Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

However, not this election...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • However, not this election...

    That's a phrase that I seem to see every four years. Everyone seems to agree that the two major parties are terrible, but every time someone mentions voting for a third party, the standard reply is "not this election, this election is too important to throw your vote away" and the problem gets kicked down the road for four more years. Just like surgery, there's never a good time for it but it has to be done.

  • #2
    This election year we could see a Third party candidate get more then 5% of the vote. One poll has Gary Johnson getting 10% of the vote.

    Comment


    • #3
      Then it HAS to start right now! That would give us four years to build an infrastructure for the party.

      Even then it would take a decade or so to make it a viable player.

      Anything is better than this.

      GG
      "The will of a section rooted in self interest, should not outweigh the vital interests of a whole people." -Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain-

      "Fanatics of any sort are dangerous." -GG-

      Comment


      • #4
        In 2007, Scotland decided to give the SNP a chance. After four years of Minority Government, they broke the system and won a majority in 2011, wiped the floor with the opposition in 2015 for Westminster, and won last month's Holyrood election handsomely (59 out of 73 constituencies isn't bad going) but just short of a majority in a parliamentary system designed to prevent such things.

        The USA seems to have no appetite for a third party, despite the similarities between the two existing ones, and the glaring gaps in the Centre, and on the Left, but maybe Americans like Right-Wing politics.
        Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

        Comment


        • #5
          Clinton and Trump will split 95-99% of the vote.


          The 2012 election was the perfect storm for the Libertarian Party. They had everything going for them and Gary Johnson was able to pull off 1,275,971 votes. That’s over 250,000 more votes than the party received in 1980, however, it’s still not better. In 1980 the party earned 1.06% which is still a higher percentage of the vote than the 0.99% they got this time.

          After forty years the Libertarian Party has only once broken 1% of the national vote and only once earned more than 1 million votes. They’ve also proven incapable of repeating that success in subsequent elections. Their 1980 success wasn’t built on and their 1996 candidate wasn’t able to improve when he ran again four years later.

          https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-...past-40-years/

          "If wishes were horses..."
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            We got to come up with a catchy name and policy profile.

            How about the Centrist Party? It's to represent the majority of the people who dislike the fanatics on both the other parties...
            Credo quia absurdum.


            Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

            Comment


            • #7
              Our system of government "is hostile terrain for viable third parties"...
              Why the Third-Party Dream Remains Just That
              By Scott Conroy - December 12, 2013

              For as long as the United States has maintained its two-party system of government, reformers have dreamed of upending the status quo.

              From Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party of 1912 to Ross Perot's 1992 independent run for the White House, a smattering of real contenders in the last century pieced together personality-driven campaigns that threatened to change everything.

              But those candidacies fell short, and time and again other efforts to establish lasting third-party movements have failed spectacularly.

              [...]

              As K. Sabeel Rahman -- a Reginald Lewis Fellow at Harvard Law School -- explained, candidates like Sarvis tend to do better in countries that have proportional representation, multi-member districts, or parliamentary systems, since third parties can actually win seats and gain real political power in such systems.

              "Our winner-take-all electoral system is hostile terrain for viable third parties,” explained Rahman, whose area of interest is democratic institutional reform. “In a system where there is only one elected representative per district, where that representative is chosen based on winning the most votes, and where the executive is elected separately from the legislature, the odds of winning actual political power are stacked in favor of big-tent parties.”

              [...]

              Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...#ixzz4Ap93AttI
              Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                Clinton and Trump will split 95-99% of the vote.


                The 2012 election was the perfect storm for the Libertarian Party. They had everything going for them and Gary Johnson was able to pull off 1,275,971 votes. That’s over 250,000 more votes than the party received in 1980, however, it’s still not better. In 1980 the party earned 1.06% which is still a higher percentage of the vote than the 0.99% they got this time.

                After forty years the Libertarian Party has only once broken 1% of the national vote and only once earned more than 1 million votes. They’ve also proven incapable of repeating that success in subsequent elections. Their 1980 success wasn’t built on and their 1996 candidate wasn’t able to improve when he ran again four years later.

                https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-...past-40-years/

                "If wishes were horses..."
                Just puts it into perspective - our winning party got just under 1,060,000 votes - but we have an electorate of around 4 million. I'll bet there are US districts (or even cities) with more people than that.
                Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by the ace View Post
                  Just puts it into perspective - our winning party got just under 1,060,000 votes - but we have an electorate of around 4 million. I'll bet there are US districts (or even cities) with more people than that.
                  Yeah... But we probably have less kilts than y'all do...

                  Note of Disclaimer: I vote Republican even though I consider myself to be a libertarian and I do own a kilt.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    So long as Hillary is not elected, I could vote third party. That is, if it's obvious she'll lose my state then I very well might vote for a third party instead.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      So long as Hillary is not elected, I could vote third party. That is, if it's obvious she'll lose my state then I very well might vote for a third party instead.
                      I'd vote for a third party in a heartbeat, if I thought they had the best chance to defeat the Democrat. I would have voted for Perot in 1992 and 1996 if I thought he was the most likely candidate to defeat Bill Clinton. I'd vote for Gary Johnson if I thought he had the best chance to defeat Hillary.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary .

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                          A vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary .
                          Blah, blah blah. Another standard phrase heard every four years, usually by the underdog's party.
                          Why do you spend more time on the NA forum than the European one?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                            Blah, blah blah. Another standard phrase heard every four years, usually by the underdog's party.
                            Why do you spend more time on the NA forum than the European one?
                            Mathematically, a third party vote is a vote for your least favorite of the Democrat and Republican candidates. It's just basic arithmetic.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                              I'd vote for a third party in a heartbeat, if I thought they had the best chance to defeat the Democrat. I would have voted for Perot in 1992 and 1996 if I thought he was the most likely candidate to defeat Bill Clinton. I'd vote for Gary Johnson if I thought he had the best chance to defeat Hillary.
                              Doc, Mrs Clinton has no chance to win Texas, you have no reason not to vote Third Party.
                              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                              “To talk of many things:
                              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                              Of cabbages—and kings—
                              And why the sea is boiling hot—
                              And whether pigs have wings.”
                              ― Lewis Carroll

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X