Other parties...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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

My econ professor in college was a Reaganite. He would have argued that money can never be 'wasted' unless you burn it. If it sits in a deposit account, it adds to your banks ability to engage in interbank transactions. If you spend it, someone else gets it, stimulating economic activity.

I buy it. No such thing as money wasted. My only disagreement would be with the burning exception. If you burn money, you reduce the money supply and drive up the value of all remaining dollars!

[Peikko 1,575]

Fair enough, I'll run with 'foolish spending' then. Yes, some people profit from this foolish spending, mostly advertising companies. Is it the job of presidential candidates to finance the advertising industry? I would say a big fat NO to that.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

I think a vote for Nader is very naive. I have voted for the Green Party many times in Ireland, where we have PR, because I knew that my second preference, and for that matter, my 15th preference would be counted. In this system, you are simply not participating if you vote for the third option. In reality there is no third party, only third candidates for president. Which brings me to my point.

What I don't understand, is that I see a genuine appitite for more choice. Yet the only people who put themselves up for that choice do so at the time they are most unlikely to win, the presidential election. If they wanted to provide the people of america with a genuine choice they would start a party, or at the very least an alliance of several independant activists/politicians. All they would need would be 10 or so congressmen, to really be the brokers of power. For instance 11 congressmen would have changed the outcome of the bailout. Surely this would be a more sincere effort to make changes to how the country is run. Running for president in an election you know you won't even come close to being a contender, is not providing anyone a voice, more than mot showing up is a choice.

[Jenn! 918]

I think a vote for Nader is very naive. I have voted for the Green Party many times in Ireland, where we have PR, because I knew that my second preference, and for that matter, my 15th preference would be counted. In this system, you are simply not participating if you vote for the third option. In reality there is no third party, only third candidates for president. Which brings me to my point.

What I don't understand, is that I see a genuine appitite for more choice. Yet the only people who put themselves up for that choice do so at the time they are most unlikely to win, the presidential election. If they wanted to provide the people of america with a genuine choice they would start a party, or at the very least an alliance of several independant activists/politicians. All they would need would be 10 or so congressmen, to really be the brokers of power. For instance 11 congressmen would have changed the outcome of the bailout. Surely this would be a more sincere effort to make changes to how the country is run. Running for president in an election you know you won't even come close to being a contender, is not providing anyone a voice, more than mot showing up is a choice.

How else would you suggest those of us who are dissatisfied with our choices make it known? If everyone keeps voting for the better of two evils, how will it be communicated that the two-party system is no longer what the country wants?

Again a catch-22.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Jenn!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Jenn, I'd do it by contributing money and manpower to a third party candidate of your choice. But at the ballot, exercise your right in a manner that minimizes the chance of a candidate less preferred winning against a candidate that is more preferred.

[Jenn! 918]

Jenn, I'd do it by contributing money and manpower to a third party candidate of your choice. But at the ballot, exercise your right in a manner that minimizes the chance of a candidate less preferred winning against a candidate that is more preferred.

I understand the sentiment, but it just doesn't seem right to me. Maybe if I lived in a swing state, it would be a tougher decision. But as a MA resident, I find it perfectly reasonable to vote for who I really want.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

I think a vote for Nader is very naive. I have voted for the Green Party many times in Ireland, where we have PR, because I knew that my second preference, and for that matter, my 15th preference would be counted. In this system, you are simply not participating if you vote for the third option. In reality there is no third party, only third candidates for president. Which brings me to my point.

What I don't understand, is that I see a genuine appitite for more choice. Yet the only people who put themselves up for that choice do so at the time they are most unlikely to win, the presidential election. If they wanted to provide the people of america with a genuine choice they would start a party, or at the very least an alliance of several independant activists/politicians. All they would need would be 10 or so congressmen, to really be the brokers of power. For instance 11 congressmen would have changed the outcome of the bailout. Surely this would be a more sincere effort to make changes to how the country is run. Running for president in an election you know you won't even come close to being a contender, is not providing anyone a voice, more than mot showing up is a choice.

How else would you suggest those of us who are dissatisfied with our choices make it known? If everyone keeps voting for the better of two evils, how will it be communicated that the two-party system is no longer what the country wants?

Again a catch-22.

but the two party system is not enshrined in any legislation, there is simply no other party which has any power. You can't go from almost no power to the highest office in the land. It can't and probably shouldn't happen. I would try to support independant candidates at a local level, and encourage those I support to seek higher office.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That's a good point. In MA it really doesn't make a difference.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

Jenn, I'd do it by contributing money and manpower to a third party candidate of your choice. But at the ballot, exercise your right in a manner that minimizes the chance of a candidate less preferred winning against a candidate that is more preferred.

I understand the sentiment, but it just doesn't seem right to me. Maybe if I lived in a swing state, it would be a tougher decision. But as a MA resident, I find it perfectly reasonable to vote for who I really want.

but you are saying, it's ok that I use my vote in this way because it won't be counted? If you lived in florida you would vote differently?

[Peikko 1,575]

I think a vote for Nader is very naive. I have voted for the Green Party many times in Ireland, where we have PR, because I knew that my second preference, and for that matter, my 15th preference would be counted. In this system, you are simply not participating if you vote for the third option. In reality there is no third party, only third candidates for president. Which brings me to my point.

What I don't understand, is that I see a genuine appitite for more choice. Yet the only people who put themselves up for that choice do so at the time they are most unlikely to win, the presidential election. If they wanted to provide the people of america with a genuine choice they would start a party, or at the very least an alliance of several independant activists/politicians. All they would need would be 10 or so congressmen, to really be the brokers of power. For instance 11 congressmen would have changed the outcome of the bailout. Surely this would be a more sincere effort to make changes to how the country is run. Running for president in an election you know you won't even come close to being a contender, is not providing anyone a voice, more than mot showing up is a choice.

How else would you suggest those of us who are dissatisfied with our choices make it known? If everyone keeps voting for the better of two evils, how will it be communicated that the two-party system is no longer what the country wants?

Again a catch-22.

but the two party system is not enshrined in any legislation, there is simply no other party which has any power. You can't go from almost no power to the highest office in the land. It can't and probably shouldn't happen. I would try to support independant candidates at a local level, and encourage those I support to seek higher office.

If Ms Palin can do it, I think almost anyone can - well, if you don't mind having a hand shoved up your ####### anyway

Ok, I know you really mean someone from a political party with no power - not an individual with no power from within one of the powerful parties, but still...

Edited September 30, 2008 by Madame Cleo

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

BTW in Ireland, people in marginal parties have held a lot of sway over the years. Because they were in elected office and held a vote in the government. Running for an office you know you can't win, but not running an office where you would actually have a vote, just makes no sense to me.

[Jenn! 918]

Jenn, I'd do it by contributing money and manpower to a third party candidate of your choice. But at the ballot, exercise your right in a manner that minimizes the chance of a candidate less preferred winning against a candidate that is more preferred.

I understand the sentiment, but it just doesn't seem right to me. Maybe if I lived in a swing state, it would be a tougher decision. But as a MA resident, I find it perfectly reasonable to vote for who I really want.

but you are saying, it's ok that I use my vote in this way because it won't be counted? If you lived in florida you would vote differently?

I'm not crazy - I know that Nader doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in winning. My vote in MA is little more than symbolic, so I want it to mean something to me. If I were in FL, my vote may be more than symbolic, in which case I might have to make a difficult decision.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

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.

Well, there was (US) Reform Party led by Ross Perot--similar to Canada's National Party, deservedly defunct since 1993, led by Mel Hurtig (both cases, party represent/ed self-appointed leader's ideologies rather than reverse)

Nader has great ideas?

Then you have Constitution and Libertarian Parties (Bob Barr), as well as Independents (I'll take that to mean "no party") candidates...

[Saddle Bronc 124]

but the two party system is not enshrined in any legislation, there is simply no other party which has any power. You can't go from almost no power to the highest office in the land. It can't and probably shouldn't happen. I would try to support independant candidates at a local level, and encourage those I support to seek higher office.

In fact, US system does not even assume a 2-party, unlike the Whitehall-based one (surprise--this is why elections which do not yield decisive majorities in such countries can lead to deadlocks, small parties' effective dominance of coalitions, ...)

[SpiritAlight 1]

I need to and will go back and read these last few posts.

I got stuck on Jenn's video and have watched more on YouTube.

Ones on Sarah and the "witch doctor", ones on Ron Paul and how he predicted the collapse over a year ago, etc etc.

That deep rabbit hole...

Oooou my aching head....

However, head-ache aside, Ron and Ralph have good heads on their shoulders, or so it seems.

This supposed two party system is what the media and the two parties have brain washed us all to believe.

And I thought I could not be brain washed.

Damn them!

Hey, i only listen to NPR and read/watch stuff on line and all of you guys...and then listening to this little video today...

a huge light bulb went on:

WHY WERE NOT ALL THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AT THE PUBLIC DEBATE?!

Oh, I miss Canada, even with all its quirks.

Yeah yeah, say it.

Bahaha!

Edited September 30, 2008 by SpiritAlight