Slashdot Mirror
Third Party Debates Moderated by Larry King: Discuss
Since the two big guys got their three debates covered, and the last third party debate kind of fizzled due to technical difficulties, we invite you to discuss the third party debate happening at 9 p.m. EDT tonight. Candidates from the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and Justice parties will be debating in the same room with Larry King moderating. It would appear that C-SPAN is rebroadcasting it, so you catch it using rtmpdump if you happen to not use Flash. Since third party politicians are still politicians, remember to print out some Logical Fallacy Bingo. Topics for the debate include climate change, the drug war, and civil liberties.
Update: 10/24 02:32 GMT by U L : It turns out there will be a final third party debate next Tuesday on foreign policy between two of the candidates. To determine who will be in the debate Free and Equal is holding an IRV vote until 10:30 p.m. EDT October 24.
It is so incredibly sad that we don't have some type of IRV (Instant Runoff Voting). If we wanted real change, this is the only way to get it because it is the only way to have a real possibility of electing someone other than a Republicrat (or a Demolican).
Imagine a system where your vote actually counted, no matter who you vote for... I guess I can dream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
Why not the Modern Whig Party? You know the group that is actually on a platform of being moderate.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Good.
Their debates get more coverage than the Dem/Rep debates.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Here is Rasmussen's list of things that the voters care about:
Economy
Health Care
Gov't Ethics and Corruption
Taxes
Energy Policy
Education
Social Security
Immigration
National Security/War on Terror
Afghanistan
Or a similar list from NBC/WSJ:
"Climate change, the drug war, and civil liberties" are not on either list. The mainstream candidates don't care about them because the voters don't care about them.
It's of no use getting wrapped up in our Slashdot bubble and insist that the things that are important to us must be the top priorities of the nation. A President has to be picked by half the country (or a bit less). We can rant and rave all we want that their priorities are wrong, but all that gets us is the joy of ranting and raving.
Democracy sucks, but less than the other options. We're stuck here in a country that cares more about Afghanistan than about getting their junk groped at the airport. Unless they're service members, or their family, the odds are that the latter affects them more. But it's no use telling me that. Tell them.
I suppose this debate is going to try to do that, and maybe it'll change something. But it's not going to suddenly propel a minority issue into a game-changer.
Until I discovered Jill Stein. She's such a refreshing alternative to Bush W. Warmonger the Second.
Actually if you are living with the bulk of the populations in a non-swing state. Voting 3rd party gives you more power. Yes your candidate will not win. But with more people voting third party, It gives that party more strength, as well their views gets more credit.
For example the Green Party often effect the polices of the Democrats, and the Libertarian party effects the republicans.
I live in NY for the president probability has Obama going to win. I personally don't like Romney either. So for me I can either choose from the lesser of two evils. Or look at the third parties, and vote of the guy like the most. I prefer the Modern Whig party myself.
So other then wasting my vote on a candidate who will win and only pays attention to my state for fundraising. I might as well vote third party to get my voice on the issue I find very important.
Ok if you live in a swing state Choosing Democrat or Republican has more power. However if you live in a solid state, don't wast your vote on a winner but use it on the issue you care about and get heard better.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I didn't realize there was a national move toward top two primaries, closing the election process even more... well, at least these four folks can agree to oppose that.
Also, they are behaving a lot better so far than Obama/Romney did. Maybe it's because of Zombie Larry King.
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
americans are not libertarians
Most Americans are not CEOs or wealthy investors; which party are we supposed to vote for? The problem with the Democrats and the Republicans is that both parties are basically fascist: the government is right, the policy are soldiers, and if you disagree you go to jail. Unless you run a big corporation; then you get to call the shots and command the fascist system.
When you have police officers with automatic weapons and grenades attacking civilian homes in your country, you know that the people in power probably do not represent you. When anti-aircraft missiles and considered to be part of providing Honduras with law enforcement assistance, you know that the minor differences between Democrats and Republicans are too small to really matter.
Who do you think is on the fringe -- the person who says, "Never mind the fact that the US has the largest prison population of any country, and never mind the fact that unarmed civilians are being attacked by paramilitary teams, you should be focused on whether or not the wealthy are taxed at 15% or 18%!!!!!" or the person who says, "Let's use tax money for constructive programs rather than destructive programs!!!" ?
Palm trees and 8
You simply cannot have a system that allows personal liberty when there are some that are less fortunate than others.
Sure thing, kid.
You come and try to take my personal liberties. I'll even give you my address and when I'll be home. You stop on by and give it your best shot.
As we ride the wave of lemmings into a new age of stupid... i gotta tell ya... This sucks!
Nature abhors equal outcomes. Most times it doesn't even favor equal opportunities.
Sometimes it's best to get all the retards assembled in one room and out of the way so the people with money can get their work done.
Such is all government.
You are poor because your father could not master compound interest. Gahead and blame everyone else.
The verdict is in: everyone but Virgil Goode wants to end the drug war. The libertarian dude admitted to inhaling even, totally disqualified from office. Jill Stein is using science, woah.
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
americans are not libertarians. lots of us like paying taxes for services. i know people paying $20,000 and more in property taxes for good schools
People like that are idiots, who are so focused on political divisiveness that they've lost all sight of reality.
Violent monopolies (aka governments) have no reason to be competent, efficient, or innovative, and every reason to be corrupt. If you're getting something from the government for $20,000, there's a good chance that the competitive marketplace could provide it for $10,000 or less - without holding a gun to your head.
If the goal of government is redistribution for the poor, then there are better ways to do that - negative income tax, matching funds for charities (until the culture of philanthropy can stand on its own), etc.
--libman
The Tea Party wants exactly two things: Limited government, a lower federal spending.
A byproduct of both those things is that states can do what they want. Federal raids on marajana pharmacies? The Tea Party would be against that as wasteful federal spending, and not letting states decide what they want to do re: drugs.
Before you reduce support for the only group in America that is bringing Libertarian ideas to the public at large, re-think who it is that told you the Tea Party is far right... Yes they have far right members, but also many socially liberal members because the core goal overlaps with people of many different philosophical backgrounds.
I am a Tea Party supporter but in favor of all kinds of things the far right would dislike.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hey, finally Virgil Goode agreed with everyone: NDAA is terrible and needs to be repealed.
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
"third parties have no chance in the USA" ...with that attitude, the US itself has no chance. The DemRep-cartel sucks until they gets 100% of all wealth and power.
Voting for anyone else sends a clear and loud message that real change can eventually happen.
except I live in Oklahoma, where the only options to vote are Democrat and Republican, with no place to even write in anyone...
Also, you don't even get to actually vote for the candidate, you're really just voting on the electors, who usually still tend to vote Republican, even if you select Democrat. That happened in 2008, especially. We're one of the states that went for McCain, when even his home state didn't...
This always sucks for an independent, like me. I can't vote in any primary, which include state questions from time to time.
Here's a neat map of all candidates,
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
(Ron Paul was almost exactly where Gary Johnson is)
Seriously, I thought he was dead. Or was that just his suspenders?
Three Squirrels
After watching the rest of the presidential debates I didn't know who to vote for because I didn't like either candidate. After watching the Third Party debate tonight, I don't know who to vote for because I liked all the candidates.
Judging from what I read in your link, it sounds like they just put everyone in a single primary (regardless of party affiliation) and the top two winners of that primary go on the ballot for the main election. I don't see how that would make things harder for third party candidates. Indeed, getting enough supporters to win a primary is probably easier than getting enough supporters to win a main election due to fewer people voting in primaries, and once on the main ballot, any candidate is likely to get about 50% of the vote simply because they aren't affiliated with the one of the two main parties that someone doesn't like.
For example, a republican, a democrat, and a libertarian may be in the primary. If the republican and democrat are the top two, then only they will be on the ballot, but if the libertarian can't beat either of them in the primary, they're probably not going to beat both of them in the main election, and so it doesn't matter. However, if the libertarian did beat one in the primary, then he'll be on the ballot with the other in the main election. In that case, someone may see a republican and a libertarian on the ballot and vote for the libertarian simply because they hate republicans, or see a democrat and a libertarian and vote libertarian simply because they hate democrats. This could easily give any third party candidate about 50% of the vote, allowing their actual supporters to put them over the top.
Thus I fail to see how top two primaries, as described in your link, would do anything but help third party candidates.
Violent monopolies (aka governments) have no reason to be competent, efficient, or innovative, and every reason to be corrupt. If you're getting something from the government for $20,000, there's a good chance that the competitive marketplace could provide it for $10,000 or less - without holding a gun to your head.
I think the state of the (mostly) private medical system in the US puts the lie to that statement, or at least makes it far from being a general principle.
That strategy always bites you in the ass, because there's no such thing as a 'non-swing state', there's only a state that hasn't swung yet.
Your best chance was to vote for a change candidate within your own party, that was why Ron Paul attracted so many votes and why the party elite did that suppression campaign (taking 10 votes away by a rule change, changing the rules to stop a future Ron Paul and refusing to announce his votes at the RN Congress).
Understand the elite in the party FEAR a change candidate, that why they did the fake vote here for example (where the teleprompter had the script for what to say when the 'ayes' win the vote even while they were voting!):
http://youtu.be/pKaXqoC4DjE?t=3m3s
And this is why the refused to even mention his votes, blocking a microphone at one point when Ron Pauls votes were read out. Sending Romney uniformed banner wavers to block Ron Paul banner wavers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg&feature=related
You need change candidates on the major party ballot and to vote for them. When the elite try to block them with fake votes (like the one at the RNC), you need to legally challenge them, and fight for your change candidate.
Instant runoff is an improvement over first past the post. But I seem to remember reading approval is an improvement over instant runoff: easier to count, less modification needed to voting machines, and less subject to gaming the vote.
"third parties have no chance in the USA" ...with that attitude, the US itself has no chance
Heres a spoiler: No government in the history of governments has lasted forever. At best, you get a few hundred years before either radical reform or everything crumbles.
What we have has worked pretty well (all things considered) for 200 years, and in that time no 3rd party candidate has come close to winning. If you ACTUALLY want to change things, voting on someone who isnt an option is the wrong way to do so.
Actually, if you really want to change things, vote in the primaries.
If you voted Democrat, and if the Republican elite lost their power base, in Congress, or their seat in the Senate, then the elite is weakened and change candidates like Ron Paul can get through the next time.
There's a strategy Karl Rove urged his employees to do in that leaked email. He said that they should pretend to be disillusioned Democrat voters, encourage Democrat forums to vote for the third party as a protest vote. In effect he wanted them to try to split the vote of the opponents.
But that's not progress, if you are a Republican and you don't like the scum at the top, you might vote for Democrat. Rove wants you to vote for a third candidate because that would neutralize your negative vote. The vote becomes symbolic rather than one that can actually elect the other guy. Likewise if you're likely Democrat he tries to get you to vote third party, since you're unlikely to swing to Republican, but perhaps a little swing to third party.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/27/1010778/-BREAKING-Leaked-Rove-email-singles-out-Daily-Kos
The best strategy IMHO, is to vote for the other guy if you're unhappy with your party. Then when they need to 'change direction' after the disastrous election, vote for the change candidate. Ron Paul didn't make it this time, but change candidates have made it in the past.
I don't think symbolic third party votes means squat to any politicians. All they care about is that they won.
I do not understand why people think that voting for a third party is throwing away your vote. I don't understand why third party candidates don't point out that even if they do not get enough electoral voters to win, that if they get enough electoral voters to swing the vote they could make a huge difference.
With the way the electoral college is set up if Obama wins 250 electors, Romney wins 249 electors, and Johnson wins 39 electors, guess what? Johnson's not going to win, but he could ask his electors to cast their votes for one of the other two guys. That's quite a bit of power and influence. Not a bad method of actually representing the will of the people either. Of course the problem here is that with the exception of Maine and Nebraska the electors in other states are picked in a winner-take-all fashion. Also, about half of the states impose some minor penalty for electors voting for anyone other than who they were chosen to vote for.
Personally, I would hate to see election by popular vote. I would hate to see the country being run by someone that only 51% of us chose. I'd much rather see the country run by the guy that 40% of chose and who had to make concessions to the guy that the other 20% of us voted for. It really is a much better representation of a larger portion of the population. but I guess we haven't really had a representative government for some time now. :P
It isn't magic, it won't happen if people just wish or complain hard enough. We'd need to amend the Constitution. It prescribes how presidential elections will be done. That would most likely start with congress. The states can start an amendment process directly but it has never happened.
So if you want it, it is the kind of thing to start working on. Get on your congress people, start making others aware. It'll be a long time in coming, since it takes 66% of both houses of congress and 75% of the states. So what it'll take is a lot of demand from people. If it is something that matters to you don't dream, start working. The Constitution has been amended before and it didn't happen quickly. It took some work.
The Tea Party that was the angry Republicans who wanted an end to Bush TARP bailouts, or the new Tea Party, the marketing strategy to get old style Republicans elected as 'tea party change candidates'?
Without that leadership, they let the Republican marketing machine take control of the Tea Party brand and stamp it on any candidate they chose and any policy they wanted to brand as 'change'.
"I am a Tea Party supporter but in favor of all kinds of things the far right would dislike."
Yet the Tea Party *is* the far right now. It's just a new brand on the old product.
You (and the mods) misunderstand.
He's not saying "we must take away personal liberty until everyone is equal", he's saying "it's impossible to have true liberty with so much inequality."
There's a move to make school focus on teaching job schools. College is becoming ever more expensive to bury you in debt. Unions are being destroyed so your employer can play you against your neighbor to pay you both less. Employers want to keep unemployment up so that you're desperate enough to work ever-longer hours for those low wages. And you'll do it, because the alternative is dying in the streets. Data mining allows them to charge you the max amount you're willing to pay. Their contracts require you to waive your right to sue. If you want to retire, you're forced to invest money, where it will be systematically skimmed off by Wall Street firms.
What freedom do you think you have? The freedom to work for someone else's benefit until you die?
The only freedom you'll ever know will come from ganging up with your neighbors, and fighting back. Call it a union, or a government -- either way, it's the people against the powerful. That's how it's been every since the biggest strongest men in the tribes realized they could take the fruits and berries gathered by the other members.
"no 3rd party candidate has come close to winning"
Ross Perot (1992)
I think you have no clue about the state of the private medical system in the US.. Health care in the US used to be affordable until the government got completely involved in it. Did you know that before Obamacare, the government was the single largest provider of medical coverage? They had something like 60% of all the non-elective health care market sowed up with Medicare, Medicaid, and VA services.
And it is exactly how they are involved which is why the costs are so high. The government does not pay for services as you or I would should be go in ourselves. They pay an average cost for the region which could be more or less then the actual bill. Now the government said it's going to save money by only paying a percentage of that costs. So what happens, the medical service providers jack the costs up so the government pays what is normally asked for. This increases the area average and provides incentives for increasing the costs.
This is also why medical service providers offer steep discounts to insurance providers. They wouldn't pay the exorbitant prices but with the provider network discounts they do not have to and because it is a discount on regular services, the service provider still gets to keep the inflated costs as the number that goes into the cost averaging.
You cannot claim the health care in the US is private when the largest market force in it is the government.
The Tea Party that was the angry Republicans who wanted an end to Bush TARP bailouts, or the new Tea Party
There is no "new Tea Party".
Yes the GOP has tried to latch on to the movement at times, but all of the core people are still very much in charge of the Tea Party.
It is not controlled by the GOP. It is busy reshaping the GOP, from the lowest levels. The Tea Party has wizened up that way you see - they have realized that no third party can ever really win large scale elections, so why not convert a major party to be mostly in line with libertarian beliefs...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Tea Party wants whatever the observer wants it to want.
That is very much not the case. There really are a core group that define the Tea Party across the nation, and as I said they are focused on limited government and reduced federal spending.
It's very true that other groups would like you to THINK the Tea Party is nothing at all.
There are people like you who latched on because you really want limited government, but you're kidding yourself. The Tea Party is just an extreme wing of the Republicans.
You have this totally backwards. The Tea Party was formed because so many people disliked so much what the old school Republicans were doing that they decided to try and re-make the Republicans from the inside out. And that is just what they are in the process of doing, which the GOP is fighting VERY vigorously. They hate they Tea Party more than you do.
Go to a rally sometime and see who the speakers are and what they are talking about. They are far closer to classic libertarian thinkers than any kind of GOP candidate you are thinking of.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I mean I agree it's stupid, but it has zero effect on me or anyone I know.
That is utterly false.
The attempt to curtail drug trafficking is a HUGE source of the pain we all experience at airports, or crossing the border anywhere.
It has driven a huge number of illegal immigrants to the U.S.
It also provides a baseline reason for lots of stops and searches from police officers.
It also is the source of vast sums of money being spent by federal and local governments, which could have meant lower taxes or greater services for everyone including you.
There are countless ways that the drug wars affect people who do not care a whit for drugs. I have never used a controlled substance but I am for curtailing all drug laws. Yes, ALL drug laws.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Actually if you are living with the bulk of the populations in a non-swing state. Voting 3rd party gives you more power. Yes your candidate will not win. But with more people voting third party, It gives that party more strength, as well their views gets more credit.
Yes, a million times this!
If you live in a swing state, the "vote the lesser of the two evils with a chance of winning" thing makes strategic sense. You don't have enough influence to really make the changes you might want, but you have enough influence to help cut your losses at least, so it makes more sense to try for the mediocre possibility than the impossible ideal.
But if you don't live in a swing state, you're lucky! Your powerlessness gives you the freedom that could actually make a nationwide difference in the long game, because since either the lesser or greater of the two mainstream "evils" is a shoe-in in your state, there's no point in wasting your vote supporting or opposing something that's statistically inevitable. Instead, your best strategic vote is to vote for whichever third party you would really prefer, or at least, the one you hate the least. This has numerous benefits:
- Obviously, it increases the support for that third party, and for third parties in general, nudging the country a tiny step closer to a healthy spread of options in our elections.
- Whichever party you statistically would otherwise have voted for will adapt to mimic the party you did vote for, in order to try to bring you back into the fold, e.g. Republicans will adopt Libertarian and Constitution party policies and Democrats will adopt Green and Justice party policies.
But the really promising benefits are bigger, if also riskier:
- If you would have otherwise voted for the shoe-in, then many people following this strategy (e.g. California liberals voting Green instead of the shoe-in Democrat) will make your state into a swing state and give your vote more influence in future elections. The down side to this is now the side you would otherwise support is no longer a shoe-in and you may have to strategically vote for the "lesser evil" again; though this may be counterbalanced by the following effect...
- If you would have otherwise voted against the shoe-in, then a bloc of like-minded people following this strategy (e.g. California conservatives voting Libertarian instead of the doomed Republican) can be very aggressive at "spoiling" the "lesser evil", since they'd have lost anyway, and can go on to try to outright supplant the "lesser evil" with someone they actually consider good, without risking making things any worse (since they were already as bad as they can get, with the "greater evil" a shoe-in).
So, continuing the California example, if people followed this strategy we could go from Democrats being shoe-ins, Republicans being a close second, and minor third parties not having much influence, to anything from a diminished but still slightly dominant Greenish Democrat party having lost a large bloc to the ascending Green party, who are still not spoiling their (otherwise-Democrat) vote because the Libertarian party has eaten a large chunk of the Republican part; to a close race between Greenish Democrats and Libertarians, with a strong Green presence rising and a lingering Libertarianish Republican presence.
If this happened in every state, then you end up with every state a swing state, with currently "third" parties now major parties in some states, and all third parties more prominent nationwide; all without anyone ever risking spoiling anything and letting the greater evil win. With more prominent third parties we might even see debate and campaign reform getting them more air time; and maybe, if just one third party, any third party, can get into power for just one term, then we might even see electoral reform that would make it plausible for third parties to continue to win thereafter. All major third parties support electoral reform, so
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
...is some real news on Reddit. This tech story, "Zynga just Laid Off 100+ Employees during Apple event to keep it quiet," had 1738 comments, on Reddit. When was the last time you saw 1738 comments on _anything_ on Slashdot?
And don't give me that nonsense about how there are better comments here. Most of the smarter people left Slashdot a long time ago.
I used to think that the problem was some sort of american anti-intellectual, anti-american group think going on. Or maybe that some radical group was subverting Slashdot. But now, when I see the flaming crap that the editors post, I realize that Slashdot's problems are far more serious and systemic.
What's with their candidates? I mean, they have some good ideas, but every candidate they field seems to be a bit...off. This guy Gov. Gary Johnson, he acted like he had a pack of honey badgers in his pants and was looking around for the guy who put them there. The Justice Party candidate seems the most electable out of the bunch, but I must admit I don't know much of anything about their platform. The Green Party candidate didn't seem to know her stuff very well beyond the typical environmental platform of that party, but she certainly seemed reasonable. And Virgil Goode, well he definitely tells it like he sees it. He's probably someone who would've gotten elected in the 1800's, but not today. Partly because his social agenda seemed about that progressive.
The problem with "approval" voting is that it asks me which candidate I approve of.
Looking down the list of all candidates, no matter the party, I don't see one that I approve of.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Are the tea party for tax cuts for the rich? Yes. So are the GOP.
Are the tea party prepared to cut the military? No, only Ron Paul was demanding that, every one of them has voted for increase military spending and blocked Obama military cuts.
Are they against TARP bailouts? When they were really a movement yes, later on only against mortgage bailouts. So basically bailouts for rich people, screw the poor. Again the classic GOP agenda.
It's a GOP game, and it worked, a largely unelected Republican party from 2008, became electable as fake 'reform' candidates in 2010. The 2010 congress then voted with the GOP block and stopped any fiscal reform, including spending cuts like the military. They are just GOP, no different, just a different marketing spin.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The Finnish proportional system works as follows:
1. Each candidate has a number -- you vote by writing the number on the ballot.
2. Each candidate belongs to a political party.
3. Each party gets seats proportionally to their total number of votes (from all of their candidates).
4. The seats of a party are given to those candidates with the most personal votes.
In practice, it works great. Much has to do with the political culture rather than the voting scheme, though. Over the decades, the parties have learned to make compromises rather than sticking to their guns. No party ever has the majority, but the government (i.e., the "administration") is a coalition of several parties. At the moment, six parties have ministers in the government: Conservatives, Social Democrats, Socialists, Greens, Swedes, Christians, while Rurals, Nationalists and Communists are in the opposition.
I know these folks are distinct, especially Goode, but too much of the debate was attacking the two-party system.
As we are country primarily made up of individuals it is somewhat difficult to get anyone to agree on anything. This is what mostly allows the mediocre two party system to persist. It really is design by committee. Ask 1000 different people what their view of ideal government is and what's most important to them and you're going to get 1000 different viewpoints. So politicians try to find the common ground where there is the most overlap. The problem with the green party is that the majority of Americans know that while environmental stewardship is important it's not everything, and that there is a balance to be had. Similar problems exist in the other faction parties in that they focus directly on something that should be a part of the whole while disregarding everything else. If we really want change in this country we need to recognize that government is rarely the best solution to any problem, and start effecting change to the things that are important to us individually. Get involved with local organizations, help out in the areas you are passionate about, take a selfless approach to the betterment of society. These are the things that will impact the world for generations to come no matter who is in office. But it takes more effort than just showing up to the polls every four years.
Easy fix. No one gets elected without >50%+1 approval.
From wikipedia:
In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote, approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes)
So BEST case scenario (even split between opposition), thats a 2-1 landslide for each of "the other guys" in the popular vote, and a complete shutout electorally.
I think that qualifies as "has not come close to winning".
They kind of want power handed to them just because they have good ideas, rather than to win it by convincing everyone that their ideas are the best.
Take legalization of marijuana for example. One might start a political party for that goal, put a candidate on the ballot, and lose. ...or they might work on the difficult task of convincing everyone that marijuana should be legalized, at which point they won't have to start a political party because at least one of the existing parties will adopt the position simply because of its popularity and their desire to be elected.
As such, as soon as these people create a new political party, they've already kind of lost. You don't create change by taking your minority views, putting them on a ballot, and hoping that somehow people vote for them despite them being minority views.
I'll be the first to say that we need to switch to proportional representation and also use some form of Condorcet voting, but I don't believe that it's the two party system that is holding back political progress. Sure, it isn't helping, but eliminating it won't solve the real problem. I think our biggest problem is that people who are smart enough to have good ideas, and smart enough to evolve their ideas when they hear valid criticism, are also smart enough to realize just how annoying it is to listen to people talk about things they hardly know anything about, and so they keep their mouths shut. Thus stupid ideas have an evolutionary advantage.
in all your own propaganda, you conveniently forgot to mention the benefit of drug legalization that is most preferred by your religion:
your lord's motives are transparent, even if you have convinced yourself otherwise. your religious movement doesn't give a flying fuck about drugs or drug use, or anything that you try to disguise as "liberties". your religion aims just to pay less in taxes, by seeing others pay more. right now people buy pot with cash on the street corner, there is no sales tax collected. you just want to get a slice of the sale so you can reduce your own individual taxes.
maybe the next book of ron will tell you how to better obfuscate this.
We meet again, dumass.
Who do those services cover? The old, wounded veterans, and the poor who cannot afford care or insurance on their own. And for the latter, in many cases they've been "recissioned" by their health insurance company because they have a high-cost ailment, or lost their job (and thus their insurance) because of a severe accident or disease like cancer.
Gee, who's going to use the most medical care?
Maybe the elderly, wounded veterans, and patients recovering from cancer or a head-on collision? Here's your sign....
As is usually the case, this is substituting wingnut ideology for reality. Every other industrialized nation has some form of universal health care (or insurance companies regulated to within an inch of their lives), so they must be paying more than we do for care, right? Because their providers just keep raising prices, right?
Except here in the real world, as opposed to Randian la-la land, they pay less money for better care. Even here in the U.S., Medicare, Medicaid and the VA have 2-4% overhead, compared to 30% overhead for private insurance. Why? Because the government agencies aren't paying people exorbitant salaries to find new excuses to deny you care. Because Medicare doesn't have shareholders demanding increasing profits from the agency. Because the head of one of those agencies makes less than $200,000 a year, as opposed to millions for health insurance CEO's like Stephen Hemsley, who made $100 million in one year.
Because on Planet Wingnut, insurance executives become the highest paid CEO on the planet by paying out claims rather than denying them...
The people you would approve of aren't running for office? Well gee, don't you think that could have something to do with our voting system?
First-past-the-post favors a two-party system and incumbents in particular. Right now, most rational independents wouldn't consider running for office, knowing they can't really win. That means that the independents that actually do run for office are few in number and either (1) know they can't win and just want a bit of spotlight for themselves or their message, or (2) are insane. It's no great surprise if you don't approve of any of them.
Mind you, all these single-seat election systems are very flawed: they always reject (N-1)/N of the candidates running, which means everyone that runs (apart from the forerunner) must be willing to burn lots of cash with low chances of success, which tends to favor rich people (and a few others who have either strong stomachs for failure, or delusions that they have a shot).
The other flaw with FPTP, IRV, Approval and so forth is that they assume that I want to vote for someone local. Where I live has nothing to do with who I want in the federal government! Why can't I choose among candidates across the country, or at least across the state? Give me Direct Representation! (not to be confused with direct democracy.)
Ok if you live in a swing state Choosing Democrat or Republican has more power.
Only if you believe there's a real difference.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yes, you seem to like to troll me. Tell me, do you have some sort of sadomasochist fetish with being smacked down or are you like the little engine that could and you will keep trying futile things until someone how you succeed?
And what exactly does that have to do with the concept that private health is not exactly private in the same fashion as a market? Who cares who those services cover or why they are there. The fact that the federal government before Obamacare already covered the majority of non-elective health care and did it in a way that encourage the costs to rise for the better part of 45 years is not impacted one bit by your statement. It's as if you think justifying the participation would remove any negative effects of it. Well, it doesn't- at least not to anyone paying attention to reality.
Are you simply not capable of paying attention or am I not verses in retard enough to get a point to you? Any other country's socialize health care does not compare to the US's feble attempt at it over the past 50 years. All of those countries own or control the medical services and employ the staffing and make direct connections to the costs. The US instead put a fucked up system in that encouraged the inflation of costs by not paying the the actual rate charge and instead paying a portion based on an average in the area. This encourages the actual costs to be raised in order to raise the average costs being reimbursed by half or more of the medical care they provide. It is completely different then other countries and your premise is missing the point, missing reality, and missing anything close to the discussion.
Not only is your basis wrong concerning what I said, your premise is wrong too. The US government created these positions of denying people care. They created the HMOs in an attempt to save businesses money. This was spear headed by Sen. Ted Kennedy himself in the 1960s. The idea was that managed care would save businesses money and allow them to remain competitive.
but it would seem all that is important to you is complaining that the US is not like Canada with the waits so long enterprising companies found a market in providing wait insurance that one providence tried to forbid but got overturned by the Canadian Supreme Court. You are really a piece of work. Blowing off on a tangent about something completely unrelated and pretending it is somehow related just shows how ignorant and desperate you are. Pretending you are somehow superior by using "Randian la-la land" and other made up devices just shows how separated from reality you have become. You should seek professional help.
... is that you're still encouraged to vote tactically and as such, it artificially represses smaller parties.