US Politics..

[aidan80 9]

Vote third party!

Nader wouldn't be bad, in fact I think he'd be a good change for this place but.. he never really gets very far and some appear to think he just steals their votes? It looks like the big money makers get to the top and stay there?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Vote third party!

Nader wouldn't be bad, in fact I think he'd be a good change for this place but.. he never really gets very far and some appear to think he just steals their votes? It looks like the big money makers get to the top and stay there?

No, no. Nader doesn't "steal" any votes. Any votes he gets, he's earned. He deserves them. However, given the fact (yes, fact) that this election cycle has only two viable participants (D and R), any votes earned by Nader or La Riva or Barr are votes that could have (theoretically) gone to one of the two mainstream candidates. Emphasis on "could have" - voters can always just stay home.

In 1992, Bill Clinton won with only 43% of the popular vote. This was only possible due to a strong showing by a third party (or was he Independent?) candidate - Ross Perot, who got almost 19% of the popular vote (but nothing in the EC).

In 2000, Nader got about 3% of the popular vote. The difference between GWB and Gore was approximately zero.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

ps. In fact, I think we may be better off with a preference system in our ballot. Instead of just voting for one candidate, if we let voters state their preferences in order, we may not end up with a situation where the outcome is one that was not desired by a majority of the electorate in any given state. It is concievable that under such a situation, Gore would have easily won Florida (how many Nader voters would have put GWB as their 2nd choice?) in 2000 and GHWB would easily have won the WH in 1992 (Perot voters tended to be conservative).

[aidan80 9]

Vote third party!

Nader wouldn't be bad, in fact I think he'd be a good change for this place but.. he never really gets very far and some appear to think he just steals their votes? It looks like the big money makers get to the top and stay there?

No, no. Nader doesn't "steal" any votes. Any votes he gets, he's earned. He deserves them. However, given the fact (yes, fact) that this election cycle has only two viable participants (D and R), any votes earned by Nader or La Riva or Barr are votes that could have (theoretically) gone to one of the two mainstream candidates. Emphasis on "could have" - voters can always just stay home.

In 1992, Bill Clinton won with only 43% of the popular vote. This was only possible due to a strong showing by a third party (or was he Independent?) candidate - Ross Perot, who got almost 19% of the popular vote (but nothing in the EC).

In 2000, Nader got about 3% of the popular vote. The difference between GWB and Gore was approximately zero.

Interesting...

[luckytxn 2,264]

What is the story with American politics? I mean.. I'm trying to understand how they can all be so vicious to each other e.g. Obama Vs Hillary yet appear all nice and happy? I mean bush supposedly did this to mccain back in 2000? Why so vicious then so fake "nice" to each other and the public?

Why are there only two choices, I know there are more than two choices but they get pushed out right away. It's like all the "little guys" don't stand a chance? I wonder how many out there would prefer a 3rd or even a 4th actual choice instead of the two?

One of the reasons (and there are others) is that when a third party idea hits home with Americans then one of the two major parties comes along and usurps the idea as their own.

An example is the Green party. The green party took just enough votes from a few states that lost the electoral college for the Socialists (Dems). Following that the Socialists then have have taken over the Green party ideas as their own. The last election showed the Green party not coming near to what they had before done.

It also happened with many other parties that have came along in history. And even we have witnessed recently the immigration debate. At first both parties positioned them selves and to an extent still are. So far the Socialists seem to be moving ahead on usurping the ideas but their caution as the American public are so ready to backlash any that try to be too open to the idea of amnesty. Not too surprisingly the hispanic vote is very conservative in outlook and the Reps does very well with that vote. It is a minefield though.

Edited September 18, 2008 by luckytxn

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The green party took just enough votes from a few states that lost the electoral college for the Socialists (Dems). Following that the Socialists then have have taken over the Green party ideas as their own.

Don't look now, but your boy Dubya just nationalized AIG.

And the Dems are the socialists? :rofl:

I think you got punked by one of your own

[rocks 494]

I seen the smear campaigns in British politics, but never on this scale I don't think?! We didn't exactly have "normal" politics back home things where very one side or the other no middle ground but not this? The heavy duty censorship in the "land of the free" is very odd.. They really need Channel 4 over here

well we are talking about a country that is the champion at putting on a show, whatever kind it may be, so if the media is going to go overboard anywhere, it's going to be there.

i'm gonna miss the bbc and channel 4

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

well we are talking about a country that is the champion at putting on a show, whatever kind it may be...

Jerry!Jerry!Jerry!Jerry!Jerry!Jerry!

[rocks 494]

well we are talking about a country that is the champion at putting on a show, whatever kind it may be...

Jerry!Jerry!Jerry!Jerry!Jerry!Jerry!

lol, i was thinking more about sports or music events, but that works

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

well we are talking about a country that is the champion at putting on a show, whatever kind it may be...

Jerry!Jerry!Jerry!Jerry!Jerry!Jerry!

lol, i was thinking more about sports or music events, but that works

When I think of American-style excess (mind you now, I like it, I ain't hatin') chants of Jerry! spring to mind!

[luckytxn 2,264]

Springer does rock.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Springer does rock.

[rocks 494]

When I think of American-style excess (mind you now, I like it, I ain't hatin') chants of Jerry! spring to mind!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i find the censorship on tv quite odd too, i don't get that part

It's for the chil'run

What I love is that they'll show a graphically violent movie in the middle of the day (when children could be watching), but apparently by blurring out the nipples on a pair of exposed breasts, the censors highly important job of "protecting" the kids from innappropriate content is now done.

[bgreed 0]

The better system would be to go back to the pre 1900 system where you ran for president or vice president and you could end up with say a Republican president and a Democrat for vice president. Really the only way a third party will ever get a viable candidate in the or near the white house. Of course this why now both president and vice president run on the same ticket. Don't want anybody shaking up the status quo.