Anti- third Party.

[tolbiny]

Many people in the past year have tried to get me interested in a third party candidate- saying how it will be good for the country, and blah blah blah.
I am now vehemently against this For one reason- in our current situation a candidate has to get at least 46% of the vote to have a shot at winning- what will happen if there is an active third party who is taking 27% of the vote? now the winner really only needs like 36% of the vote to win.
I don't want some hard core right wing Christian coalition leader in the white house (Bush if far to close to this already). Conversely i don't wan some hardcore greenie in power who would value the steak i eat more than the guy eating it. I also wouldn't want th elibertarians in power as i think their views are far to short sighted on educatio, healthcare ect.
My point is that haveing someone who is elected by such a minority of people could be very devastating for the rest of the country. I'm thinking the nazi party here.
rant on hold.

[CORed]

Although I pretty much agree with your assessment of the current third party choices available, I don't think there is anything sacred about the Deomocrats or Republicans, and I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with third parties, and I would not hesitate to vote for a third party candidate if I genuinely believed he or she was the best candidate for the job. By the way, the Republican Party started out as an anti-slavery "third party". When the Republican Party was formed, the two major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. After the Civil War, the Whig party disappeared and the Republicans became one of the two major parties. What you say about a third party allowing a minority president to be elected is valid, but I consider this to be a defect of the current system of electing the president. A direct popular vote with a runoff or "instant runoff" if no candidate gets a majority would be one possible solution.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want some hard core right wing Christian coalition leader in the white house (Bush if far to close to this already). Conversely i don't wan some hardcore greenie in power who would value the steak i eat more than the guy eating it. I also wouldn't want th elibertarians in power as i think their views are far to short sighted on educatio, healthcare ect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you enjoy the status quo. Keep voting Democrat and Republican and make sure nothing ever gets better.

[tolbiny]

if by that you mean keep on not voting, then sure.
I will not deny that the status quo is good for me- white, 25 yr old male, about as good as it get. My real problem is that a third party candidate is more likely to cause serious harm than any actual good.
a third party getting elected isn't likely to have any suport in congress, and will face a stiff battle from those entrenched if he tries to change things.
On the other hand a far leaning right winger (someone who could garner the support of 35% while having an ultra conservative platform) could really do some stuff to the country, really really bad- 1984 type of stuff.
Now if a third party was really serious about change, and put some local efforts into motion i believe i might support them.
But this idea of bursting onto a national stage is all backwards.

[sillyarms]

[ QUOTE ]
in our current situation a candidate has to get at least 46% of the vote to have a shot at winning- what will happen if there is an active third party who is taking 27% of the vote? now the winner really only needs like 36% of the vote to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so the most popular canidate still gets elected. How does this change things? Does it really matter if it is the most pouplar canadiate out of 2 parties or the most popular canidate out of 7 parties?

[ QUOTE ]
My real problem is that a third party candidate is more likely to cause serious harm than any actual good.
a third party getting elected isn't likely to have any suport in congress, and will face a stiff battle from those entrenched if he tries to change things.


[/ QUOTE ]

If a third party canidate has enough support to get thier canidate for president elected. Don't you think they will be able to get some people into congress. Also you overlook that as far as lawmaking goes gridlock is good. We don't need more laws we are choking with them right now.

[ QUOTE ]
if by that you mean keep on not voting, then sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't vote don't complain about politics. You have no right to.

silly

[bholdr]

that is all.

[tolbiny]

"If you don't vote don't complain about politics. You have no right to."

Bullshit. This is amoung the least thought out, most damaging statements in our country today. The rock the vote, get out the vote, vote or die crap that is spewed is worthless. Unimformed voters are essentially worthless- now who did you want me to vote for?
1. An incumbant who appears proud that he can barely enunciate a sentance, and can't answer a question correctly without coaching? a guy who thinks invading a country is such a good idea its alright to lie to the public to get it done and refuses to admit any kind of mistakes once its over?
2. A man who by all appearences will say or do anything to get elected? Someone with obvious intelligence, but no visual convictions who couldn't pull together a campaign to bet a man who had started two wars and choked on a pretzel.
3. An ego maniac who was advised by many close friends and former supporters not to run, a guy who was kicked out of the party he led for years because he won't admit that he will never, ever get 5% of the vote?
4. a man representing a party that appearrs has no accounting for the real world. A party with (in my mind) dangerous plans for eliminating healthcare and education, just so they save a couple of bucks in taxes?

You see, i tried to find a candidate i liked in this election, but i guess i would have been a better citizen if i had done nothing, said nothing and just pulled a lever blindly. That's much better than not voting right?


"Ok, so the most popular canidate still gets elected. How does this change things?"

It changes things because that candidate only has to pander to a very small section of the population- and in all likelyhood one with very strict/rigid religeous ideals that will be forced onto every citizen. The nazi party first took power with only twenty some percent of the vote- once in they did all they could to consoidate, and force the country into its desired direction. Think it won't happen here? There is already a massive movement to force what is basically a christian ideal into our government.

"Also you overlook that as far as lawmaking goes gridlock is good"
Gridlock is awefull- gridlock is nothing, a lack of progress. A blalence of power is good, forcing both sides to comprimise somewhat allows for a stable, more efficient government. Gridlock though, it is not.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
My real problem is that a third party candidate is more likely to cause serious harm than any actual good....

On the other hand a far leaning right winger (someone who could garner the support of 35% while having an ultra conservative platform) could really do some stuff to the country, really really bad- 1984 type of stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is more likely to cause serious harm???

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you don't vote don't complain about politics. You have no right to."

Bullshit. This is amoung the least thought out, most damaging statements in our country today. The rock the vote, get out the vote, vote or die crap that is spewed is worthless.
Unimformed voters are essentially worthless

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they're DANGEROUS.

[ QUOTE ]
3. An ego maniac who was advised by many close friends and former supporters not to run, a guy who was kicked out of the party he led for years because he won't admit that he will never, ever get 5% of the vote?

[/ QUOTE ]

That egomaniac's politics are completely backwards, but at least he has the courage of his convictions....that's more than you can say about any GOP or Dem candidate.

[ QUOTE ]
4. a man representing a party that appearrs has no accounting for the real world. A party with (in my mind) dangerous plans for eliminating healthcare and education, just so they save a couple of bucks in taxes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because government wouldn't be stealing money from people to pay for healthcare and education doesn't mean healthcare and education would be ELIMINATED. Before you champion government healthcare, tell me why Clevelend Clinic is Canada's premier cardiac center. Before you champion government education, ask the average voter who their congressman is.

[ QUOTE ]
Gridlock is awefull- gridlock is nothing, a lack of progress. A blalence of power is good, forcing both sides to comprimise somewhat allows for a stable, more efficient government. Gridlock though, it is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Look at the so-called "progress" of the last 100 years. I'll take gridlock, thank you. Lewis Black once quipped, "The only thing worse than Republicans and Democrats is when these pricks try to work together!" Amen.

[/ QUOTE ]

[zaxx19]

Unimformed voters are essentially worthless--

Again plz remind me who gets to distinguish the "informed" from the "uninformed" in your system of thought.

This is a really dangerous stance to take if you are for the universal franchise.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Again plz remind me who gets to distinguish the "informed" from the "uninformed" in your system of thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about those who could pass an 8th grade civics test with a B- or better? Perhaps those who can name both their senators and the vice president. I'd really like to see some kind of qualifying test for voting...Voting is, in most people's opinion, a responsibility, and one I don't think should be taken lightly. Much like driving, there should be a minmum standard set for those who wish to do it.

Think about a corporation. Let's say Viacom--parent company of MTV and their "Rock the Vote" campaign. Do you think when Viacom shareholders decide to name a new board of directors they just go out in the street and get as many people as possible to help them make the decision? I have a hunch they instead seek out the input of only those who are a bit more informed about the company and business in general than the average citizen. Why should our nation's leaders be chosen with any less discression?

[CORed]

Well, I voted for #2, because, as much as I disliked him, I thought it was best for the country to get rid of #1. Unfortunately (in my view) the majority preferred #1. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld (God help me) you vote for the best (or least bad) candidate that you have, not the candidate theat you wish you had.