Think outside the 2 party system!

[Seegtease]

So much political discussion going on... about 2 people. Obama and McCain. Well guess what? Some people couldn't care less about those 2 people, and are rather interested in better options that very well may exist. Unfortunately, they go unnoticed by the majority.

What is your preferred political party, excluding Democratic and Republican (if you prefer those, pick your next choice)? What are some of the things that your preferred party holds strongly to that makes you like them so much? If you were to tell a Democrat or Republican why they should consider voting within your favored party, what would you say?

How do you justify to others "wasting your vote on a candidate that has no chance"?

Why do you think we still lump America into 2 categories, instead of pushing a multi-party system to better represent the interests of the people? Do you think that will ever change?

For those of you who DON'T think outside the 2 party system, why?

[Bloodcinder]

What is your preferred political party, excluding Democratic and Republican (if you prefer those, pick your next choice)? What are some of the things that your preferred party holds strongly to that makes you like them so much? If you were to tell a Democrat or Republican why they should consider voting within your favored party, what would you say?
The Libertarian party in actuality stands for the beliefs that most Americans hold. It just so happens that most Americans have been duped into believing that the Republicans and Democrats care to give them what they want. If you want to know their platform, Wiki it: in short, they want less government control over the population.

How do you justify to others "wasting your vote on a candidate that has no chance"?
It's very simple. The Republicans and Democrats have instituted ballot access restriction laws that essentially prohibit third parties from getting on the ballot and getting any kind of equivalent funding. The only way to show those two parties that we're not buying their bull anymore is to manage to overcome the third-party threshold. The only way for that to happen is for enough people to vote for a specific third party. The problem is that too many people refuse to consider such an option because they still consider it a wasted vote. But isn't it a wasted vote to put somebody in power whom you don't approve of ultimately? And most of them who do consider voting third party go with a ridiculously inane choice like the Greens.

Why do you think we still lump America into 2 categories, instead of pushing a multi-party system to better represent the interests of the people? Do you think that will ever change?
Yes, I think it will change. This is the first election in our lifetime when people are dissatisfied with both main parties at the same time. However, the tendency of humans to be either for or against, to lump each other into competing camps of good and evil as if politics is a football game, is hard to overcome. If enough people stop being apathetic and complacent, we can fix the system. All we really need is another Ross Perot election in which the Ross Perot actually wins. If that happens, we can break down part of the restriction laws enough to possibly get more third-party legislators shifted in over the following elections. Eventually, you open up the field fully to that third party. Once that happens, it's geometrically easier for another third party to get into the system.

For those of you who DON'T think outside the 2 party system, why?
They think somehow that things will eventually get better. Last I checked, despots don't usually wake up. That's what we have right now: two gigantic despotic institutions that ultimately are keeping each other in power while putting on a pretense of being opponents.

[Arainach]

What is your preferred political party, excluding Democratic and Republican (if you prefer those, pick your next choice)? What are some of the things that your preferred party holds strongly to that makes you like them so much? If you were to tell a Democrat or Republican why they should consider voting within your favored party, what would you say?If I had to, I supposed I'd support Green - while socially I'm libertarian, their economic policies terrify me and there's no way I'd ever vote for one. However, I still side more Democratic than Green.How do you justify to others "wasting your vote on a candidate that has no chance"?I can't, and so I don't. If it was in the 1990s, maybe, but the last 8 years have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republicans and Neoconservatism are the single greatest threat facing this nation - its freedoms, its economy, its very way of life - and priority numero uno is getting them out of office regardless of who the hell replaces them. In this case, the only ones with any chance of that are the Democrats.Why do you think we still lump America into 2 categories, instead of pushing a multi-party system to better represent the interests of the people? Do you think that will ever change?Unlikely. The populace as a whole barely cares enough to vote at all, much less make an educated decision. Changes in both are necessary for a third party to gain ground.For those of you who DON'T think outside the 2 party system, why?Because for all their flaws, I generally agree with most of the views of the Democratic Party and they actually have a hope of getting elected.

[Seegtease]

C'mon, tons of people post in boring political threads and I post an interesting one and only get 2 replies?

Didn't Ross Perot have a lot of money to fund his campaign, which is how he got known? Wouldn't, basically, a candidate have to be uber-rich in order to get their name known? Does the government pay for a lot of Republican and Democrat funding? You say we need another Ross Perot, but what is really involved in getting somebody to that point?

[Bloodcinder]

Didn't Ross Perot have a lot of money to fund his campaign, which is how he got known? Wouldn't, basically, a candidate have to be uber-rich in order to get their name known? Does the government pay for a lot of Republican and Democrat funding? You say we need another Ross Perot, but what is really involved in getting somebody to that point?
Yes, yes, yes, and making it so that a third party can actually get on the ballot instead of just having third party write-ins. Which involves people not being proactive in voting for the third party.

[chefTENGU]

I'm reviving this thread because I've been angrier than usual because of recent events.

First: Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. I am absolutely flabbergasted by the sheer stupidity of the proceedings. Republicans, as usual, threw common sense out the window. Democrats, on the other hand, were practically creaming in their jeans just to be in her presence. Questions ranged from inane flattery (Dems) to semantic hair-splitting (Reps). The answers weren't much better, consisting of the usual sort of judge fluff that's been said about a quadrillion times before.

The most disgusting, and to me, offensive, thing, though, is how the vote was split: 13-6, ALMOST ENTIRELY down party lines. It's SCARY. And I'm not trying to come down on republicans for this, because democrats do it too.

When things get to the point where you don't care how QUALIFIED someone is, just which PARTY they belong to, that's a PROBLEM. This is exactly what Washington was trying to warn us about when he left office.

Next, the goddamn news media:

I think this is why I watch The Daily Show. They're the only newsish show out there that 1) doesn't take itself seriously and 2) calls bullshit on things where bullshit is due. I've never seen an anchor more willing to openly express his conscience than Jon Stewart.

Case in point, the handling of Obama's opening pitch for the All Star game a while back (from the July 15 2009 episode):
Watch (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-15-2009/obama-s-all-star-pitch)

Arg. The whole video isn't working (it's supposed to be about 3 min. long, I can only get 55 seconds)

Here's a summary:

It's a shining example of unmitigated bias from the news media. Fox was the network airing the All Star game, and everyone knows that they're not too keen on Obama. Seeing the clip they aired of him throwing the pitch, you'd have to admit, he looked pretty ridiculous.

But here's where it gets hairy:

My more conservatively-inclined family members LOVED how ridiculous he looked. They also liked to repeat how Fox claimed that Obama's administration forced the network to film him from that angle, and said that they couldn't air the end of the pitch.

BULLSHIT.

The Daily Show provides the clip, as it aired on network TV, along with how Fox News ran with it as all their personalities had a big "LOL Obama can't pitch" circle jerk, but what's most interesting to me is that they had another angle of the same shot.

First, this means that there probably wasn't any "obligation" for Fox to shoot Obama from the angle that they did. Otherwise, they could be sued for showing the second clip. Bullshit #1.

Second, they had a great time talking about how the pitch had to be "dug out of the dirt" when the video they aired RIGHT AT THAT MOMENT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT NEVER TOUCHED THE GROUND AND WAS CAUGHT IN THE AIR. Sure, the guy behind home plate had to lean out a bit, but remember two things:
1- Obama was pitching from the mound, not from in front of it, the way most presidents pussy out when throwing this ceremonial pitch.
2- Fox News caught themselves in a blatant lie (and by "lie" I mean, "something contrary to fact presented as if it were fact"). Bullshit #2.

The clip concludes with a Daily Show spoof of how the same clip was probably aired on MSNBC, and Jon Stewart self-deprecatingly presenting a clip from when he threw out a pitch at a Mets game, where the ball ACTUALLY had to be dug out of the dirt in the way Fox News was describing.

Fox News isn't alone. The Washington Times newspaper loves to make shit up in order to make people believe in their own distorted view of reality (but hey, when you're run by someone who claims to be the second coming of Jesus Christ, I suppose things are going to get a little nutty).

Liberal media outlets are no less guilty of this sort of thing than conservative ones, don't get me wrong. This example here just puts it all together for me in one little package, and it makes me hate the news all over, not just Fox News in particular.

And finally, something else to touch on:

FOR FUCK'S SAKE, STOP CALLING OBAMA A SOCIALIST. HE ISN'T ONE, NOR WAS BUSH A "FASCIST."

I cannot tell you how much it pisses me off to hear people throwing around terms like "socialist" or "fascist" just to demonize the other side. The two have become catch-all terms for making an argument when one doesn't really have an intelligent point, they just really really don't like someone and want other people to equate them with the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, a comparison which literally makes me sick to my stomach.

To think that Obama is the equal of a dictator like Joseph Stalin, or that George Bush is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler, is absolutely absurd. Tens of millions of people died at the hands of those two men, and it does them a grave injustice to invoke the horrors associated with those names just to make a petty jab at the opposing party.

A comparison like this means only one thing: the person making it thinks that he or she is talking to children. Children that can be scared into thinking or voting a certain way because they think the big bad boogeyman is going to get them if they don't. It's insulting and just plain disgraceful.

Arg, I need a beer. I can feel my blood boiling.

[Bloodcinder]

I agree with everything you said except this: "socialist" is not the same thing as "Communist." Calling someone a "socialist" is perfectly just if they uphold socialist policies. Stalin was a Communist: that is, a socialist who implemented his policies by violent overthrow and subjugation. There is a difference.

[Arainach]

Stalin was a Communist: that is, a socialist who implemented his policies by violent overthrow and subjugation.This is radically diverging from the thread topic, but that's not the definition of a Communist at all. In fact, that has next to nothing to do with Communism.

[Bloodcinder]

It's not diverging from the thread topic to list where I disagree with a post. It would be diverging from the thread topic to go into an exposé on the exact definition of Communism when my generalization suffices.

[chefTENGU]

It seems to me that some of Obama's opponents think that "socialist" and "communist" are synonymous and equally applicable to him. As you pointed out, they aren't the same thing.

To their credit, however, they haven't been going too far off the deep end (i.e., they definitely prefer to use the "socialist" label rather than "communist"), but it seems to me that even if they are correct, it doesn't seem to be such a bad thing.

After all, it's those horrible backward socialist wastelands like Sweden that are lending us money right now.

[Seegtease]

When things get to the point where you don't care how QUALIFIED someone is, just which PARTY they belong to, that's a PROBLEM. This is exactly what Washington was trying to warn us about when he left office.

QFT

[SpaceProg]

I'm a Demogreenalibrepublicrat.

One day, we'll win. Oh yes.

[deathofcheese]

I'm considering doing one of these the next time I vote...

It'd be better than "choosing lesser of two evils".

[deathofcheese]

My dad has been linking this to me several times over the last week.

There's a movement starting with the intention of breaking the two-party system's stranglehold on government, ousting career politicians and getting Congress back to the "elect someone who truly is from your area, have them go run Congress for two years, then have them come back to your area to let the next guy go, while teaching and instructing the rest of the people in your area how government works and what would be the best use of its power" system that was "originally intended by the founding fathers". I guess I support this; it sounds good to me and is finally a true bi-partisan (by way of being non-partisan) solution to getting Congress to work together. I'm kind of concerned about what would happen once we get a perpetually "inexperienced" Congress in power, but I guess the point of this would be to educate the entire population more about how government works and to get them better involved in the community to get people that actually are "for the people" into a place where they can better be "for the people".

Anyways, check it out. It's called GOOOH (http://goooh.com/Home.aspx), for "Get Out of Our House". The videos that they have on the site do a fairly good job of explaining the point, even if the presenter woman grates heavily on your nerves (I had to stop watching after four movies because I couldn't take her anymore).

[chefTENGU]

I always get a little wary when people start trying to talk about "what the founding fathers would have wanted."

The founding fathers had faith that we could think for ourselves, that's why the Constitution is a living, amendable document.

[Killer_Man_]

I actually like GOOOH but I don't trust people.

[chefTENGU]

I heard today about California's lt. governor has put together Prop 14. Essentially, this proposition will do away with party-exclusive primaries. Instead, only one primary election will be held, where ANY registered voter in California (regardless of party) can vote for ANY candidate they want. After the primary, the two front-runners move on to the general election.

Since I'm an independent, and independents like me usually get the shit end of the stick when it comes to primaries, I'm really liking this idea. I really hope it gets written into law, has enormous success, and starts becoming practice in other states.

[Tiger]

I really hope it gets written into law, has enormous success, and starts becoming practice in other states.

I second that! In Texas you don't have to register, I don't affiliate with any ONE party, I take it as they come follow the issues and figure out who i like best. But a lot of the time i don't like the BIG 2....so my vote essentially doesn't count...but because i believe that that way of thinking is keeping us 2 party I ignore it and vote how i feel i should.

[Seegtease]

A small step, but since the majority of people are uneducated and unable to actually use their heads in deciding who they want to vote for, they'll still pick from Republican and Democrat candidates. They just can't wrap their mind around the idea of people being lumped into more than two categories.

The problem won't be solved until parties are eliminated altogether.

Parties are a crutch for people who don't want to think so they can just vote in line with their party rather than actually, you know, reading up on the candidates. The only purpose they serve is to create more uninformed votes, which is of course a negative purpose.

[chefTENGU]

Actually, I think the exact opposite of that is true. Have you seen what's been going on with elections in Iraq and Afghanistan? There were more than 50 candidates all trying to unseat Karzai from the Afghan presidency during their last election cycle (the only reason he got reelected is because he's a damn crook).

Afghanistan is also one of the least educated countries in the world (and that's a fact, its literacy rate is among the lowest of the low). Granted, a bunch of Afghans admitted they were simply casting their vote to whomever promised them the best gifts for doing so (America was no different during the nineteenth century, when formal education was a lot less prevalent in this country), but consider the following:

• Contrary to what people keep saying, Americans are extremely well educated compared to a lot of the rest of the world. 99% of our population is literate, and just about everyone receives some form of formal education.

• The Tea Party movement demonstrates quite clearly how fed up a lot of people are with "business as usual." Anti-incumbency has been on the rise; now's probably a great time for anyone who sees themselves as a 3rd-party fiscal conservative.

• Voter apathy seems to stem more from dissatisfaction with the choices we are offered, rather than anything having to do with the act of voting itself. Just about everyone who expressed disinterest in voting in the thread here said as much. It boils down to "I don't like anyone, why bother?" If people are being honest in this regard (and not merely lazy), allowing wider participation in primary elections means that much more people will be inclined to vote, since they'll have a more reasonable chance of being able to vote their conscience and winning.

[Tiger]

• Contrary to what people keep saying, Americans are extremely well educated compared to a lot of the rest of the world. 99% of our population is literate, and just about everyone receives some form of formal education.


People being literate in this issue means NOTHING if they don't read about the issues...

[chefTENGU]

Very true, but merely having more players on the field will be enough to shake things up a bit and help get us away from the two-party death grip (or at least undermine the unfair advantage that they already have).

To be sure, things will start small and slow, but I can really see this thing snowballing if given enough time.

[Killer_Man_]

I think what Zeit meant was, people don't have common sense.

As well as, in Wisconsin you don't have to register yourself as a certain party as well.

I think people use a party as a crutch so they know how the person will 'vote' in a sense.

[Seegtease]

Actually, I think the exact opposite of that is true. Have you seen what's been going on with elections in Iraq and Afghanistan? There were more than 50 candidates all trying to unseat Karzai from the Afghan presidency during their last election cycle (the only reason he got reelected is because he's a damn crook).

I don't think this is a bad idea, but I don't think it's going to solve anything. I think you can't really compare us to places like Iraq because American's are more indoctrinated into the two-party system. Talk to people. Not college students, adults 30, 40+. At that point, they're too fixed in their ways to change.

At least there is hope for coming generations.

Contrary to what people keep saying, Americans are extremely well educated compared to a lot of the rest of the world. 99% of our population is literate, and just about everyone receives some form of formal education.C'mon chef, you know good and well this isn't what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the general idea of being educated. You can go into a room full of scientists with PhDs and they can be "uneducated" in how to properly behave in, say, a nightclub.

It's not like students are given special classes on picking their party, and anything in government classes that they do learn about it is biased towards the two party system anyway. And the rest they learn from friends and family, and if it's from an older generation, it's probably advice to add to the problem.

[chefTENGU]

I think what Zeit meant was, people don't have common sense.
If most people didn't have it, it wouldn't be "common" sense.

C'mon chef, you know good and well this isn't what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the general idea of being educated. You can go into a room full of scientists with PhDs and they can be "uneducated" in how to properly behave in, say, a nightclub.
I thought I did, now I'm not so sure.

It sounded to me like you were saying that most grown people in this country are utterly incapable of making a decision of whom they would like to govern them, because the "majority" of the people are "uneducated."

I don't think this is a bad idea, but I don't think it's going to solve anything. I think you can't really compare us to places like Iraq because American's are more indoctrinated into the two-party system. Talk to people. Not college students, adults 30, 40+. At that point, they're too fixed in their ways to change.
That's odd. I thought we were supposed to have less faith in Iraqi and Afghan politics because they're too "indoctrinated" to be able to understand any form of government that doesn't depend on strongmen ruling through fear and brute force.

At least, that's what I kept hearing from folks over the last 10 years or so about why we were wasting our time over there. Sounds like we're the ones incapable of democracy.

I don't think Americans are indoctrinated into a two-party system at all. Woodrow Wilson got elected because Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party took a shitload of votes away from Taft. Bill Clinton got into office because enough people voted for Ross Perot that would have otherwise voted for Bush Sr.

My own mother has been republican ever since she could vote, but Jimmy Carter remains one of her favorite presidents. True, it's not like Jimmy Carter belonged to a third party, but it's still important if Prop 14 goes through. If republicans have to run against democrats (and everyone else) in a primary election, things will start to look very different on election day.

It's clear that when someone runs on a third party platform and is able to appeal or reach out to enough people, then people will vote for that person, even if they aren't members of the same party. People, in general, are much more interested in voting their conscience than towing the party line.

And this goes for older people as well as young voters. People didn't just make up the idea of alternative political parties yesterday, they've been a part of our political tradition for about 200 years now (ever since the good ol' Anti-Masonic Party).

[Seegtease]

That's odd. I thought we were supposed to have less faith in Iraqi and Afghan politics because they're too "indoctrinated" to be able to understand any form of government that doesn't depend on strongmen ruling through fear and brute force.

At least, that's what I kept hearing from folks over the last 10 years or so about why we were wasting our time over there. Sounds like we're the ones incapable of democracy.

Perhaps we are. I never really thought the middle eastern countries to be incapable of embracing it, personally. People tend to like having freedom. Thing is, I don't think most Americans realize that while this system doesn't infringe on our freedoms, it makes our votes feel insignificant when the majority prefers the two-party system (probably due to indoctrination into the system).

It's clear that when someone runs on a third party platform and is able to appeal or reach out to enough people, then people will vote for that person, even if they aren't members of the same party. People, in general, are much more interested in voting their conscience than towing the party line.

Though I'm not convinced, I can only hope you're right, and this turns out to make a big impression on the system.

[deathofcheese]

I thought you only had to be registered one way or the other to vote in primaries, which are largely party-specific elections anyways.

[Tiger]

I thought you only had to be registered one way or the other to vote in primaries, which are largely party-specific elections anyways.

Only in certain states! In Texas you can register but you don't have to to vote in primaries, but I think if you declare a party on your card you can only vote in that party's primary. But in Texas on the presidential ballot they only put Repub, Dem and Libertarian candidates, anyone else you have to write in, all other offices they put all who are running.

[chefTENGU]

Tiger's right. In Maryland (and in Kansas, I'm pretty sure) primaries are exclusive to members of the parties that are holding them.

The one exception I can remember was 1996, when Republicans allowed independents (like my dad) to participate in their party's primary for the state of Maryland.

[Tiger]

My mom voted in the Democrat primary in 2008 and when she gave them her card they asked if she wanted it stamped Democrat and she told them no and they left it unstamped!