http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/2...ress-secretary
![Clap](images/smilies/modern/clap.gif)
Guess who he IS endorsing?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.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/2...ress-secretary
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
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 fetishfreakIf 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.
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 fetishfreakRead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's...bility_theorem for the detailed answer to your question.
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.I'm listening and intrigued.
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 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.If what you say is correct, then wouldn't accomplishing your second paragraph make your first paragraph untrue?
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?LOL! Doofie, you are hysterical! You are a living Democrat talking point memo!!
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
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 fetishfreakWhat 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".