174 replies to this topic

[Daniel]

Why do you consider voting for a third party a protest? I'm not doing it to protest, I'm voting for who I think would be the best president. Earlier in our discussion it seems we both established that voting for Obama or Romney is not going to change anything either since Obama is almost certainly going to win New Jersey. So if we say voting third party isn't going to make a difference then we just covered everybody and came to the conclusion that at the end of the day it doesn't matter who we vote for, so why not vote for the candidate you believe in the most?


I still completely disagree that changing ballot access laws, election formats, etc. would have no difference on third parties. I almost never hear anyone say they prefer a Democrat or Republican over a third party candidate. Almost all of the time, their reasons for voting for Democrats or Republicans is because the third party candidates "won't win" and they don't want to "waste" their vote. If we had range voting there would be no such thing because they could support third party candidates as well as a major party candidate at the same time, so as long as every candidate had the ability to get their message out there, I don't see any reason why people wouldn't start considering to support them. You disagree with this, but there isn't really any way for us to prove one another wrong so oh well let's move on.

As far as third party strategy, what I would like to see happen is all the third parties and independent unite into one Clean Elections Party whose sole purpose is cleaning up elections. After they enact that kind of legislation they can then split into the Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc. I think with the way it is they are splitting the third party vote even thinner than it already is and it just makes things harder for themselves. I also think they need to work on a decades-long process starting with winning elections at the local level and eventually working their way up to the state level and federal level. It is more likely for them to win local elections, especially in elections where there is normally only one candidate on the ballot, or like what we had in 2009 when Daggett did so well--an unpopular incumbent running against a party that usually doesn't do so well in that state/municipality.

As for the Nader spoiler issue, many people assume that all of Nader's voters would have voted for Gore and that is why he cost him the election. According to exit polls, less than half would have voted for Gore, a pretty sizeable chunk (I think it was something like 30%) would have voted for Bush, and another pretty good chunk would have just stayed home.

Seems to me that third-party support or lack thereof is an interesting cultural and psychological issue. It just isn't something that's going to be resolved with any kind of law, or at least a law that the Constitution would permit.

[mouse]

As far as third party strategy, what I would like to see happen is all the third parties and independent unite into one Clean Elections Party whose sole purpose is cleaning up elections. After they enact that kind of legislation they can then split into the Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc. I think with the way it is they are splitting the third party vote even thinner than it already is and it just makes things harder for themselves. I also think they need to work on a decades-long process starting with winning elections at the local level and eventually working their way up to the state level and federal level. It is more likely for them to win local elections, especially in elections where there is normally only one candidate on the ballot, or like what we had in 2009 when Daggett did so well--an unpopular incumbent running against a party that usually doesn't do so well in that state/municipality.

I don't see this working, because a major part of 3rd parties' appeal is that they don't sell out to win elections, like the major parties do. If green and libertarian merged based on the need to reform elections, they would each be giving up too much. They are polar opposites on too many crucial issues. I personally like that libertarians believe what they say they believe and are working to break the 2 party system, but I fundamentally disagree with deregulation, so I could never actually vote libertarian, and if green and libertarian were running together, I wouldn't vote green. Right now, I like what the green party stands for, so I'm willing to vote for them, even knowing they won't win. I wouldn't be willing to do that if I didn't feel that way.

[SMantzas]

Well, that was about as decisive a win for Obama as the first debate was for Romney. Romney basically commended the Obama administration for their work during his term and sounded pretty desperate in the final statement. "This nation is the hope of the earth"....a little over the top Mitt

[devilsadvoc8]

"The boats that go under water" really? Did I hear that correctly?

[Daniel]

It was the only debate I watched and a clear win for Obama, although I always felt Obama was stronger on foreign policy anyway.

Main lesson though, I hate debates. "Nation building at home"? Really? Tom Friedman is banal enough when his bloviating is in print.

Unfortunately, no one discussed the more important issue of who is going to get Calvin Johnson to catch more touchdown passes for my crappy fantasy football team.

[Devils Pride 26]

Obama loves shooting down Romney's budget while neglecting the fact he hasn't come close to passing one in four years. Romney should have made a bigger deal of the blunder with Russia, half of the country probably didn't understand it.

[Daniel]

Romney should have made a bigger deal of the blunder with Russia, half of the country probably didn't understand it.

Probably because most of the electorate (and especially those undecideds) doesn't really care all that much about the minutae of foreign policy.

[squishyx]

Obama loves shooting down Romney's budget while neglecting the fact he hasn't come close to passing one in four years. Romney should have made a bigger deal of the blunder with Russia, half of the country probably didn't understand it.

If Obama proposed Romney's budget as his own he would have been torn a new one from fiscal conservatives screaming from the high heavens about the biggest tax grab on the rich in our nations history, about redistribution, class warfare, and mostly how it doesn't even get prom point A to point B, "there is no free lunch" lecture.

Romney is promising a revenue neutral budget that lowers taxes 20% across the board and does so by limiting deductions, but not the popular ones that people like. Somehow this 500b annual cut in taxes will be paid for by who? magic gnomes? if the rich are paying for it (and they can't because there doesn't enough enough deductions to begin with) then it's a massive tax increase on them. Socialism!

It deserves to be mocked and ridiculed because when asked how he is going to pay for it he can't cite specifics and just says to "throw out a number" on a deduction cap (17, now its 25, maybe tomorrow it will be -3, who knows).

I don't think Obama's plan is great by any means, but by all reasonable accounts it's plausible that it can pass congress, and it's actually in line with math.

[devilsfan26]

http://www.ora.tv/ora2012/thirdparty

You can watch tonight's debate on that link. Obama and Romney refused the invitation because they are cowards so it is essentially a third party debate. There will be a roundtable discussion starting at 8:00 and the actual debate begins at 9:00. Tune in to hear some real ideas from real people that aren't corrupted by corporate sponsors.

The participants are Gary Johnson from the Libertarian Party, Jill Stein of the Green Party, Rocky Anderson from the Justice Party, and Virgil Goode from the Constitution Party. Larry King is the moderator.

EDIT: It was just announced that C-SPAN will be covering it too, so you don't need to watch it online.

Edited by devilsfan26, 23 October 2012 - 01:04 PM.

[95Crash]

http://www.ora.tv/ora2012/thirdparty

You can watch tonight's debate on that link. Obama and Romney refused the invitation because they are cowards so it is essentially a third party debate. There will be a roundtable discussion starting at 8:00 and the actual debate begins at 9:00. Tune in to hear some real ideas from real people that aren't corrupted by corporate sponsors.

The participants are Gary Johnson from the Libertarian Party, Jill Stein of the Green Party, Rocky Anderson from the Justice Party, and Virgil Goode from the Constitution Party. Larry King is the moderator.

EDIT: It was just announced that C-SPAN will be covering it too, so you don't need to watch it online.

I definitely will be watching tonight's Free and Equal Third Party Presidential Debate tonight at 9:00 pm on C-SPAN.

[devilsfan26]

For anyone who missed it, you can watch the third party debate here:

http://www.c-spanvid...hirdPartyPresid

There seemed to be some confusion with regards to the format in the beginning but it was refreshing to hear more voices on key topics that Obama and Romney have no interest in discussing.


There will be another debate next Tuesday as well. That one will include the top two candidates as voted on with an instant runoff system here: http://www.freeandequal.org/vote/

Edited by devilsfan26, 23 October 2012 - 10:38 PM.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Probably because most of the electorate (and especially those undecideds) doesn't really care all that much about the minutae of foreign policy.

...........and this is why Romney wins in a landslide because it's about the economy.

[squishyx]

...........and this is why Romney wins in a landslide because it's about the economy.

Obama's basically on track for a second term, so get the "voter intimidation", "liberals lied and cheated", "mass liberal media conspiracy", "dirty Chicago politics" cards ready for all the QQ that's about to come our way in two weeks.

For my part I'll say it now, if Romney wins I won't complain or cry foul.

How on earth do people think Romney is going to win in a landslide? I understand that's a subjective term but I doubt many conservatives thought Obama's 10 million voter edge in 2008 was a landslide, and Romney will be lucky to win by half that.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Landslide, imo

You were the one in '08 who said Obama was EASILY a two term president. Can anyone locate that thread? Especially where I said I hoped he did well

[Jerrydevil]

Well, that was about as decisive a win for Obama as the first debate was for Romney. Romney basically commended the Obama administration for their work during his term and sounded pretty desperate in the final statement. "This nation is the hope of the earth"....a little over the top Mitt

He'll be so pleased that he "won" the third debate when he gets creamed on Election Day.

[Jerrydevil]

For my part I'll say it now, if Romney wins I won't complain or cry foul.

Romney will win every swing state of significance: Colorado, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are almost swing states now, have ya heard?

But if Obama pulls off the miracle and wins, I won't cry foul. I'll just call for the impeachment proceedings.

[95Crash]

I gotta say, that Third Party debate was a LOT of fun to watch! Two of them leaned left, and two leaned right. And amazingly, they were all cordial to each other and even agreed on many points.

True there were some format glitches, and of course they all have no shot at winning, but still it was great hearing a fresh exchange of ideas.

[Daniel]

Romney will win every swing state of significance: Colorado, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are almost swing states now, have ya heard?

But if Obama pulls off the miracle and wins, I won't cry foul. I'll just call for the impeachment proceedings.

Since I won't lose sleep over whoever is elected, maybe I'll get some entertainment value if Obama loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college. It'll be fun hearing each side completely reverse themselves on their respective positions in 2000.

[squishyx]

Landslide, imo

You were the one in '08 who said Obama was EASILY a two term president. Can anyone locate that thread? Especially where I said I hoped he did well

I like how you think it matters that you said "i hope he does well". As if anyone ever hopes that a president will do poorly, how big of you

I doubt i said that, but if I did I am sure I qualified it with conditions. Not that I think the statement is wrong, I do believe Obama is going to get a second term, I just can't imagine why I would have even tried to predict something 4 years in the future without knowing the context of the conversation.

Edit: I may have found what you were referring too...
On 3/2/2012 I said

Those main stream American's elected this man, or were you not paying attention in November? and despite your ranting and raving about how you think main stream America think's he is doing a bad job, every poll says other wise, and in 3.5 years main stream America will vote him in for 4 more years.

That was a little bold I'll admit, but I don't know how you drew "easily" out of that. Maybe there was another quote you were thinking of?

Interestingly enough your response was...

The DOW likes him
Hello 2000

Guess the DOW liked him after all huh?

Since I won't lose sleep over whoever is elected, maybe I'll get some entertainment value if Obama loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college. It'll be fun hearing each side completely reverse themselves on their respective positions in 2000.

There's a better chance of this happening then Romney winning the presidency right now. It will be interesting.

Edited by squishyx, 24 October 2012 - 03:06 PM.

[squishyx]

Romney will win every swing state of significance: Colorado, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are almost swing states now, have ya heard?

But if Obama pulls off the miracle and wins, I won't cry foul. I'll just call for the impeachment proceedings.

Not only does Romney need to win every swing state (they are all significant to him) he would need to carry Penn and Wisconsin (which are most definitely not swing states) for anyone to even begin having the discussion that it was a "landslide" win.

Romney could win, but if that happens it will be close, very close, not a landslide.