Republican party directly. You may see me propping up the Green party candidate in 2008, especially if Hillary runs for office.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin I gave some serious thought to donating a chunk of change to the Green Party in 2000.* I figured they are so strapped for cash that what little I had to give would be put to better use (luring voters away from Gore) than if I donated to the Republican party directly.* You may see me propping up the Green party candidate in 2008, especially if Hillary runs for office.*

That is the kind of thought process I like. Keep up the good work.

Ha