I agree it will not be easy... people resist change, but over time they will. Really though, at the end of the day, I am only responsible for one vote, and that is my own - and it feels great to be on the right side.
Grown adults can do whatever they want to themselves or other consenting adults and the government should be as minimal and non-invasive as possible. It's not that difficult and considering that's essentially the point of the entire constitutional and the federalist papers, I don't see how anyone can want anything different.
But you ignore effects on 3rd parties... for example, suppose I sell coffee with styrofoam cups instead of more expensive recycled ones. My decision to do so has now gone beyond my personal-adult-educated decision, and is now affecting other people. Therein lies the fault of Libertarianism... that some (not all - but some) of our decisions affect others, and that - just perhaps - maybe its ok to regulate these areas.
The pratical result of such actions causes the greater of two evils to take power.
Unless logic descends on the masses, and they realize that the alleged "strength" or "inevitability" of the current system is actually, quite arbitrary... and that they can change it if they vote accordingly. That people claim it is impossible is simply the product of marketing by the media, and mass hallucination. It will be overcome in time...
Whats the difference between going downhill in a car with the engine floored, vs going downhill in neutral? Not much in the long run, you still end up reaching the bottom! I don't know where the bottom is in politics, but we are too close and getting closer.
Yeah but! - what part of "flooring it" don't you understand!?! Why is it so difficult to understand that flooring it is worse than coasting in neutral!?!? We can tackle the problem of going down hill some other time, but right now we have to concern ourselves with not flooring it!!!
*after 4 years, rinse, repeat*
Re:Nader has lost it
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I guess that means Nader himself is pro-Bush- that he thinks 4 more years of W is better than Kerry. He's lost all of my respect at this point.
Your logic is so simplistic, that if it weren't so pervasive and common, would be truly laughable. Unfortunately, you are in good company.
So, if Nader thinks that Kerry would not make a good president, this somehow makes him pro-Bush. Fascinating... Logic dictates that the statement is fairly self-explanatory... "Nader thinks Kerry would make a bad president." Thank [deity] we have people like you to reach between/beyond the words, to extract meaning that escapes the rest of us!
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
I don't know, but I do know that a search on CNN.com for 'nader' returns 530 results.
Nader does get mentioned, but it is always in a marginalizing way. For instance, after the debates (which he along with all other 3rd parties were shut out of) you will see a graph with polling numbers - Kerry 49%, Bush 49%, Nader %1%. Or, on just about any article about Kerry, you will find the inevitable blurb about Kerry-campaign concerns with Nader possibly "spoiling" the election. There are no substantive articles about Nader and his platforms, is what I am getting at. He gets some attention because he is a national icon and the Democrats used him as a scapegoat, but just because he had 530 mentions doesn't mean he is getting equal treatment, or anything remotely close to it.
Yet a search for 'badnarik', who is on more ballots and got himself arrested outside a Presidential Debate, returns zero results. Doesn't that strike you as downright impossible if it were covering the election fairly?
I agree completely. They simply are not covering it fairly in the slightest. Any reasonable person would draw the same conclusion.
Libertarians would indeed insist on using market forces to sway the networks - however, I think it is a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. The networks have no real market reason to highlight 3rd party candidates and, until they do, 3rd parties will continue to struggle to increase in numbers.
I'm a Green Party kind of guy, so obviously you know where I am coming from - but I feel that this is a classic example of the problem with the Libertarian platform. Sometimes, what's good for the market and for the players of the market is simply not good for the rest of us. It would be a Good Thing(tm) to have more voices/choices on the networks for the voters to hear, but there is literally no reason for the networks to provide this just based on merit. A publically funded news organization like the BBC would have more of an incentive, and I would love to see the creation of an American equivalent, but until then I really don't see 3rd parties getting any limelight, or the networks being swayed by market forces. To sway the networks with market forces, you need numbers... and to get numbers, you need to get exposure. Chicken and the egg.
Yes, I'm certain that the sizes and strength of their positions on views are such that the result is the same as if they didn't exist. By that argument all third party members shouldn't even bother voting.
I was joking... just wanted you to make you feel better since you were getting so upset with third parties. I couldn't disagree more with the notion that third-party voters shouldn't even bother voting.
And if the result is that they don't influence national elections, or worse, their influence is actually the opposite of the intended effect, that's OK?
Well, whether it is OK or not is up to the voting individual. For example, if a voter felt that someone like Cobb or Nader were simply "splitting hairs" with Kerry - if 90% of that person's views are shared by both Kerry and Nader - of course it probably wouldn't make sense to vote for Nader. Kerry, who has a real chance of winning the election, is getting you 90% of what you want - that would be the smart and pragmatic choice.
But what if you feel that Kerry isn't getting you 90%? What if he isn't getting you even 20%? What if, based on your particular viewpoints, the only reason to vote for Kerry's 5% is because he is better than Bush's 1%? At what point do you draw the line and refuse to vote for either party?
The truth of the matter is that Kerry and Bush are a heck of a lot closer to each other than Kerry is to Cobb/Nader. Neither major party will attack the bloated military budget, cut down on partisan media (or create an American version of the BBC), will take on Detroit and the SUV loopholes (Clinton's fault), would support Kyoto or otherwise begin to get ourselves off of our addiction to oil. Neither party would stop taking money from corporations, or hold free and unscripted debates. Both parties actively subvert democracy by trying to limit voter choices, and stifle competing voices from being heard. As someone who believes strongly in these issues, how can you honestly tell me I am wasting my vote by not voting for Kerry, simply because he is better than Bush? In my opinion, Kerry is not going to solve the problems that are important to me, and in this regard, voting for him would be the waste. Besides, history is on my side... Something like 80% of people believe that politicians cater to the money/corporations, and not to the people. Change, in one form or another, is inevitable. Who of us is really doing more harm? The people who play ball with a corrupt and backwards system, or the people who refuse to?
Just an FYI, I wouldn't go around trying to cast the end of slavery in the US as a stunning example of the success of the political process if I were you.
My point was to say that third parties were the ones that started the dialog and pushed the freedom process along. The powers that be decried them as unrealistic and fanatics, and they were wrong.
my point is that third parties should close ranks with a party capable of accomplishing change on a national level until such time as the voting system in this country is changed such that third parties have a chance.
That is a nice thought, but the two major parties are the ones that are keeping us from having a better voting system. They are protecting themselves, again, from competition. It is because I want a better voting system that I will not support either party. You say vote for Kerry because we don't have a better voting system - I say don't vote for Kerry because he won't let us have a better voting system. You make a good point in that the voting system is imperative, and if a Democrat platform included a better, more inclusive method of voting, I may even support them (knowing that the dividends would pay off later because we would have more viable choices going forward). However, the Democrats and the Republicans are both against a better system. Until that changes, you really can't use it as a defense to support the major parties - I can use it as a reason *not* to support them.
The libertarian party wouldn't be doing this if they were in the debate, even if all the other 'third' parties were excluded. That much seems self evident.
Perhaps, but this is just speculation on your part.
Otherwise by clinging fiercly to a third party system you're essentially giving more power to the main party that opposes your views by taking your vote away from the main party that's closest to your views. This works both ways, whether your liberal or conservative.
Then relax - they cancel themselves out!
That's why third party members piss me off so much. They essentially remove themselves from the main political process because they don't want to compromise their principles in a party that has an actual chance of winning, but in the end they only give the opposition more power.
Incorrect. They do not "remove themselves from the main political process" - they are voting for what they believe in just like everyone else. Dust up a bit on your history, and you will find that third parties have always played an important role - from the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage, end of child labor, and many others. They always meet resistance from people like yourself who say they are demanding the impossible, but people eventually come around, realize they were right, and adjust their positions accordingly. There is a quote that I am too lazy to verify or properly give credit for, but it goes something like "The radical ideas of today are the conservative ideas of tomorrow", or some such thing.
You are a mouth-piece for the established system - which is fine if you think the established system is doing even a remotely good job. There are a growing number of us, however, that feel you are wrong.
There's a lot more to be accomplished by being an active member of the libertarian subset of the democrative party than by being in the libertarian party.
Interesting... I truly am curious - who makes up this libertarian subset of the democratic party, and what have they accomplished? The two seem to be polar opposites to me...
I apologize - I was not specific enough in my previous post. They spend half of the federal discretionary budget (which excludes mandatory spending like debt interest payments and entitlements like Social Security and Medicare). The discretionary budget covers everything else (from education to the FBI) with the military receiving about half - so my comment is still more than valid.
Now, if we close all of our overseas bases of operation, and we get attacked, where does that leave us?
If we closed all our overseas bases, we would still have the most powerful military in the world. Our finest military victories in the past were not made possible because of overstretched occupying forces in dozens of countries all over the place.
On top of this, I think you would find that the number of enemies our country faces will drop dramatically if we were to pull out our occupying forces. Our current problems with terrorists are a direct by-product of our military interventions in the Middle East, for example. There are many free countries on this planet that do not stir up hatred in the world to the degree that we do. Policy changes like this will go a huge way toward closing that gap.
He think that conservation can substitute for Nuclear power.
No, he thinks that conservation combined with increased use of clean energy sources can substitute for Nuclear power. Remember, the Greens also advocate cutting the military budget in half (which is currently half of our entire national budget). That is a lot of money, which, if invested in new technologies as the Green propose, could radically improve clean energy sources. It is all a matter of priority - if we want to build, use and improve clean energy sources, we can do so. The fact that we are not is simply a choice - and a reversable one.
If a house is burning down, first you put out the fire. Voting third party this year is like redesigning the house while it's still on fire.
This is a sensible argument - if you consider a Kerry win "putting out the fire". A lot of people think, however, that a Kerry win is more in line with containing the fire for 4 years, at which point the fire returns and the same problems are faced. When does real change occur?
No. Conservation will never work; our power needs will continue to increase, and I have no problem with that. I don't want to live back in the dark ages again, sorry.
Some people are beginning to think that the petro-chemical era and reliance on polluting fossil fuels from unstable, militant countries are the dark ages. Heavily investing in new technologies, as the Greens propose, to move past this hurdle is somehow a step backwards? Interesting...
and that Nader realized his supporters preferred Gore by a 2:1 ratio) only Nader should have wanted to!
Incorrect. Nader supporters preferred Nader. Nader supporters considered Gore the lesser of two evils. Do you see the difference? It's an important distinction. Please, take your time and think about it...
Those registered Democrats who voted for Bush weren't throwing their votes away, because they really wanted Bush to win (you're allowed to do that, even as a Democrat).
Of course you are allowed to vote for Republicans as a registered Democrat. I simply want to highlight that - god forbid - maybe the Democrats should look into why they are losing their base, instead of blaming a handful of progressives. Its a classic scapegoat routine. Far more registered democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader - what is so difficult to understand? The Democrats have bigger fish to fry, but they are taking the less painful route by blaming the idealists. And please don't refer to people who didn't vote for a corporate-approved candidate as "throwing their votes away" - you only sound like an idiot-drone.
If the exit polls are to be believed, 60,000 Floridans made the wrong choice four years ago.
I would argue that 250,000 made the wrong choice... who wins this stupid argument that you posed? Let me know....
Hopefully it won't happen again this year - if we want to see a non-Republicrat in the White House, it's only going to happen because we vote for state legislators who will end plurality voting...
Thanks for the tip - so if we don't want a Republicat in the White House, we shouldn't vote for 3rd parties. Got it. I was mistaken and thought I was voting against Republicrats! Now I understand... thanks! Go Kerry!
Let me use this logic back on you - if Bush had not run, then Gore would have won in a landslide. Therefore, Bush cost Gore the election.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but I am so completely sick of people saying things like this...
Point 1: Something like 250,000 registered democrats voted for Bush in Florida. And somehow the handful of progressives are the problem?
Point 2: Even if, somehow, one candidate was responsible for the failing of another (if you believe in Democracy at all, this notion should make you laugh - but I realize a lot of people don't) - who cares?!? Nader and Gore had virtually no overlap in their platforms. People make it sound like Nader was just splitting hairs, and if he was serious he would direct people to the Democrats. This is ridiculous. The things that are important to Nader are completely unaddressed by Democrats.
It was a close race between to boring candidates, and that is that. Gore lost his home state, for cying out loud...
... they could buy airtime... or they could have a platform that carries enough interest among people who can campaign for them on their own dime
And third-parties do both of these things. However, the simple fact remains that you cannot reach nearly as many people through such means as you could with just one televised debate. Look at Ross Perot - he was by no means an excellent candidate (not nearly as qualified as someone like Ralph Nader, for example), and yet he did very well in the elections that year (something like 20% of the vote). Why? Simply because he was treated like the other two candidates in the media. When there were debates, he was with them. When the newspapers were talking about issues and the various candidate's positions on them, he was included. He was not deemed a spoiler - he was simply a candidate, just like any other. It is unfortunate, but the media makes and breaks these candidates.
... or they could appeal to enough people that their sheer popularity makes the idea of "exclusion" a non-issue
They are trying, but again, when you are ignored by the media, this is a difficult thing to do.
You are already writing your editorial review for an event that has not even happened yet.
I was speaking of past elections, of course. I am not a psychic - for all I know, this may be the best "debate" ever... but if the past is any indicator, there will be no big surprises or any real discourse this year, either.
What are your objections to the rules of the presidential debate? they seem pretty reasonable to me.
Are you joking?
* Exclusion of third-party candidates: This is a problem because, without appearing on debates and being otherwise shut out of the media, third-party candidates have a hard time getting their message across. Polls indicate that the majority of Americans want more views expressed and candidates present in our debates, but the commission denies them this.
* Under-handed questions: Not only are topics that are to be discussed known beforehand, but there are virtually no surprises or tough questions. Answers are therefore heavily scripted, repetative, and boring. Viewership for the debates has declined steadily over the years.
* "Taboo" subjects ignored entirely: I think it is important to hear the Greens/Libertarians/Independants view on the legitimacy of the multibillion dollar war on drugs, and to hear Kerry's/Bush's defense of it. How come this issue is not discussed? Oh, that's right - its off limits for some reason. The War on Drugs is just a drop in the bucket - there are many more issues that deserve thorough and diverse debate, but are ignored entirely.
The truth of the matter is that Kerry and Bush would have a hard time defending themselves against any of the three parties I mentioned. The "Commission" (which is made up of the two major parties) is really just protecting their interests by excluding them, at the expense of an informed American public. How anyone could continue to vote for the two major parties is beyond me...
They already have. More and more discontent is becoming evident, and being voiced by Reps and Dems, in regards to things like the loss of freedoms under the so-called Patriot Act, the insane war on drugs, etc.
Maybe they are beginning to listen, but we are still a long ways away. You mentioned the war on drugs - what are either of the two major parties doing to end that atrocity? As a Green I find no support among the Democrats/Republicans... and the same can be said for the most mainstream issue of the election - the War in Iraq. What real choice do you have if you vote mainstream?
The classic line, "why throw away your vote" could not be more false.
I could not agree more. Anyone who understands democracy in the slightest would treat such a notion with contempt and, hopefully, scorn and ridicule. It saddens me to hear so many people proudly proclaim otherwise.
The Reform party helped get Clinton elected, by drawing votes in 1992 from Bush to Perot. Did the Reform party get any laws pushed through Congress? Did they get a position in the Cabinet? No.
Perot did well simply because he was on the debates that year. There was no (and isn't still) a strong, consistant Reform Party vote. If there was, it may indeed help sway the two major parties.
Same thing happened with the Green party, which drew votes away from Gore to Nader. Let's just say Bush has been awful with regards to the environment.
I certainly would not expect the Greens to sway Bush; but I do think its likely that they would sway the Democrats -- that is, if they scored consistantly higher in federal elections. They do very well in pre-election polls, when people vote for their ideals - but many of their backers run to the two parties when it comes down to the real election. The Democrats have very little reason to cater to the liberals - they demonstrate time and time again that they will come back to the fold and demand nothing in return (as we are seeing with brilliant clarity in this election). So you see, your example really doesn't counter what I was talking about.
What I was saying was that, if the Greens scored consistantly high (which they do not), I believe that the Democrats would listen to them. If the Libertarians scored consistantly high (which they do not), I believe the Republicans would be forced to return to their roots a bit. I believe it pays to support your preferred party because, in numbers, you will force the two parties to wake up. It doesn't matter if your party wins or not. You are still voting for a set of ideals, and when you vote against your ideals, you are every bit as much a part of the problem as your polar political opposite.
Other reasons you mentioned (lack of access to debates; lack of media focus) only further convince me that it is right to vote for your ideals. Why perpetuate the rigged system, once you realize its rigged?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree it will not be easy... people resist change, but over time they will. Really though, at the end of the day, I am only responsible for one vote, and that is my own - and it feels great to be on the right side.
I don't understand - how was that lost on him?
Grown adults can do whatever they want to themselves or other consenting adults and the government should be as minimal and non-invasive as possible. It's not that difficult and considering that's essentially the point of the entire constitutional and the federalist papers, I don't see how anyone can want anything different.
But you ignore effects on 3rd parties... for example, suppose I sell coffee with styrofoam cups instead of more expensive recycled ones. My decision to do so has now gone beyond my personal-adult-educated decision, and is now affecting other people. Therein lies the fault of Libertarianism... that some (not all - but some) of our decisions affect others, and that - just perhaps - maybe its ok to regulate these areas.
The pratical result of such actions causes the greater of two evils to take power.
Unless logic descends on the masses, and they realize that the alleged "strength" or "inevitability" of the current system is actually, quite arbitrary... and that they can change it if they vote accordingly. That people claim it is impossible is simply the product of marketing by the media, and mass hallucination. It will be overcome in time...
Whats the difference between going downhill in a car with the engine floored, vs going downhill in neutral? Not much in the long run, you still end up reaching the bottom! I don't know where the bottom is in politics, but we are too close and getting closer.
Yeah but! - what part of "flooring it" don't you understand!?! Why is it so difficult to understand that flooring it is worse than coasting in neutral!?!? We can tackle the problem of going down hill some other time, but right now we have to concern ourselves with not flooring it!!!
*after 4 years, rinse, repeat*
I guess that means Nader himself is pro-Bush- that he thinks 4 more years of W is better than Kerry. He's lost all of my respect at this point.
Your logic is so simplistic, that if it weren't so pervasive and common, would be truly laughable. Unfortunately, you are in good company.
So, if Nader thinks that Kerry would not make a good president, this somehow makes him pro-Bush. Fascinating... Logic dictates that the statement is fairly self-explanatory... "Nader thinks Kerry would make a bad president." Thank [deity] we have people like you to reach between/beyond the words, to extract meaning that escapes the rest of us!
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
I don't know, but I do know that a search on CNN.com for 'nader' returns 530 results.
Nader does get mentioned, but it is always in a marginalizing way. For instance, after the debates (which he along with all other 3rd parties were shut out of) you will see a graph with polling numbers - Kerry 49%, Bush 49%, Nader %1%. Or, on just about any article about Kerry, you will find the inevitable blurb about Kerry-campaign concerns with Nader possibly "spoiling" the election. There are no substantive articles about Nader and his platforms, is what I am getting at. He gets some attention because he is a national icon and the Democrats used him as a scapegoat, but just because he had 530 mentions doesn't mean he is getting equal treatment, or anything remotely close to it.
Yet a search for 'badnarik', who is on more ballots and got himself arrested outside a Presidential Debate, returns zero results. Doesn't that strike you as downright impossible if it were covering the election fairly?
I agree completely. They simply are not covering it fairly in the slightest. Any reasonable person would draw the same conclusion.
Libertarians would indeed insist on using market forces to sway the networks - however, I think it is a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. The networks have no real market reason to highlight 3rd party candidates and, until they do, 3rd parties will continue to struggle to increase in numbers.
I'm a Green Party kind of guy, so obviously you know where I am coming from - but I feel that this is a classic example of the problem with the Libertarian platform. Sometimes, what's good for the market and for the players of the market is simply not good for the rest of us. It would be a Good Thing(tm) to have more voices/choices on the networks for the voters to hear, but there is literally no reason for the networks to provide this just based on merit. A publically funded news organization like the BBC would have more of an incentive, and I would love to see the creation of an American equivalent, but until then I really don't see 3rd parties getting any limelight, or the networks being swayed by market forces. To sway the networks with market forces, you need numbers... and to get numbers, you need to get exposure. Chicken and the egg.
Yes, I'm certain that the sizes and strength of their positions on views are such that the result is the same as if they didn't exist. By that argument all third party members shouldn't even bother voting.
I was joking... just wanted you to make you feel better since you were getting so upset with third parties. I couldn't disagree more with the notion that third-party voters shouldn't even bother voting.
And if the result is that they don't influence national elections, or worse, their influence is actually the opposite of the intended effect, that's OK?
Well, whether it is OK or not is up to the voting individual. For example, if a voter felt that someone like Cobb or Nader were simply "splitting hairs" with Kerry - if 90% of that person's views are shared by both Kerry and Nader - of course it probably wouldn't make sense to vote for Nader. Kerry, who has a real chance of winning the election, is getting you 90% of what you want - that would be the smart and pragmatic choice.
But what if you feel that Kerry isn't getting you 90%? What if he isn't getting you even 20%? What if, based on your particular viewpoints, the only reason to vote for Kerry's 5% is because he is better than Bush's 1%? At what point do you draw the line and refuse to vote for either party?
The truth of the matter is that Kerry and Bush are a heck of a lot closer to each other than Kerry is to Cobb/Nader. Neither major party will attack the bloated military budget, cut down on partisan media (or create an American version of the BBC), will take on Detroit and the SUV loopholes (Clinton's fault), would support Kyoto or otherwise begin to get ourselves off of our addiction to oil. Neither party would stop taking money from corporations, or hold free and unscripted debates. Both parties actively subvert democracy by trying to limit voter choices, and stifle competing voices from being heard. As someone who believes strongly in these issues, how can you honestly tell me I am wasting my vote by not voting for Kerry, simply because he is better than Bush? In my opinion, Kerry is not going to solve the problems that are important to me, and in this regard, voting for him would be the waste. Besides, history is on my side... Something like 80% of people believe that politicians cater to the money/corporations, and not to the people. Change, in one form or another, is inevitable. Who of us is really doing more harm? The people who play ball with a corrupt and backwards system, or the people who refuse to?
Just an FYI, I wouldn't go around trying to cast the end of slavery in the US as a stunning example of the success of the political process if I were you.
My point was to say that third parties were the ones that started the dialog and pushed the freedom process along. The powers that be decried them as unrealistic and fanatics, and they were wrong.
my point is that third parties should close ranks with a party capable of accomplishing change on a national level until such time as the voting system in this country is changed such that third parties have a chance.
That is a nice thought, but the two major parties are the ones that are keeping us from having a better voting system. They are protecting themselves, again, from competition. It is because I want a better voting system that I will not support either party. You say vote for Kerry because we don't have a better voting system - I say don't vote for Kerry because he won't let us have a better voting system. You make a good point in that the voting system is imperative, and if a Democrat platform included a better, more inclusive method of voting, I may even support them (knowing that the dividends would pay off later because we would have more viable choices going forward). However, the Democrats and the Republicans are both against a better system. Until that changes, you really can't use it as a defense to support the major parties - I can use it as a reason *not* to support them.
The libertarian party wouldn't be doing this if they were in the debate, even if all the other 'third' parties were excluded. That much seems self evident.
Perhaps, but this is just speculation on your part.
Otherwise by clinging fiercly to a third party system you're essentially giving more power to the main party that opposes your views by taking your vote away from the main party that's closest to your views. This works both ways, whether your liberal or conservative.
Then relax - they cancel themselves out!
That's why third party members piss me off so much. They essentially remove themselves from the main political process because they don't want to compromise their principles in a party that has an actual chance of winning, but in the end they only give the opposition more power.
Incorrect. They do not "remove themselves from the main political process" - they are voting for what they believe in just like everyone else. Dust up a bit on your history, and you will find that third parties have always played an important role - from the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage, end of child labor, and many others. They always meet resistance from people like yourself who say they are demanding the impossible, but people eventually come around, realize they were right, and adjust their positions accordingly. There is a quote that I am too lazy to verify or properly give credit for, but it goes something like "The radical ideas of today are the conservative ideas of tomorrow", or some such thing.
You are a mouth-piece for the established system - which is fine if you think the established system is doing even a remotely good job. There are a growing number of us, however, that feel you are wrong.
There's a lot more to be accomplished by being an active member of the libertarian subset of the democrative party than by being in the libertarian party.
Interesting... I truly am curious - who makes up this libertarian subset of the democratic party, and what have they accomplished? The two seem to be polar opposites to me...
Yeah but, the new GTA has like, 5 cities instead of 1!!! I'm serious! It's so fuckin awesome!
(kill me)
I apologize - I was not specific enough in my previous post. They spend half of the federal discretionary budget (which excludes mandatory spending like debt interest payments and entitlements like Social Security and Medicare). The discretionary budget covers everything else (from education to the FBI) with the military receiving about half - so my comment is still more than valid.
Now, if we close all of our overseas bases of operation, and we get attacked, where does that leave us?
If we closed all our overseas bases, we would still have the most powerful military in the world. Our finest military victories in the past were not made possible because of overstretched occupying forces in dozens of countries all over the place.
On top of this, I think you would find that the number of enemies our country faces will drop dramatically if we were to pull out our occupying forces. Our current problems with terrorists are a direct by-product of our military interventions in the Middle East, for example. There are many free countries on this planet that do not stir up hatred in the world to the degree that we do. Policy changes like this will go a huge way toward closing that gap.
He think that conservation can substitute for Nuclear power.
No, he thinks that conservation combined with increased use of clean energy sources can substitute for Nuclear power. Remember, the Greens also advocate cutting the military budget in half (which is currently half of our entire national budget). That is a lot of money, which, if invested in new technologies as the Green propose, could radically improve clean energy sources. It is all a matter of priority - if we want to build, use and improve clean energy sources, we can do so. The fact that we are not is simply a choice - and a reversable one.
If a house is burning down, first you put out the fire. Voting third party this year is like redesigning the house while it's still on fire.
This is a sensible argument - if you consider a Kerry win "putting out the fire". A lot of people think, however, that a Kerry win is more in line with containing the fire for 4 years, at which point the fire returns and the same problems are faced. When does real change occur?
No. Conservation will never work; our power needs will continue to increase, and I have no problem with that. I don't want to live back in the dark ages again, sorry.
Some people are beginning to think that the petro-chemical era and reliance on polluting fossil fuels from unstable, militant countries are the dark ages. Heavily investing in new technologies, as the Greens propose, to move past this hurdle is somehow a step backwards? Interesting...
and that Nader realized his supporters preferred Gore by a 2:1 ratio) only Nader should have wanted to!
Incorrect. Nader supporters preferred Nader. Nader supporters considered Gore the lesser of two evils. Do you see the difference? It's an important distinction. Please, take your time and think about it...
Those registered Democrats who voted for Bush weren't throwing their votes away, because they really wanted Bush to win (you're allowed to do that, even as a Democrat).
Of course you are allowed to vote for Republicans as a registered Democrat. I simply want to highlight that - god forbid - maybe the Democrats should look into why they are losing their base, instead of blaming a handful of progressives. Its a classic scapegoat routine. Far more registered democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader - what is so difficult to understand? The Democrats have bigger fish to fry, but they are taking the less painful route by blaming the idealists. And please don't refer to people who didn't vote for a corporate-approved candidate as "throwing their votes away" - you only sound like an idiot-drone.
If the exit polls are to be believed, 60,000 Floridans made the wrong choice four years ago.
I would argue that 250,000 made the wrong choice... who wins this stupid argument that you posed? Let me know....
Hopefully it won't happen again this year - if we want to see a non-Republicrat in the White House, it's only going to happen because we vote for state legislators who will end plurality voting...
Thanks for the tip - so if we don't want a Republicat in the White House, we shouldn't vote for 3rd parties. Got it. I was mistaken and thought I was voting against Republicrats! Now I understand... thanks! Go Kerry!
Let me use this logic back on you - if Bush had not run, then Gore would have won in a landslide. Therefore, Bush cost Gore the election.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but I am so completely sick of people saying things like this...
Point 1: Something like 250,000 registered democrats voted for Bush in Florida. And somehow the handful of progressives are the problem?
Point 2: Even if, somehow, one candidate was responsible for the failing of another (if you believe in Democracy at all, this notion should make you laugh - but I realize a lot of people don't) - who cares?!? Nader and Gore had virtually no overlap in their platforms. People make it sound like Nader was just splitting hairs, and if he was serious he would direct people to the Democrats. This is ridiculous. The things that are important to Nader are completely unaddressed by Democrats.
It was a close race between to boring candidates, and that is that. Gore lost his home state, for cying out loud...
... there goes the planet.
... they could buy airtime ... or they could have a platform that carries enough interest among people who can campaign for them on their own dime
... or they could appeal to enough people that their sheer popularity makes the idea of "exclusion" a non-issue
And third-parties do both of these things. However, the simple fact remains that you cannot reach nearly as many people through such means as you could with just one televised debate. Look at Ross Perot - he was by no means an excellent candidate (not nearly as qualified as someone like Ralph Nader, for example), and yet he did very well in the elections that year (something like 20% of the vote). Why? Simply because he was treated like the other two candidates in the media. When there were debates, he was with them. When the newspapers were talking about issues and the various candidate's positions on them, he was included. He was not deemed a spoiler - he was simply a candidate, just like any other. It is unfortunate, but the media makes and breaks these candidates.
They are trying, but again, when you are ignored by the media, this is a difficult thing to do.
You are already writing your editorial review for an event that has not even happened yet.
I was speaking of past elections, of course. I am not a psychic - for all I know, this may be the best "debate" ever... but if the past is any indicator, there will be no big surprises or any real discourse this year, either.
Prepare to be liberated!
What are your objections to the rules of the presidential debate? they seem pretty reasonable to me.
Are you joking?
* Exclusion of third-party candidates: This is a problem because, without appearing on debates and being otherwise shut out of the media, third-party candidates have a hard time getting their message across. Polls indicate that the majority of Americans want more views expressed and candidates present in our debates, but the commission denies them this.
* Under-handed questions: Not only are topics that are to be discussed known beforehand, but there are virtually no surprises or tough questions. Answers are therefore heavily scripted, repetative, and boring. Viewership for the debates has declined steadily over the years.
* "Taboo" subjects ignored entirely: I think it is important to hear the Greens/Libertarians/Independants view on the legitimacy of the multibillion dollar war on drugs, and to hear Kerry's/Bush's defense of it. How come this issue is not discussed? Oh, that's right - its off limits for some reason. The War on Drugs is just a drop in the bucket - there are many more issues that deserve thorough and diverse debate, but are ignored entirely.
The truth of the matter is that Kerry and Bush would have a hard time defending themselves against any of the three parties I mentioned. The "Commission" (which is made up of the two major parties) is really just protecting their interests by excluding them, at the expense of an informed American public. How anyone could continue to vote for the two major parties is beyond me...
They already have. More and more discontent is becoming evident, and being voiced by Reps and Dems, in regards to things like the loss of freedoms under the so-called Patriot Act, the insane war on drugs, etc.
Maybe they are beginning to listen, but we are still a long ways away. You mentioned the war on drugs - what are either of the two major parties doing to end that atrocity? As a Green I find no support among the Democrats/Republicans... and the same can be said for the most mainstream issue of the election - the War in Iraq. What real choice do you have if you vote mainstream?
The classic line, "why throw away your vote" could not be more false.
I could not agree more. Anyone who understands democracy in the slightest would treat such a notion with contempt and, hopefully, scorn and ridicule. It saddens me to hear so many people proudly proclaim otherwise.
The Reform party helped get Clinton elected, by drawing votes in 1992 from Bush to Perot. Did the Reform party get any laws pushed through Congress? Did they get a position in the Cabinet? No.
Perot did well simply because he was on the debates that year. There was no (and isn't still) a strong, consistant Reform Party vote. If there was, it may indeed help sway the two major parties.
Same thing happened with the Green party, which drew votes away from Gore to Nader. Let's just say Bush has been awful with regards to the environment.
I certainly would not expect the Greens to sway Bush; but I do think its likely that they would sway the Democrats -- that is, if they scored consistantly higher in federal elections. They do very well in pre-election polls, when people vote for their ideals - but many of their backers run to the two parties when it comes down to the real election. The Democrats have very little reason to cater to the liberals - they demonstrate time and time again that they will come back to the fold and demand nothing in return (as we are seeing with brilliant clarity in this election). So you see, your example really doesn't counter what I was talking about.
What I was saying was that, if the Greens scored consistantly high (which they do not), I believe that the Democrats would listen to them. If the Libertarians scored consistantly high (which they do not), I believe the Republicans would be forced to return to their roots a bit. I believe it pays to support your preferred party because, in numbers, you will force the two parties to wake up. It doesn't matter if your party wins or not. You are still voting for a set of ideals, and when you vote against your ideals, you are every bit as much a part of the problem as your polar political opposite.
Other reasons you mentioned (lack of access to debates; lack of media focus) only further convince me that it is right to vote for your ideals. Why perpetuate the rigged system, once you realize its rigged?