Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 71
Thanks Tree48Thanks

Thread: Third Party?

  1. #31
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    15,241
    Thanks
    12749

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Mr. Swimmer,

    California now has open primaries. What that mean is, except for national elections, only the top two vote getters in the primaries for state offices advance to the general election. It defacto means "third party candidates need not apply."
    So what you are saying is, no Third Party will ever get the support needed to win primary? How will they win a general election if they can't win a primary and doesn't this "defacto" mean that effectively, there is nothing different going on California with their change in the law, but that a Third Party Candidate, IF they DID get the support NEEDED to win a primary, they could could then advance to a general election where they might win. This would be instead of voters having to register as one of the main parties in order to vote in the primaries or that candidates would have to run UNDER a main party umbrella, in order to win a primary OR spend the money and form a THIRD Party that had enough support, to challenge the two main parties, which would put them all on close to equal footing OR make the THIRD Party one of the two main parties, knocking one of the existing main parties out of the picture. What I understand "open primaries" to mean is that the candidates of ALL parties can participate in the primary and do not need some sort of prior or additional qualification. For most people, that would be interpreted as being a plus and beneficial to 3rd and other parties, NOT as you seem to be indicating.

    The idea that additional parties cannot exist or their candidates do not have a chance, is not true. One reason they have not gone anywhere is that many candidates that would be "Third Party" choose instead to run under one or the other of the two main parties, instead. As already said, someone like H. Ross Perot was a Third Party candidate with perhaps the most promise in all of recent time, BUT he ended up drawing support away from one of the candidates of one of the two main parties and NOT enough to give either HIMself OR the candidate of the Party he drew voters from, the votes needed for EITHER of them to win and like what just happened in 2016, the candidate of the OPPOSITION party won. Trump was well aware of this and worked to duplicate the same sort of thing, but have the Perot effect, be visited upon Democrats, not the republicans and, it worked, even if, just barely, but all it has to do is work, just barely or not. The constant propaganda about HRC convinced enough democrats to go for others that the "liberal/progressive" ideology, was split so that no candidate representing it, whether from a moderate or a more extreme position, got enough EC votes to defeat Trump. While Trump still had to convince all manner of republican voters, both Clinton and Sanders represented the opposition. Where Trump was successful is getting shills to pretend to be disgruntled Democrats and infecting the Democratic electorate, so some spent more of the campaign season bashing Clinton, than they did giving reasons Trump would be, just what he has been so far, a car wreck for "the people" and the environment....perhaps much of the world, if we're thrown into a nuclear standoff or war and what they will do for the financial markets.

    Consider what it takes for one of two candidates to win, then consider what it takes for one of 3 or 4 candidates to win. With two candidates, people need only choose between two people as there is only a winner and a loser. With three candidates, the votes needed to win are divided three ways and so are the people having to choose one of three, instead of one of two. In the popular vote, figuring the plurality vote winner is easy, but when it comes to the Electoral College, things become more complicated and no matter how many parties and how many candidates representing those parties there are, there are still only a winner and a loser. It's like taking kids out for ice cream and asking them to choose from 5 flavors instead of two. While it is nice that have a big selection and choice, they have a harder time choosing. Another way to do it, which seems more along the lines of what California, or any state with open primaries does is to essentially say, kids, I'm going out to buy ice cream, but I'm not going to buy every flavor their is, so pick two choices you prefer I buy and then you can pick from them. The combo might be chocolate and vanilla, chocolate and strawberry, vanilla and strawberry, etc. etc. but not every flavor. What this means is at the primary level, the kids can review all the flavors, but they then have to narrow their picks down to two, one of them being their favorite, the other being their second favorite. If most people like strawberry, then strawberry and some other flavor will be the choices, if most people still like vanilla and chocolate as their two main choices, it does not mean strawberry could not be considered or in the running, it just means it did not make it out of the first round of narrowing down the choices.
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 10th August 2017 at 10:04 AM.
    Thanks from chaos

  2. #32
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    13,287
    Thanks
    3265

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    So what you are saying is, no Third Party will ever get the support needed to win primary? How will they win a general election if they can't win a primary and doesn't this "defacto" mean that effectively, there is nothing different going on California with their change in the law, but that a Third Party Candidate, IF they DID get the support NEEDED to win a primary, they could could then advance to a general election where they might win. This would be instead of voters having to register as one of the main parties in order to vote in the primaries or that candidates would have to run UNDER a main party umbrella, in order to win a primary OR spend the money and form a THIRD Party that had enough support, to challenge the two main parties, which would put them all on close to equal footing OR make the THIRD Party one of the two main parties, knocking one of the existing main parties out of the picture. What I understand "open primaries" to mean is that the candidates of ALL parties can participate in the primary and do not need some sort of prior or additional qualification. For most people, that would be interpreted as being a plus and beneficial to 3rd and other parties, NOT as you seem to be indicating.

    The idea that additional parties cannot exist or their candidates do not have a chance, is not true. The reason they have not gone anywhere is that candidates that would be "Third Party" choose instead to run under one or the other of the two main parties. As already said, someone like H. Ross Perot was a Third Party candidate with perhaps the most promise in all of recent time, BUT he ended up drawing support away from one of the candidates of one of the two main parties and NOT enough to give either HIMself OR the candidate of the Party he drew voters from, the votes needed for EITHER of them to win and like what just happened in 2016, the candidate of the OPPOSITION party one. Trump was well aware of this and worked to duplicate the same sort of thing, but have the Perot effect, be visited upon Democrats, not the republicans and, it worked, even if, just barely, but all it has to do is work, just barely or not. The constant propaganda about HRC convinced enough democrats to go for others that the "liberal/progressive" ideology, was split so that no candidate representing it, whether from a moderate or a more extreme position, got enough EC votes to defeat Trump. While Trump still had to convince all manner of republican voters, both Clinton and Sanders represented the opposition. Where Trump was successful is getting shills to pretend to be disgruntled Democrats and infecting the Democratic electorate, so some spent more of the campaign season bashing Clinton, than they did giving reasons Trump would be, just what he has been so far, a car wreck for "the people" and the environment....perhaps much of the world, if we're thrown into a nuclear standoff or war and what they will do for the financial markets.

    Consider what it takes for one of two candidates to win, then consider what it takes for one of 3 or 4 candidates to win. With two candidates, people need only choose between two people as there is only a winner and a loser. With three candidates, the votes needed to win are divided three ways and so are the people having to choose one of three, instead of one of two. In the popular vote, figuring the plurality vote winner is easy, but when it comes to the Electoral College, things become more complicated and no matter how many parties and how many candidates representing those parties there are, there are still only a winner and a loser. It's like taking kids out for ice cream and asking them to choose from 5 flavors instead of two. While it is nice that have a big selection and choice, they have a harder time choosing. Another way to do it, which seems more along the lines of what California, or any state with open primaries does is to essentially say, kids, I'm going out to buy ice cream, but I'm not going to buy every flavor their is, so pick two choices you prefer I buy and then you can pick from them. The combo might be chocolate and vanilla, chocolate and strawberry, vanilla and strawberry, etc. etc. but not every flavor. What this means is at the primary level, the kids can review all the flavors, but they then have to narrow their picks down to two, one of them being their favorite, the other being their second favorite. If most people like strawberry, then strawberry and some other flavor will be the choices, if most people still like vanilla and chocolate as their two main choices, it does not mean strawberry could not be considered or in the running, it just means it did not make it out of the first round of narrowing down the choices.
    Mr.Knot,

    While I appreciate your long winded diatribe, this issue is that the two major parties will always win the open primary. Ergo, the third party will not be represented or even have a chance to present their views during the general election.

    Actually, this was not so much a means of eliminating third parties, but rather, to ensure that the Democrat maintain a majority in the state legislature, and in the House, and especially the Senate. By eliminating all competition at the primary level, the Democrats in absolute power in Sacramento pretty much pick and choose who will be in office. Ironically, very similar to Venezuela.

  3. #33
    New Member
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    430
    Thanks
    456

    I read the article and I'm not impressed. The writer seemed to think it was a good thing that Bill Clinton moved the Demo party to the right. He never mentioned labor.

    Right now the American working man has no representation. We need a labor party. The Demos have gone too far right in their quest for campaign money.

    But as long as it takes millions of dollars to get elected we will continue to have crappy government.
    Thanks from chaos

  4. #34
    We choose both. Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    45,963
    Thanks
    27979

    From
    Wisconsin
    Long live the stranglehold of the billionaire power brokers over American politics. Duping us little people into donning team jerseys and fooling ourselves into thinking we matter.
    Thanks from chaos

  5. #35
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68,670
    Thanks
    50637

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Chipps View Post
    I read the article and I'm not impressed. The writer seemed to think it was a good thing that Bill Clinton moved the Demo party to the right. He never mentioned labor.

    Right now the American working man has no representation. We need a labor party. The Demos have gone too far right in their quest for campaign money.

    But as long as it takes millions of dollars to get elected we will continue to have crappy government.
    He was only stating fact in relation to Bill. I didn't get the impression that he thought it was a good idea.

    I agree that working people need more representation. But working within the Democratic party is the better way to go about that.

    Yes, we need campaign finance reform.
    Thanks from NightSwimmer

  6. #36
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    46,330
    Thanks
    28356

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    He was only stating fact in relation to Bill. I didn't get the impression that he thought it was a good idea.

    I agree that working people need more representation. But working within the Democratic party is the better way to go about that.

    Yes, we need campaign finance reform.
    But the people decide which party better represents them. Currently we are seeing more college educated people believing that's the democratic party. CEOs, Wall Street people too. As I said the other day my rep calls them "the science party." The blue collar workers seem at least currently, to prefer some republicans. They don't want to be in the science party. So its a big wrangled when we have a group of people that don't really believe either party represents them. They are the ones that cant seem to be connected. They may like the democrats for some issues, but not others.

  7. #37
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    61,666
    Thanks
    11226

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Chipps View Post
    I read the article and I'm not impressed. The writer seemed to think it was a good thing that Bill Clinton moved the Demo party to the right. He never mentioned labor.

    Right now the American working man has no representation. We need a labor party. The Demos have gone too far right in their quest for campaign money.

    But as long as it takes millions of dollars to get elected we will continue to have crappy government.
    How do you define the working man?

    And while most voters find the economy important it runs very close to other issues such as national security.

    So how will this third party decide on that?

    Are they pro guns or anti-gun.....pro military or do they want to cut it?

    Where do they stand on abortion?

    This is why you can't have a third party....all these issues are covered by the two major ones already.

  8. #38
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    61,666
    Thanks
    11226

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    Long live the stranglehold of the billionaire power brokers over American politics. Duping us little people into donning team jerseys and fooling ourselves into thinking we matter.
    The constitution was written by a bunch of rich guys.....who by the way.....got a helluva lot richer after they did it.

  9. #39
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,740
    Thanks
    32822

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    I think they are a product of our education. I know my kids were taught in school to never compromise, always go with what you truly believe. So I do think sometimes that's part of it. In the stone age when I was young, politicians broke bread and got together and got something done. Compromise wasn't a dirty word.
    Exactly. Even this country's independence was negotiated in the Second Continental Congress. The northern states and southern states had to compromise and agree with each other, and it was the same thing at the Constitutional Convention. The country and Constitution that was created was by compromise, yet somehow that is no longer taught, nor does anyone wish to learn it.
    Thanks from bajisima

  10. #40
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    61,666
    Thanks
    11226

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Exactly. Even this country's independence was negotiated in the Second Continental Congress. The northern states and southern states had to compromise and agree with each other, and it was the same thing at the Constitutional Convention. The country and Constitution that was created was by compromise, yet somehow that is no longer taught, nor does anyone wish to learn it.
    Utter bullshit.

    Our leaders compromise far more than we have ever had.

    Remember caning or duels?

    They don't happen anymore.

    Remember the Civil War?

    That was a big one.

    What do we have now......an argument about raising the debt ceiling?

    lol

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 15th July 2016, 07:42 PM
  2. Replies: 223
    Last Post: 2nd March 2015, 01:30 PM
  3. Replies: 42
    Last Post: 13th August 2014, 09:21 PM
  4. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 2nd November 2010, 01:03 AM
  5. Third Party Founding-National Use Your Fu__ing Head Party
    By Devil505 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 4th March 2009, 04:30 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed