Third Party Candidates Get Shot in the Arm in Post Trump/Hillary Election
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2017, 05:09 AM
RE: Third Party Candidates Get Shot in the Arm in Post Trump/Hillary Election
(03-02-2017 05:00 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  The simple truth is what Moms said. Unless you get rid of your FPP system you will never have a minor party get more than a tiny percentage of the vote.
You're absolutely dreaming out of your mind if you think Johnson could have won had he simply been allowed to show up to the debates.

The issue with America is that not only do you have this shitty first past the post system but you have this weird fanatical (and yes that is the right word) mindset in your country that you're either Democrat OR Republican. The Dems and Repubs are like churches with their fanatical fan base. It's ridiculous. They're incredible powerful with their corporate sponsors and they're the ones why would have to change the system and why the fuck would they change the system?? 50% of the pie is always better than 20% of the same pie.

Yes, I acknowledge perfectly well that it was a longshot, even if he had been included, but it is a needed prerequisite for the possibility. 3rd parties have won before in extreme cases. The Republican Party was once a 3rd Party. I would say this election was an extreme case. It could have happened.

The rest of your post is spot on. I hate to ever admit when muffs is right and sees through the bullshit, but....Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
04-02-2017, 10:23 AM
RE: Third Party Candidates Get Shot in the Arm in Post Trump/Hillary Election
(04-02-2017 01:49 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 07:45 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  That should tell you something right there, though.

And what is that supposed to be? Because as far as I'm concerned, it shows, in part, that the judge here made the right call. Before the debates Johnson's was hovering around 12 percent, and Stein around 6. Nearly 1 in 5 said they wanted a 3rd party candidate before the debates, and the turn out was about 6 percent combined. The conclusion I draw is, hey maybe the debates are undermining the whole point of a free and fair election. A low showing (though high comparatively speaking) doesn't mean people didn't want a third party candidate. It means they voted for someone they thought could potentially win. When they aren't invited it legitimizes them. It's not surprising the like of CNN and MSNBC don't care which candidate got 3 percent, and which got 1.

In general if you bother to study the history of 3d party runs you will see that it is common for them to have higher numbers prior to the election than on election day. There is speculation that voters act all pissy and angry but come home when it gets time to actually vote because they don't want to go all the way to the polls and vote for someone who has no chance at all. Second, the thought is that actual 3d party adherents in many cases simply can't be bothered to vote because they also know they can't win. A third possibility is that people simply lie to pollsters.

The most glaring case recently was John Anderson who was polling in the mid-20's in 1980 during the Summer and ended up with 7%.

No, 3d parties are a shiny toy but the odds are stacked against them and CNN is the least of their problems. The election laws differ in all 50 states but the one thing the parties agree on is that there should be two parties.

If you want to get something done the most recent example of how to do it is the Tea Party. A bunch of conservatard shitwits essentially hi-jacked the republican party, purged it of any intelligence and moderation and created a neo-fascist gang that thinks the most important thing they can do is start wars and oppress women and minorities.

Sanders showed the way - although even he does not seem to trust his followers to stick with it - by trying to take over the Democratic Party. Sanders, of course, was and remains an Independent, something which his fans never understood when loyal Democrats sided with Clinton who had been working for them for 30 years. Still, that's the way to do it. But you have to start at the bottom and that is the problem with 'Murricans in general. They don't want to put in the grunt work to get things done. They want pie-in-the-sky promises or, in the case of the Orange Turd, they want someone who promises magic.

Let the Progressives get their act together, register as democrats in massive numbers, and start pushing the party further to the left. But you have to run for Congress, and state legislatures, and school boards, and water districts, city councils, and so on. Waiting for a man on a white horse to solve all your problems just gets you a nazi asswipe like Trump.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 06:17 AM
RE: Third Party Candidates Get Shot in the Arm in Post Trump/Hillary Election
Here in Australia, we actually do have what you could call a third-party in power. It was called the Country Party, but has now been "modernised" and renamed the National Party—which represents electorates principally in rural and/or remote regions.

The currently governing Liberal party formed a "coalition" with the Country Party in 1923, mainly then—as now—to secure a sufficient number of seats in order to form a government.

Why could the Democrats not form a coalition with, say, the Libertarian Party? I know some of their core policies differ from the Dems (and the Reps) but then so do our LIB/NP coalition members. Which proves that it can be made to work despite ideological differences.

The LP has already had some success in Alaska, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Utah, and Nebraska at a state level, and with the bolded states being rusted-on Republican. Would it not be a coup for a Dem/LP coalition to take them from the Reps?

Or do Americans not consider political coalitions as viable/effective/politically practical?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 12:19 PM
RE: Third Party Candidates Get Shot in the Arm in Post Trump/Hillary Election
(05-02-2017 06:17 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Here in Australia, we actually do have what you could call a third-party in power. It was called the Country Party, but has now been "modernised" and renamed the National Party—which represents electorates principally in rural and/or remote regions.

The currently governing Liberal party formed a "coalition" with the Country Party in 1923, mainly then—as now—to secure a sufficient number of seats in order to form a government.

Why could the Democrats not form a coalition with, say, the Libertarian Party? I know some of their core policies differ from the Dems (and the Reps) but then so do our LIB/NP coalition members. Which proves that it can be made to work despite ideological differences.

The LP has already had some success in Alaska, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Utah, and Nebraska at a state level, and with the bolded states being rusted-on Republican. Would it not be a coup for a Dem/LP coalition to take them from the Reps?

Or do Americans not consider political coalitions as viable/effective/politically practical?

The LP will generally vote for social issues dems like, and if the GOP ever put forth legislation that represents what they claim to represent the LP members for would vote for that too. A party is an alliance. I don't quite understand the point of have two parties allied with each other. What's the point? Just merge parties if you are going to vote together. Am I missing something? Personally I think political parties are bad in an of themselves, but if you have to have them, and I think we do, then we should at least have some variety, and we should have laws that prevent any party from becoming too powerful - but which party is willing to propose and vote for that legislation?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 05:42 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 05:48 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Third Party Candidates Get Shot in the Arm in Post Trump/Hillary Election
I think the rich hippies have had enough and are about to put an end to this idiocy - "We've been watching your histrionics and while it's tolerable to a point we're trying to save the fucking world here and you're getting up in our grill. Enough's enough." I think the Cubans, the Zuckerbergs, the Musks are going to go beyond financial backing and run for political office themselves. (I think Cuban will do it as much to dick with Trump as anything else.) When they win in what are easily predictable landslides they'll put your Buffets and Gates in cabinet positions and make deals with your Mas and Bransons (there's your NATO and TPP roled into one) to save us from ourselves (Brin and Saverin are permanently exiled to Elba).

When Musk starts chuckling "I know right." when people ask him about his principle of avoiding politics both parties should start wetting their pants.

[Image: musk_zpsxyencitx.png]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: