those dirty 3rd parties stealing votes...

Hoon

polaris wrote:

i keep hearing nader cost gore the election but is there any actual evidence of this even if we are to assume all nader votes would have went to gore?

The number of votes that Bush beat Gore in Florida were a result of a vote count that was stopped by the Supreme Court right?

It was just stopped while Bush was in the lead right?

Thats where the number comes from? They didn't finish counting.

Abookamongstthemany

inmytree wrote:

all I said is this:

history has shown, supporting 3rd party candidates may have unintended consequences...

I also said:

personally, I think people should vote for whomever that want...

I know but I have to give a counter argument to that sentiment even if you're not advocating people making their vote based on it because that line of thinking...that fear of a Republican winning, is what's causing this problem
in the first place.

Cosmo

I think that as it stands.. Third Party Candidates come from one side or the other. i believe than in order to be a successful Third Party Candidate... you need to be in the middle... neither too liberal or too conservative.
Because no matter how we try to justify it... Perot voters were mostly voters more likely to vote for Bush (41) over Clinton and those whom voted for Nader in 2000 would have voted for Gore over Bush.
Test it. If you voted for Nader in 2000... you people reading this. If Nader was not on the scene... let's pretend he doesn't exist... who would you have voted for is 2000? Bush or Gore?
I'm going out on a limb here and saying Gore. And I don't think I have to go too far out.

inmytree

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I know but I have to give a counter argument to that sentiment even if you're not advocating people making their vote based on it because that line of thinking...that fear of a Republican winning, is what's causing this problem
in the first place.

ok...

also, I'm glad you can see that I'm not steering anyone away from voting 3rd party...but you have to admit, voting 3rd party can have consequences.....

I'm just saying...that's all...:)

Hoon

Cosmo wrote:

I think that as it stands.. Third Party Candidates comes from one side or the other. i believe than in order to be a successful Third Party Candidate... you need to be in the middle... neither too liberal or too conservative.
Because no matter how we try to justify it... Perot voters were mostly voters more likely to vote for Bush (41) over Clinton and those whom voted for Nader in 2000 would have voted for Gore over Bush.
Test it. If you voted for Nader in 2000... you people reading this. If Nader was not on the scene... let's pretend he doesn't exist... who would you have voted for is 2000? Bush or Gore?
I'm going out on a limb here and saying Gore. And I don't think I have to go too far out.

I think Perot seemed to draw evenly from the D's and R's from the stats I've seen

You mean if by law you could only vote for one of the two parties? I guess I would have voted for Gore.

I didn't trust him then because of Clinton and voted for Nader.

We are not limited to two parties in the U.S. so we have the choice to vote for who we think is the best.

What happened in 2000 was 100% the Supreme Court

Abookamongstthemany

Cosmo wrote:

I think that as it stands.. Third Party Candidates comes from one side or the other. i believe than in order to be a successful Third Party Candidate... you need to be in the middle... neither too liberal or too conservative.
Because no matter how we try to justify it... Perot voters were mostly voters more likely to vote for Bush (41) over Clinton and those whom voted for Nader in 2000 would have voted for Gore over Bush.
Test it. If you voted for Nader in 2000... you people reading this. If Nader was not on the scene... let's pretend he doesn't exist... who would you have voted for is 2000? Bush or Gore?
I'm going out on a limb here and saying Gore. And I don't think I have to go too far out.

None of this should matter. People should be encouraged to vote for who best represents their views....not whomever the horrid ineffectual two party system puts out there for us to choose from. Democracy is about having a say in a society and how it will be ran. I'll be damned if others are going to choose what my chance to have a say will be. I'm not voting for numbers, I'm voting for ideas. I'm not voting for the most money, I'm voting for the most deserving in my eyes.

If you have centerist views then a centerist third party works for you...if not then look for someone who better fits your ideals.

Cosmo

And consider today's political climate. The Democrats and Republicans are basically at war with each other. You need no venture away from this board to see how divided we are... based soley on political party!!! Some Republicans would rather sacrifice their virgin daughter than to ever vote for a Democrat... and vice versa.
Example: Bush has a 29% approval rating. Let's say that the 29% translates into 29% of the popular votes. all you need to do is lock in 22% of the rest of us and you win... 51 to 49.
Granted, that 29% are the ones who Tina Fey said, "Believes that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church one Sunday"... but, still... it's 29%.

Abookamongstthemany

inmytree wrote:

ok...

also, I'm glad you can see that I'm not steering anyone away from voting 3rd party...but you have to admit, voting 3rd party can have consequences.....

I'm just saying...that's all...:)

Just as you can say that voting for these two ineffectual and corrupt parties has had it's consequences....


just sayin' :)

Cosmo

One other thing... I think 1988 was a good time for a Third Party to arise. Bush(41) vs. Dukakis. And 1992, Bush(41) vs. Clinton.
But, i personally felt that 2000 was too important to demo out a Third Party (sorry). Why? Because there was the emminent seating of at least one Supreme Court seat... possibly up to 3. That was my fear... the Religious Christian Right seating Supreme Court Justices who would argue in making this nation a Christian Theocracy.
And it's not anti-Christian... if it were leaning towards a Jewish State or a Muslim Theocracy or a Scientology Theocracy... I'd feel the same way. I believe in the seperation of Church and State... ANY Church and State.

Abookamongstthemany

Cosmo wrote:

One other thing... I think 1988 was a good time for a Third Party to arise. Bush(41) vs. Dukakis. And 1992, Bush(41) vs. Clinton.
But, i personally felt that 2000 was too important to demo out a Third Party (sorry). Why? Because there was the emminent seating of at least one Supreme Court seat... possibly up to 3. That was my fear... the Religious Christian Right seating Supreme Court Justices who would argue in making this nation a Christian Theocracy.
And it's not anti-Christian... if it were leaning towards a Jewish State or a Muslim Theocracy or a Scientology Theocracy... I'd feel the same way. I believe in the seperation of Church and State... ANY Church and State.

But we can't keep voting in fear. We have every opportunity as a nation to vote for people who would do a waaaaaaay better job than the parties and the people within them we currently elect time and time again.

The two parties rely on the population to think they have no other choice except to vote for them. So they essentially get away with murder, pandering and not representing their constituents year after year. Their answer: 'At least I'm not as bad as this guy' in other words 'At least I'm slightly better than shit.' Meh, save it. I'm at my breaking point and will no longer allow myself to be part of what I see as a HUGE problem in this country...apathy, indifference and an abandonment of things I hold dear.

SilverSeed

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

None of this should matter. People should be encouraged to vote for who best represents their views....not whomever the horrid ineffectual two party system puts out there for us to choose from. Democracy is about having a say in a society and how it will be ran. I'll be damned if others are going to choose what my chance to have a say will be. I'm not voting for numbers, I'm voting for ideas. I'm not voting for the most money, I'm voting for the most deserving in my eyes.

If you have centerist views then a centerist third party works for you...if not then look for someone who better fits your ideals.

Generally you're correct, and I have no argument.

But polarize it more. Let's say we knew exactly what W would do in the next 4-8 years in 2000. And let's say there's a viable Dem and a viable 3rd that leans left (just as in 2000). Now, democratically speaking, of course you can vote for whomever you choose. But if you know that voting for the 3rd party may have the slimmest chance of knocking the Dem out, would you still vote for the 3rd?

I have a real hard time with this, because I completely agree with your post. At the same time though, I cannot imagine this country led by McCain (well, I can, it's been the last 8 years and I'm sick of it). If Hilldog or O8ama were to start a 3rd party campaign because they didn't get the nomination you can bet they'd take more Dems with them than Repubs. Would that scenario change the way you thought about things?

SilverSeed

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

But we can't keep voting in fear. We have every opportunity as a nation to vote for people who would do a waaaaaaay better job than the parties and the people within we currently elect time and time again.

The two parties rely on the population to think they have no other choice except to vote for them. So they essentially get away with murder, pandering and not representing their constituents year after year. Their answer: 'At least of not as bad as this guy' in other words 'At least I'm slightly better than shit.' Meh, save it. I'm at my breaking point and will no longer allow myself to be part of what I see as a HUGE problem in this country...apathy, indifference and an abandonment of things I hold dear.

Pretty much answered my question. And before I posted it. Well done.

Hoon

They keep mentioning the Supreme Court seats every election.

There is also the excuse being used by Dems for why they backed down after their victory in 2006 to "End the War".

Always Tiptoeing to the next election.

Tiptoes Tiptoes Tiptoes

norm

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

But we can't keep voting in fear. We have every opportunity as a nation to vote for people who would do a waaaaaaay better job than the parties and the people within them we currently elect time and time again.

The two parties rely on the population to think they have no other choice except to vote for them. So they essentially get away with murder, pandering and not representing their constituents year after year. Their answer: 'At least I'm not as bad as this guy' in other words 'At least I'm slightly better than shit.' Meh, save it. I'm at my breaking point and will no longer allow myself to be part of what I see as a HUGE problem in this country...apathy, indifference and an abandonment of things I hold dear.

so eloquent.....thanks abook....i've been thinking this since 1992....:)

Cosmo

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

But we can't keep voting in fear. We have every opportunity as a nation to vote for people who would do a waaaaaaay better job than the parties and the people within them we currently elect time and time again.

The two parties rely on the population to think they have no other choice except to vote for them. So they essentially get away with murder, pandering and not representing their constituents year after year. Their answer: 'At least I'm not as bad as this guy' in other words 'At least I'm slightly better than shit.' Meh, save it. I'm at my breaking point and will no longer allow myself to be part of what I see as a HUGE problem in this country...apathy, indifference and an abandonment of things I hold dear.

...
Trust me... you'll have to look far and wide to find anyone that loves America more than me. And yes... America is flawed... and it's political system is a joke. But, right now... it's all we have. And yes, it's a choice between shit or crap... death by weed whacker or bolt cutters. But it comes down to who you believe will do the LEAST amount of harm to our nation. It's a terrible situation that we, as voters, help to perpetuate.
...
And the change doesn't come from the White House... it comes from Congress. What americans need to do is fire their Representatives. If I had a 12% job approval rating... I'd be out of a job. But, we keep hiring these fools.. then, we complain about them.
Voters need to send a message. Fire the incumbant... I don't care who is holding that seat... Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, Senator McCain, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and anyone currently in the House. Juist don't vote for any incumbant... vote for anyone else.
I can guarantee you... that if this ever happens... just once... where the American voter finally says, "YOU ARE FIRED!!! NOW, GET THE HELL OUT!!!"... that's all it would take to make those fuckers shake in their shoes and get shit done. and it would reverberate all the way through the White House.

Hoon

Cosmo wrote:

...
Trust me... you'll have to look far and wide to find anyone that loves America more than me. And yes... America is flawed... and it's political system is a joke. But, right now... it's all we have. And yes, it's a choice between shit or crap... death by weed whacker or bolt cutters. But it comes down to who you believe will do the LEAST amount of harm to our nation. It's a terrible situation that we, as voters, help to perpetuate.
...
And the change doesn't come from the White House... it comes from Congress. What americans need to do is fire their Representatives. If I had a 12% job approval rating... I'd be out of a job. But, we keep hiring these fools.. then, we complain about them.
Voters need to send a message. Fire the incumbant... I don't care who is holding that seat... Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, Senator McCain, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and anyone currently in the House. Juist don't vote for any incumbant... vote for anyone else.
I can guarantee you... that if this ever happens... just once... where the American voter finally says, "YOU ARE FIRED!!! NOW, GET THE HELL OUT!!!"... that's all it would take to make those fuckers shake in their shoes and get shit done. and it would reverberate all the way through the White House.

Yep, you seem to understand things.

I'm glad you mention taking over Congress, everyone focuses on the Presidency when the win can come from somewhere else.

Danny Boy

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I prefer Gore over Bush but Nader over Gore....is that okay with you?

By all means Nader would have been preferable. Common ground.

Cosmo

Hoon wrote:

They keep mentioning the Supreme Court seats every election.

There is also the excuse being used by Dems for why they backed down after their victory in 2006 to "End the War".

Always Tiptoeing to the next election.

Tiptoes Tiptoes Tiptoes

..
No... not in every election. have you heard anything about it in this election?
...
In 2000, there were 3 ancient seats in the Court. Rehnquist, Stevens and Kennedy. Stevens (age 88) and Kennedy (age 84) are still seated. I was shocked when O'Connor dropped out. It was VERY likely that 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices would have been George W. Bush appointees, including the Chief Justice.
That may not scare you... it scares me. But, it should at least... creep you out.

Hoon

Cosmo wrote:

..
No... not in every election. have you heard anything about it in this election?
...
In 2000, there were 3 ancient seats in the Court. Rehnquist, Stevens and Kennedy. Stevens (age 88) and Kennedy (age 84) are still seated. I was shocked when O'Connor dropped out. It was VERY likely that 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices would have been George W. Bush appointees, including the Chief Justice.
That may not scare you... it scares me. But, it should at least... creep you out.

Not as much as in 2000, but when talk about third party folks is on the radio and also with friends I've heard it mentioned a few times.

I'm creeped out by pretty much everything in our broken system. 8o)

Its hard for many of us to stay involved.

SilverSeed

Cosmo wrote:

..
No... not in every election. have you heard anything about it in this election?
...
In 2000, there were 3 ancient seats in the Court. Rehnquist, Stevens and Kennedy. Stevens (age 88) and Kennedy (age 84) are still seated. I was shocked when O'Connor dropped out. It was VERY likely that 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices would have been George W. Bush appointees, including the Chief Justice.
That may not scare you... it scares me. But, it should at least... creep you out.

Just saw an article today on CNN where McCain was talking about getting more conservative with the supreme court. It will be a talking point eventually in this race. It's one of the most terrifying aspects, and I'm so glad W didn't get the 4 you mentioned. But if McCain wins and gets to fill the seats you pointed out, we could have a very, very scary couple of decades.