how different would be things if in this elections

dimitrispearljam

was a strong 3rd party???
like was 30% democrats,30% republicans,30% a 3rd party??

would be different the country?..things in general?

would be the pressure different to the president??congressmen??

economy,healthcare,schools?

MayDay10

it would be a lot different.


Issues in this election have been buried such as the environment/climate, civil liberties, the 'war on drugs', and drone attacks.

More choices are brought to the forefront on these things and suddenly the main parties would have to define their stance better.

cincybearcat

It would be a good thing to hear more voices.

Really, you can have too many people running...but I think 4-6 seems reasonable. The reason 3rd parties don;t develop national recognition is because people are afraid of their vote not counting. If a normally republican decides to vote Libertarian, now there is currently a good chance that he/she just helped re-elect Obama. Same for Green and helping elect Mitt.

Really, we need to get more parties apart of the national discussion. Ross Perot did a pretty good job. Energized some people. BUt in the end he cost BUsh the election and people that voted for Perot would have not been happy.

cincybearcat

You know another benefit is people and parties woudl have to run on their platform rather than just running against someone else's. With more choices, attack ads would become less effective.

pandora

I think third parties are bothersome to the world power.
In my gut I still feel the puppet masters must keep their puppets and
an audience who thinks they are making up the storyline.
Third parties remove the 'at odds' which is a huge distraction,
third parties might diffuse the dissension which seems to be growing.

81

cincybearcat wrote:

You know another benefit is people and parties woudl have to run on their platform rather than just running against someone else's. With more choices, attack ads would become less effective.

funny thing with attack ads, they say who they are attacking and that name sticks in my head more than who the attacker is.

MayDay10

try this one Ive had to endure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmRoTMX3KLY

Johnny Aggro

dimitrispearljam wrote:

was a strong 3rd party???
like was 30% democrats,30% republicans,30% a 3rd party??

would be different the country?..things in general?

would be the pressure different to the president??congressmen??

economy,healthcare,schools?

IMO its because its a two-horse race in the US, that the country is so strong on so many fronts. Yes a lot needs to be better, but at least they aint bound by the necks to another state in debt (like my country).

I hope Obama wins purely for the sake of the rest of the world and the lower classes in America (healthcare), but the cost of that win will be a slower economic recovery for the US, and therefore the world.

Jason P

I like to think it would be better, but it probably wouldn't be. The one downside is that it's easier for a minority to rule.

Maybe one of you Canucks can shed some light on how the multi system is working.

Johnny Aggro

Jason P wrote:

I like to think it would be better, but it probably wouldn't be. The one downside is that it's easier for a minority to rule.

Maybe one of you Canucks can shed some light on how the multi system is working.

HAHHAHAHA. he said "working"


Working my a**!!


(rant over)

musicismylife78

it would change the whole thing. We'd actually have a choice, and people couldnt use the tired "but voting for a third party is meaningless because they wont win" line at you anymore. The country is well to the left of both candidates. the majority of the country believes we should pull out of afghnistan, that we should end torture, that the drug war is a farce and that we should decriminalize, that we should be doing a hell of alot more to address global warming etc...

An obama and romney presidecy really isnt going to be all that different from one another.

MayDay10

Jason P wrote:

The one downside is that it's easier for a minority to rule.

I think basically that is happening now.


Im not sure what % people agree with the D or R parties. Me, Im about 50% D as they are now (not as they promise) and 2% R. I pull for D. But Im like 98% Green, and probably agree with 60-70% Lib.

DewieCox

You'd probably have 3 parties that are full of shit the next time around.

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

I like to think it would be better, but it probably wouldn't be. The one downside is that it's easier for a minority to rule.

Maybe one of you Canucks can shed some light on how the multi system is working.

our system is shitty too but we do have more variety so to speak and the system is less corrupt ... i think most democratic countries that work best ... have things in common: diversity in political opinion and minority gov'ts ... as long as representatives are working in the interests of the people - it should not be hard for these reps to work together across political ideologies ... it works like that pretty much everywhere ... governing majorities and lack of political variation is the foundation for a corrupted system which is essentially what the US has ... granted the house is often split in the US so no 1 party has true dominance - it still creates a situation that basically the rhetoric is the same ...

let's face it ... the majority of what romney is pimping is exactly what obama is pimping ... they only really vary on a few issues ... but yet they are seen as polar opposites ...

dancepartner

Repost; (for some reason, my posts this a.m. got lost but said posted succesfully?)

I not only believe, but I am certain: we must evolve to take responsibility for Our once nobly envisioned democracy or we will continue to decline. It's only the rate that remains in question. Regardless then, whether it's a 2, 3 or 7 party domination, a strong mass unity presence is the only way for this now seasoned democracy to still flourish. So! After today, regardless of who wins, you suppose we will get down to the real business of extracting our democracy from the stranglehold it's currently in? Or, will we just continue to hope that whoever we elect will save it?
This is not just the question of the day - but of our times.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Jason P wrote:

I like to think it would be better, but it probably wouldn't be. The one downside is that it's easier for a minority to rule.

Maybe one of you Canucks can shed some light on how the multi system is working.

it's great to have a lot of choice politically, but man, when the room is overcrowded, it's harder to get heard and harder to hear them. and when you have so many people voting across the board, you end up with minority governments, confidence votes, elections called. the last few years we have felt as if we're constantly going to the polls and nothing changes.

it used to be a solid 3 party system, which was good. But now, I remember a debate I watched a few years back, I think there were 5 or 6 federal candidates sitting at a table all shouting. it was stupid.

so it's good and bad.

musicismylife78

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I like to think it would be better, but it probably wouldn't be. The one downside is that it's easier for a minority to rule.

Maybe one of you Canucks can shed some light on how the multi system is working.

it's great to have a lot of choice politically, but man, when the room is overcrowded, it's harder to get heard and harder to hear them. and when you have so many people voting across the board, you end up with minority governments, confidence votes, elections called. the last few years we have felt as if we're constantly going to the polls and nothing changes.

it used to be a solid 3 party system, which was good. But now, I remember a debate I watched a few years back, I think there were 5 or 6 federal candidates sitting at a table all shouting. it was stupid.

so it's good and bad.

you and i must be watching opposite elections, because anything would be better than Obama and Romney, which are essentially are the same candidates? Does anyone really think Romney would be all that different?
I think a huge problem is anyone running outside the paradigm is mocked, not given air time, relagated to a side show. Look how they treated Gravel, Kuchinich and Paul. For me, thats what democracy is, more choice. And between Obama and Romney their isnt a choice. Its the same candidate just different names.

Debates should be open to ALL candidates running, and money should be severly limited, making it so ANYONE can run, not just those individuals who are millionaires. I think the Electoral college should be abolished and their should be a massive overhaul of the electoral and voting system. I'd like to see mabe Runoff voting or something. Or an option of None of the Above.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

musicismylife78 wrote:

you and i must be watching opposite elections, because anything would be better than Obama and Romney, which are essentially are the same candidates? Does anyone really think Romney would be all that different?
I think a huge problem is anyone running outside the paradigm is mocked, not given air time, relagated to a side show. Look how they treated Gravel, Kuchinich and Paul. For me, thats what democracy is, more choice. And between Obama and Romney their isnt a choice. Its the same candidate just different names.

Debates should be open to ALL candidates running, and money should be severly limited, making it so ANYONE can run, not just those individuals who are millionaires. I think the Electoral college should be abolished and their should be a massive overhaul of the electoral and voting system. I'd like to see mabe Runoff voting or something. Or an option of None of the Above.

I was commenting on canadian elections, not the american.

like I said, I think it's great to have lots of choice, but unfortunately, when you need to engage the general public in order to get anywhere, a general public who, during most elections, only a third of them vote already, you are going to just muddy the waters further by having more than 3 candidates/parties. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is. People don't research the platforms of 2 candidates, never mind 6. So on paper more candidates = more choice = better, that's not reality. that's why I said 3 parties is a good balance, but no more than that.

I agree. The election should not go to whomever has the most money. there should be severe limits and even then, all money submitted through a third party so it's all legal somehow.

musicismylife78

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

you and i must be watching opposite elections, because anything would be better than Obama and Romney, which are essentially are the same candidates? Does anyone really think Romney would be all that different?
I think a huge problem is anyone running outside the paradigm is mocked, not given air time, relagated to a side show. Look how they treated Gravel, Kuchinich and Paul. For me, thats what democracy is, more choice. And between Obama and Romney their isnt a choice. Its the same candidate just different names.

Debates should be open to ALL candidates running, and money should be severly limited, making it so ANYONE can run, not just those individuals who are millionaires. I think the Electoral college should be abolished and their should be a massive overhaul of the electoral and voting system. I'd like to see mabe Runoff voting or something. Or an option of None of the Above.

I was commenting on canadian elections, not the american.

like I said, I think it's great to have lots of choice, but unfortunately, when you need to engage the general public in order to get anywhere, a general public who, during most elections, only a third of them vote already, you are going to just muddy the waters further by having more than 3 candidates/parties. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is. People don't research the platforms of 2 candidates, never mind 6. So on paper more candidates = more choice = better, that's not reality. that's why I said 3 parties is a good balance, but no more than that.

I agree. The election should not go to whomever has the most money. there should be severe limits and even then, all money submitted through a third party so it's all legal somehow.

I think theres a connection between the 2 party system and the fact in america, that half the country just doesnt vote. You expand the list of candidates, give voters MORE of a choice, that includes more candidates, and candidates with starker differences on issues (Obama and Romney agree on the war, Agree on keeping Gitmo open, Agree essentially on the economic crisis).

People stay at home and dont vote, not because they are lazy, or they arent researching the candidates. They stay home, because they know its a complete joke, that its a monopoly, that the candidates dont give a damn about the issues most important to voters.

People largely see american elections for what they are, and what its always been about. Millionaires and corporate elite deciding which buisnessman and politician to vote in. Its about buisnessmen controling the world. Its based on money. And power.

As Madison said its the minority of the opulance protecting themselves against the majority. thats american democracy. Its not a democracy nor was it intended to be.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

in Canada, we have several parties, and we have between 50-60% voter turnout. not much more than the US.

the other issue, as I mentioned, is that when more votes are spread out over more parties, the system breaks down. you get a minority government, which puts the PM and his party at a disadvantage, and really, the country, since a minority government has a really difficult time getting anything done, for better or worse. basically the country stagnates for however long the term of the PM.

PJFAN13

musicismylife78 wrote:

People stay at home and dont vote, not because they are lazy, or they arent researching the candidates. They stay home, because they know its a complete joke, that its a monopoly, that the candidates dont give a damn about the issues most important to voters.

In the US, 40% of the population don't vote!
Why?
Part of the reason is, Americans vote a lot. Local, National, State. mid-term elections = about once a year vote. A lot of Western countries have elections every 5 years. Frequency, makes it a hassle to some. I read somewhere that Australians and a few other countries get fined if they don't vote and its mandatory. In the US, many individuals feel like their vote doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Usually just 12- 15 states even get visits and campaign stumping, not all 50. In other countries, specifically ones with a parliamentary system - usually the PM position is a majority and they have real say over the party and can create a working agenda. Not so much in the States. I know for a fact the Electoral College keeps a lot of people away. If it really mattered to people then they'd vote. Just like most things in life, the more you think it affects you personally, the more likely you are to do it to get the outcome you want. Millions of Americans clearly don't think the elections affect them enough. musicismylife78 nailed it!

acutejam

I don't think it'd be too different, cause most likely those parties would come from the exteme fringe edges. national elections are won in the middle... right where Obama and Romney are pretending to be.

Hmmm -- My fav is always "None of the Above" and if that wins the majority of votes, they have to give us new candidates, both parties.

But I've long advocated and voted for more parties, voted for Perot, not pissed that Bush didn't win. And in California, it's easy to vote for 3rd parties, cause I know republicans won't win and I just vote anti-incumbent regardless....

I really don't think the nation as a whole is further left than these two candidates. I think the democratic party is about 9-10 on the clockface and republicans are 2-3 o'clock. There's a WHOLE BUNCH of us right there from 10-2. I'd more like to see the extremes peel off the main parties and a true middle of the road indpendent party rise in the middle...

I've pretty much just voted Anti-Incumbent my whole voting life. I mean why would you vote someone in for a second term as president?!?!!? Who the heck is a 2nd term president accountable to?

dimitrispearljam

wow..that was great responce there...thanks for the reading guys...

i find some things very intresting to talk,but im on my phone out and isnt easy to write.and post some thoughts.

thanks