Welcome new members!

[Thomas-n-Elena 0]

I like the quote too.

Slim - A lot was said and done not just by me but many other folks in the area. It got swept under by the local DA who decided it just wasnt worth the trouble. In a nonrelated incident the local police did spend 2 months trying to get a legitimate massage parlor shut down. All it took was a deal with a hooker who posed as a masseuse and then offered the cop when he came in a special service. The manager gets arrested, the person who offered the service and everyone else was let go, big huge article in the paper along with the managers picture, no charges filed she was released because a bunch of people made a lot of noise about entrapment. No apology given to the manager who was unaware of what was happening until they arrested her. I live on the far right side of a blue state and the christian right conservative nutjobs are ruining a perfectly good place to live. Believe me they have tried to shut down the local indoor firing range because according to reports they allow straw buyers to purchase handguns for criminals.

We have gone so far past the original intention of the founding fathers the constitution and the laws it helped inact have been warped by political one sidedness and special interests. I wish they could figure out a way to get the money out of washington dc, we are turning into a corporate run state and once the corporations take over we are all doomed. Ill have to run to canada and pray the canadiens can win the cup. The trouble with creating a reasonable standard is we need reasonable people to come up with it and there arent any reasonable people in dc. Sure you can try and run as an independent but it just wont work until they create an atmosphere where anyone can legitimately get elected to any office without have to give a zeig heil to the left or the right. If most of the people in this country are in the middle(and I believe most are), why cant there be a repulocrat party that is just about ideas and making things work for the benefit of everyone here. Just a thought.

By the way my wife made a chocolate cake today and its delicious. YUMMY

[slim 1,525]

I wonder if the DA is appointed by elected officials?

I'm with you, we need to get "normal" people elected to office. I can't believe there's an actual job of "politician." There should only be normal people who are elected to office for a little while.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince Americans they had to vote democrat or republican.

[Thomas-n-Elena 0]

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince Americans they had to vote democrat or republican.

Good adaptation of a quote from a movie. To think its been over 100 years since a 3rd party was given a fair chance in an election. The democrats and republicans have done a masterful job of plunking people into two categories. Its like that episode of the simpsons when the two politicians are exactly alike and they are aliens. When a person stands up and says Im going to vote for a 3rd party candidate, they both laugh and reply go ahead and throw away your vote. The last scene is the entire population is enslaved and Homer looks at Marge and says dont blame me I voted for the other guy.

It makes me laugh but it is trully sad, our election process has turned from voting for the best candidate to vote against the guy you dont want to get elected. Vote the lesser of two evils. Its shameful.

[mox 298]

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince Americans they had to vote democrat or republican.

Good adaptation of a quote from a movie. To think its been over 100 years since a 3rd party was given a fair chance in an election. The democrats and republicans have done a masterful job of plunking people into two categories. Its like that episode of the simpsons when the two politicians are exactly alike and they are aliens. When a person stands up and says Im going to vote for a 3rd party candidate, they both laugh and reply go ahead and throw away your vote. The last scene is the entire population is enslaved and Homer looks at Marge and says dont blame me I voted for the other guy.

It makes me laugh but it is trully sad, our election process has turned from voting for the best candidate to vote against the guy you dont want to get elected. Vote the lesser of two evils. Its shameful.

Ahh, but you forget the 1992 Presidential election. Ross Perot had a very good chance of winning, and was even the front runner at one point, polling at 40% between the 3 parties. It was only becase he torpedoed his own campaign by dropping out and ranting about some kind of CIA plot against his daughter's wedding that he lost the momentum that could have made him President. He wound up re-entering the race, but the damage was done. He still finished with about 20% of the popular vote, but I don't think he carried even a single state in the Electoral College. It's really a shame. Not because I supported Perot--the dude was a buffoon--but even if Perot had lost the '92 election, he would have made major inroads for a 3rd party. Sadly, all he really wound up doing was solidifying the stereotype that the 3rd candidate is usually a nut job. So-called 3rd party candidates like Ralph Nader just reinforce the point. To be fair, Perot might have even stood a chance when he re-entered the race if it hadn't been for his VP pick. If you've never seen the

debate, it's a hoot. (the Youtube I linked has Stockdale's opening remarks at about 7 minutes...it's painful.) In any case, it was only 15 years ago that a 3rd party candidate stood a real shot at the White House.

We shouldn't be thinking about 3rd party candidates in the Pres election at this point though. We need to think about local politics and build up from there. If you want to see a 3rd party candidate, then stop voting in Republicans and Democrats for your local offices. Vote for a Green Party dog catcher, mayor, school board, whatever, for instance. You can't compete with them on a national level unless you have local level support.

[Thomas-n-Elena 0]

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince Americans they had to vote democrat or republican.

Good adaptation of a quote from a movie. To think its been over 100 years since a 3rd party was given a fair chance in an election. The democrats and republicans have done a masterful job of plunking people into two categories. Its like that episode of the simpsons when the two politicians are exactly alike and they are aliens. When a person stands up and says Im going to vote for a 3rd party candidate, they both laugh and reply go ahead and throw away your vote. The last scene is the entire population is enslaved and Homer looks at Marge and says dont blame me I voted for the other guy.

It makes me laugh but it is trully sad, our election process has turned from voting for the best candidate to vote against the guy you dont want to get elected. Vote the lesser of two evils. Its shameful.

Ahh, but you forget the 1992 Presidential election. Ross Perot had a very good chance of winning, and was even the front runner at one point, polling at 40% between the 3 parties. It was only becase he torpedoed his own campaign by dropping out and ranting about some kind of CIA plot against his daughter's wedding that he lost the momentum that could have made him President. He wound up re-entering the race, but the damage was done. He still finished with about 20% of the popular vote, but I don't think he carried even a single state in the Electoral College. It's really a shame. Not because I supported Perot--the dude was a buffoon--but even if Perot had lost the '92 election, he would have made major inroads for a 3rd party. Sadly, all he really wound up doing was solidifying the stereotype that the 3rd candidate is usually a nut job. So-called 3rd party candidates like Ralph Nader just reinforce the point. To be fair, Perot might have even stood a chance when he re-entered the race if it hadn't been for his VP pick. If you've never seen the

debate, it's a hoot. (the Youtube I linked has Stockdale's opening remarks at about 7 minutes...it's painful.) In any case, it was only 15 years ago that a 3rd party candidate stood a real shot at the White House.

We shouldn't be thinking about 3rd party candidates in the Pres election at this point though. We need to think about local politics and build up from there. If you want to see a 3rd party candidate, then stop voting in Republicans and Democrats for your local offices. Vote for a Green Party dog catcher, mayor, school board, whatever, for instance. You can't compete with them on a national level unless you have local level support.

Actually even if Perot had one the popular vote that still leaves the problem of the electoral college which is a group of people appointed by the parties to determine where all of the states votes go. This is the first thing that should be eliminated from out election process. It was put in place because at the time of the writing of the constitution most of the populace couldnt read. Today we have instant news all the time so to think that the voting population cant make an informed decision(albeit not always well informed) is preposterous. Most of the democracies around the world have direct voting by popularity even the greeks of the ancient world, why cant the oldest modern democracy drop the stupidity of the electoral college and allow elections to be determined by popular vote. I think you would see turnout go up and a greater opportunity for the 3rd party candidates, even having candidates who didnt win the nomination in their own party continue to run.

[mox 298]

Ahhhh, the old "get rid of the electoral college" argument again.

You're wrong about the purpose of the electoral college. The reason for the Electoral College is that the United States is a Representative Democracy. This means that *ALL* elections are State elections. There really is no such thing as a Federal election because the US is composed of States, not people. You don't vote in a national election for the Presidency, you vote in a State election to determine the composition of your state's electors, who will eventually cast their votes in Washington. That's what being a representative democracy is all about.

If you get rid of the Electoral College, you are ceding your State's rights in favor of more Federal control. Right now, if you don't like how your State determines it's electors, you can change it by changing your state's Constitution. If you get rid of the electoral college, you have given up your rights to the Federal government. Do you really want somebody in California or Florida telling your state how you should vote?

Think of it this way: because the United States is a representative Democracy, we send representatives to Washington who will hopefully vote for us. These representatives happen to be Congressmen. The Electoral College is just another method of representation.

[BluesTraveler 0]

that the 3rd candidate is usually a nut job. So-called 3rd party candidates like Ralph Nader just reinforce the point.

Hey, hey, hey be nice!!!

You may not agree with Mr. Nader's political positions, however most political analysts wouldn't call him crazy or outlandish. My only complaint against him is that if he had dropped out early enough in the election Mr. Gore most likely would have won.

[mox 298]

that the 3rd candidate is usually a nut job. So-called 3rd party candidates like Ralph Nader just reinforce the point.

Hey, hey, hey be nice!!!

You may not agree with Mr. Nader's political positions, however most political analysts wouldn't call him crazy or outlandish. My only complaint against him is that if he had dropped out early enough in the election Mr. Gore most likely would have won.

I stand by my comments.

[baron555 934]

Ahhhh, the old "get rid of the electoral college" argument again.

You're wrong about the purpose of the electoral college. The reason for the Electoral College is that the United States is a Representative Democracy. This means that *ALL* elections are State elections. There really is no such thing as a Federal election because the US is composed of States, not people. You don't vote in a national election for the Presidency, you vote in a State election to determine the composition of your state's electors, who will eventually cast their votes in Washington. That's what being a representative democracy is all about.

If you get rid of the Electoral College, you are ceding your State's rights in favor of more Federal control. Right now, if you don't like how your State determines it's electors, you can change it by changing your state's Constitution. If you get rid of the electoral college, you have given up your rights to the Federal government. Do you really want somebody in California or Florida telling your state how you should vote?

Think of it this way: because the United States is a representative Democracy, we send representatives to Washington who will hopefully vote for us. These representatives happen to be Congressmen. The Electoral College is just another method of representation.

My understanding and learnings are that the EC was also put in place because our founding fathers understood that the voting public can become very stupid and may do rash things.....they had just witnessed what had happened in France, when the country went mad. Off with their heads!!!

The EC is supposed to be the buffer between the emotional and sometimes illogically thinking voting public and reason.

And everything above that Mox said.

[mox 298]

My understanding and learnings are that the EC was also put in place because our founding fathers understood that the voting public can become very stupid and may do rash things.....they had just witnessed what had happened in France, when the country went mad. Off with their heads!!!

The EC is supposed to be the buffer between the emotional and sometimes illogically thinking voting public and reason.

And everything above that Mox said.

There's a lot of theories and explanations about why we have the EC, but there's really no evidence to support any other explanation other than what was presented at the first Constitutional Convention. Originally it was proposed that the President be selected by Congress (the "Virginia Plan"), but they worried that it was too powerful a position to be determined by only a few people. So the committee that was formed to study the problem recommended the EC method so that "the people" could elect the President in a manner consistent with a representative democracy. There's really not any historical evidence to suggest that the EC was formed for any other reason than to pick a President consistent with the principles of a representative democracy.

[Thomas-n-Elena 0]

I understand all that the only problem is why if it is a representative democracy is the electoral college an all or nothing proposition? If 60% of a state votes for a particular candidate why do they get 100% of the electoral votes that isnt very representative is it? This is supposed to be a government

OF the people,BY the people,FOR the people. If I choose a 3rd party candidate and all of my states votes are given to the democrat how does that represent my vote?

If its all about keeping states rights then why did the federal government force states to abandon slavery(I dont condone slavery), this is what the civil war was about states rights. States rights have been flying out the window for years, if you believe that the electoral college is some bastion for proof of states rights your fooling yourself.

[mox 298]

I understand all that the only problem is why if it is a representative democracy is the electoral college an all or nothing proposition? If 60% of a state votes for a particular candidate why do they get 100% of the electoral votes that isnt very representative is it? This is supposed to be a government

OF the people,BY the people,FOR the people. If I choose a 3rd party candidate and all of my states votes are given to the democrat how does that represent my vote?

This is a perfect example of why the EC is better. If you want your state to determine its electors based on the percentage of votes each candidate gets, then you just need to have your state constitution ammended. That sounds like a daunting task, but it's a heckuva lot better than trying to convince the entire Federal legislature to ammend the Constitution, then hope the President signs off on it, and finally hope it passes muster in the Supreme Court.

If its all about keeping states rights then why did the federal government force states to abandon slavery(I dont condone slavery), this is what the civil war was about states rights. States rights have been flying out the window for years, if you believe that the electoral college is some bastion for proof of states rights your fooling yourself.

Apples and oranges. The EC is about electing a President, nothing else. But I agree with you 680%. The Federal government has been riding roughshod over the States for WAAAY too long. Our representatives have been eroding State rights and powers for decades, perhaps for even more than a century. What we have now, with the Federal government taking a firm hand over the states, is exactly opposite of what the founders intended. The Federal government was only supposed to handle the things that would be impractical at the state level, such as trade, diplomacy, and defense. Almost everything else was supposed to be governed at the state level.

[mox 298]

I was trolling around, looking for more information about 3rd party candidates, and I came across the 1968 election. Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey. American Independent Party candidate George Wallace garnered 46 electoral votes from 5 states. It was the only time a 3rd party candidate had ever garnered electoral votes from any state.

[Rob_Lesya 4]

It was the only time a 3rd party candidate had ever garnered electoral votes from any state.

Absolutely wrong!!!

Strom Thurmond -- 1948

Robert LaFollette -- 1924

Teddy Roosevelt -- 1912 3rd party candidate came in 2nd

James Weaver -- 1892

those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.....

[mox 298]

Absolutely wrong!!!

D'oh! My bad. I misread this in the Wikipedia entry I cited above:

The election also featured a strong third party effort by former Alabama Governor George Wallace. Although Wallace's campaign was frequently accused of promoting racism, he proved to be a formidable candidate; no third-party candidate has since won an entire state's electoral votes.