|
| Thread: 3rd party vote |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
posted October 30, 2012 12:46 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 14:26, 30 Oct 2012.
|
3rd party vote
I just read the old sentiment that voting for a candidate from other than the two parties is throwing your vote away. This statement is always followed by words that lead to the "lesser of two evils" paradigm. Those that believe this please take no offense, it just brings back a war that my Father and I had for a few decades. I thought I would ask the same question here that I asked him.
It's no secret that most poeple believe that modern candidates are more interested in the 2-party system than the interests of the people; so with most possible voters (that yet vote) following the above paradigm; how can things ever change?
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 12:51 PM |
|
|
A vote must go to the candidate you agree most with, even if he has no chance to win. If everybody voted only the 2 most important candidates, the others will never have the required (moral) support to improve their ideas and retry later.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 01:15 PM |
|
|
The form of democracy most modern countries are using is terrible.
Most often, people can pick between two major options, which programs are EXTREMELY SIMILAR.
There isn't as much difference as some Americans seem to think between their two parties. Same in Poland, where the two parties that seem like polar opposites (at least in media) have in fact a political program is largely IDENTICAL.
Don't blame people for the lack of options. Young, aspiring politicians are the fault. They have a bigger chance for a career by joining an already established, big party. And like the shameless opportunists they are, they do so.
Another thing is the actual support of the ruling party is skewed by the Media. Back to Poland again: they say 40% people supports the ruling party. But hey, it's 40% of the 40% that voted. What about the rest? In reality, only 16% Poles backs up the leaders. How come that in a so called "will of majority", 5/6 has to listen what 1/6 thinks?
Another problem: once the ruling party has the majority in parliament (usually by forming a coalition), as soon as they break 50%, they are practically able to do whatever they want. 51% = 100%, because as hard as the others may try, they cannot stop anything with their 49%.
The system doesn't work precisely because of this ridiculous "party" ideology. Political parties are the reasons why indirect democracy sucks.
There are tools to fix it, but the Parliament will never approve it - they would lose their warm, cozy seats.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 02:14 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 14:16, 30 Oct 2012.
|
@ Sal
Quote:
A vote must go to the candidate you agree most with, even if he has no chance to win.
I agree with you 100%. I fell into the 2-party trap for a bit but fairly quickly I asked myself; "shouldn't my vote be for the person that I actually believe to be the best candidate?"
<imo>For me, there was a feeling of urgency in all of that, like I must stop so & so at all costs, which of course is acceptable but I do not think it's the best option for the future.
Quote:
...in fact a political program is largely IDENTICAL.
Another thing is the actual support of the ruling party is skewed by the Media. Back to Poland again: they say 40% people supports the ruling party. But hey, it's 40% of the 40% that voted. ...
@ Doom
Many, very good points. For me the most telling is the % of voters point you made. I've thought the same. Here in the U.S. we have about half of the folks still voting; so with the voting-half fairly evenly split, that means 1 in 4 citizens is deciding who wins.
I agree that fault lies with the new politicians following the old political trails but I think more of the overall blame lies with the voters...like myself. I've either voted for a guy I didn't fully believe in or I did not vote.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 02:16 PM |
|
|
A vote for a third party is not always throwing your vote away. But if that third party candidate has no chance of winning and the differences between the two presidential candidates who can win is stark and the election is close, by voting for a third party candidate you are choosing to have no say in which of the two very different candidates will determine the future of the nation.
So, if you don't care which of the candidates (who have a chance to win) wins then it is logical to vote for a third party to make a statement.
If you do care which of the two candidates wins then it is much less logical to vote for a third party even if you don't really like either candidate that much. The choice to vote third party becomes greatly illogical if you think that having a different man in the presidential office would make a significant difference in the direction the nation takes.
____________
Revelation
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 02:21 PM |
|
|
Nowadays, for me the only thing to do is for the guy you think is best...period. No spins.
I think one day that a "vote for a change" could grow. It will never happen if everyone keeps voting for what they do not believe. <imo> There lies the madness.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 02:24 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 14:34, 30 Oct 2012.
|
|
it's the same in france. maybe not as bad as a 3rd party (FN) gets quite a lot of voices too. It seems many people voted Hollande, for the only reason that they wanted to beat Sarkozy.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 02:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
it's the same in france. maybe not as bad as a 3rd party (FN) gets quite a lot of voices too. It seems many people voted Hollande, for the only reason that they wanted to beat Sarkozy.
Yeah, it's a grief to me, that this seems more World-wide than I would have ever believed.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 02:34 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 14:42, 30 Oct 2012.
|
for months, polls tell us everyday how about the 2 main parties are going to crush everything (usually, those mains parties also tell us to not throw our vote by "voting useful")
I suppose it may certainly influence people
though, some people say the far-left would make much bigger scores, if the different parties would fusion. but those parties state they can't do it, since their ideas aren't exactly the same. at least I guess they aren't the opportunists doomforge talked about.
at the latest election, if I'm not mistaken, there were 2 parties from the right, and almost 10 from the left.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 02:55 PM |
|
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 03:13 PM |
|
|
Romney/Ryan is not the candidate I identify most with. However one must be realistic - only Romney/Ryan or Obama/Biden have any chance of being elected. Romney/Ryan is a far closer match to what I believe in than Obama/Biden, and the debates have made me confident that they could run this country well, even if I don't believe in all their policy choices; therefore I shall vote for Romney/Ryan rather an a 3rd party candidate because the 3rd party candidate has no chance of winning and I'd much rather Romney/Ryan win than Obama/Biden.
In that sense I subscribe to the less of two evils logic - although I don't really like the use of the word "evil" here. Having a political philosophy I disagree with does not qualify someone as being evil - a fact a few individuals here and millions of people around the country would do well to remember.
That said, I did not use this logic in 2008. I did not vote for McCain/Palin - I voted for the libertarian candidate. Why? Because I did not think Palin was qualified to be vice-president. I wanted neither major party ticket to win, so I did not feel inclined to vote for either one of them. Both tickets were horrible choices, and my assessment of at least one of them (Obama/Biden) has been borne out over the last four years.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 04:10 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 16:13, 30 Oct 2012.
|
A system with only two available parties is nearly as flawed and corrupt as a dictatorial system with one almighty party (think the "classical" USSR) and given that the US and the until-recently-UK systems are the closest thing that the "democratic" world has to what it allegedly hates the most (the irony). On the other hand, a system with many parties could lead to a inefficient fragmentation or boil down to 3-4 major parties and X satellites for each of them (one of the most ridiculous things we have in Bulgaria is over 170 parties - and the number has been higher than 300 at times - for 7.3 million population) - however it retains the possibility to elect some new faces to replace the old ones when the latter become too corrupt and useless.
With that in mind, any candidate or party is as powerful as the population believes he/it is and that's the whole point. If you have centuries-long history with only two parties in the government and you're being told almost from infant age that this is how the system works, you won't believe that a third party/candidate can make it through when you become old enough to vote. In fact you don't vote for the best candidate but for the most acceptable among the ones who are advertised as the only realistically electable. You need a third party, badly.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 05:12 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 17:15, 30 Oct 2012.
|
Quote:
one of the most ridiculous things we have in Bulgaria is over 170 parties - and the number has been higher than 300 at times - for 7.3 million population
the number of parties isn't bad by itself, it's more the fact that only one of them is going to be elected. the problem may rather lie in the fact to elect one person for a whole country.
if there are 300 parties, I suppose there are people following each of them, so logically, all those parties have their place.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 05:47 PM |
|
|
There are not only two available parties in the US. It is just that there are only two parties with substantial voter support.
The Tea Party is sort of a third party (though probably should be considered more of a grassroots movement) in the US. But it has worked mostly to reform the Republican Party because there is simply no room in the Democrat party for conservatives. The Tea Party has had some success in defeating some long term incumbents in the GOP and has had some effect on the GOP policies.
For a third party to have a chance to win it has to connect with the people enough to entice them not to vote for the party/parties in control. There is widespread voter dissatisfaction with both parties, as evidenced by voter opinion of Congress so there room for another successful party. But such a party would have to draw support from both the Democrat and Republican party voters. Putting together a platform that could do that will certainly be a challenge.
____________
Revelation
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted October 30, 2012 06:52 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 14:11, 31 Oct 2012.
|
There is nothing easily that can be done to create a stable multi-party system in the USA unless you amend the Constitution.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 31, 2012 01:10 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 13:16, 31 Oct 2012.
|
@ Corribus
Quote:
In that sense I subscribe to the less of two evils logic - although I don't really like the use of the word "evil" here.
Why to go there. It's just a phrase that gets used all the time meaning, one is worse than the other.
Next question
If we could remove the money from elections, would we have better choices when voting?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 31, 2012 02:11 PM |
|
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing easily that can be done to create a stable multi-party system in the USA unless you amend the Constitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not entirely true, in principle. Half of the problem with the electoral college is that - for most states - a state's whole barrel of votes go to the winning candidate, regardless of how the actual popular vote in that state broke down. For example: Pennsylvania will have 20 electoral votes in the 2012 election. By popular vote, it seems like it will be a reasonably tight race. So let's say for sake of argument that Obama wins in the state 51% to 49%. Yet despite the fact that barely more than half the people in the state want Obama, he takes all 20 electoral votes. (As reference in 2008 Obama won a minority of PA's congressional districts, but he took all of PA's considerable 21 electoral votes!) There are a few states (Maine and Nebraska) that split votes by congressional district rather than awarding all their electoral votes, an option which seems to be more fair than the current system, although there are arguments against this system as well. An even better way would be to simply split votes proportional to the popular vote in each state, but there are no states that currently do this.
In principle states have control over how they award electoral votes, and they do so legislatively (rather than modifying their individual constitutions) so a far easier route toward changing the way the electoral college works would be for states to start changing how their electoral votes are distributed to better match the popular vote. Of course, politics usually get in the way of doing what's fair or right. Why would Texas, for instance, ever change its laws to allow for a portion of its 38 electoral votes to go toward democratic candidates? That would require a predominantly republican Texas state legistlature and republican executive to pass such a law - would never happen! Same goes for other states.
It's unlikely this system will change any time soon, and as Blizz said the system is engineered to almost ensure a third party never establishes itself, because it's incredibly hard for 3rd parties to get electoral votes, even if they can get a sizable amount of the popular vote. Consider that Ross Perot got, like, 20% or so of the popular vote but didn't get a single electoral vote! If it ever does change, it will likely be in response to a presidential election in which the winning candidate gets a minority of the popular vote, something which looks very possible in this upcoming election. Nixon, for example, was elected president in 1968 by a "landslide win" by electoral votes, even though he barely won the popular vote - and there was a subsequent move in congress to change the law. The bill ultimately died. But that's the kind of thing that will have to happen for anything to change.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 31, 2012 02:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Next question
If we could remove the money from elections, would we have better choices when voting?
Nah, I don't think so. Do you want to forbid campaign ads, forbid the candidate from going on the campaign trail (that takes money for hotels, fuel, meeting places, ect), forbid the candidate from hiring consultants/workers/bus drivers/researchers/public relations/representatives/ect?
The necessity of raising money for elections can't really be overcome unless you intend for the public to totally finance all campaigns. And that will be lots and lots of money out of the public coffers, meaning more taxes for those who pay taxes. Of course those who don't pay taxes will be unaffected. And of course the "Way out of touch" parties (there are lots of political parties in the US) that have NO chance of being elected to so much as a dog catcher position would have their election efforts financed by the public if public financing of campaigns were in place.
It takes money to get much of anything accomplished in the real world and the real world requirement of campaigns to raise money is a requirement that the campaign (and thus the ideas of the candidate) have some measure of public support. Of course a really rich person can partially finance his own campaign at a great personal cost. But then Hollywood and CNN reporters push the leftist messages for free. 
Your money, your influence, and your hard work all can "make your vote count more" than they vote of the lazy couch sitter. Are you dissatisfied with the current political parites? Put your "boots on the ground" and go to work to either reform one of them or to start another party. Yeah, it involves hard work.
So I think personal involvement and getting others to become motivated to become more involved is the way to get more and better choices in politics. A challenge that reform faces (beyond getting enough people interested in putting in some work)is to get people to vote beyond what personally benefits them and to vote instead for the well-being of the nation. Money will always be involved in politics whether it is the financing of campaigns or the buying of votes with money from the public coffers.
Robert Heinlein, To Sail Beyond the Sunset:
Quote:
“A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. … [O]nce a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so…” They’ll vote themselves bread and circuses every time “until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader [such as] the barbarians enter Rome.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 31, 2012 02:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The necessity of raising money for elections can't really be overcome unless you intend for the public to totally finance all campaigns
That's exactly what I am thinking. The public is largely footing the bill as things are anyway.
Since we have this thing called the internet, I think the election process can step into the future...now and not just be another source of revenue for Corporate profits.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 31, 2012 05:47 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:51, 31 Oct 2012.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The necessity of raising money for elections can't really be overcome unless you intend for the public to totally finance all campaigns
That's exactly what I am thinking. The public is largely footing the bill as things are anyway.
Since we have this thing called the internet, I think the election process can step into the future...now and not just be another source of revenue for Corporate profits.
That idea is one I have toyed with in the past, but it creates more problems and infringes on personal liberties.
There are quite a few registered political parties in the US, and more would come out of the woodwork with their campaigns publicly fincanced. I suppose you'd fund them all equally out of the public coffers. The Communist Party, Republican Party, Democrat Party, White Supremacist Party, NAZI Party, ect, all get equally funded to spread their message.
How much do you propose to give each of them to spend on the elections? How do you propose to pay for it?
Would you forbid Political Action Committees? Would you forbid spending by private citizens, corporations, and political parties on political advertisements? Would you forbid editorials about politics? Editorials about politics are essentially free political advertisements. How about endorsements by Hollywood celebrities/sports stars? Those are free political advertisements as well.
Would you require the news organizations (all of them) to give equal and unbiased coverage of all of the many political parties? How about debates, how would that be handled? It is really hard to have any sort of presidential debate if there are going to be 50 candidates attending the debate. How would you decide which parties were entitled to be in the debates? Would private organizations be allowed to hold their own presidential debates, inviting only the candidates they wanted to invite?
Would candidates be allowed to spend their own money at all? To speak about politics in other than officially sanctioned government political gatherings?
How much spending would you allocate to create a new election bureaucracy (or expand an existing one)to oversee and enforce all of the new rules, and how would you pay for it?
|
| |
|
|
