Other parties...

[SpiritAlight 1]

Hello Wonder-Full VJers,

This is an invitation to all of you to talk about someone other than John and Obama....oh and Biden and Palin.

So, have at it!

Ralph Nader has some great ideas.

What about the Green Party?

Talk to me....

It does not mean you are voting for the person/party you are talking about.

[*JG* 2]

There are other parties????????

Joking.

[SpiritAlight 1]

There are other parties????????

Joking.

This is what I'm talkin' about!

[pedroh 21]

vote for pedro

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Maybe there are other parties but to make it count I say: vote not for the BEST, but just don't vote for the WORST.

In my humble opinion, in the political arena there is no perfect politician nor perfect agenda.

Edited September 30, 2008 by GueraYTavo

[Jenn! 918]

Maybe there are other parties but to make it count I say: vote not for the BEST, but just don't vote for the WORST.

I have to completely disagree. I think the two-party system is destroying the country. I think you should vote for the person who best represents your ideals and who is focused on the types of issues that matter to you.

I will be voting for Nader.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

~ Ron Paul

I liked this discussion with Nader and Ron Paul on CNN about voting third party:

ETA: Oh, and Nader isn't running for the Green Party - they have a different candidate. He is running Independent.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Jenn!

[almaty 19]

vote for pedro

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Voting third party would work fine if we had a runoff election system or a system in which voters stated preferences, in order, on their ballots.

But we don't. We have the system we do and in this system, when a third-party candidate gets a substantial number of votes, a candidate preferred by fewer can win over a candidate preferred by more.

To illustrate: Let's take a recent North Carolina poll in which McCain gets 45%, Obama gets 47% and Bob Barr gets 3%. Assume these are actual results. Further assume that 80% of Barr voters in NC would have voted McCain if Barr wasn't on the ballot.

Under our current system, Obama wins North Carolina.

If we had a runoff system, Barr would get eliminated and Obama and McCain would run again. And in the runoff, McCain would get 45+2.4=47.4%, to Obama's 47%. McCain would win.

If we had a preference based system, results would be similar. 80% of Barr voters would have stated McCain as their 2nd preference, and McCain would have won those votes as well once Barr got knocked out on the first round of counting.

The latter two outcomes are fair - the candidate who wins (McCain) is preferred by more North Carolinians than Obama is. However, under our current system, Obama would win - thus making Barr's presence on the ballot a "spoiler" in the truest sense of the term.

[Jenn! 918]

Voting third party would work fine if we had a runoff election system or a system in which voters stated preferences, in order, on their ballots.

But we don't. We have the system we do and in this system, when a third-party candidate gets a substantial number of votes, a candidate preferred by fewer can win over a candidate preferred by more.

To illustrate: Let's take a recent North Carolina poll in which McCain gets 45%, Obama gets 47% and Bob Barr gets 3%. Assume these are actual results. Further assume that 80% of Barr voters in NC would have voted McCain if Barr wasn't on the ballot.

Under our current system, Obama wins North Carolina.

If we had a runoff system, Barr would get eliminated and Obama and McCain would run again. And in the runoff, McCain would get 45+2.4=47.4%, to Obama's 47%. McCain would win.

If we had a preference based system, results would be similar. 80% of Barr voters would have stated McCain as their 2nd preference, and McCain would have won those votes as well once Barr got knocked out on the first round of counting.

The latter two outcomes are fair - the candidate who wins (McCain) is preferred by more North Carolinians than Obama is. However, under our current system, Obama would win - thus making Barr's presence on the ballot a "spoiler" in the truest sense of the term.

FWIW, one of Nader's proposals is to switch over to a runoff system. Kind of a catch-22 there, I guess.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Jenn!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A runoff system would work well, although my personal preference would be a preferential ballot system. It would eliminate the need for a do-over.

[Jenn! 918]

A runoff system would work well, although my personal preference would be a preferential ballot system. It would eliminate the need for a do-over.

Yes, Nader supports instant runoff, which is the same as preferential ballot.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Cool.

[Peikko 1,575]

That kind of reform gets my vote!

However, I would also like a much more radical reform of the presidential electoral process.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That kind of reform gets my vote!

However, I would also like a much more radical reform of the presidential electoral process.

I think the size of the Electoral College needs to be increased threefold and then EV's need to be reapportioned based on the 2010 census. This will (I believe) reduce the influence of those vast but largely unpopulated states that today have an undue amount of influence on election outcomes.

I would not support switching to a popular vote system, however. I want those states influence reduced, not eliminated

[Peikko 1,575]

I was talking about taking 2 years to elect a president and all the waste of money that that entails.

I also agree with whoever said that the lobbyists should be eradicated completely. It's a crappy system which may have come about for legitimate reasons, but it sure isn't doing anyone any favours now (well, apart from the lobbyists).