Former Democrat Party Press Secretary WILL NOT Endorse Obama!

Guess who he IS endorsing?

http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/2...ress-secretary

Guess who he IS endorsing?

http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/2...ress-secretary

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If I was a liberal Democrat. I'll pause for a moment and wait for the waves of nausea to subside..... Ok, that's better. If I was a liberal Democrat, I might very well pretend to be apostate and endorse a conservative third party candidate like Gary Johnson.

This guy knows a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama. Obviously if you split the conservative vote, Obama wins. That's how Clinton won in 1992. Perot split the conservative vote. I'm sure there were some lifelong Democrats who mysteriously endorsed Ross Perot. Never forget Democrats are tricky devious bastards. This is just the sort of dirty trick they would do. Speaking of tricky devious bastards, I wouldn't be surprised if George Soros isn't funding Gary Johnson.

Why is it that so many people feel that they must choose between the lesser of two evils. I hate hearing the "wasted vote" or "vote for Obama" crap. If everyone would just be given the opportunity to vote for the person that best represents them we could get these career establishment candidates out of office. The two party system needs to be eliminated. The system is rigged to force the voters to choose between candidates that have been bought by big money donnors. Can you not see that? If you can see it, and the majority of others can see it, then this country can be saved. IF everyone continues to vote for the lesser of two evils then we will continue to have this fucked up 2 party system where it really does not matter who wins. IS there truly that much of a difference between Obama and Romney? If so please enlighten me.

Why is it that so many people feel that they must choose between the lesser of two evils. I hate hearing the "wasted vote" or "vote for Obama" crap. If everyone would just be given the opportunity to vote for the person that best represents them we could get these career establishment candidates out of office. The two party system needs to be eliminated. The system is rigged to force the voters to choose between candidates that have been bought by big money donnors. Can you not see that? If you can see it, and the majority of others can see it, then this country can be saved. IF everyone continues to vote for the lesser of two evils then we will continue to have this fucked up 2 party system where it really does not matter who wins. IS there truly that much of a difference between Obama and Romney? If so please enlighten me. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

If I could magically alter reality, and make Gary Johnson president with a Libertarian majority in both houses, I would do it. Unfortunately, the reality we live in is a two party reality.

Our only hope of achieving a limited constitutional government, advocated by Libertarians, is to move the Republican party to the right and back to the Constitution.

Ironically, the model for what conservatives need to do is provided by the socialists. The socialists have largely suceeded in converting America to a social welfare state by moving the Democrat Party further and further to the left. The modern Democrat Party is a socialist party in everyway except for it's name.

Maybe, someday the Republican Party will be essentially Libertarian. There's a reason Rand Paul and Ron Paul are both Republicans.

Terry who?

Why is it that so many people feel that they must choose between the lesser of two evils. I hate hearing the "wasted vote" or "vote for Obama" crap. If everyone would just be given the opportunity to vote for the person that best represents them we could get these career establishment candidates out of office. The two party system needs to be eliminated. The system is rigged to force the voters to choose between candidates that have been bought by big money donnors. Can you not see that? If you can see it, and the majority of others can see it, then this country can be saved. IF everyone continues to vote for the lesser of two evils then we will continue to have this fucked up 2 party system where it really does not matter who wins. IS there truly that much of a difference between Obama and Romney? If so please enlighten me. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's...bility_theorem for the detailed answer to your question.

Once you understand Arrow's fairness criteria, and what his theorem says, and the implications, you will understand why what you propose is unrealistic (to put it mildly). I'll give you a broad hint: Review in detail the Presidential election of 1992.

So, according to Arrow, we are doomed to tyranny. I refuse to accept that. I will stand for freedom as long as I can.

The presidential election of 1992 was the first one I really cared about since I was a senior in High School. Although, I did not get to vote since I was born in December, I paid a lot of attention to that election. I consider it to be the foundation for my beliefs.
That election is a result of a Republican who many did not understand being saddled with a poor economy that was the result of massive defense spending designed to cripple and destroy an enemy by bankrupting their system. A young upstart Democrat from a mostly rural state who did not run against any A-list Democrats since they did not really expect to win. And a older and quite possibly crazy rich business tycoon who flaked out before the election and lost a ton of support.
While you are correct that this election is a poster child for the above mentioned theory, since even if the initial polling had remained Perot would have split the republicans resulting in the election still going to Clinton either due to winning the Electoral College as he did or winning in the House.

What all this adds up to is not that having a 3rd party is bad. It is that the system of electing the President created by the Founders and revolutionized by the Party system is flawed for todays age. Take this years Republican Primary. You start with something like 9 candidates, hold some debates, dig up some dirt on some of them, ignore others and the field drops down. A poor showing in Iowa, a couple more drop off. The next thing you know and New Hampshire happens a different candidate wins and the field narrows some more. All along the people that subscribe to the 2 party lesser of two evils system are saying that everyone but one should drop because Romney is the one who should win. He suddenly is the front runner and by the time we got to vote here in Texas everyone else had dropped out and suddenly he is the guy. This system is flawed.

I would suggest that the primaries be eliminated. That a Nation Wide election be held. The candidate that wins must have a minimum of 50% of the vote. All citizens of legal voting age should be required to vote. A runoff election can then be held using any candidate to get more than 25% of the vote. (If no one gets 25% than take the top 3) This will continue until someone gets more than 50% of the vote. No more than 3 elections would be required. I know I will get flame sprayed for this. I know that some with the you have a right not to vote will be upset. I know that this is not perfect, but it is a far cry beter than what we have now. In my opinion.

The presidential election of 1992 was the first one I really cared about since I was a senior in High School. Although, I did not get to vote since I was born in December, I paid a lot of attention to that election. I consider it to be the foundation for my beliefs.
That election is a result of a Republican who many did not understand being saddled with a poor economy that was the result of massive defense spending designed to cripple and destroy an enemy by bankrupting their system. A young upstart Democrat from a mostly rural state who did not run against any A-list Democrats since they did not really expect to win. And a older and quite possibly crazy rich business tycoon who flaked out before the election and lost a ton of support.
While you are correct that this election is a poster child for the above mentioned theory, since even if the initial polling had remained Perot would have split the republicans resulting in the election still going to Clinton either due to winning the Electoral College as he did or winning in the House.

What all this adds up to is not that having a 3rd party is bad. It is that the system of electing the President created by the Founders and revolutionized by the Party system is flawed for todays age. Take this years Republican Primary. You start with something like 9 candidates, hold some debates, dig up some dirt on some of them, ignore others and the field drops down. A poor showing in Iowa, a couple more drop off. The next thing you know and New Hampshire happens a different candidate wins and the field narrows some more. All along the people that subscribe to the 2 party lesser of two evils system are saying that everyone but one should drop because Romney is the one who should win. He suddenly is the front runner and by the time we got to vote here in Texas everyone else had dropped out and suddenly he is the guy. This system is flawed.

I would suggest that the primaries be eliminated. That a Nation Wide election be held. The candidate that wins must have a minimum of 50% of the vote. All citizens of legal voting age should be required to vote. A runoff election can then be held using any candidate to get more than 25% of the vote. (If no one gets 25% than take the top 3) This will continue until someone gets more than 50% of the vote. No more than 3 elections would be required. I know I will get flame sprayed for this. I know that some with the you have a right not to vote will be upset. I know that this is not perfect, but it is a far cry beter than what we have now. In my opinion. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

I'm listening and intrigued.

I'm not sure forcing everyone to vote would improve the system. Studies indicate that people who don't vote have similar tendancies towards liberalism and conservatism. Forcing everyone to vote probably wouldn't change anything.

I think it would be better to change the system so that fewer people were able to vote. It's not the quantity of the vote that matters, it's the quality. I don't think any able bodied person who collects welfare benefits should be allowed to vote. It's madness to allow someone to vote on how much money they should receive from the state.

A simple majority vote for president instead of using the Electoral College would give all the political power to the big cities and the densely populated states. The less populated states would lose politcal clout and federal funding. As imperfect as the Electoral College system is, it's better than a popular vote.

I'm not sure forcing everyone to vote would improve the system. Studies indicate that people who don't vote have similar tendancies towards liberalism and conservatism. Forcing everyone to vote probably wouldn't change anything.

I think it would be better to change the system so that fewer people were able to vote. It's not the quantity of the vote that matters, it's the quality. I don't think any able bodied person who collects welfare benefits should be allowed to vote. It's madness to allow someone to vote on how much money they should receive from the state. Originally Posted by joe bloe

If what you say is correct, then wouldn't accomplishing your second paragraph make your first paragraph untrue?

And are you actually ignorant enough to believe that only welfare recipients receive money from the state?

Admit it, you hate poor people.

If what you say is correct, then wouldn't accomplishing your second paragraph make your first paragraph untrue?

And are you actually ignorant enough to believe that only welfare recipients receive money from the state?

Admit it, you hate poor people. Originally Posted by Doove

LOL! Doofie, you are hysterical! You are a living Democrat talking point memo!!

:clapping :

I believe that my post may hav left one thing unclear. I do not advocate getting rid of the electoral college for the exact reason you said Joe. That will make small states not matter. I would however make the electoral college nothing more than a number. Like a winner take all for that state. We do not need to deal with an election being changed by a wayward group of electors. As far as reducing the number of people that vote that is more akin to an oligarchy than a republic. I want to restore the republic. I have also given consideration to allowing the states to create a civics test to prove that you are an informed voter prior to voting, but that can easily lead to corruption. When I was in High School a classmate of mine was Australian. His parents were required to vote in every election in Australia even though they worked and lived in the US. That is the model I had in mind.

good ideas ff, for being such a young pup, do you realize most of the old farts posting here are over 50, well some think like they are12yo

but the donkeys would have a field day with a required with a test? and the supreme court


note to self, no more posting, it is after 11pm and you are on your 3rd Dewars

oh shit, more shit for doove to put into his poster personal files

I would suggest that the primaries be eliminated. That a Nation Wide election be held. The candidate that wins must have a minimum of 50% of the vote. All citizens of legal voting age should be required to vote. A runoff election can then be held using any candidate to get more than 25% of the vote. (If no one gets 25% than take the top 3) This will continue until someone gets more than 50% of the vote. No more than 3 elections would be required. I know I will get flame sprayed for this. I know that some with the you have a right not to vote will be upset. I know that this is not perfect, but it is a far cry beter than what we have now. In my opinion. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

What you have just described is essentially the election rule under which the Communist Party of the Soviet Union recaptured control of the government of the Russian Federation, after having been overthrown. The election was wide-open, any party could enter and run candidates, but, to seat delegates in the Duma, a party had to take 10% of the total vote. Only one party made it to 10%, so they took ALL of the seats of the Duma. Added: The Commies only made it a little way past 10%. Almost 90% of the voters voted AGAINST them. They still took it all, according to the rules, "fair and square".

You are attempting to construct an election rule that will give rational results, while obeying Arrow's fairness criteria, with more than two candidates. Arrow formally, rigorously, mathematically proved that this is not possible. Period. My undergraduate government professor mentioned that he had to do some SERIOUS gearing up in abstract algebra to read and follow Arrow's dissertation, and it was kind of embarrassing for him, a professor, to be the slow guy in an undergraduate math class (yes, it was a senior class, but still...).

Yes, the current plethora of primaries on each side is a problem. It is Arrow's Theorem all over again, and we need to do something about it. The two-party system, however, is NOT the problem. It is the only system known to Man that gives stable results.

If you want to see how weird it can get, take a look at Israel. They have two major parties, and several very weird splinter parties. In order to form a government, it is necessary to put together a coalition that covers at least 51% of the seats in the legislature. With the two major parties hating each other's guts, and each of them holding about 45% of the seats, the minor party delegates are very much in demand, and they routinely demand AND GET outrageous concessions from the major parties.