2 party system warning

[88GT]

Ignore the labels and he's right. The point everybody is missing is that even if you could get the Libertarian party (or any other) to replace the Republican one, we wouldn't have any different result.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Zippy, all you have to do is look at the last presidential election, the Republicans didn't even show up to vote, didn't have anything to do with a 3rd party.

Gulp...He's right? I mean, yeah...he is right.

Romney got fewer votes than that RINO-personified McCain did. BHO got 6-7 million votes less this time than last time. And if you added every single minor party vote to Romney's total (including the Green and CommunistUSA), it wouldn't have been enough to tip the scales. Republicans didn't necessarily lose because the democrats have it all together. They lost because enough voters decided they'd rather stay at home because Romney wasn't conservative enough.

2012 Presidential Election Results - The Washington Post

 

[Trooper]

Alright i'm just gonna come out and say it. Yeah we have a two party system, i dont care about the past, but this is how it is. The democrats are winning(at the presidential level). Why? they all do whatever the top says, and they rally around their own no matter what. The republicans are idiots by throwing their own under the bus. If you are INDEPENDENT or LIBERTARIAN whatever, thats just stupid. Not because of what you believe, again i say not because of what you believe, but because of the fact you wont vote republican because they arent conservative enough, or any other excuse. I get it, i dont like the core republican party, but we lost the election by a few million votes total, and honestly, if you would have voted AGAINST obama(you=nationwide libertarians or independents) there would be no where near the problems we have now(or the issues in the past). Republican turnout was lower for romney than in 2008. The truth is that the right has morals, awesome, but you have to get over yourself to keep the SERIOUS threats to this country out of office.

Actually we have a party and a half. There is the establishment party which is today the democrats. And there is the opposition party which is weak. The dems want a one party system with NO opposition.

What we really need is a five party system. Split the dems in to two parties: labor and progressive (merge the Greens into the progressives). Split the republicans into two parties: establishment and conservatives. Then have the libertarians. We are sort of going that way now with so many former democrats going independent.

 

[88GT]

Actually we have a party and a half. There is the establishment party which is today the democrats. And there is the opposition party which is weak. The dems want a one party system with NO opposition.

What we really need is a five party system. Split the dems in to two parties: labor and progressive (merge the Greens into the progressives). Split the republicans into two parties: establishment and conservatives. Then have the libertarians. We are sort of going that way now with so many former democrats going independent.

No, what we need is a disassociation of politics/parties with the election process.

Right now election laws favor a two-party system. That's easily changed by severing the power of the election boards to pick the winners (major party status, etc). All parties are created equal and must be 100% self-funded. All primaries are open to all parties with minimal requirement to file. All candidates on a single ballot (no Dem ballot, no Repub ballot). Candidates must receive 5% of the vote to be eligible for the general election.

And/or, eliminate the primaries and have the parties slate and run their candidates internally until a single winner emerges. Then have the party run that candidate and that candidate alone in the general.

And/or, eliminate primaries, and have one general election with a run-off until one candidate gets 50% of the vote. (This utilizes the ranked voting concept being discussed in the other thread too.)

We don't need more parties. We have plenty of parties in this country. We need better access for the smaller parties and a more even playing field.

 

[nawainwright]

To the original post: You do realize that Mittens lost by 5 million votes right? Gary Johnson only had 1.2 million votes. Other parties accumulated only 1.73% of the popular vote, thats less than half of what Mittens needed to push him over the edge. If you want to make the argument that people who didn't vote are the ones who could have pushed him over the top, well "no **** sherlock".

If you don't like it, then work to change it. Did you go door to door? Did you register voters? Did you make the case for your candidate? No? THEN SHUT THE FREAKING FLIP UP!

It's been 5 months, get over it, do better next time. No one here is particularly happy, but it doesn't change anything.

 

[KLB]

No, what we need is a disassociation of politics/parties with the election process.

Right now election laws favor a two-party system. That's easily changed by severing the power of the election boards to pick the winners (major party status, etc). All parties are created equal and must be 100% self-funded. All primaries are open to all parties with minimal requirement to file. All candidates on a single ballot (no Dem ballot, no Repub ballot). Candidates must receive 5% of the vote to be eligible for the general election.

And/or, eliminate the primaries and have the parties slate and run their candidates internally until a single winner emerges. Then have the party run that candidate and that candidate alone in the general.

And/or, eliminate primaries, and have one general election with a run-off until one candidate gets 50% of the vote. (This utilizes the ranked voting concept being discussed in the other thread too.)

We don't need more parties. We have plenty of parties in this country. We need better access for the smaller parties and a more even playing field.

Excellent points!

 

[Trooper]

To the original post: You do realize that Mittens lost by 5 million votes right? Gary Johnson only had 1.2 million votes. Other parties accumulated only 1.73% of the popular vote, thats less than half of what Mittens needed to push him over the edge. If you want to make the argument that people who didn't vote are the ones who could have pushed him over the top, well "no **** sherlock".

If you don't like it, then work to change it. Did you go door to door? Did you register voters? Did you make the case for your candidate? No? THEN SHUT THE FREAKING FLIP UP!

It's been 5 months, get over it, do better next time. No one here is particularly happy, but it doesn't change anything.

Over 4 million republicans stayed home and did not vote. As it was Obama only won with 50.8% of the vote total. The country is still split 50-50.

 

[Trooper]

No, what we need is a disassociation of politics/parties with the election process.

Right now election laws favor a two-party system. That's easily changed by severing the power of the election boards to pick the winners (major party status, etc). All parties are created equal and must be 100% self-funded. All primaries are open to all parties with minimal requirement to file. All candidates on a single ballot (no Dem ballot, no Repub ballot). Candidates must receive 5% of the vote to be eligible for the general election.

And/or, eliminate the primaries and have the parties slate and run their candidates internally until a single winner emerges. Then have the party run that candidate and that candidate alone in the general.

And/or, eliminate primaries, and have one general election with a run-off until one candidate gets 50% of the vote. (This utilizes the ranked voting concept being discussed in the other thread too.)

We don't need more parties. We have plenty of parties in this country. We need better access for the smaller parties and a more even playing field.

In the south there are many states that are basically one party at the local level. Thus they have open primaries where there is a runoff at the general (fall) election if no one gets over 50% in the primary.

What I would do is move all elections to the spring (get rid of the November general election). The local, district and state parties have conventions to elect a slate of candidates. Thus candidates get party funding. If you so chose to run, you fund your own campaign otherwise. In the primary all candidates run openly. If no one get 50% or better then a runoff general election between the top two.

Make the slating process go from January (county) followed by a district slating and statewide slating at the state convention in February. A national convention then could be held in March. Primary elections would be the first Sunday in April followed by a general election of the first Sunday in May.

 

[bigus_D]

I'll post an intelligent statement in an attempt to sway the OP, in the same form that the OP used originally to present his opinion.

A vote for the republican or democrat party, when they don't represent your views, is stupid. The end.

 

[bigus_D]

I'll post an intelligent statement in an attempt to sway the OP, in the same form that the OP used originally to present his opinion.

A vote for the republican or democrat party, when they don't represent your views, is stupid. The end.

Let me be even more clear, in an attempt to speak the OPs language.

If you are a REPUBLICAN or a DEMOCRAT, that is stupid.

 

[nawainwright]

Over 4 million republicans stayed home and did not vote. As it was Obama only won with 50.8% of the vote total. The country is still split 50-50.

Note: I did address that in my post. But again, this has gone beyond "monday morning quarterbacking". We've played several games since then and some people are still trying to distract us with the game we should have won earlier in the season. Move on.

My primary point still stands. To blame independents or libertarians for not "falling in line" is absurd as Mittens won independents by double digits in battleground states and the entirety of the libertarian vote would not have even closed the gap half way.

The OP can **** and moan all he wants. It can't be changed, its history.

 

[Trooper]

Let me be even more clear, in an attempt to speak the OPs language.

If you are a REPUBLICAN or a DEMOCRAT, that is stupid.

Do you understand that it is nearly impossible to do anything outside of a group? Even if everyone ran for elected office as an individual, people would make groups or alliances.

Thus a tribe is stronger than an individual. Minority kids realize that if they do not join a gang they are dead meat as the gang is stronger and will protect them (form of a tribe).

It is normal to seek strength in numbers.

 

[Trooper]

Note: I did address that in my post. But again, this has gone beyond "monday morning quarterbacking". We've played several games since then and some people are still trying to distract us with the game we should have won earlier in the season. Move on.

My primary point still stands. To blame independents or libertarians for not "falling in line" is absurd as Mittens won independents by double digits in battleground states and the entirety of the libertarian vote would not have even closed the gap half way.

The OP can **** and moan all he wants. It can't be changed, its history.

If you vote for the libertarian or the Green party you might as well have not voted as your vote never was counted.

The biggest block of voters was those who did not vote. That is what turned the election, not the third parties.

Plus the democrats have a lock on the stupid voting block. All of the guys who only read the sports page and ignore politics. All of the women who watch Honey Boo-Boo and are clueless. Those people vote democrat.

 

[karl77]

one party is as bad as the other. vote'm all out and start fresh.

 

[jamil]

I think all the talk about how the US should do elections is interesting and all, but it's kinda pointless. It is what it is. Not a majority likes what it is, but there's no consensus for what it should be. That's not, of course, the only reason it is what it is. But realistically, as much as I would like to see it change, I don't see that happening.

The Democrats were in as much disarray after '04 as the Republicans are after '12. Their factions fought amongst themselves just as the Republicans are now. The pundits talked about the death of Democratic Party just as they are now about Republicans. But it seems as though they figured it out, that in a two-party system, if you don't pick one, the other wins. If you don't like that, then you have few choices but to wallow in your "principled" 1.5% of the vote EVERY election.

 

[AutomationEngineer]

As someone who is an Engineer in the realm of logic and reason, let me start by saying that there is no two party system to my observation. There is one party pretending to be two parties in order to placate the populace.

Now, combine this with the almost statistically improbability that ALL of the last 8 elections were won by statistically indifferent margins, and constant and continual evidence of voter fraud, the staunch opposition to any reasonable effort to combat voter fraud, and the fact that most elections are now electronic, and not subject to outside review at all.......

IMHO, voting does nothing but register you for jury duty. Our rights are incrementally being taken away, and only the specter of armed resistance is having any deterrence in this effort to turn us into subjects like most of the rest of the world.

I am sure that the self appointed ruling-class would say that they are just trying to give the world peace and tranquility, but that is only their tranquility, where there are the heart, the few wealthy are the wheat, and the vast majority of us are the chaff, where our needs are not important. I believe we already fought one revolution over this matter. I am hoping that there are still enough of us left to keep our freedoms, demand our rights, and prevent the need to fight another one.

 

[Trooper]

As someone who is an Engineer in the realm of logic and reason, let me start by saying that there is no two party system to my observation. There is one party pretending to be two parties in order to placate the populace.

Now, combine this with the almost statistically improbability that ALL of the last 8 elections were won by statistically indifferent margins, and constant and continual evidence of voter fraud, the staunch opposition to any reasonable effort to combat voter fraud, and the fact that most elections are now electronic, and not subject to outside review at all.......

IMHO, voting does nothing but register you for jury duty. Our rights are incrementally being taken away, and only the specter of armed resistance is having any deterrence in this effort to turn us into subjects like most of the rest of the world.

I am sure that the self appointed ruling-class would say that they are just trying to give the world peace and tranquility, but that is only their tranquility, where there are the heart, the few wealthy are the wheat, and the vast majority of us are the chaff, where our needs are not important. I believe we already fought one revolution over this matter. I am hoping that there are still enough of us left to keep our freedoms, demand our rights, and prevent the need to fight another one.

you can thank the news media for making it look like one party. They put so much pressure, especially the DC media, that no one who is establishment (moderate) will take a chance on risks. And the media makes anyone who is a bit outside the norm so marginalized that they are quickly voted out of office.

We have a party and a half. One party is establishment and the other party is weak opposition.

Frankly if even voice non-standard views at work you are quickly labeled a trouble maker, someone who does not toe the politically correct line of thinking.

The democrats are planning to kill all opposition next year in order to bring about a one party system. So get used to it.

 

[88GT]

one party is as bad as the other. vote'm all out and start fresh.

And then you get the same thing with different names. This isn't about the labels.

As someone who is an Engineer in the realm of logic and reason, let me start by saying that there is no two party system to my observation. There is one party pretending to be two parties in order to placate the populace.

I'll bite. Why would the populace need placated?

Now, combine this with the almost statistically improbability that ALL of the last 8 elections were won by statistically indifferent margins, and constant and continual evidence of voter fraud, the staunch opposition to any reasonable effort to combat voter fraud, and the fact that most elections are now electronic, and not subject to outside review at all.......

Is there a conclusive thought to wrap this all up?

IMHO, voting does nothing but register you for jury duty. Our rights are incrementally being taken away, and only the specter of armed resistance is having any deterrence in this effort to turn us into subjects like most of the rest of the world.

If it doesn't matter for whom I cast my vote, then why does everyone tell me that I perpetuated the problem by not voting for Johnson?

 

[Trooper]

And then you get the same thing with different names. This isn't about the labels.



I'll bite. Why would the populace need placated?



Is there a conclusive thought to wrap this all up?



If it doesn't matter for whom I cast my vote, then why does everyone tell me that I perpetuated the problem by not voting for Johnson?

Just knock off the morally superior attitude about how much better a person you are because you did vote for Johnson.

 

[zippy23]

i completely agree the republican party has a lot of members moving towards the left. The truth is that if we "ride it out" until another party comes along, there will be nothing left and the left will take over and there will be no taking it back. We have two options, thats the way it is, i hate it but thats the truth. romney would have signed REPUBLICAN bills, that the difference. obama will never even look at one. sitting it out i believe is part of the problem. even ron paul realized this, he put an R after his name hoping he could get the support. if the republican party dies, the democrats have zero competition, and will forever change the country into another communist led failure. This needs to be realized. the republican party can be brought back to conservatives a lot easier than dying out, and another party coming into existence. sure romney sucked for conservatives, but again, he would have signed republican bills. its about time, and we dont have that time to start up a movement and gain half the country.