those dirty 3rd parties stealing votes...

12357…14

Comments

  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    I just looked it up and here it is either 2% of the entire national vote or 5% of the vote in the ridings you have people running in. How exactly does it work for you guys, since with our system you pretty much have to be in a party to do anything, but you can run for president on your own. I mean does a guy like Ralph Nader even belong to a real political party?

    He has been a member of the Greens and Reform party. But this year is running as an Independent to tackle election reform and ballot access.

    I'll have to look up the actual percentage it takes to get funding...
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Urban Hiker
    Urban Hiker Posts: 1,312
    jeffbr wrote:
    Who are the "we" in your idea? Most of the "we" who outnumber them are the the ones who put them there in the first place, unfortunately.

    If "we" really want change "we" don't need to strike. "We" just need to quite electing Hillary, Obama and/or McCain and the rest of the status quo.

    Good point. I keep forgetting most people are not as pissed off as I am. :o
    Not only that, but people hate taking responsibility for their mistakes. It's a wonder we've ever learned anything. :rolleyes:
    Walking can be a real trip
    ***********************
    "We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
    ***********************
    Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    He has been a member of the Greens and Reform party. But this year is running as an Independent to tackle election reform and ballot access.


    If he keeps jumping around all over the place every election, how can he really expect to build up any momentum (or put any of the funding he got in previous years as part of a party to good use)?
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    Urban Hiker wrote:
    Or, We are trying to eliminate a mortal threat. When police feel their lives are in danger they shoot to kill, not injure to later take to prison and teach them their lesson. - a flawed example I'm sure, but it's my way of saying that I feel our way of life is being threatened and that the threat needs to be eliminated.

    I like your "You're FIRED!" post much better.

    I'm saddened when people say "It's too late." Sudden turn arounds happen. (Hello, Patriot Act) I say, hope and WORK for the best. At this time, the three mainstream candidates are not addressing my concerns enough to earn my vote - not even close. I will always vote for the candidate I feel is best for the country. Even if my candidate does not win, I hope he has enough impact for those who are in office to take a look at his policies and consider adopting more of them.

    .....

    You know, if we could all participate in a general strike, politicians and corporations alike would stop and listen. They ARE dependent upon us and we outnumber them.
    ...
    What I meant to say... it is too late to be effective in this campaign. I mean, the General Election is only 6 months away.
    In my opinion... to make an impact in the status quo, you need to get a running start at it. Create strategies and convert them into tactical plans that are executable. A feasible deadline of this November is not doable.
    ...
    I think I'm going to start by letting my representatives know what I'm doing. and i'll submit comments to some of the political blogs. Those will be my initial baby steps. Maybe the word will get out... maybe it'll die... but, hopefully, by the 2010 mid-term elections... I won't be the only one.
    I call it my 'One Vote Revolution' a.k.a. "I Can't Take This Shit Any Longer!!!"
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    If he keeps jumping around all over the place every election, how can he really expect to build up any momentum (or put any of the funding he got in previous years as part of a party to good use)?


    Well, I like to think people are voting on the individual and not a party. That is another huge problem. Why does there even need to be political parties?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    jeffbr wrote:
    Who are the "we" in your idea? Most of the "we" who outnumber them are the the ones who put them there in the first place, unfortunately.

    If "we" really want change "we" don't need to strike. "We" just need to quite electing Hillary, Obama and/or McCain and the rest of the status quo.

    Exactly.

    It makes absolutely no sense to complain about a problem and keep contributing to it at the same time. Grrrrr that bugs the crap outta me!
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Urban Hiker
    Urban Hiker Posts: 1,312
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...

    ...
    I think I'm going to start by letting my representatives know what I'm doing. and i'll submit comments to some of the political blogs. Those will be my initial baby steps. Maybe the word will get out... maybe it'll die... but, hopefully, by the 2010 mid-term elections... I won't be the only one.
    I call it my 'One Vote Revolution' a.k.a. "I Can't Take This Shit Any Longer!!!"


    What an awesome idea. I've let Moveon.org know why I'm no longer interested in their emails, but I have not addressed some of my local media outlets in regards to their political biases and blatant exclusion of anything outside of the mainstream. I would expect that, at the very least, our most alternative paper here in Seattle to be open to people knowing all liberal options. However, it seems they are riding the Obama wagon. *sighs*

    Anywho, thanks for the inspiration. :)
    Walking can be a real trip
    ***********************
    "We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
    ***********************
    Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Urban Hiker wrote:
    What an awesome idea. I've let Moveon.org know why I'm no longer interested in their emails, but I have not addressed some of my local media outlets in regards to their political biases and blatant exclusion of anything outside of the mainstream. I would expect that, at the very least, our most alternative paper here in Seattle to be open to people knowing all liberal options. However, it seems they are riding the Obama wagon. *sighs*

    Anywho, thanks for the inspiration. :)


    Me too! I told Moveon to fuck off and it felt so good. :p

    And yeah, it is sad when the alternative outlets proposefully under report other campaigns because they have chosen to support Obama and have decided they think that's best for all of us. I thought these were the kinds of media outlets that championed choice over bias and claimed to be above steering the their coverage in only one direction. Sad really.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Well, I like to think people are voting on the individual and not a party. That is another huge problem. Why does there even need to be political parties?


    It is true in your guy's case you are voting for the person. But at the same time I would have to think there would be an advantage to sticking with the same party for every election, in that it shows consistency and gives you better recognition. Plus I would think some people might think that if someone can't decide which party they want to be aligned with then maybe they might not be so good at making other important decisions.

    Plus I would think that after one election with a certain party (say Nader with the Greens or whatever) you would have built up solid group of people campaign worker (both people who are there because they believe in the person and because they believe in the party). To me it would seem useful to go back to those people and build on what they had done in the past rather than ditching them and starting again with a whole new group.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    What I meant to say... it is too late to be effective in this campaign. I mean, the General Election is only 6 months away.
    In my opinion... to make an impact in the status quo, you need to get a running start at it. Create strategies and convert them into tactical plans that are executable. A feasible deadline of this November is not doable.
    ...
    I think I'm going to start by letting my representatives know what I'm doing. and i'll submit comments to some of the political blogs. Those will be my initial baby steps. Maybe the word will get out... maybe it'll die... but, hopefully, by the 2010 mid-term elections... I won't be the only one.
    I call it my 'One Vote Revolution' a.k.a. "I Can't Take This Shit Any Longer!!!"


    I am not trying to tell you what to do here, but if you feel so strongly about a certain candidate have you ever thought about volunteering to work for their campaign? I would think getting involved with a campaign, at least at the local level would have a far greater effect than posting on political blogs. I don't know how it works for you guys, but here it is pretty easy to volunteer at the local level for a riding association during election time (usually the candidates are looking for people). I am not trying to single you or anyone out, but I do see a lot of people online making all these comments about how changes need to be made and I wonder if any of them have actually made any effort other than posting on a message board.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    It is true in your guy's case you are voting for the person. But at the same time I would have to think there would be an advantage to sticking with the same party for every election, in that it shows consistency and gives you better recognition. Plus I would think some people might think that if someone can't decide which party they want to be aligned with then maybe they might not be so good at making other important decisions.

    Plus I would think that after one election with a certain party (say Nader with the Greens or whatever) you would have built up solid group of people campaign worker (both people who are there because they believe in the person and because they believe in the party). To me it would seem useful to go back to those people and build on what they had done in the past rather than ditching them and starting again with a whole new group.


    Nader has made strategical moves from parties to accomplish certain objectives.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Urban Hiker
    Urban Hiker Posts: 1,312
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    I am not trying to tell you what to do here, but if you feel so strongly about a certain candidate have you ever thought about volunteering to work for their campaign? I would think getting involved with a campaign, at least at the local level would have a far greater effect than posting on political blogs. I don't know how it works for you guys, but here it is pretty easy to volunteer at the local level for a riding association during election time (usually the candidates are looking for people). I am not trying to single you or anyone out, but I do see a lot of people online making all these comments about how changes need to be made and I wonder if any of them have actually made any effort other than posting on a message board.

    I'm disappointed in myself for waiting until my thirties to take a serious interest in politics. I have a lot of catching up to do. I'm starting by volunteering for Nader which fortunately puts me in contact with other groups that have my interest.
    Walking can be a real trip
    ***********************
    "We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
    ***********************
    Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    I am not trying to tell you what to do here, but if you feel so strongly about a certain candidate have you ever thought about volunteering to work for their campaign? I would think getting involved with a campaign, at least at the local level would have a far greater effect than posting on political blogs. I don't know how it works for you guys, but here it is pretty easy to volunteer at the local level for a riding association during election time (usually the candidates are looking for people). I am not trying to single you or anyone out, but I do see a lot of people online making all these comments about how changes need to be made and I wonder if any of them have actually made any effort other than posting on a message board.


    I've signed up to volunteer for Nader's campaign, as well
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    Danny Boy wrote:
    Nadert's presence on the ballot in 2000 sure served the people well. Other fashions to convey a message exist other than running for president. I'm not saying the media should be allowed to dictate who can and can't run, but until Perot had misgivings about running, he was a legitimate contender. I'd have no qualms supporting a non-party candidate as I am declared independent, but I wouldn't vote for somebody I knew was going to lose. Consider the circumstances our country faces right now. If a lefty, third party candidate causes a repeat of 2000 (which isn't going to happen) and McCain somehow won, you could thank him/her for 4 more years of Iraq, failed healthcare, a deepening chasm between classes, corporate pandering and this list goes on.... and on... and on....


    every single 3rd party candidate on the ballot in florida received more votes than the difference between gore and bush...so why is nader the only one singled out??

    you will get all those things at the end of your post w/ obama, as well
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    Danny Boy wrote:
    This is absolutely the best thought I've read in a while. Good insight and I confess I'm just as guilty as the next of getting in way too deep with the concept of the presidency versus the congressional representation that actually legislates.

    I'm not saying that thrid party candidates shouldn't seek the presidency, but when it becomes painfully evident that such a candidate is only going to win perhaps 1% of the vote, that 1% could be the difference between having somebody in office who is going to prolong war or end war, somebody who is going to seek affordable healthcare versus pandering to healthcare lobbysists.

    Al Gore did run a shitty campaign in 2000 ~ I don't disagree with that fact. Do you think if Nader knew what Bush's presidency would deliver, had he known then what he knows now, that he still would have ran? Gore's campaign might have been poorly carried out, but he wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq and he wouldn't have leveraged Medicare at the expense of taxpayers, amongst a mountain of other policies the Bush administration has created at the expense of people like me, you and the majority of Americans who aren't homeless or wealthy.

    Farfromglorified ~ I think Nader was fully aware when he ran that he had more in common with Gore than Bush in terms of policy and ideology. Hillary's campaign invoked negativity and many feel that she bears the bulk of responsibility for creating divisions in the woefully inept Democratic Party. John Edwards or Bill Richardson could be in Obama's position right now and I'd have the the same misgivings with the Clinton's.


    nader didn't run as intense a campaign in states that were close
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    Hoon wrote:
    Yeah, Randi Roads, who told off and hung up on Nader in 2004, was talking about Perot last night and doing much of the same thing.

    Could there be whispers of other strong well funded candidates entering the race?

    Perot got 19% in 1992 and beat Clinton in Utah where Bush actually won.
    27% 24% 43%

    Perot got 8% in 1996 with not being in the debate, spending less money. . .and I think this was the one where he dropped out temporary.

    Anyway, Randi was saying how he was "crazy" ..........."what were those pie charts all about. . .ha ha" ............and also said "Did he even get 4%"? ? ?

    I know she's more knowledgeable than that. . .Same old shit from her.

    I was proud to cast my first presidential vote for Ross Perot!

    me, too!!!!

    04 was the first time i voted major party...i got sucked into the fear and propaganda of 'anyone but bush!!!' and i remember everyone saying back then that we all could vote for whoever we wanted to next time, but this election was too important...now they are saying the same exact shit...we can't afford mccain so we MUST vote for the democrat!
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    inmytree wrote:
    however, history has shown, supporting 3rd party candidates may have unintended consequences...


    such as??
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    El_Kabong wrote:
    such as??

    call me kooky, but I'd be willing to bet, some who voted 3rd party in 2000 may have rethought their vote if they had any idea how bad bushy and company would be...thus, unintended consequences...

    and yes, gore should have done this, that, and the other...and yes, nader (and other 3rd party candidates) did not steal votes, and yes, those who voted 3rd party are seeking a change....but bush may have not been the change they were looking for...

    again, I'm not saying voting 3rd party should not happen, in fact, I say hooray for those who want to do so...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    like i've been saying ... all like minded peeps should all move to one state - take it one territory at a time ... forget the presidency, forget congress, one state at a time!
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    polaris wrote:
    like i've been saying ... all like minded peeps should all move to one state - take it one territory at a time ... forget the presidency, forget congress, one state at a time!

    not a bad idea...

    personally, I think folks like Nader should run for Congress first, then, perhaps move up to president...

    but that's just me...:)

Categories