posted
Promethius: Considering the many voices on hatrack that have expressed the inability to self-assign to Republican or Democrat, I think that there's definitely a population of not-quite-either ready to be tapped.
After all, there are many themes in political viewpoints: Small versus Big Govt. States Rights. Individual's rights. Government sponsored morality. Thrifty economics. Large social programs. There's no inherent reason for stereotypical Republican Economic policies to be bound to stereotypical Republican social views, for example.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about if someone starts a third party that believes in doing whatever is best for the country even if it goes against their partisan views?
Most people who hold "partisan views" do so because they believe it is best for the country. And sometimes a compromise is worse than either alternative.
posted
Dabbler, but are those people so split in their views that there would not be a significant number of people that would make up a third party?(
How could someone split political and partisan views? I think people would have trouble splitting religious beliefs. For instance, not to bring abortion into this, just a random example I thought of. But if you believe abortion is murder, then you you would think its bad for everyone not just yourself, and therefore bad for the whole country.
posted
As much as I despise the current dominance of the American political system by the republicans and democrats, I am glad we do not have more parties.
Let's look at Italy, for example. There are about thirty political parties. After the elections, the members of their equivilant of congress get together and try to build coalitions for compromise. So, you have the ultra conservatives agreeing to vote with the communists just so the communists will support their pet issues. These people do all of their voting based on trade offs and do not vote their conscience. MOst of their governements do not last much more than a year or two before they have a recall election and bring in a new lot of people to do the same thing. The guy who is head of the body may be from the party that got the majority of the seats, and that might only be 10%!
We do have at least three more parties in this country. We have the Green party (Nader's idiots), the Libertarians (the pro-anarchy idiots), and Ross Perot's group (the billionaire megalomaniac fans). I do not remember which party Pat Buchanan ran as a part of in 2000, but it was the ultra right wing, closed minded fundamentalists agenda.
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a wild rumor flying through Washington that stated that the Kerry group might consider asking Senator John McKain to run as Kerry's VP. However, when the McKain camp got wind of it, they expressed the fact that he would decline such an invitation.
Why? Because his Rupublican Party would alienate him and his political career would be over. I think a match like that would make Kerry's campaign much more attractive for the huge undecided Middle of America, but that ticket is a pipe dream...
posted
Mind you, only two different Canadian parties have ever held power on a Federal level. Others have come close, but it hasn't happened. And I'm sure that there are many Canadians who'd argue that we really do only have 2 parties.
But I still think CT is talking about Australia. Who wouldn't want to talk about Australia?
Edit: If only I'd posted seconds earlier! Curse that CT woman! Curse her straight to Australia! No, Canada!
[ July 04, 2004, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, I think the best way to pull Americans into the next election is to turn it into a Reality TV show in which we follow the nominees for a certain period. There could be vote-offs, trials, and any other of the ridiculous rituals and practices that make up these shows. Then, a huge comglomerate international corporation like Halliburton could finance a toll-free number for Americans to call to vote for their favorite candidate, in the spirit of American Idol .
I'd want to see it happen just to see if George Bush could eat boiled horse rectum a la Fear Factor or just fail as another Joe Average .
Out country is seriously flawed when more people vote for American Idol contestants than they do for a Presidental Candidate.
posted
As a slight aside... are there any real reasons to oppose popular vote these days? I think it might improve voting percentages. It's too easy for the people in the 30-odd non-swing states to sit around and not vote.
Course, mechanical voting is an entire separate issue which is fraught with scary problems. It doesn't looks like we're ready for computerized voting... the people in charge and the people selling the machines aren't doing their best to make it trustworthy.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: As a slight aside... are there any real reasons to oppose popular vote these days?
1. The economy: We live in the greatest country in the world, just ask us! And we have tons of money that is regulated by the Federal Reserve, which is a Federally-owned bank right? No it is NOT a governmental bank at all. But if Alan Greenspan looks at his committee funny, the Dow Jones average dives 300 points and the country grabs its collective ankles. Sadly, Andrew Jackson was the last American President that tried to fight a federal banking system, and (correctly) predicted that it would end liberty in the US as he knew it. Keep in mind that in those days, a 6% interest rate was considered heinous and nearly cruel and unusual. But then again, they were better in math than the average citizen of today also. So we live in a country where a private bank controls the money of an entire country. Sounds too crazy to be true, but it is.
2. Taxes. We kicked the British in the teeth because we didn't want to pay taxes to them any longer. Now after a few centuries, the only two certain things in our lives are DEATH and TAXES. Do not get me wrong, I agree that paying taxes is an acceptable way to run a government, but our government has been misuing finances for so long that most Americans just assume corruption will happen no matter what they do and take this for granted as our Standard Operating Procedure.
3. I give up. Why argue? It just simply won't do any good. I will go to work tomorrow and the next day and tune into CNN like a drone and enjoy the bone that is thrown my way.
posted
Okay, so I didn't mention Canada, ehh! Just call me a hoser and be done with it!
Actually, living 90% of my life within 200 miles of the Mexican border, I know almost NOTHING about Canada except how to spell it. I will, therefore, refrain from the Mountie jokes and will not remind you that any NFL team would kick butt on the Grey cup champion (even the Cardinals or the Chargers).
But seriously, folks, ....I did not mention Canada because they are still mostly a two party system on the national level. When a third party gains control of their legislative or executive branches, then they can say that they have more than two major parties.
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took the statement that I quoted you on as meaning: is there any reason to not vote for the popular, front-runner candidates.
I suppose I am a bit radical in the fact that I believe that it really doesn't matter who is elected if either person is controlled by a government that is not run by the people for the people.
posted
Suneun, I have heard a number of reasons why direct popular vote could result in problems; unfortunately, at the moment I am too sleepy to remember more than one. The argument that I do recall is that in a direct popular vote, the lower population states would be even less important to the candidates than they are now. For instance, Alaska has the minimum number of three electoral votes--it's not of much interest, but it would be even less importance under straight popular vote.
Hopefully, some more awake people will remember the other arguments.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mabus: I dunno if I really believe that would be the case. After all, each person is as important as any other person. Maybe they'd lean toward larger cities, but they do that right now.
Alucard: Heh. I mean ditch the electoral college. Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The electoral college is absolutely necessary unless we want to change everything else about our system (for instance, elimination run-offs and requiring a certain margin of victory). Simply put, imagine Florida everywhere. National elections are regularly that close, and suddenly both candidates would be scrambling for votes in every single precinct in the nation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: We kicked the British in the teeth because we didn't want to pay taxes to them any longer.
Actually, we kicked the British because we didn't think that it was fair that we got taxed but didn't have any representation in the body that imposed those taxes. It was "no taxation without representation!", not "no taxation!"
quote: For instance, Alaska has the minimum number of three electoral votes--it's not of much interest, but it would be even less importance under straight popular vote.
So the candidates would start giving it less than zero attention? Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"for instance, elimination run-offs and requiring a certain margin of victory"
What are those rules? I thought that one electoral vote was all the difference the candidate needed to win. I find it annoying when the electoral college doesn't match with the popular vote. It seems more important to have the support of the numbers than of the wacky regionalized super-voting.
It's better, to me, to have the candidates running around to all the little townies. It does seem that it would have the effect of increasing the voting percentage. Which would be kinda nice (jokes about quality of voters aside).
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
No, I find the idea as equally pointless as drinking nonalcoholic beer. (However, my 8 year old would laugh like a goon).
quote: Alucard: Heh. I mean ditch the electoral college.
Sorry, Suneun. As I stated in the beginning of this thread, I am not very politically savvy. I agree wholeheartedly that something drastic needs done with the political system. The arguments for retaining the electoral college are valid ones though, and as usual, there is no easy answer.
I just wish I had the time and energy to educate myself more in the entire political process. The problem though is that a person needs the equivalancy of a law degree to get a complete grasp of the information.
I do thank all of you for being gracious in my case and not ripping me a new arse. God knows I deserve it. Just keep me limping along and I will try to catch up.
posted
Whatever happened to the Libertarians? This could be their election, if they worked it well enough.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know who they would put as their front man, Jenny. A friend of mine mentioned he would vote for Jesse Ventura if HE ran on the Libertarian ticket.
I was thinking someone more like this joker. If he can turn them around, he can turn around our country as well:
posted
What makes McCain attractive to Democrats is not that he's moderate. It's that he's willing to ignore party lines for what he believes is right.
But there's no chance he'd ever join Kerry's ticket, no matter how many salivating Democrats want him to and no matter how much he disagrees with Bush on certain issues. He won't break with his party.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, not to sound naive, but why not? What does he fear? To end his career as a Senator and jump into the VP slot might elevate public opinion enough to propel him into the Presidency in the 2008 election. That is, of course, unless there is a measure of control that cuts a politician off at the knees if they do not support the party line.
Something like this is what our country needs to break itself out of its own mold.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, as was pointed out, his beliefs match the Republicans much more than the Democrats. Just because he believes in campaign finance reform and disagrees with the president on a few issues does not make him a Democrat.
The main reason he stands out is that he supports accountability in every aspect of government, and quite a few people of both parties have problems with that.
[ July 05, 2004, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But to be a stubborn bull-headed German Immigrant, what if he could be replaced in the Senate by someone who shares his passion and style of government.
Would his involvement in the Vice Presidency be as a lame duck? A yes man? My Goodness! I would rather have hime being the constant voice of conscience of John Kerry and offering a bit of the other side of the table than continuing to wait in the wings for his shot to rule the world through the Republican ticket.
The question is, what is the Republican party pacifying/threatening him with?
posted
Nothing, as far as I can tell. He's never made the slightest mention of interest.
I mean, c'mon. McCain is pro-life, against gun control, for the marriage amendment, supports the amendment against flag-burning, favors the death penalty... he's simply not a Democrat. What he is is intelligent and honorable, which is not restricted to any one party. I hope.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
The Republicans don't need to threaten or pacify him because his interests are more aligned with the Republican party than they are out of synch with Bush.
And as much as he may dislike Bush or disagree with the President on various issues, I suspect he dislikes Kerry as much, if not more.
And when I say "dislikes", I refer to his stance on issues - I don't know what McCain's personal opinion is on him.
quote: The Republicans don't need to threaten or pacify him because his interests are more aligned with the Republican party than they are out of synch with Bush.
They don't? Then I might as well acknowledge the fact that I live in Shangri La and rejoice in the utopia that has been manufactured for us.
Trevor, politics is all about leverage. And if you solemnly believe that the politicians in our highest arena of government are not subject to it, then you are being myopic at best. I am not being critical of you, I am just much more paranoid than you, I suppose.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'll grant you leverage and coercion works wonders, but given that McCain has demonstrated a willingness to cross party lines in order to make things happen, I sincerely doubt that if he were so inclined to accept Kerry's offer of VP, that the Republican Party force him to back down.
And I continue to submit that leverage and coercion, when applied against someone who doesn't want to leave, serves no useful purpose save to alienate the target in question and waste good leverage.
McCain is happy (more or less) as a Republican and changing to the Democrat ticket isn't likely to make him any happier, so why leave?
Alucard, you continue to assume that McCain must obviously want the VP slot and since he hasn't accepted or expressed an interest in the VP slot, he is therefore being held back by the Republicans. The big assumption here is: McCain wants to be Kerry's VP.
As I have pointed out, I'm not part of the inner circle and I have no idea what is actually going on in McCain's head - it's possible the Republicans are blackmailing him and chaining him in a tower, guarded by fire-breathing dragons.
quote: What I am confused about is why his refusal to trade teams seems to bother you so much.
I would like to see someone do what is best for their country instead of doing what is best for their party. Everything you both have relayed in the last posts have reflected the fact that McKain is completely supportive of the Republican party. I agree. I would not want him to change parties. As you elude to, that would be a selling out of sorts.
I also am not assuming that McKain wants the position. I simply wish he felt compelled to fill the position and do the best job he could, without compromising the beliefs that have kept him in office to date.
And that my friends, would be something very special.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun -- we'd have to implement those rules. Do you remember the complete chaos involved in Florida? The incredible partisanship it engendered? As I said, imagine that in every single precinct in the country. It wouldn't be the candidates running around, it would be their lawyers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to see someone do what is best for their country instead of doing what is best for their party.
I haven't seen anything yet to make me think that McCain isn't doing what he feels is best for the country. As opposed to what a lot of Kerry supporters feel is best, that is.
Personally, I'd love to see him sign on as Veep without changing parties. Admit that a single viewpoint is too limiting for directing our nation. See how Congress and the country handles a mixed-party administration.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's possible he believes that Bush is still the best choice of a bad option.
I know plenty of fine people - but I wouldn't vote for them in the White House, nor would I accept their invitation to be VP if I didn't believe myself prepared and capable of the job, or if I didn't believe in the person running.
posted
fugu: It seemed to me that the chaos in Florida was much more concerning the questionable nature of the voting process in terms of legitimacy. That should be addressed whether or not we're using the electoral college. Too many rumors and stories exist for me to not worry about that.
Voting should be accurate, and that should be an easily attained goal if not for all the cloak and dagger politicking that goes on from both sides.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Personally, I'd love to see him sign on as Veep without changing parties. Admit that a single viewpoint is too limiting for directing our nation. See how Congress and the country handles a mixed-party administration.
Yes, Chris that is exactly what we need, and that is what I was trying to convey in my convoluted, nearly-inconprehensible sort of way.
I do believe that we would be better off with a Democratic/Republican set of candidates than the incumbents that are sitting in the White House now.
BTW, there is an interesting link here that predicts doom and devastation with the new voting machines.
However, I would still like to see someone not in the forefront of politics step into the arena and completely spearhead a revamping process of the current political shell that has turned into a hydra that refuses to allow serious, fundamental change.
If McCain became the token republican on the democratic ticket, it would just be tokenism. He would not be given the right to choose a portion of the cabinet and would only be important if there was a split senate (50-50) because he would be the tie breaking vote. His selection would only be a ploy to get Kerry the votes of the republicans who hate Bush (there are a lot of them).
As far as Alaska goes (and the electoral college), no one is really aware of what happened in New Mexico (or even cared) four years ago. The state has only five electoral votes. Because of some mishandling of ballots, the final vote changed three or four times, with a different winner announced each time. The final, official, count had Gore winning by (I think) 234 votes. The count before that one had bush winning by only 5 votes. Had the electoral college been closer (and not just hinged on Florida), people might have cared. In a popular vote, however, neither would lose sleep over a difference of less than 250 votes.
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see what's so bad about Kerry. Sure, he isn't a charasmatic wizard, but he seems like an intellectually eager, decent and competent leader, with the capacity to surprise me with innovative approaches to domestic issues. I honestly feel that a Kerry presidency will improve the quality of life for all but the top 1 percent of wage earners in the nation, and hopefully inspire more than our pocketbooks.
posted
Dagonee: probably. Me, I'll be the one updating election results all night on our website. Last presidential election I tried to hang around until it was decided. Got a lot of overtime...
This year we'll have electronic booths that have already been shown to be unreliable, with no way to go back and recount, in an election that looks to be hotly contested again. I really don't want to see another month of legal infighting and partisan screaming with elections officials who have close ties to the candidates, disputes over felon voting lists, or the other joys of living in Florida during election season. After seeing how both sides handled themselves last time, if I hadn't already been Independant I would have switched on the spot.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If anyone honestly thinks that the voting machines are accurate representations of people voting, please take a moment to research this.
One place to start is Wiki Diebold which has a brief summary and many external links describing the current and past controversies concerning voting machines.
posted
How will a Kerry presidency improve my quality of life in any measurable way? Will he lower my taxes? Give me free stuff that is actually useful to me?
If I do vote, it will likely be for him, but he is still just another politician. All they do is make more useless and/or harmful laws while spending the money they stole from me. The most that might happen would be the Republicans having control of Congress by a slim majority with Kerry in office, which if we are lucky might result in too much friction to pass any bills. On the other hand, a second Bush term with a slim Democrat majority would give a better chance for a deadlock, but the risk of the Republicans having control of both branches is a horrible thing to think about.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(However, my 8 year old would laugh like a goon).![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
