Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2008-05-26 02:31:31
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,827|6583|eXtreme to the maX
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.
But in practise it never happens, just look at the actual results.
Party Seats Popular Vote 2006 US congress
                            Seats 2006      Vote  %
Democratic Party       233             53.6%
Republican Party       202              46.4%   
Independent                0                 0.5% 
Libertarian Party          0                 0.8%
Green Party                 0                 0.4%
Working Families Party 0                   0.2% 
Independence Party     0                  0.2%
Constitution Party        0                   0.2%
Reform Party               0                  0.0% 
Other parties               0                   0.3%

Thanks to the system if you don't vote Rep or Dem your vote is wasted so no-one bothers.
Some form of proportional representation is fairer and means the govt more closely represents the views of the people.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-05-26 02:40:47)

Fuck Israel
2008-05-26 06:00:28
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6888|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

You do realize name recognition and money are the main reasons why the big 2 dominate the system, right?
Of course I do. But a message that resonates with the voters will bring money and recognition (a la Ron Paul's early campaign). The fact that he was running in the Republican primary had nothing to do with his support base...it was his message. At least, until people realized his message was sound-bite deep.
“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
2008-05-26 06:11:25
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7078|132 and Bush

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No, but there has to be a real possibility of it happening.
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.
Again, some of the major parties have adapted and changed to accommodate popular opinion. You would only recognize them by their names. Example.
How many of them were minor parties in their time?
That's my point. They grew from minority status. Are you suggesting that parties with a minority of support should control the majority? Some of them were infact "third party" choices though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Soil_Party
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-05-26 06:14:42
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6304
No, I'm saying that the only way for them to go past minor party status is for a major party to fuck up.
2008-05-26 06:27:08
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7078|132 and Bush

Well in that case I'd say there is a "real possibility" of that happening..lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-05-26 06:32:39
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6888|'Murka

Kmarion wrote:

Well in that case I'd say there is a "real possibility" of that happening..lol
QFT.

That's how the current major parties came to prominence.
“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
2008-05-26 07:08:56
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7318|Cologne, Germany

Dilbert_X 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.
But in practise it never happens, just look at the actual results.
Party Seats Popular Vote 2006 US congress
                            Seats 2006      Vote  %
Democratic Party       233             53.6%
Republican Party       202              46.4%   
Independent                0                 0.5% 
Libertarian Party          0                 0.8%
Green Party                 0                 0.4%
Working Families Party 0                   0.2% 
Independence Party     0                  0.2%
Constitution Party        0                   0.2%
Reform Party               0                  0.0% 
Other parties               0                   0.3%

Thanks to the system if you don't vote Rep or Dem your vote is wasted so no-one bothers.
Some form of proportional representation is fairer and means the govt more closely represents the views of the people.
not really. No vote is wasted. That is a false perception. The only vote wasted is a vote that is not cast at all.
As FEOS said, the system in theory allows for a nearly unlimited number of parties. The problem in the US is of ourse that
historically, Republicans and Democrats have established such strong brands and such a huge following, that they pretty much control the voting, regardless of other parties involved.
But that is not the system's fault. If you want to blame anyone, blame yourself, or your fellow americans, for sheepishly following the instructions of a small political elite. I mean, how are other parties ever going to have success if no one votes for them ?
The argument that one should not vote for a third party because they'd have no chance of winning anyway, and the vote would therefore be wasted, is absurd. The only reason why third parties do not have much success in the first place is because no one votes for them.
If more people voted for them, they'd have more success. It's really just that easy.

I would agree that more diversity in the political sector would do the US good, but ultimately, it is up to the voter if they want it or not.
We have proportional representation here in germany ( there is a 5% bar each party has to "jump" to get seats in the respective parliaments, be it regional or federal ), and as a result, we have a more diverse party landscape, with 5 political parties currently being represented in parliament.

But since they ways governments are formed in the US and germany differ so much, I don't know if that comparison is even valid.
In the US, the focus is much more on the individual candidate, not the party he or she represents. Jesse Ventura winning in Minnesota is a prime example for that. Popular candidates can win, even if the parties they represent are largely unknown.
I bet if Michael Jordan decided to run for office in his hometown Highland Park, he'd slam dunk over his opponent, whatever party affiliation...
2008-05-26 09:34:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6882|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You do realize name recognition and money are the main reasons why the big 2 dominate the system, right?
Of course I do. But a message that resonates with the voters will bring money and recognition (a la Ron Paul's early campaign). The fact that he was running in the Republican primary had nothing to do with his support base...it was his message. At least, until people realized his message was sound-bite deep.
Ron Paul is a good example, but...  Politics are like religion for so many people.  They tend to support whatever their family supports.  If they were raised to support Republicans, they will likely support them as well.  Democrats are the same.

We've had a 2 party system for so long that we need things like IRV to enact real change.
2008-05-26 11:30:53
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6888|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You do realize name recognition and money are the main reasons why the big 2 dominate the system, right?
Of course I do. But a message that resonates with the voters will bring money and recognition (a la Ron Paul's early campaign). The fact that he was running in the Republican primary had nothing to do with his support base...it was his message. At least, until people realized his message was sound-bite deep.
Ron Paul is a good example, but...  Politics are like religion for so many people.  They tend to support whatever their family supports.  If they were raised to support Republicans, they will likely support them as well.  Democrats are the same.

We've had a 2 party system for so long that we need things like IRV to enact real change.
If the problem is that politics are like religion...people tend to support whatever their family supports...then IRV won't change anything.

The only thing that will change anything is for the two major parties to cock it up so bad that the third parties' messages will be more popular than the Reps or Dems. There's a decent chance that we're on the precipice of that occurring.
“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
2008-05-26 11:33:32
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6882|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Of course I do. But a message that resonates with the voters will bring money and recognition (a la Ron Paul's early campaign). The fact that he was running in the Republican primary had nothing to do with his support base...it was his message. At least, until people realized his message was sound-bite deep.
Ron Paul is a good example, but...  Politics are like religion for so many people.  They tend to support whatever their family supports.  If they were raised to support Republicans, they will likely support them as well.  Democrats are the same.

We've had a 2 party system for so long that we need things like IRV to enact real change.
If the problem is that politics are like religion...people tend to support whatever their family supports...then IRV won't change anything.

The only thing that will change anything is for the two major parties to cock it up so bad that the third parties' messages will be more popular than the Reps or Dems. There's a decent chance that we're on the precipice of that occurring.
People are less likely to conform when they believe they have more choices.  That's what IRV will change.  Libertarians and Greens will become feasible candidates.

I'll agree with you on the second point though.
2008-05-26 11:35:42
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6888|'Murka

People already know they have more choices. It's just that those choices don't resonate with them like the two big parties do.

If people don't know that they have more choices, then they didn't pay attention in school, don't read the newspaper or internet, watch TV or have friends who talk about politics. IRV won't fix that, either.
“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
2008-05-26 11:43:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6882|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

People already know they have more choices. It's just that those choices don't resonate with them like the two big parties do.

If people don't know that they have more choices, then they didn't pay attention in school, don't read the newspaper or internet, watch TV or have friends who talk about politics. IRV won't fix that, either.
Eh...  Your second point is where I think I will concede...  The one reason I don't push that hard for IRV outside of debates is because I know that, ultimately, most people are sheep and reluctant to think for themselves.

So, for all practical purposes, it is doubtful we will ever have more than 2 viable parties in America.  What's much more likely is that the big 2 will become more and more similar to each other, and the elite rich will retain the vast majority of power.
2008-05-26 15:55:59
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7191|US

FEOS wrote:

People already know they have more choices. It's just that those choices don't resonate with them like the two big parties do.
I don't know about that.  I think it is more "Vote Dem/Rep or you'll waste your vote" crap.
2008-05-26 17:19:38
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6888|'Murka

RAIMIUS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

People already know they have more choices. It's just that those choices don't resonate with them like the two big parties do.
I don't know about that.  I think it is more "Vote Dem/Rep or you'll waste your vote" crap.
Anyone who buys the "your vote is wasted" crap deserves whatever they get.
“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
2008-05-26 17:31:40
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6630|what

Voting in America should be compulsory as it is within Australia. Once you register to vote (most people do at the age of 18) if you fail to register your vote during state or federal elections you receive a monetary fine.

However at the same time I can't comment on the ability to choose the appropriate candidate if your somebody who thinks voting is pointless and not worth the effort.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2008-05-26 18:30:30
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6888|'Murka

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Voting in America should be compulsory as it is within Australia. Once you register to vote (most people do at the age of 18) if you fail to register your vote during state or federal elections you receive a monetary fine.

However at the same time I can't comment on the ability to choose the appropriate candidate if your somebody who thinks voting is pointless and not worth the effort.
Agree on all counts.
“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
2008-05-26 18:37:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6882|North Carolina
I don't like the idea of compulsory voting, but there are times when I think voting should be earned by more than just citizenship.
2008-05-26 19:15:42
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7245

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Voting in America should be compulsory as it is within Australia. Once you register to vote (most people do at the age of 18) if you fail to register your vote during state or federal elections you receive a monetary fine.

However at the same time I can't comment on the ability to choose the appropriate candidate if your somebody who thinks voting is pointless and not worth the effort.
also our elections are held on a Saturday not a Tuesday?? in the US. From where I stand, and this is just an opinion, the US system seems to reek of not wanting people to get involved, not wanting people to vote and making it as hard as possible to vote.

I think its a good system making voting compulsory. I am not sure it would work so well in the US as they do have a large homeless population and it would cost a great deal to police the compulsory voting.
2008-05-26 19:50:17
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7078|132 and Bush

^^Some states (like Florida) have early voting. We can vote in the general weeks in advance and at anytime.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-05-27 01:56:30
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6888|'Murka

BN wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Voting in America should be compulsory as it is within Australia. Once you register to vote (most people do at the age of 18) if you fail to register your vote during state or federal elections you receive a monetary fine.

However at the same time I can't comment on the ability to choose the appropriate candidate if your somebody who thinks voting is pointless and not worth the effort.
also our elections are held on a Saturday not a Tuesday?? in the US. From where I stand, and this is just an opinion, the US system seems to reek of not wanting people to get involved, not wanting people to vote and making it as hard as possible to vote.

I think its a good system making voting compulsory. I am not sure it would work so well in the US as they do have a large homeless population and it would cost a great deal to police the compulsory voting.
The Tuesday thing goes back to when the country was founded. Normal work week is M-F. Couldn't do the vote on Monday, as that would mean travel on Sunday, which was frowned upon. So...travel to voting place on Monday (remember, this was the late 1700s, early 1800s), vote on Tuesday, go home. No nefarious reasoning behind it, and it's always been that way, so it couldn't be a plot to keep people from voting.
“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
2008-05-27 02:22:11
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6304

Kmarion wrote:

Well in that case I'd say there is a "real possibility" of that happening..lol
No, there isn't a real chance of a third party becoming powerful.  There is, however, a real chance of one of the major parties self destructing, and someone else stepping into the vacuum.
2008-05-27 02:24:01
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6304

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Voting in America should be compulsory as it is within Australia. Once you register to vote (most people do at the age of 18) if you fail to register your vote during state or federal elections you receive a monetary fine.
I disagree.  That just encourages people who shouldn't vote to do so (i.e. people who pay no attention of politics and the like).  It was introduced when we almost had so few people voting that a government couldn't legally be formed.
2008-05-30 20:59:01
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7078|132 and Bush

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Well in that case I'd say there is a "real possibility" of that happening..lol
No, there isn't a real chance of a third party becoming powerful.  There is, however, a real chance of one of the major parties self destructing, and someone else stepping into the vacuum.
Or parties will shift positions to accommodate different views. Can you imagine a Democrat today saying "Ask not what your country can do for you"?

no srsly
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-05-31 06:54:37
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6304
But they only ever shift to extremes.  Either you can vote right, or left.  You can't go moderate, or a different sort of right or left.
2008-05-31 08:26:31
imortal
Member
+240|7142|Austin, TX

BN wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Voting in America should be compulsory as it is within Australia. Once you register to vote (most people do at the age of 18) if you fail to register your vote during state or federal elections you receive a monetary fine.

However at the same time I can't comment on the ability to choose the appropriate candidate if your somebody who thinks voting is pointless and not worth the effort.
also our elections are held on a Saturday not a Tuesday?? in the US. From where I stand, and this is just an opinion, the US system seems to reek of not wanting people to get involved, not wanting people to vote and making it as hard as possible to vote.

I think its a good system making voting compulsory. I am not sure it would work so well in the US as they do have a large homeless population and it would cost a great deal to police the compulsory voting.
Compulsory voting?  Yes, welcome to the land of freedom.  Now line up and go tell me who you want to lead you, or I will arrest you and throw you in prison.

Noble idea, but misguided, in my opinion.  I think we should go the complete opposite direction and make people earn the ability to vote.  Design a system that is not based on race, economic status, religion, or education level.   Just take a couple years of their lives directed for the good on the nation, and after that, THEN you have the ability to vote.  And you can not run for office unless you can vote.

No, I am not referring soley to military service.  Why does everyone always assume that is what we are talking about.  And I think it should be completely voluntary; you can not make someone give a damn about politics.  If you care enough about politics and 'the system,' put your time where your mouth is, put in some work, and then you can help change and run things.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard