You might actually get politicians who would go for their convictions…
What if third-party advocates grew up, learned how the system works before they try to overthrow it, and ran more credible, hard-working candidates for local and state offices rather than staking everything on running some ridiculous Don Quixote for president.
The third parties now are just one-track minds. No thinking beyond their narrow range of issues, or in some cases their ONE issue. The only hope for them is if the Republicans continue their internecine warfare, and disintegrate into two or three smaller ones. I think there is enough resiliency to eventually keep it together, however.
I can’t remember any cartoons done by Ted where he expressed support for the old or new Nazi Party.
But how does that differ from the current, where all the socialists wouldn’t waste their vote, so would just vote directly for the dem?
It will only happen when one of the two parties dips below 25% in the polls. i.e. soon.
I’ve always been in favor of runoff elections. Too bad we can’t apply that system to electing a President instead of relying on the outdated electoral college.
Get rid of the electoral college. Third party candidates are beginning to do well at the local and state levels, and we even elected a third party senator here in Maine. The electoral college favors money, allowing corporate donor to focus on swing states. Don’t you think the democrats would try harder in Texas and the republicans in Washington state if they knew that EVERY vote counted? As long as the electoral college is in place, the Presidency is out of reach for third party candidates. That is, until enough can be elected to the Senate and House to make an impact.Stop giving money and support to the two party system, and start voting for the candidate that REALLY reflects your views. There are plenty out there if you bother to look for them.
Third party votes are not wasted if you have a modern election system such as automatic runoff as used in some parts of California, e.g. San Francisco, and has been used in Australia for near 100 years. Then you can show your support for the third party but still vote for a party that is currently electable. It also encourages major parties to bargain with third parties as their support grows. It much more democratic as minority parties have significant influence even without having candidates elected.
I like this.
At the rate the republicans are going they are going to lose a huge amount of their supporters to Libertarians (blatant plug). IMO the Libertarians are the balance that is needed in our partisan environment today. It allows for great flexibility in social issues (personal freedom’s) that the republicans go nuts over. At the same time it supports the practice of free trade, less regulation, less government control of the people. The important thing that drew me to this group was the flexibility. There are times we fight like cats and dogs over issues before coming to a common ground, but we typically achieve that ground based on what is most beneficial for the country while endeavoring to maintain the guidance of the Constitution. Okay, that’s my political commercial for the day and I thank you for your indulgence. I rarely post my political preferences so I made up for lost time today.
While Rall is so fond of drone cartoons, did any of you see Jeff Danziger’s cartoon today? Good statement on the subject and it’s drawn really well.
What we need and what I’ve said for years is the need for a Centrist Party. There isn’t a need to change the electoral process Most people either won’t understand it or will rebel against it. The majority is already in the Center. Both parties start by playing to their base then try to waffle their message to lure people scattered around the middle. Why not jump over the extremists on both sides that have been dragging down this country like a lodestone? Make a party that belongs to us: the middle. Extreme issue parties need not apply.
^ Yeah! That’s what Joe McCarthy said, and you KNOW he was right.
Not true. I actually would favor a populist vote over an electoral vote. Believe it or not, the Republican party stands a better chance of winning WITHOUT the electoral college. Instead of pumping money into seven states to try and influence the EC outcome, a better strategy is to allow republicans in every state to tailor their message to the voters. I have never understood the need for the EC in a modern era when every voter has equal access to the issues affecting them. I think this focus on the swing states that won Bush the election in 2000 has done more damage to the republican party in the last two elections, because it means the dempcrats can write off certain “red” states, knowing that New York, California, New Jersey, and Masschussetts are in the bag and simply rely on the unions and minority voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida to do the work for them.BTW, Obama was the only democrat I voted for in the last five years. Everyone else on my ballot has been independent or republican. I voted for Susan Collins in 2008 because she represents traditional republican values, not neoconism, and Angus King in 2012 because he has a better record of working to improve conditions for business than either other candidate last year.
^Tigger,Doing away with the electoral college now makes your voice equal to everyone elses. The populations of the largest citeis are divided amongst the parties, which is why Ohio can swing democrat even though they have more republicans statewide. It would do away with the effects of gerrymandering on presidential elections. How many millions of votes are just cast off because of the EC? If I am a democrat living in Texas, or a republican in California, should I even bother voting? Your argument mattered 200 years ago, when the vast majority of our population lived in six cities, but today there is equal access to the issues in each election, allowing an even playing field. Your vote from the boondocks would count exactly the same as someone in LA, not overshadowed by it because the EC throws out all votes that weren’t cast for the winner. A president elected by a minority of voters because they won in certain key states gives those states unequal power. Who cares about Kansas or North Dakota, when Ohio and Florida can swing the election.
“There already is a centrist party. They’re called “Democrats.””♦Then what do you consider left?
No, because if your most populace city is 51% democrat, with 10 districts, and the rest of the state is 70% republican, with three districts, the democrats win all votes from the state. If you get rid if the EC, the final swing of the popular vote may actually be 51% republican. Population density is no longer a factor because every vote goes towards the national vote. The centrists are what matters, not traditional enclaves, otherwise every election would have the same outcome. This also allows for more third party candidates to emerge, further evening the field, because you get rid of the “winner take all” states.
electoral politics will not help anything, will not “fix” capitalism, will not end war or poverty, will only serve to distract us from the real job at hand – to make a socialist revolution!
too smart for the american system and the american voters