Slashdot Mirror
Third-Party and Independent Ballot Status
jsrjsr writes "Ballot Access News reports on the number of states where various candidates will be on the ballot. The site also contains a wealth of news about ballot access and other election-related issues."
Kang: "It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us."
Person in crowd: "I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate!"
Kodos: "Go ahead - throw your vote away!"
(Pan to Ross Perot in crowd punching though his hat)
***************
Kodos: "All hail President Kang!"
Marge: "I can't believe we have to build a ray gun to aim at a planet I never even heard of."
Homer: "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Simple, because Slashdot is a site that is American in origin and most of the people who read it are Americans.
Even we get bored with minute by minute updates of the politics, but the overall issues are important.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
There is absolutely no way somebody other than Bush or Kerry is going to win in November... the American presidential election system just doesn't play that way.
Every state, plus Washington D.C., holds its own election that determines which set of electors will be sent to the electoral college. Almost all are in a winner-take-all format where the candidate with the most actual votes takes all of the state's electoral votes.
If a third party candidate is able to somehow upset both Bush and Kerry and take a state or two, they'd possibly pull things so that nobody gets a majority of the electoral votes. Realistically, a third candidate of the strength of the other two would result in an even 3-way split, which would most certainly promise that nobody can capture a majority. If that happens... the whole system turns on it head.
The electoral votes are tossed aside, and the newly elected House of Representatives gets to vote in a one-vote-per-state fashion to pick the new president.
In short, a third party candidate has no way to win the direct election, and can only hope to kick the election into the House's hands. However, if that third party doesn't have any representation in the House, they're going to crash there. In short, you can't start a new party at the presidency... you have to start building it with smaller offices before you can approach the Oval Office.
Isn't this what the new Slashdot politics subsite is for? I don't see how this any specific technological issues(e.g, Diebold) that justifies inclusion on the main page.
The Democrats have been harrasing Ralph Nader pretty bad. What they've done is they've formed a separate group called the United Progressives for Victory, and they are suing him everywhere that they can. They sue him in battleground states in order to keep him off the ballot, and they'll sue him in non-battleground states simply to harass him and deplete his resources. By forming a separate group, the United Progressives for Victory can be counter-attacked and sued out of exisxtence without putting the Democratic Party, itself, on the line.
Not for Presidential elections, anyway. The last race was close and the upcoming one won't be a cakewalk for either side. People vote with their hearts, not their consciences.
Don't throw away your vote by voting Republican!
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I usually vote third party as a way of registering my dissapointment with the two main parties, but not this year. The Bush administration has run far enough to the right that there really is a difference between the two parties again. I recommend everyone do some web searching, learn the issues and the track records of the candidates, and then VOTE!
:P
On my political humor web site, AliensForBush.com, I've included some google.com search terms that might be useful to get you started.
Remeber, you don't have a right to complain if you don't participate in the democratic process.
Peace,
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
In an email conversation with Richard Winger (who runs Ballot Access News and invests all his energy and resources into the effort of being the central repository of a very complex subject) he noted the inherent hypocrisy of the parties.
The Republican party was very hastily assembled and won a big election (1860) in very short order (just a few months of organization on the national level.) Under todays hugely complex ballot laws, that would have been simply impossible. (Ballot access laws came about with the secret ballot. Prior to the secret ballot, the state didn't print ballots at all, and candidates did not register themselves with the state for an election. They just started campaigning, and people wrote the candidate's names down, or they brought candidate lists with them to the polling place and dropped them into the box. Essentially, *everyone* was a write-in candidate. The secret ballot made pre-printing necessary and therefore candidate pre-registration, and now we have a very technical system for keeping undesireables off the ballot.)
Winger does imply that there may be a federal ballot access system setup in the future, but I don't know how far off that is, nor how fair it would be for third parties.
The best reason to vote third party is to influence the policies of the two major parties. If the dems or reps see enough voters get behind a major third party issue, they will adjust their platforms to try and capture those votes.
Of course it is up to us to be an informed electorate and hold our leaders' feet to the fire when they fall down on their campaign promises. I am actually going to vote democrat for the first time in many years for exactly that reason... Bush's record is really rather horrible when bother to look past the spin and really check the facts.
The Bolachek Journals
I love how these so-called non-partisan laws are used to challenge 3-parties while the majors get their way. In Illinois these laws state qualifying names must be submitted by August 30. The Republican convention was held in Sept. If these laws were equally applied to the Majors, Dubya would not be on the ballot. I'm glad my Libertarians are on the ballot. They do a pretty good job at getting on all ballots. I don't delude myself that they will win because of it, but I hate when these laws only appear to apply to everyone but democrats and republicans.
This site is updated daily to give the predicted electoral vote counts - more informative than the overall popular vote totals. He also covers the Senate races and issues related to polling ingeneral. The site does have a somewhat pro-Kerry viewpoint, but it seems like the poll data is non-partisan ...
I frequently get asked why I "throw away" my vote by voting for a third-party candidate for President.
Sometimes people are nice about it, but too often it is an accusation. Apparently *I* am responsible for the fact that Al Gore did not get elected in 2000.
I have written on this subject before, but I wanted to cover some other information today.
One reason I vote for third party candidates is that they bring to the table issues that the major candidates may not normally mention. In order to try to sway third-party candidates, the major candidates will co-op some of the platform of smaller candidates. Had Al Gore paid more attention to *why* people were voting for Nader, he might have pulled in some more votes. Had he pulled in about 600 more votes in Florida, what would have happened?
From Open Debates: "Third-party candidates have introduced popular and groundbreaking issues that were eventually co-opted by the major parties, such as: the abolition of slavery, unemployment insurance, social security, child labor laws, public schools, public power, the direct election of senators, the graduated income tax, paid vacation, the 40-hour work week, the formation of labor unions, and democratic tools like the initiative, the referendum and the recall."
In related news - "The Commission on Presidential Debates may have violated federal election laws when it refused to allow any third-party presidential candidates into the debate halls to watch the 2000 presidential debates, a federal judge has ruled."
I would definitely suggest checking out the entire Open Debates sites. Pay special attention to the New section that has editorials from tons of newspapers calling for the inclusion of third-party candidates in the debates.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
As somebody who almost always votes Libertarian, I've done a lot of thinking, and I think that the real reason that 3rd party candidates will never have a chance in the US us due to the media. The media reports every 30 seconds what they think that the votign breakdown will be (ie: 45% Democrat, 51% Republican). The problem is that people always get into this "throwing away my vote" mentality. What needs to be done is polls need to be eliminated. All polls. They need to be made illegal. Voting in this country was designed to be a system in which each person votes for the person that they want to elect. Period. The media plays a very, very significant role in convincing people who they should vote for, and that just fucks everything up. As long as the media is reporting that the Democrats have this much vote, yada, yada, nobody is going to bother voting for a thrid party candidate because they believe that they will be "throwing away their vote". Ban public election polling.
Registered Libertarian.
I don't respond to AC's.
Politics is listed twice in the preferences, and jet none of them work :/
Go grab those torrents.
Not true. Don't forget there are some third-party conservative candidates. You aren't even giving any leeway to those who live in "safe" states (e.g. I live in SC--any vote is basically pointless). Also, some studies indicate that many of the people who vote third-party wouldn't have voted otherwise. (Sorry I can't point to a web site to back this up). We should never punish Americans who vote their conscience, who aren't willing to settle for the "lesser of two evils" when a good may exist. If you are concerned about Kerry getting elected, you should focus on the 25% of eligible voters who don't bother to show up. They are the only ones "throwing their votes away."
Live free or die
Support Nebraska's right to susceed from the union, vote Nebraska Seperatist Party... and don't give me that mumbo-jumbo about Nebraska being land locked. :)
The Bolachek Journals
See, I find the above absolutely hilarious, since libertarians want to DE-regulate everything, and making a law that you can't poll people would be completely against their principles.
On a side note, the problem I have with libertarian ideology is the same problem that i have with communism ideology: It just doesn't account for human nature.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
As somebody who almost always votes Libertarian...
What needs to be done is polls need to be eliminated. All polls. They need to be made illegal.
Better take another pass over your Libertarian handbook. Start with index entries "Force, Initiation of" and "Government, Big."
..watching politics for a long time. The media coverage is vital. Whenever third parties and candidates get even close to normal coverage they do quite well. If they got equal coverage I'd bet we'd have huge numbers of third parties in every aspect of government at every level, but they CAN'T get coverage. This lasts a few cycles then a third party guy gets coverage, gets millions of votes. Lather, rinse, repeat. Now I think they realise they should never cover third parties except for negative spin stories, well, like you see here.
The real biggee I remember was the national debates, you get some guy on there, and you can see third parties are viable. I'd blame the media and it's obvious brainwashing and propoganda efforts more than any other reason for the dominance of the R and D criminal cartel. And calling it a criminal cartel is the truth-they are. At the top, the mass media is owned by a handful of billionaires, so you will only see media reports that perpetuate their own corporate blow dried alleged "candidates". And since the rise of independent press and the internet, they realise their monopoly on info was threatened, so they had to come up with some way to insure the corporate party candidate gets in always, hence blackbox voting.
People in the USA need to wake up that they live in a dictatorship, that their vote itself comes pre-wasted for them. The only wasted vote are all the ones cast thinking that it will make a difference, because it won't, the corporate party "won" a long time ago and now runs bi annual political melodrama TV fiction shows to keep people amused and faked out.
I mean, c'mon, two skull and bones white male connected elite globalist millionaires as the "choices"? How blatant does it have to get?
I live in Minnesota. Wanna try and convince me that voting for a third part throws away my vote?
The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
I usually vote 3rd party as well but not this year.
Only one candidate.the President, will take it to the Terrorists.
The stakes are to high to vote on any other "issue".
some studies indicate that many of the people who vote third-party wouldn't have voted otherwise. (Sorry I can't point to a web site to back this up). We should never punish Americans who vote their conscience, who aren't willing to settle for the "lesser of two evils" when a good may exist
Like me.
I'm a fiscal conservative who won't vote for Kerry and can't bring myself to vote for Bush. I'm voting Constitution Party this year, but if not for t hat I wouldn't vote at all
Fucking hell, it's not like anyone's vote is going to fucking matter. Your vote counts for precisely dick unless you live in a swing state. Also, your vote counts for precisely dick if you live in a county that uses those fucking Diebold machines, which are still in use, because apparently it's too hard for (a) reporters and (b) the public to understand the concept of 'doesn't fucking work'.
...
...
Geek: Holy shit! These things don't work! See? [proof]
Reporter: You smell. I distrust you.
Diebold Weasel: Our machines are full of Christmassy joy.
Reporter: Your hair is silver, and wavy. I wish to fellate you.
Seriously, kids. We're on the eve of the most massive, most egregious voting fraud in the history of our nation. And it's not news. Fucking great, eh?
It's like those fucking 'intelligence' exams that went
1. Read all the instructions.
2. Put your name on the paper in indestructible Sharpie.
65. Don't do anything. Ignore everything else on this page. If you read all the instructions, you wouldn't have written anything. Else, you fail it!
Except it's
64. Watch the debates, and form an opinion of who has the better hair.
65. Oh, right. Your vote doesn't count. See you next time! Thanks for legitimizing a manifestly corrupt and broken election system!
The old methods of manipulating the electorate via subtle and not-so-subtle propaganda are do dated. Best to just pick the winner and not mess around with all this voting shit. This election is too important to be left to the voters!
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I love many of the things the Libertarian party stands for, but every damn time you give them TV time what do they do? Go on about pot.
The Libetarians will never be taken seriously if they keep going on about drugs. They are defeated before they ever get to the polls because of it.
Of the two major parties neither disgusts me more than the Democrats who ACTIVELY prevent others from running. The prime example being Nader. While I don't agree with him he HAS A RIGHT.
Unfortunately a new third party isn't going to have it easy and not just because of the press, its the simple fact that the current parties use our money to buy votes. The promise everything the gimme-generation wants. They don't care about how the money is spent as long as it buys a vote.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I really doubt if you do, but let's evaluate the validity of your claim that FOX news doesn't cover the other, less popular candidates.
Google search for nader on fox news: 292 Results
Google search for bush on fox news: 15000 Results.
Fox's Nader/Bush Ratio : 0.0915
Google search for nader on cnn: 2,290 Results
Google search for bush on cnn: 211,000 Results.
Cnn's Nader/Bush Ratio : 0.0517
Google search for nader on msn: 4,660 Results
Google search for bush on msn: 126,000 Results.
Msn's Nader/Bush Ratio : 0.037
Google search for nader on cbs: 527 Results
Google search for bush on cbs: 58,900 Results.
CBS's Nader/Bush Ratio : 0.00895
Google search for nader on abc: 37 Results
Google search for bush on abc: 1,190 Results.
ABC's Nader/Bush Ratio : 0.0311
I'm not really sure why the numbers for abc are so low, but in any case it's quite obvious that your claim was flat out wrong, and that you didn't bother to do a little research before you made it. I'm so sick of this situation whereby any sort of kook theory or idea that says the republicans/foxnews/haliburton are all up to no good is instantly beleived by the leftists in this country, without regard to any evidence or fact. Yet when someone tries to cliam that al-qaeda was in cahoots with iraq, suddenly you guys get interested in the scientific method again and demand some evidence.
Unless you're now going to jump to another kook theory that foxnews is covering nader so much more than the other guys because they want nader to win, you're going to have to retract your statement and admit you were wrong, or at least that fox news isn't as biased as MSNBC or CBS.
My blog
So let's keep costing the big boys elections until they start pushing for run-offs then, shall we?
Couldn't disagree more. Without polls it would be impossible for the public to unify behind a candidate. You'd have TRUE spoilers. Theoretically, two COMPLETELY identical candidates could split their share of votes, allowing a candidate with as little as 34% of the vote to win.
The real reason third parties don't work in the US is our first past the post (FPTP) voting system, otherwise known as Plurality voting. Duverger's Law posits that FPTP naturally leads to a two-party system. If we had ranked choice voting (RCV, also known as instant runoff voting, or IRV), those who prefer a libertarian candidate would be able to safely vote for this candidate and also choose a major party candidate to whom their vote could go if the libertarian candidate wasn't going to win. This would allow everyone to vote for the person they would most like to win.
g
I have heard there are tactical voting issues with RCV/IRV that are only solved with a true Condorcet method. If this is the case, then perhaps we should consider a different method - but IRV is certainly a huge step up from FPTP in terms of elimination of tactical voting.
For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FPTP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_votin
"I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
Registered Libertarian.
You might be registered, but your post proves you're no Libertarian. "Government regulation is good if it helps us get into power" isn't a libertarian ideal.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The major flaw was that national elections are held on a first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all basis. Which means that if three or more candidates compete in a race, it's virtually guaranteed that somebody with less than a majority of the vote will end up winning political power. The result of this flaw is non-democratic minority rule, instead of the democratic ideal of majority rule.
... The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished..."
A good example of this happened in the 2002 election in my state of Vermont, where the Republican candidates became Governor and Lieutenant Governor with 45 percent and 41 percent of the vote respectively because each had more votes than his Democratic or Progressive opponents alone. (Example: Republican Brian Dubie - 41%; Democrat Peter Shumlin - 32%; Progressive Anthony Pollina - 25%. The Republican "won.") The majority of Vermont voters selected liberal or progressive candidates, but conservatives are in charge of the state - the exact anti-democratic result that gave some of the Framers nightmares.
James Madison was the most outspokenly worried about this. In the 1787 Federalist #10, he goes into a lengthy discussion of the danger of "factions" - one aspect of what we today call political parties - emerging. First he puts a good face on the problem, suggesting that the new Constitution will solve the "violence" done to democracy by factions. But in the next sentence, he admits his fear that he and the other Framers had not truly solved the problem of what would happen if "factions" were to emerge.
"Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union [based on the Constitution], none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction," wrote Madison. "The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice.
The problem was that if factions were to emerge as political parties, it would mean there could only be two of them, for if more than two parties emerged then the majority of people would almost always remain unrepresented, while the most well-organized minority would end up ruling.
Madison concluded by saying he felt the Constitution he and Hamilton were promoting with the Federalist Papers was the best solution they could come up with to solve the problem of factions.
But, as he noted, the constitution wasn't perfect: "The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger [of factions] on this side, as was wished and expected." His only solution was to beg Americans not to form factions.
Although George Washington was soon thereafter elected unanimously and by acclimation, America's second presidential election (won by John Adams) almost immediately led to the creation of Madison's feared "factions" in the form of Vice-President Thomas Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican" party (today called the "Democratic Party"). Ever since then, we've largely been a two-party nation - because our Constitution is written in a way that causes anything else to result in the least democratic outcome to an election.
Most of the rest of the world, however, has learned from our mistake and taken a different path.
Of the 86 other "fully democratic" nations in the world (according to the UN), only a few like Greece and Australia had repeated our mistake, although Australia solved the problem with a national variation on what in America is called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), where you select your first, second, third, etc., preference among candidates, and if there's no majority winner, the "instant runoff" is instantl
So are all third parties combined looking to break the 5% of the total popular vote threshhold this time around?
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Wow you have the nerve to attack the Dems but then mention Karl Rove as being some sort of victim? I have more respect for Sadam.
"Secondly, I believe that the people that the Deomcrats have chosen as their leadership are wholly dishonest"
Right back at ya chief. I've never seen a bigger bunch of unethical immoral human being then what I'm seeing with GW and Halliburton, I mean DICK. The world is a MUCH worse place because of them.
"I love folks like Pat Cadell. He's not a "win at any cost" Democrat. It's too bad that he and folks like him don't have more influence in their party."
Yea and is too bad that anti-environment, anti-veteran, anti-senior, anti-labor NeoCons completely control the Republican agenda. Your not trying to actually imply that the current administration isn't guilty of the exact charge your trying to level are you?
Considering the dirty tricks your side has been playing and how far right they are, you've got some big balls to say you wish the Dems were not playing "win at any cost". Did you even watch the Republican convention? Republicans are finally just starting to get back a tiny bit of what they have been dishing out for over a decade. And yet you act hurt? I only wish the Left grew some balls four years ago.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Tactical voting has many considerations.
Political reporting may run more smoothly, but as far as the stability of a country's political climate, a two party system is much more susceptible to
violent
swinging
right
and
left
as the country switches between one party having the most seats (and winning any vote that goes along partisan lines) and then the other party having the most seats and trying to get all their digs in before they lose the majority again.
Perhaps he votes libertarian in the hopes that a major party will, in the future, attempt to garner some of the "libertarian vote" by adopting some libertarian principles, or by re-adopting those libertarian principles that they used to pay lip service to, but have recently found it convenient to discard.
...as in a major class action lawsuit. they get granted monopoly air time frequenices, basically licenses to print money, and they are SUPPOSED to be "in the public interest", and they clearly are NOT when they simply refuse to cover third parties. Independents make up at least 1/3 of the elctorate, ie, they AREN'T Rs or Ds, yet we surely do not see 1/3 the political coverage devoted to those folks, ALL you see with few exceptions is coverage of two private political parties. That isn't news, that's major social engineering propoganda, and the big networks should have been fined out of existence by now or had their licenses pulled over it. There needs to be some serious big time lawsuits over news coverage in this nation. I'd also like to see some RICO lawsuits against the D and R parties for ongoing criminal racketeering as in hijacking the election process and in dominating vovernment in generral. No place in the constitution does it say that the design is to allow some private parties to have complete 100% control over government, we do NOT have an offical "two party" law anyplace, but in practice they run it like it is so. It's criminal behavior. It's so far into the brainwashing that you'll hear people say we have a "two party system" like it's the law, carved in stone, inviolate, it must always be so, and was always so. Nuts. That's just a brainwashed response, and the schools are just as guilty of it.
I usually vote 3rd party as well but not this year. Only one candidate.the President, will take it to the Terrorists. The stakes are to high to vote on any other "issue".
Fighting terrorism with fullscale war is like trying to perform surgery using a sledge hammer. Yes, you can remove some unhealthy tissue that way, but you end up doing so much damage that the
patient usually dies on the table.
The way you fight terrorists is by infiltrating them, undermining them, making small surprise raids in the middle of night. You work to turn the local populations against them, turn one group against another. Full-on war and occupation comes with inevitable civilian collateral damage, which creates an ideal recruiting ground for the terrorists. Russia has seen exactly this happen in Chechnya. They have been so aggressive within Chechyna that it has turned much of the local population against them, and driven the terrorists to even more radical behavior. We are also seeing that happen in Iraq. It is no accident that anti-american sentiment is at an all time high around the world, and last year was a record year for terrorism activity.
Bush needs to start using the scalpels of diplomacy and intelligence work and put away the hammer of war. Perhaps if he did that, we would actually catch Osama.
Cheers,
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
The best thing you can do to make sure that your vote is counted is to vote absentee. Whatever your political leaning, make your voice heard! This web site has links to each US State's Electoral Offices, links to county registrars, and links to the absentee ballot PDF files. Sure, you could Google(tm) for all this info, but it's not bad to have a centralized place with all the info.
/.
http://vote.spectrox.com/
Oh.. and since this is
Step 1: Vote!
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!!
Whomever modded you flamebait is a fool. If I had mod points, you'd be getting a nice mod up.
Nader would split the dem vote ensuring Bush a victory. Therefore the bastion of conservatism that is Faux News would tend to run more Nader news.
You can see this occurring in other places as well - look to the Citizens for a Sound Economy, a group of conservatives lobbying across states to get Nader put on the ballot to split the left.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Since I didn't see it explicitly mentioned on the linked story: http://www.badnarik.org
Except it's not surgery. Agressive action like two fronts we opened up (yes we, if you are a us citizen) do have a diplomatic effect. And look at the two countries we hit. Afganistan was the host nation, by choice, of a man engineered 9/11. No one can rationaly expect us not to hit back. And Iraq was run by a nutcase who refused to honor a cease fire and was hording wmd's (or so it appeared to most credible intelligence agencies worldwide) with a populace that long run would be better off with him gone.
Now you have the whole world on notice that the US will hit hard if it feels it must, and now Countries are far less likely to give the US more than token grief on any anti-terrorism actions. And thus the stage is set for real anti-terrorism, covert ops. I'm not saying that's what the adminstration, or even joint chiefs or intell community are planning, or even that it's a good idea. It's just a logical reason to do a conventional (mostly) attack on two such targets, afganistan was probably expected, Iraq proves we'll do it again. Think Psychological warfare and subtle message and what position this puts the us in. Not that this is the safest tactic, and only having the millitary might we do have makes it even possible. In a few years (10-30?) China may be in a position to contend though.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
The people I talked to usually didn't speak English, weren't from the district, or weren't registered voters (and you can't legally register someone and have them sign on the same day). If I could find a registered voter who lived in the district, often they didn't sign for a variety of reasons (too busy, scared the Democrat might lose, wanted to think it over).
When the Green Party was on the New York state ballot, you only needed a dozen or so signatures, not hundreds with all of those conditions. Miraculously, he made it on the ballot, but there is no way he would have survived a challenge if one had been made.
It gave me a new appreciation of the whole talk about the two party system and so forth. Plus, the two parties work together to keep their monopoly of power, from election laws, to debates, to whatever. Only a large social movement united around cohesive goals could launch a challenge to it. The last time this happened was in the middle of the 19th century, with the Republican party. Since then, third parties have been co-opted by other political parties - the right wing of the Socialist party drifted into the Democratic party, most of the Dixiecrats entered the Republican party.
I'd like to the House of Representatives recast away from antiquated and pathetically gerrymandered geographical districts towards a system of proportional representation.
For example, if the Greens got 4% of the vote (nationally) they'd get 4% of the seats in the House. The senate could be left as it is so that the states would have representation -- plus it's harder to gerrymander state borders. The idea that people who live geographically close to each other have the same political interest is just plain silly in this age.
The advantage of this would be better representation of a wider field of political opinion. And, it would mitigate the tendency in a two party system for one party to automatically take the opposite view from the other.
Of course it'll never happen with blood in the streets up to your knees.
p.s. Plutocracy sucks. Bring back democracy!
p.p.s. http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhim-cbare
That is probably the most insightful comment I have read all day, and an excellent reason to vote 3rd party. I just wish you didn't have to risk getting Bush re-(s)elected to make it happen :-/
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
I got a call the other night from an automated poll taker:
"If you intend to vote for George Bush, press or say '1'.
If you intend to vote for John Kerry, press or say '2'.
If you are undecided, press or say '3'."
I pressed 4.
Chip H.
This is exactly why we need to use a system that encourages more than 2 electable parties. The only thing worse than 2 parties is having only one, like Iraq with the Baath or Mexico with the PRI. Two parties tend to polarize the debate and encourage negative "mudslinging" arguments about relatively unimportant issues (Swift votes and draft dodging) rather than positive debate on the issues that really matter (Healthcare, Terrorism, Iraq). Sure, they get debated, but we here mostly about what's wrong with the other guy's plan, not what's right with this guy's plan. And we never here anything about Election Reform since the current system works just fine for the folks in power.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
You would not believe the number of people who think that a 2 party system is somehow a result of the constitution. The major media is certainly partially to blame for the "two party system" that we have in the US. They rarely mention third party candidates and when they do it is almost always Nader even though Nader really really can not win (even if we all woke up tomorrow and decided to vote for what we wanted, Nader is not on enough ballots ot have a chance). The libertarian candidate IS on enough ballots and generally has been either at the 50 state level or very close to it for almost 20 years... But you rarely will here major media mention the libertarian candidate.
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
The REAL reason is that because "throwing your vote away" is a very real phenomenon. It doesn't have to be. Ranked or Rated Ballots mean you can express your conscience on the ballot, no compromises, no throwing your vote away. Ballot access is a wink and a nod to say "good luck, chump" until the ballot enables better recording and enacting of the will of the people.
Start Running Better Polls
this has to do with sending a message to Washington.
What every president wants is a mandate, what they get is short of that. The mistrust of Americans of their own govt. is at the polls.
Both pop culture canidates want the war to go on. Funny, we declaired "Victory in Iraq!" Lies. More Lies.
This is NOT OFFTOPIC: Our war of independence was started by only 3% of the citizens. 5% REALLY liked being British citizens. Outnumbered, they decided to take matters into their hands.
Voting 3rd party lets Beltway bullies know how loyal we are to "Kodos and Krelor". Nader IS NOT 3RD PARTY! They abandoned him long ago.
A decent 3rd party is Constitutional party, Michael Parutka(sp. n then some) Someone else google it, me lazy mode today.
My feelings: We are paying 50% of our wealth in taxes, hidden or in-yo-face. We have a 5.85% tax due to a stadium being built, the infamous leaky-retractable-roof-prostar-baseball stadium. Bonus points if you can name it. Stadium was built, tax not repealed. Unless you buy in vast quantities, the fractional change adds up quick, calculated in millions on a billion economy for state. for an item that is built. we still pay.
Sending a message that a war we cannot afford, with money we don't have, for reasons we are lied to, for results noone wants, at a time we need resources ourselves, when our borders are weak-even not there(FTAA).
If we are all sheeple, we will all be fleeced. Chosing lesser of two evils is still chosing evils. Which would you like: Death by leathal Injection, death by gas, or 10% chance of escape?
Without a mandate, presidents cannot act as if we don't matter, we should hold them accountable for their actions, but only if we don't comprimise.
This mind intentionally left blank.
The KKK a bunch of sheetheads? You decide!
Suppose you're an anti-war progressive who's really turned off by Kerry "bring the troops home in 2008, maybe later". But you really, really don't want to see Bush re-elected.
... but this paleo isn't about to vote for Kerry. They are about to hold their nose and vote for Bush.
Go out and find a paleo-conservative in your own state who's sick of Bush because the federal government grows even faster under Bush than it did under Clinton
Pair up. You vote for somebody you really like, Nader or Cobb. Your pair pal votes for Badnarik or Peroutka. The immediate winner of the election isn't affected. But both of you get to express what you really want. That way you get more of what you want in the future -- starting with improved ballot access.
Think of it as your own personal IRV hack.
Use whatever security you want -- both of you get absentee ballots, or you just go find another human being who's different from you politically that you can trust.
Artificially imposed term limits is just a band-aid solution to the artificial problem. The real problem is that elections aren't "natural" right now. The system doesn't allow you to vote your true preferences, instead encouraging "strategic" voting. Implement a system like Condorcet's method, and forget term limits. If the people have a real choice every 2/4/6 years, they will be active in politics (voting turnout will be better than the dismal ~40% we have now), and new/different people will be elected as a natural consequence. The current system is an incumbent-protection system, not an election system.
Constitutionally Correct
I'm tired of how often this gets proposed as a solution. IRV has major problems, and doesn't fix the problems it's supposed to.
Constitutionally Correct
Not really. IRV could do lasting damage if initiated, because most people would be fooled into believing the problems have actually been fixed. IRV is deceptive like that. Nothing less than true Condorcet will solve the problem.
Constitutionally Correct
the vote (nationally) they'd get 4% of the seats in the House. The senate could be left as it is so that the states would have representation -- plus it's harder to gerrymander state borders. The idea that people who live geographically close to each other have the same political interest is just plain silly in this age.
If you lived in Washington State, this would not be further from the truth. If you live on the Eastside [i.e., Bellevue, Redmond, etc.], the $$$ are Republican. If you live in Seattle, it's generally Democrat. If you live in Eastern Washington, it's generally anti-Puget Sound. If you live in the Cascades, it's anti-anti-logging.
If you live in Bellingham, it's anti-Georgia Pacific.
Illinois is basically Chicago vs. rest of state/burbs. New York state is similar: NYC vs rest of state.
My interests, living in the Willamette Valley, and actually trying to do something agricultural, are more in line with those who live around me doing the same thing [but on a bigger scale]. I don't want suburbanites living on urban fringe, ranchers in E. Oregon, etc., to screw up what is here.
People are frustrated, yes. But unless you've lived where there is little development control, you don't know the frustration of moving to the suburban edge only to see it move 20 miles further out in 5 years, all while thinking, "what if Brazil and Argentine decides they want to sit on their wheat crop for a year or two?" while farm production is ending up in fewer and fewer hands, and outsourced more and more...
Some people like pepsi; some people like coke: the wacky morning DJ says democracy's a joke.
...until it's as bad as those examples to notice the trends and patterns. They have been on a crash course of getting the infrastructure in place and in developing the mindshare in enough of the population to accept a bigger implemented dictatorship.
If I can use a rough analogy, politically in the US right now you are looking at your dashboard and the check engine light is on, and it's been on for quite awile. You have two choices, keep ignoring it because obviously your car is still running, or take note of it and fix what's broken as soon as possible so it doesn't get worse.
I don't think it's practical to wait until the engine seizes.
Even if said country would like to think that it rules the world.
Hate to break it to you, but we do.
BTW, are you implying that political junkies should not be classified as nerds? While surely there is a need to differentiate them from techies, those of us willing to read (in their entirety) documents such as pending legislation, FOIA requests, UN resolutions, etc. should easily qualify as nerds.
I bet if kerry loses this time by small percentage points that went somewhere else, the dems will have to start thinking about condorcet voting or IRV.
What do you want to bet? I'm putting odds at 50,000,000 to 1 that the Democratic Party will never support IRV. It will crush the Party.
I live in a republican district, in a democratic state. If I vote for one of those parties, my vote is just canceled out!
But, by voting for a third party, my vote actually does get counted - maybe not for the president himself (only a select few actually get to vote for the president, after all), but for my party.
Plus (and best of all), I get to vote for a candidate I actually agree with, instead of voting against the candidate I hate the most.
Will my candidate win? No. The corporations that purchased Kerry & Bush will win.
There is a constitutional way to solve this - http://www.fairvote.org/irv/ (or, see http://www.fairvote.org/irv/muppets/ for an explaination with more fur).
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
Billionaire has grudge; billionaire has tantrum; billionaire buys place in campaign to unseat the guy he doesn't like; billionaire fades into background 'cause the 'organization' he spawned has no staying power.
Nader's an opportunistic asshat, personally I couldn't give a rat's ass what (legal) tactics are used to keep him off the ballots.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Actually, you don't get Libertarianism. It demands human nature to be accountable from every Individual, and not from a general consensus. With this only me, myself and I are responsible for all my mistakes and not Society made me do it.
I find your side note curious, because it is exactly my own understanding of human nature that attracts me to libertarianism. I believe that:
1. Power corrupts.
2. People are self-interested.
That's really all it takes. What do you disagree with?
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." - Lord Acton