Actually, your system doesn't give them the ability to gain traction, which means people feel that they either have vote for a major party or lose their vote, which means the third party gets know vote, which means people feel they'd be wasting their vote.................
No, it's their message that doesn't give them the ability to gain traction. What you're presenting is just a victimization mentality.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Actually, your system doesn't give them the ability to gain traction, which means people feel that they either have vote for a major party or lose their vote, which means the third party gets know vote, which means people feel they'd be wasting their vote.................
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
How? The only way to get any say in the US is to win the places. Because of the voting system you have, that means you have to get the most votes. That is: a small party can never get big enoug to be viewed seriously enough to win because no-one will vote for them because they can't win.
In presidential elections that is, I know nothing about voting systems for your houses of parliament. Perhaps you could explain, or you know a website with an explanation or something (wiki has failed me)? Cheers.
In presidential elections that is, I know nothing about voting systems for your houses of parliament. Perhaps you could explain, or you know a website with an explanation or something (wiki has failed me)? Cheers.
Republicans/democrats are just brands. Brands that have swapped positions (as well as taken on new ones) numerous times in our brief history.
http://media.putfile.com/Phil-Politics
http://media.putfile.com/Phil-Politics
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I agree... since you can win through pluralities in our system, it discourages third party participation. If we had preferential voting or IRV, then more than 2 parties would be viable in our system.ZombieVampire! wrote:
How? The only way to get any say in the US is to win the places. Because of the voting system you have, that means you have to get the most votes. That is: a small party can never get big enoug to be viewed seriously enough to win because no-one will vote for them because they can't win.
In presidential elections that is, I know nothing about voting systems for your houses of parliament. Perhaps you could explain, or you know a website with an explanation or something (wiki has failed me)? Cheers.
A lame duck is a president that is in his last term.TheAussieReaper wrote:
At the moment Bush is considered a lame-duck President because he doesn't have the support of the Congress..
No, actually, Zombie is right. It has more to do with legislative support.God Save the Queen wrote:
A lame duck is a president that is in his last term.TheAussieReaper wrote:
At the moment Bush is considered a lame-duck President because he doesn't have the support of the Congress..
United StatesTurquoise wrote:
No, actually, Zombie is right. It has more to do with legislative support.God Save the Queen wrote:
A lame duck is a president that is in his last term.TheAussieReaper wrote:
At the moment Bush is considered a lame-duck President because he doesn't have the support of the Congress..
Any President of the United States elected to a second term is, by the above definition, a lame duck for their entire second term. The 22nd Amendment introduced term limits to the office, and it prevents the President from seeking a second re-election. However, Presidents are not usually considered to be lame ducks until the election of their successor, possibly because Presidents may be influenced by doing what the electorate or party wants to help their party retain the White House.[citation needed] Before 1933, each congress would usually have two sessions, the second of which, being held usually from December to March, occurring after the election of their successors. This session was normally called the "Lame duck session." Criticism of this process led to the passage of the 20th Amendment in 1933, which changed the date when the new congress took over from March 4 to January 3, and eliminated the lame duck session.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_%28politics%29
Alrighty then... In other countries, the definition is different. For example, Ahmadinejad is considered a lame duck because of his lack of support in Iran's parliament.
you must be from another country then.Turquoise wrote:
Alrighty then... In other countries, the definition is different. For example, Ahmadinejad is considered a lame duck because of his lack of support in Iran's parliament.
lol... Seriously, I just have more experience with the term when it's mentioned about foreign politicians. I hadn't heard it used much for American politicians until Bush's second term, and even then, they seemed to only use it after the results of the 2006 midterms.God Save the Queen wrote:
you must be from another country then.Turquoise wrote:
Alrighty then... In other countries, the definition is different. For example, Ahmadinejad is considered a lame duck because of his lack of support in Iran's parliament.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-05-25 09:37:18)
much experience huh? Im interested to know what kind of "experience" you have. By your own admission, you dont have much knowledge of American politics. I mean, I guess, under your personal definition of "Lame Duck", Clinton was a lame duck throughout most his presidency.
sounds like all your "experience" comes from watching CNN
sounds like all your "experience" comes from watching CNN
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-05-25 09:44:44)
Whoa man... why so aggressive? We've posted before in other threads without all this hostility. What gives?God Save the Queen wrote:
much experience huh? Im interested to know what kind of "experience" you have. By your own admission, you dont have much knowledge of American politics. I mean, I guess, under your personal definition of "Lame Duck", Clinton was a lame duck throughout most his presidency.
sounds like all your "experience" comes from watching CNN
When I say experience, I don't mean I've held an office. I mean that politics are a hobby for me. I miscontrued the meaning of "lame duck" (at least when it comes to our system), but I know plenty about other topics.
Chill man...
Someone else pointed out a great example. The Minnesota governor's election that was won by Jesse Ventura. He was from the Reform Party. Why did he win? Because his party's message resonated with the voters more than the message from the two major or other third parties.ZombieVampire! wrote:
How? The only way to get any say in the US is to win the places. Because of the voting system you have, that means you have to get the most votes. That is: a small party can never get big enoug to be viewed seriously enough to win because no-one will vote for them because they can't win.
In presidential elections that is, I know nothing about voting systems for your houses of parliament. Perhaps you could explain, or you know a website with an explanation or something (wiki has failed me)? Cheers.
Ross Perot was in the race between Clinton and Bush Sr. Enough that it made a difference in who was elected. Why? Because his party's message resonated with voters.
Again...it's not the system. The system allows for an indefinite number of parties.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
But pluralities discourage third party voting. It's not a matter of what the system allows, it's what the system favors. Our system favors two party thinking.FEOS wrote:
Someone else pointed out a great example. The Minnesota governor's election that was won by Jesse Ventura. He was from the Reform Party. Why did he win? Because his party's message resonated with the voters more than the message from the two major or other third parties.ZombieVampire! wrote:
How? The only way to get any say in the US is to win the places. Because of the voting system you have, that means you have to get the most votes. That is: a small party can never get big enoug to be viewed seriously enough to win because no-one will vote for them because they can't win.
In presidential elections that is, I know nothing about voting systems for your houses of parliament. Perhaps you could explain, or you know a website with an explanation or something (wiki has failed me)? Cheers.
Ross Perot was in the race between Clinton and Bush Sr. Enough that it made a difference in who was elected. Why? Because his party's message resonated with voters.
Again...it's not the system. The system allows for an indefinite number of parties.
With either preferential voting or IRV, this would change, where you could actually vote your conscience without being a spoiler.
How do pluralities discourage third party voting? If anything, they encourage it because it means the candidate doesn't need a hard majority (50% + 1 vote) to win. It gives third parties a better chance.Turquoise wrote:
But pluralities discourage third party voting. It's not a matter of what the system allows, it's what the system favors. Our system favors two party thinking.FEOS wrote:
Someone else pointed out a great example. The Minnesota governor's election that was won by Jesse Ventura. He was from the Reform Party. Why did he win? Because his party's message resonated with the voters more than the message from the two major or other third parties.ZombieVampire! wrote:
How? The only way to get any say in the US is to win the places. Because of the voting system you have, that means you have to get the most votes. That is: a small party can never get big enoug to be viewed seriously enough to win because no-one will vote for them because they can't win.
In presidential elections that is, I know nothing about voting systems for your houses of parliament. Perhaps you could explain, or you know a website with an explanation or something (wiki has failed me)? Cheers.
Ross Perot was in the race between Clinton and Bush Sr. Enough that it made a difference in who was elected. Why? Because his party's message resonated with voters.
Again...it's not the system. The system allows for an indefinite number of parties.
With either preferential voting or IRV, this would change, where you could actually vote your conscience without being a spoiler.
If you think the voters of this country can handle IRV, you're insane. Do you remember FL in 2000?
And as for IRV being inherently more fair:
Robert's Rules of Order wrote:
"Although this type of preferential ballot is preferable to an election by plurality, it affords less freedom of choice than repeated balloting, because it denies voters the opportunity of basing their second or lesser choices on the results of earlier ballots, and because the candidate in last place is automatically eliminated and may thus be prevented from becoming a compromise choice."
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Technically, that's true. In practice, however, it basically tells people, "if you vote for the third guy, you'll just favor the guy you like least of the big 2 by not voting for the lesser of 2 evils."FEOS wrote:
How do pluralities discourage third party voting? If anything, they encourage it because it means the candidate doesn't need a hard majority (50% + 1 vote) to win. It gives third parties a better chance.
Fair point... It would take a lot of educating the public.FEOS wrote:
If you think the voters of this country can handle IRV, you're insane. Do you remember FL in 2000?
That's fallacious logic. That's ignoring the fact that people vote beforehand knowing that their first choice will likely be eliminated in favor of the second choice that has more votes. Through IRV, you at least have a chance of your first choice getting elected, because people are more likely to vote for the third parties in a system that gives you a safeguard vote (the second choice). In effect, IRV eliminates the spoiler psychology.FEOS wrote:
And as for IRV being inherently more fair:Robert's Rules of Order wrote:
"Although this type of preferential ballot is preferable to an election by plurality, it affords less freedom of choice than repeated balloting, because it denies voters the opportunity of basing their second or lesser choices on the results of earlier ballots, and because the candidate in last place is automatically eliminated and may thus be prevented from becoming a compromise choice."
He won with 37% of the vote, and lots of other minor candidates, which I suspect would have taken votes away from the big parties more than him.FEOS wrote:
Someone else pointed out a great example. The Minnesota governor's election that was won by Jesse Ventura. He was from the Reform Party. Why did he win? Because his party's message resonated with the voters more than the message from the two major or other third parties.
Further, that was for a state rather than a national office.
Enough to affect who won, not to win. Which is exactly the problem we're talking about: anybody who favoured the loser but instead voted for Perot essentially threw away their vote.FEOS wrote:
Ross Perot was in the race between Clinton and Bush Sr. Enough that it made a difference in who was elected. Why? Because his party's message resonated with voters.
And our system allows for all offices to be held by a single party, but that's never going to happen. In fact, our state and federal governments are rarely all the same party, despite the fact that the system allows for it. As Turq said, it's not just what is technically possible that matters.FEOS wrote:
Again...it's not the system. The system allows for an indefinite number of parties.
So...for you to accept that the US system is actually a multiparty system, someone from a third party has to be elected President?! That's a bit of a high bar.ZombieVampire! wrote:
He won with 37% of the vote, and lots of other minor candidates, which I suspect would have taken votes away from the big parties more than him.FEOS wrote:
Someone else pointed out a great example. The Minnesota governor's election that was won by Jesse Ventura. He was from the Reform Party. Why did he win? Because his party's message resonated with the voters more than the message from the two major or other third parties.
Further, that was for a state rather than a national office.
Regardless of whether Ventura won a state or national election, it is the same system that governs them both. Therefore, a governor getting elected from a third party is just as relevant as a national office. BTW, we have had multiple independent senators and congressmen (both national-level offices). They're not from either of the two major parties, yet they still got elected.
So I guess, following your logic, anyone who's ever voted for a candidate who didn't win "threw away their vote"? They absolutely did NOT throw away their vote. They cast it for the candidate they wanted to win. And he didn't. That happens a lot...like in every single election where more than one candidate is running for office.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Enough to affect who won, not to win. Which is exactly the problem we're talking about: anybody who favoured the loser but instead voted for Perot essentially threw away their vote.FEOS wrote:
Ross Perot was in the race between Clinton and Bush Sr. Enough that it made a difference in who was elected. Why? Because his party's message resonated with voters.
So you're admitting that it's not the system that limits third parties? I'll say it again: It is the message of the third parties that limits their success. If the message doesn't hit on the issues the populace cares about, then the third party will not succeed.ZombieVampire! wrote:
And our system allows for all offices to be held by a single party, but that's never going to happen. In fact, our state and federal governments are rarely all the same party, despite the fact that the system allows for it. As Turq said, it's not just what is technically possible that matters.FEOS wrote:
Again...it's not the system. The system allows for an indefinite number of parties.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Not if the third party gets enough people to support it. Which goes right back to the message of the third parties not resonating with the public. Or at least not enough of them to make any difference.Turquoise wrote:
Technically, that's true. In practice, however, it basically tells people, "if you vote for the third guy, you'll just favor the guy you like least of the big 2 by not voting for the lesser of 2 evils."FEOS wrote:
How do pluralities discourage third party voting? If anything, they encourage it because it means the candidate doesn't need a hard majority (50% + 1 vote) to win. It gives third parties a better chance.
It's not MY logic. It's RRO's logic. And it's spot on. Whether you have IRV or any other type of voting system, people are going to vote for who they want to win. And if the third party has enough people that want it to win, it will, regardless of the voting system used.Turquoise wrote:
That's fallacious logic. That's ignoring the fact that people vote beforehand knowing that their first choice will likely be eliminated in favor of the second choice that has more votes. Through IRV, you at least have a chance of your first choice getting elected, because people are more likely to vote for the third parties in a system that gives you a safeguard vote (the second choice). In effect, IRV eliminates the spoiler psychology.FEOS wrote:
And as for IRV being inherently more fair:Robert's Rules of Order wrote:
"Although this type of preferential ballot is preferable to an election by plurality, it affords less freedom of choice than repeated balloting, because it denies voters the opportunity of basing their second or lesser choices on the results of earlier ballots, and because the candidate in last place is automatically eliminated and may thus be prevented from becoming a compromise choice."
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No, but there has to be a real possibility of it happening.FEOS wrote:
So...for you to accept that the US system is actually a multiparty system, someone from a third party has to be elected President?! That's a bit of a high bar.
But the smaller the election, the easier it is for a minor party to win.FEOS wrote:
Regardless of whether Ventura won a state or national election, it is the same system that governs them both. Therefore, a governor getting elected from a third party is just as relevant as a national office. BTW, we have had multiple independent senators and congressmen (both national-level offices). They're not from either of the two major parties, yet they still got elected.
Where did I say that? In my view voting for someone who has no chance of winning in a first past the post system is throwing away your vote. I've made votes for parties that have lost before, but there's always been a real chance of my vote influencing the outcome.FEOS wrote:
So I guess, following your logic, anyone who's ever voted for a candidate who didn't win "threw away their vote"? They absolutely did NOT throw away their vote. They cast it for the candidate they wanted to win. And he didn't. That happens a lot...like in every single election where more than one candidate is running for office.
Where did I say that it wasn't the system? In fact, I very specifically said that my issue wasn't with what the system is technically capable of, but what it is actually capable of.FEOS wrote:
So you're admitting that it's not the system that limits third parties? I'll say it again: It is the message of the third parties that limits their success. If the message doesn't hit on the issues the populace cares about, then the third party will not succeed.
It has happened frequently.. relatively speaking. In our breif history presidents have been : Free Soil Party, Jeffersonians, Federalist, Democratic-Republican (one party), Whig, Anti-Masonic, Know Nothing, National Union party, Progressive party (Rooservelt),..etc.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, but there has to be a real possibility of it happening.FEOS wrote:
So...for you to accept that the US system is actually a multiparty system, someone from a third party has to be elected President?! That's a bit of a high bar.
Again, some of the major parties have adapted and changed to accommodate popular opinion. You would only recognize them by their names. Example.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You do realize name recognition and money are the main reasons why the big 2 dominate the system, right?FEOS wrote:
Not if the third party gets enough people to support it. Which goes right back to the message of the third parties not resonating with the public. Or at least not enough of them to make any difference.Turquoise wrote:
Technically, that's true. In practice, however, it basically tells people, "if you vote for the third guy, you'll just favor the guy you like least of the big 2 by not voting for the lesser of 2 evils."FEOS wrote:
How do pluralities discourage third party voting? If anything, they encourage it because it means the candidate doesn't need a hard majority (50% + 1 vote) to win. It gives third parties a better chance.It's not MY logic. It's RRO's logic. And it's spot on. Whether you have IRV or any other type of voting system, people are going to vote for who they want to win. And if the third party has enough people that want it to win, it will, regardless of the voting system used.Turquoise wrote:
That's fallacious logic. That's ignoring the fact that people vote beforehand knowing that their first choice will likely be eliminated in favor of the second choice that has more votes. Through IRV, you at least have a chance of your first choice getting elected, because people are more likely to vote for the third parties in a system that gives you a safeguard vote (the second choice). In effect, IRV eliminates the spoiler psychology.FEOS wrote:
And as for IRV being inherently more fair:
Actually having a message that resonates with voters has little to do with elections. Take a look at any number of opinion polls about healthcare (the majority want it socialised), military budget (the majority want it slashed), foreign affairs (majority want less agression, more diplomacy and a greater conformity with the will of the rest of the world even if it goes against what is best for the US), Environment (the majority of Bush voters believed he supported the Kyoto Protocols and would like to move towards being greener), corporate power (majority want it drastically reduced, massive overhaul of corporate lobbying etc.) , welfare (majority want welfare increased). The sutuation in the UK isn't much different.FEOS wrote:
Not if the third party gets enough people to support it. Which goes right back to the message of the third parties not resonating with the public. Or at least not enough of them to make any difference.
Most people think voting is failry meaningless and don't really care which of the candidates gets elected because none of them share their views.
If the party that gets elected comes down to who's views resonate best with the voters, then neither democrats or republicans should have won any recent election.
If you want to know why, most people get their information on who to vote from from corporate tv and print news. They are strongly linked with the democrat/republican parties, they are both business oriented parties. Any party advocating the kinds of policies that the populace favour would almost certainly be a serious threat to the major corpotations that own most tv/print news publications.
How many of them were minor parties in their time?Kmarion wrote:
It has happened frequently.. relatively speaking. In our breif history presidents have been : Free Soil Party, Jeffersonians, Federalist, Democratic-Republican (one party), Whig, Anti-Masonic, Know Nothing, National Union party, Progressive party (Rooservelt),..etc.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, but there has to be a real possibility of it happening.FEOS wrote:
So...for you to accept that the US system is actually a multiparty system, someone from a third party has to be elected President?! That's a bit of a high bar.
Again, some of the major parties have adapted and changed to accommodate popular opinion. You would only recognize them by their names. Example.