What is your political affiliation?

[TomSimpsonAZ]

I'm just wondering what everyone is around here. I do this on most boards that I am on and file it away in my brain for future reference as I ponder groupthink in different organizations.

 

[HFWR]

Independent... 8)

I don't feel adequately represented by ANY party...

Did you say "PARTY"!!

 

[peggy]

I'm still registered as a Republican largely because I haven't called the Election Department to send me a new form to update the registration.

I'm going Independent. Agreed with Have Funds that no party truly represents my philosophy (socially liberal, fiscally conservative--translation: I don't care what any one or more consenting adults do together, but don't tax me to pay for whatever they're doing, LOL!)

 

[justin]

Fiscally conservative, socially moderate/liberal re: most stuff.

 

[Marshac]

The republicans seem to have lost their way, and the democrats seem to be transmogrifying into what republicans used to be.

 

[TomSimpsonAZ]

I'm still registered as a Republican largely because I haven't called the Election Department to send me a new form to update the registration.

I'm going Independent.  Agreed with Have Funds that no party truly represents my philosophy (socially liberal, fiscally conservative--translation:  I don't care what any one or more consenting adults do together, but don't tax me to pay for whatever they're doing, LOL!)

That sorta sounds Libertarian to me 8)

 

[peggy]

That sorta sounds Libertarian to me  8)

Mmm... to a degree--though I'll frequently argue a stronger libertarian position than I actually feel, if I think it's necessary.

I recognize that government has a role to play in regulating industry, and possibly even providing a small "social safety net" for persons in crisis--which most libertarians don't agree with, IME. That said, I think the role of the federal government, especially, should be restricted, and no government should take on the role of creating sanctioned monopolies.

 

[HFWR]

The republicans seem to have lost their way, and the democrats seem to be transmogrifying into what republicans used to be.

Probably a ploy to garner red-state votes...

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Need another option: "All of the above make me wanna puke".

 

[kat]

Democrat, but the fact the Republican governor of New York did far more than any Democrat to protect the environment and expand the parks and wild lands in New York has really made me have to think. His hero is Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[HFWR]

IIRC, Teddy quit the Republican party...

 

[kat]

I didn't know that, but he's not my hero! I just know all the brief bios on the governor include TR worship re the environment. (TR was an outdoorsman and loved the Adirondacks.) Republicans here aren't quite like Republicans in Red states. There's a lot of party switching.

 

[TomSimpsonAZ]

Mmm... to a degree--though I'll frequently argue a stronger libertarian position than I actually feel, if I think it's necessary. 

I recognize that government has a role to play in regulating industry, and possibly even providing a small "social safety net" for persons in crisis--which most libertarians don't agree with, IME.  That said, I think the role of the federal government, especially, should be restricted, and no government should take on the role of creating sanctioned monopolies.

That is basically libertarian nowadays. There are a few of the crazy return to the old west sort of folks out there who give libertarians a bad name. Libertarians nowadays are very Jeffersonian.

 

[peggy]

That is basically libertarian nowadays.  There are a few of the crazy return to the old west sort of folks out there who give libertarians a bad name.  Libertarians nowadays are very Jeffersonian.

Then maybe I'll have to give the libertarian party a second look. Most of what I see coming from them is irrational, IMO--tending toward anarchy, which won't solve anyone's problems.

 

[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'.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I'm 99% sure i'm smarter than jesse ventura. Maybe arnie too.

 

[BUM]

I'm 99% sure i'm smarter than jesse ventura. Maybe arnie too.

Smarts don't count. Being connected does

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Well, I figured that either being able to kick my ass in a fair fight was enough. But no, you had to pile on... :

 

[FreeBird]

<SNIP>

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 agree wholeheartedly. Our constitutional system is based upon a two party system and it really disturbs me when "other" parties or independents are allowed to participate. In '92 George Bush-41 was probably defeated because of Ross Perot and in '00 Al Gore was probably defeated because of well, some say the Green Party man... however I'd like to think that it was the near-4 million new member's/voter's that Bill Clinton energized the NRA to recruit.  

Actually I have no problem with third party candidate's if (the key word being "if") the constitution would allow for a run-off election. As it now stands we have a two-party constitution for the election of the prez and that is the way it should remain until an ammendment to allow a run-off be allowed. Betcha' a nickel (and not a wooden one   ) that Bush-41 would have been elected a second term in '92 if he could have competed with Clinton for Ross Perots' 15%!!

Oh, by the way if you couldn't already tell I am most decisively a proud fiscal conservative AND a social conservative. As for fiscal... teach a fellow to save and he'll ensure his own comfortable retirement (maybe even an ER!).  As for for social conservative... teach a fellow to fish and he'll be able to feel pride in helping those who can't (or won't) help themselves.

 

[LOL!]

I am registered as a Republican because no other party fields candidates where I live. I need to be able to vote in the primary and this is the only way to be able to do so.

It was somewhat amusing that the only Democrats on the ballot last time around were Kerry and Edwards.

Other than that, I would consider myself an independent.

 

[Cut-Throat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?