Question for american politically literate people.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Could I be a member of more than one party?
I ask because if I were a democrat right now I would totally join the Republican party to vote Newt Ginritch in the primaries(sabotaging Mitt).

Also there could be other shenanigans. Like derailing policy polls

No, you can only be registered as one party. You can vote in open republican primaries however. So if there is one in your district knock yourself out. But they do have safeguards in place to prevent people like you from doing stuff like that.

I'm a registered democrat for this very purpose :)

you can register as an independent and vote for whoever. why you would want to sabotage the most moderate member in the current republican primaries is beyond me but hey to each their own.

Some states have open primaries, some you have to be a member of the party. Though you can't be in more than one, as Eclaris stated. I don't think its very hard to deregister and then reregister as a different though.

usmarine4160:
I'm a registered democrat for this very purpose :)

Same, though vice versa. I've been Independent since I turned 18, but I switched to Republican last year so I could vote for Santorum (though I might do Gingrich if the polling for Santorum here is terrible, I haven't checked yet).

edit:

keiskay:
you can register as an independent and vote for whoever. why you would want to sabotage the most moderate member in the current republican primaries is beyond me but hey to each their own.

Because Obama can beat Santorum without having to open his mouth, Gingrich with his hands tied behind his back, but with Romney it might actually be a contest. For people who want Obama to win, obviously we don't want that.

Wish we could get a good president like Teddy Roosevelt, he resigned as Secretary of the Navy to go fight in the Spanish-American war. Kinda sucks how we became president because McKinley got himself assassinated but he was an awesome leader.

usmarine4160:
I'm a registered democrat for this very purpose :)

So you're really a Republican?

OT: My mother is a very conservative woman, but she registered as a democrat back in 92' in order to do pretty much what you described. As a result, she to this day gets requests for money that she never responds to.

No you can't be in more than one party. The laws are different from state to state in terms of voting in primaries but I know that if you vote in one party primary you cant vote in the other and I think you actually have to register as one or the other or as an independent but again depends on the state.

CM156:

usmarine4160:
I'm a registered democrat for this very purpose :)

So you're really a Republican?

Most of the time, I never supported Bush and I voted Obama over Cotton and Peggy Hill ;)

So...You HAVE to support one party (Out of two) or be independent?
Is there really no other Party to vote for?

Diablo1099:
So...You HAVE to support one party (Out of two) or be independent?
Is there really no other Party to vote for?

there is a bnch of smaller parties but they dont have the money, history, or wide scale coverage of issues that the democrat and republican parties have. there is a communist party of America, NAZI party of America, green party etc.etc...

Diablo1099:
So...You HAVE to support one party (Out of two) or be independent?
Is there really no other Party to vote for?

There are tons of parties... but with our system they don't matter at all. We vote so some guy can go and throw in the vote for the state, but he isn't required to cast the vote that the majority of the state think they selected. He can cast the vote for whoever he feels like.

Doitpow:
Could I be a member of more than one party?
I ask because if I were a democrat right now I would totally join the Republican party to vote Newt Ginritch in the primaries(sabotaging Mitt).

Also there could be other shenanigans. Like derailing policy polls

You can register for one day, than go back to being a Democrat.

Diablo1099:
So...You HAVE to support one party (Out of two) or be independent?
Is there really no other Party to vote for?

Yes there is. There a plenty of parties that you can vote for, including Green, Libertarian Party, (don't quote me on this one, it has been disbanded and reformed so many times I can't tell how if still exists) the Socialist party, and many others.

However, the "Big Two" are basically the only ones that have a shot of being ELECTED ever, with some minor exceptions (mostly at a state or local level). There are many reasons for it, although look up "jarry mandering" to see the worst reason.

Not G. Ivingname:

Diablo1099:
So...You HAVE to support one party (Out of two) or be independent?
Is there really no other Party to vote for?

Yes there is. There a plenty of parties that you can vote for, including Green, Libertarian Party, (don't quote me on this one, it has been disbanded and reformed so many times I can't tell how if still exists) the Socialist party, and many others.

However, the "Big Two" are basically the only ones that have a shot of being ELECTED ever, with some minor exceptions (mostly at a state or local level). There are many reasons for it, although look up "jarry mandering" to see the worst reason.

Gerrymandering.

Thank wiki for a complete list of US political parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

Some of my favorites (the ones I find the most humorous) include:

America First Party - For when you see the Tea Party as flaming socialists.

American Third Position Party - Because nothing says defeat like actually resigning to the fact that you will always be a 3rd party.

American Party - Having the least creative name est 1969.

America's Party - Ripping off the least creative name est 2008.

American Socialist Party - Nobody told them that there has been a Freedom Socialist Party since 1966.

Communist Party of the United States - Its almost an oxymoron.

Green Party - The big fish in a small pond.

Independence Party of America - George III has yet to get back with them on Independence. (this was meant as a joke, I have no idea what their platform is).

Independent American Party - ...oh nevermind.

Jefferson Republican Party - They claim to be descent from the original Democratic-Republican Party which died out a long time ago.

Labor Party - Because there is no U in labor.

Libertarian Party - I checked and they are still around, actually they may be a bigger deal than the Green Party.

Modern Whig Party - As in the hairpiece not the pre-Civil War political party.

National Socialism Movement - Because National Socialism has never been tried before...right?

New Union Party - Basically Marxists that make Hoffa look like a Republican.

Objectivists Party - May or may not objectively be a political party.

Party for Socialism and Liberation - So has anyone else figured out why socialism never seems to catch on in America (I mean other than its internal flaws)?

Prohibition Party - Hey they got it in the Constitution once...who is to say they can't again, you know besides the entire country?

Raza Unida Party - For those who believe the Mexican-American War never happened and think Mexico should own the Southwest.

Socialist Action, Socialist Alternative, Socialist Equality Party, Socialist Labor Party of America, Socialist Party USA, and Socialist Workers Party - anyone at all still stumped as to why the socialist never have much election success besides the problems with socialism itself?

United States Marijuana Party - I have no idea what their main issue is.

United States Pirate Party - It came from Sweden...attempts to nominate Johnny Depp have been unsuccessful and so they left the Caribbean.

Workers World Party - The Socialist Party that decided having socialism in their name may be losing them votes (split off from the Socialist Workers Party in 1958).

Doitpow:
Could I be a member of more than one party?
I ask because if I were a democrat right now I would totally join the Republican party to vote Newt Ginritch in the primaries(sabotaging Mitt).

Also there could be other shenanigans. Like derailing policy polls

No. You can't be in two party's primaries at once.

You can be in the Democratic party, and vote for a Republican candidate in the actual election. Or vote for.. anything. But you can't vote in their primary.

Think of the primary less as the election and more a marketing tool the parties use to feel who is best for them to represent themselves with. Because that's how it is legally seen.

It has a dubious legal relationship. It's not an 'official' election of office, so the parties can restrict anybody they want from voting in the primary (and some states don't vote at all, and just 'pick'). And both parties restrict you from voting if you're registered with the other party, and try to make it damn hard to register with both.

Seekster:

Not G. Ivingname:

Diablo1099:
So...You HAVE to support one party (Out of two) or be independent?
Is there really no other Party to vote for?

Yes there is. There a plenty of parties that you can vote for, including Green, Libertarian Party, (don't quote me on this one, it has been disbanded and reformed so many times I can't tell how if still exists) the Socialist party, and many others.

However, the "Big Two" are basically the only ones that have a shot of being ELECTED ever, with some minor exceptions (mostly at a state or local level). There are many reasons for it, although look up "jarry mandering" to see the worst reason.

Gerrymandering.

Thank you for that, it reminded me of why I used to be registered with the wrong party.

No, no. It's nothing as dubious as fucking with their primary. I don't even vote for the primary because, as I said, it's mostly a marketing tool and meaningless, and I let those eggheads figure that shit out on their own; because frankly they will with or without my or your input.

They pick the people that go to the primary, which to me is just as good as picking the candidate and having no primary.

The reason I am, is because if you register Republican where I used to live, you go to a polling place with electricity that doesn't stop every 5 minutes and has 5 minute long lines, because they made enough polling places for everybody. If you register Democrat they send you and everybody else registered Democrat to a church basement smaller than my nut sack, where you and 20 million people wait in a line around the block and then the power goes out there for 40 minutes every 5 so you're not even sure your vote is counted anyways, not that it matters because, despite legally if you're in line before 8:30 your vote counts, the media will call the election around 8:30 PST, and that cements the winner in the minds of the American population.

If a 'different' winner is found out 2 days later when all the ballots are counted, too fucking bad, the Supreme Court will end your recounts, and the American people will cheer them on, because the news already said who was president and they don't care what the actual result was.

...

I have this terrible fear that supporting Santorum as the Republican candidate is going to go horribly right.

Er, no pun intended.

I never really liked the 2 party system, and in fact the electoral college system too (because Gore and Obama got pretty much the same percentage of votes, but only Obama won).

In NZ we have Mixed Member Proportional, which means you vote for a party and a local candidate from one of those parties. Most of the candidates get in on electorate vote, and about 35% of the seats are made up of party vote seats.

Some argue that because of the wide variety of parties in parliament that nothing gets done, but this is true of most democracies. It is good to see that the Green Party of NZ gets say in things (even if I don't fully agree with them all the time).

It is a fair system, and although some people disagree, we are one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

Damien Granz:

Doitpow:
Could I be a member of more than one party?
I ask because if I were a democrat right now I would totally join the Republican party to vote Newt Ginritch in the primaries(sabotaging Mitt).

Also there could be other shenanigans. Like derailing policy polls

No. You can't be in two party's primaries at once.

You can be in the Democratic party, and vote for a Republican candidate in the actual election. Or vote for.. anything. But you can't vote in their primary.

Think of the primary less as the election and more a marketing tool the parties use to feel who is best for them to represent themselves with. Because that's how it is legally seen.

It has a dubious legal relationship. It's not an 'official' election of office, so the parties can restrict anybody they want from voting in the primary (and some states don't vote at all, and just 'pick'). And both parties restrict you from voting if you're registered with the other party, and try to make it damn hard to register with both.

Seekster:

Not G. Ivingname:

Yes there is. There a plenty of parties that you can vote for, including Green, Libertarian Party, (don't quote me on this one, it has been disbanded and reformed so many times I can't tell how if still exists) the Socialist party, and many others.

However, the "Big Two" are basically the only ones that have a shot of being ELECTED ever, with some minor exceptions (mostly at a state or local level). There are many reasons for it, although look up "jarry mandering" to see the worst reason.

Gerrymandering.

Thank you for that, it reminded me of why I used to be registered with the wrong party.

No, no. It's nothing as dubious as fucking with their primary. I don't even vote for the primary because, as I said, it's mostly a marketing tool and meaningless, and I let those eggheads figure that shit out on their own; because frankly they will with or without my or your input.

They pick the people that go to the primary, which to me is just as good as picking the candidate and having no primary.

The reason I am, is because if you register Republican where I used to live, you go to a polling place with electricity that doesn't stop every 5 minutes and has 5 minute long lines, because they made enough polling places for everybody. If you register Democrat they send you and everybody else registered Democrat to a church basement smaller than my nut sack, where you and 20 million people wait in a line around the block and then the power goes out there for 40 minutes every 5 so you're not even sure your vote is counted anyways, not that it matters because, despite legally if you're in line before 8:30 your vote counts, the media will call the election around 8:30 PST, and that cements the winner in the minds of the American population.

If a 'different' winner is found out 2 days later when all the ballots are counted, too fucking bad, the Supreme Court will end your recounts, and the American people will cheer them on, because the news already said who was president and they don't care what the actual result was.

If the Democrats didnt demonize the rich so much maybe they could afford generators? Seriously though I can't imagine the Democratic party of today going anywhere near a church for voting (separation of church and state ooooh). Now the Democratic party of a few decades ago, sure...damn I miss the time when we had two viable parties instead of today where we have none...

By the way I take it you are from Florida?

LoFr3Eq:
I never really liked the 2 party system, and in fact the electoral college system too (because Gore and Obama got pretty much the same percentage of votes, but only Obama won).

In NZ we have Mixed Member Proportional, which means you vote for a party and a local candidate from one of those parties. Most of the candidates get in on electorate vote, and about 35% of the seats are made up of party vote seats.

Some argue that because of the wide variety of parties in parliament that nothing gets done, but this is true of most democracies. It is good to see that the Green Party of NZ gets say in things (even if I don't fully agree with them all the time).

It is a fair system, and although some people disagree, we are one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

Hmm yeah ive come to realize some of the flaws with the electoral college myself but honestly its rare for it to make a real difference as to who wins. I think there have only be 2 or 3 times in the history of the nation (or at least since they started counting the popular vote which is most of our history) when a candidate who won the popular vote lost the election. So yeah its an imperfect system but it works well enough. If they are going to reform the system sure I am on board but I'd rather see campaign fiance reform (and I mean REAL campaign finance reform, not some ploy by one party or the other to give themselves and advantage) done first.

As for the people whining about their primaries, I don't want to hear it. Here I sit in the state of Texas. We have more delegates up for grabs than any other red state and when is our primary? Was going to be in March, now it won't be till May at the earliest. Why? Because a long time ago the rest of the south invited Texas to join something called the Confederacy and then a few years later they surrendered without bothering to tell us. Now whenever we draw a new district map and the NAACP doesnt like it (which is all the time) we need a federal court to approve it and until we can get it approved we are stuck. Heck there are people running for offices right now and they don't even know what cities are going to be in their district or even if their district will still exist. Misrata's elections the other day were probably more orderly. And the worst part is, its so not our fault, Jeff Davis promised us there would be BBQ and we can't say no to BBQ.

Seekster:

Damien Granz:
Words

If the Democrats didn't demonize the rich so much maybe they could afford generators? Seriously though I can't imagine the Democratic party of today going anywhere near a church for voting (separation of church and state ooooh). Now the Democratic party of a few decades ago, sure...damn I miss the time when we had two viable parties instead of today where we have none...

By the way I take it you are from Florida?

I think the point flew over your head in like 12 different ways, and probably intentionally so you can make some asshat 'observation'. Even if the Democratic party is all made up of city-trash welfare slobs who don't know how to run a generator (the same way that the Republican party members are all inbred white trash racist rednecks sitting on a porch fondling a shotgun erotically, who's only mode of communication or contribution to community or work ethic is sitting on a porch complaining in colorful language about minorities while misquoting the bible, the founding fathers and abusing the English language because the last time they read was never, amirite?) the Democratic party isn't responsible for polling places for the general election. The at-time current local government (who were Republicans) were.

You're basically telling me that gerrymandering is the fault, not of the politicians that did it, but of the people that live in the district, to make some stupid joke about how Democrats can't enter sacred ground. That's comedy gold right there.

Here's the thing though. Roughly 80% of the country is religious in some way (and about 60% is Christian in specific). The remaining 20% might not be atheists (they could be agnostic, or practice a general 'mysticism' that is unique to their person and not an established religion, ala the "I believe in God, just not your God."). In any given election between 47 and 53% of the country are Democrats (as much as you'd love to think we're some super tiny minority and you're the 'real' Americans, you're not. We're not either. We share the country with you, too. Get over it).

That means, that even if the whole of the 20% of 'maybe' Atheists (which again, aren't all atheist, some just don't follow any one specific church), there's still a religious 30% of the country that are Democrats (and at least half our party or more is religious).

So your bellyaching that it's Godless Heathens Vs. Real America is bullshit and insulting. We don't burst into flames entering a fucking church, we just don't want church decrees running the country, especially when you take into consideration that even if I felt that one specific church's decrees were the 'right' thing to do, I got to share the country with millions of people that don't, so maybe be respectful and mindful of them when I vote and how I decorate the country.

Because to me, you're not less 'real Americans' than me. Maybe that's a lesson the right should learn.

LoFr3Eq:
I never really liked the 2 party system, and in fact the electoral college system too (because Gore and Obama got pretty much the same percentage of votes, but only Obama won).

In NZ we have Mixed Member Proportional, which means you vote for a party and a local candidate from one of those parties. Most of the candidates get in on electorate vote, and about 35% of the seats are made up of party vote seats.

Some argue that because of the wide variety of parties in parliament that nothing gets done, but this is true of most democracies. It is good to see that the Green Party of NZ gets say in things (even if I don't fully agree with them all the time).

It is a fair system, and although some people disagree, we are one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

Compared to what? Iran? Yeah. I'll give you credit there.

But we as a country regularly fail the benchmarks on 'freedom of elections' that we impose on other countries as a pretense to intervene. What this means is that, if America of right now was a tiny third world country, and there was another America where we used to be, the second America would talk shit about our elections.

So the 'least corrupt countries' in the world line is bull, if by 'the world' you mean 'first world industrialized western nations', because by that mark we're almost dead last, and that's behind places that have a queen.

And our only proposed methods of fixing an election system that is set up to disenfranchise people is to make it harder for people to vote at all.

EClaris:
No, you can only be registered as one party. You can vote in open republican primaries however. So if there is one in your district knock yourself out. But they do have safeguards in place to prevent people like you from doing stuff like that.

Yeah, that depends on how states handle their primaries. Sometimes there are open primaries, and other places have closed. Sometimes you can vote in the other party's primary, sometimes you can't.

And to answer the other side of the OP's question, you have to register as one party but you can vote for whoever you want regardless (again, except in primaries).

Damien Granz:

Seekster:

Damien Granz:
Words

If the Democrats didn't demonize the rich so much maybe they could afford generators? Seriously though I can't imagine the Democratic party of today going anywhere near a church for voting (separation of church and state ooooh). Now the Democratic party of a few decades ago, sure...damn I miss the time when we had two viable parties instead of today where we have none...

By the way I take it you are from Florida?

I think the point flew over your head in like 12 different ways, and probably intentionally so you can make some asshat 'observation'. Even if the Democratic party is all made up of city-trash welfare slobs who don't know how to run a generator (the same way that the Republican party members are all inbred white trash racist rednecks sitting on a porch fondling a shotgun erotically, who's only mode of communication or contribution to community or work ethic is sitting on a porch complaining in colorful language about minorities while misquoting the bible, the founding fathers and abusing the English language because the last time they read was never, amirite?) the Democratic party isn't responsible for polling places for the general election. The at-time current local government (who were Republicans) were.

You're basically telling me that gerrymandering is the fault, not of the politicians that did it, but of the people that live in the district. That's comedy gold right there.

Oh I'm sorry I assumed you were above the ridiculous game of implying that voter intimidation tactics are to blame here.

Um where did I say anything about Democratic voters being "city-trash"? You can stuff the stereotypes please, they have no place in a civil discussion.

What? Oh no Gerrymandering is totally the fault/responsibility of the people who did it. How did you get the idea I said it wasn't?

Seekster:

Communist Party of the United States - Its almost an oxymoron.

How so?

Just because America is virulently anticommunist doesn't mean communists have to be anti-American.

Seekster:

Party for Socialism and Liberation - So has anyone else figured out why socialism never seems to catch on in America (I mean other than its internal flaws)?

*waves hand* Ooo! Ooo! I know this one!
It's because we've had relentless pro-capital propaganda since before the Great Depression to convince us that Communism is the work of Satan! (And since the 1980s, that Unions are evil.)

(I have to admit that your comments were funny. Credit where credit is due, and all that.)

Damien Granz:

LoFr3Eq:
I never really liked the 2 party system, and in fact the electoral college system too (because Gore and Obama got pretty much the same percentage of votes, but only Obama won).

In NZ we have Mixed Member Proportional, which means you vote for a party and a local candidate from one of those parties. Most of the candidates get in on electorate vote, and about 35% of the seats are made up of party vote seats.

Some argue that because of the wide variety of parties in parliament that nothing gets done, but this is true of most democracies. It is good to see that the Green Party of NZ gets say in things (even if I don't fully agree with them all the time).

It is a fair system, and although some people disagree, we are one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

Compared to what? Iran? Yeah. I'll give you credit there.

But we as a country regularly fail the benchmarks on 'freedom of elections' that we impose on other countries as a pretense to intervene. What this means is that, if America of right now was a tiny third world country, and there was another America where we used to be, the second America would talk shit about our elections.

So the 'least corrupt countries' in the world line is bull, if by 'the world' you mean 'first world industrialized western nations', because by that mark we're almost dead last, and that's behind places that have a queen.

And our only proposed methods of fixing an election system that is set up to disenfranchise people is to make it harder for people to vote at all.

I didn't actually understand much of your post, but anyway here's the link that says that NEW ZEALAND is the least corrupt country in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

And from what I've read the voting infrastructure in The US is pretty lopsided as you say.

LoFr3Eq:

Damien Granz:

LoFr3Eq:
I never really liked the 2 party system, and in fact the electoral college system too (because Gore and Obama got pretty much the same percentage of votes, but only Obama won).

In NZ we have Mixed Member Proportional, which means you vote for a party and a local candidate from one of those parties. Most of the candidates get in on electorate vote, and about 35% of the seats are made up of party vote seats.

Some argue that because of the wide variety of parties in parliament that nothing gets done, but this is true of most democracies. It is good to see that the Green Party of NZ gets say in things (even if I don't fully agree with them all the time).

It is a fair system, and although some people disagree, we are one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

Compared to what? Iran? Yeah. I'll give you credit there.

But we as a country regularly fail the benchmarks on 'freedom of elections' that we impose on other countries as a pretense to intervene. What this means is that, if America of right now was a tiny third world country, and there was another America where we used to be, the second America would talk shit about our elections.

So the 'least corrupt countries' in the world line is bull, if by 'the world' you mean 'first world industrialized western nations', because by that mark we're almost dead last, and that's behind places that have a queen.

And our only proposed methods of fixing an election system that is set up to disenfranchise people is to make it harder for people to vote at all.

I didn't actually understand much of your post, but anyway here's the link that says that NEW ZEALAND is the least corrupt country in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

And from what I've read the voting infrastructure in The US is pretty lopsided as you say.

Hah, alright, I see what went wrong here.

OK, I misunderstood 'NZ' to be some local election area/board within America, because your comment was about American elections at first (the Obama/Gore comment) in a topic about American elections.

I didn't realize you meant New Zealand, the country, had the least corrupted elections.

I was confused to thinking you meant America has one of the least corrupt election systems in the world, which is why I gave that hearty "Buuuullshit" line. I love my country, but it and it's elections needs some serious work[1], and it'd be a disservice to it to pretend it's doing the best when it can (and should and have to) do better.

If New Zealand is doing well in that area as you say, then we should look to them for ideas or inspiration. I honestly don't know much about New Zealand to comment, other than to comment that I have never heard really a bad thing about the place.

It would be a bit Jingonistic of me to say 'we should be the best', because honestly whomever is best 'should' be the best. And if it ain't us, oh well. But we sure as shit have no excuse for not being tied with the top tier.

Hah, sorry for all the rage in my previous comment though. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Seekster:
Um where did I say anything about Democratic voters being "city-trash"?

Seekster:

If the Democrats didn't demonize the rich so much maybe they could afford generators?

Implying that a sizable population collectively didn't have enough money to afford a single electric bill for a day was a good start to that.

Seekster:
You can stuff the stereotypes please, they have no place in a civil discussion.

Seekster:
Seriously though I can't imagine the Democratic party of today going anywhere near a church for voting

Seekster:

If the Democrats didn't demonize the rich so much maybe they could afford generators?

Seekster:
(Click User Name Link to view an entire post of almost nothing but using political party sterotypes for 'humor')

Yes. Civil discussions mean using no stereotypes, unless you don't like the other guy, I guess.

Seekster:
What? Oh no Gerrymandering is totally the fault/responsibility of the people who did it. How did you get the idea I said it wasn't?

How did I get the idea? Because you basically said it yourself.

Seekster:
Oh I'm sorry I assumed you were above the ridiculous game of implying that voter intimidation tactics are to blame here.

First of all, voter intimidation by placing people in inadequate polling places so their vote isn't counted or so they give up in frustration and go home is a core part of gerrymandering. So you're implying that gerrymandering isn't even a thing, let alone the blame of the people that did it.

Seekster:

If the Democrats didn't demonize the rich so much maybe they could afford generators?

Second of all, you implied that it was the fault of the voters for being disenfranchised for just being too poor to be assigned a proper polling place. That's how.

[1] And sadly the 'work' being done on it currently further exasperates the problem by disenfranchising even more people. Siiigh.

Seekster:
-snipy-

Highly amusing post.

Hahahahahaha... The American party? "...In New York, the party ran a state ticket in 1974 under the name of Courage Party..." -wiki. Oh wow, hahahahahahaha.

theonewhois3:

Seekster:
-snipy-

Highly amusing post.

Hahahahahaha... The American party? "...In New York, the party ran a state ticket in 1974 under the name of Courage Party..." -wiki. Oh wow, hahahahahahaha.

Yeah and I assume you heard of that party in New York called "The Rent is too damn high" party.

But yeah, this is pretty much why American third parties are like throwing your vote away, because most of them are even more pathetic than the two main parties who are pathetic enough themselves. Also the Socialists are never going to win anything when there are like a dozen different socialist parties...so good.

Seekster:

theonewhois3:

Seekster:
-snipy-

Highly amusing post.

Hahahahahaha... The American party? "...In New York, the party ran a state ticket in 1974 under the name of Courage Party..." -wiki. Oh wow, hahahahahahaha.

Yeah and I assume you heard of that party in New York called "The Rent is too damn high" party.

But yeah, this is pretty much why American third parties are like throwing your vote away, because most of them are even more pathetic than the two main parties who are pathetic enough themselves. Also the Socialists are never going to win anything when there are like a dozen different socialist parties...so good.

I can't let you get the last post in this thread...

Yeah i could see your point. That system is weird to me. In aus, we have deferred voting. So say you voted for the socialist party, which i'm sure we have somewhere, When they get say only 0.002% of the vote or something, they'll give those votes to a pre-declared party who in turn may also do so. Thus i can vote for the Sex party, and in the end i'm voting for the Greens who's votes end up going to the ALP. Also, rent is too damn high.

theonewhois3:

Seekster:

theonewhois3:

Highly amusing post.

Hahahahahaha... The American party? "...In New York, the party ran a state ticket in 1974 under the name of Courage Party..." -wiki. Oh wow, hahahahahahaha.

Yeah and I assume you heard of that party in New York called "The Rent is too damn high" party.

But yeah, this is pretty much why American third parties are like throwing your vote away, because most of them are even more pathetic than the two main parties who are pathetic enough themselves. Also the Socialists are never going to win anything when there are like a dozen different socialist parties...so good.

I can't let you get the last post in this thread...

Yeah i could see your point. That system is weird to me. In aus, we have deferred voting. So say you voted for the socialist party, which i'm sure we have somewhere, When they get say only 0.002% of the vote or something, they'll give those votes to a pre-declared party who in turn may also do so. Thus i can vote for the Sex party, and in the end i'm voting for the Greens who's votes end up going to the ALP. Also, rent is too damn high.

Yeah I don't think we have that in America. I would have to check but I think the only time that sort of thing happens is when no candidate gets the needed electoral votes to win. The only time I remember that actually happening is during the Election of 1824 when you had essentially four candidates; John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, William Crawford, and Henry Clay (who never seemed to catch a break in Presidential elections). All four men got electoral votes but none got enough to win outright so by law the matter went to the House of Representatives and only the top 3 candidates; Adams, Jackson, and Crawford, had a chance at that point. By the way Speaker of the House was none other than Henry Clay. Andrew Jackson had won the most electoral votes and the popular vote but in the House Clay through his support behind Adams and John Quincy Adams won the election. To top it all off Adams named Clay his Secretary of State.

Jackson in typical fashion declared eternal hatred for Henry Clay and he would have his revenge against both him and Adams in the next election. In the election of 1828 Jackson was the nominee by a new party called the Democratic Party (the same one we have today) and was the eventual victor. (The image of the Donkey actually comes from a campaign attack where Jackson was called a jackass...he like the idea and adopted the jackass or rather donkey as the symbol for the party that had formed around him).

But anyway yeah the only time votes may go from one candidate to another is when nobody wins an outright majority. That may happen sometimes at the state or local level but there we just have run off elections. In a Presidential Election I think the so-called "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay is the only time in US Presidential history something like that has happened (or at least that we know of). I kind of want to check that though because I think it may have happened again after the Civil War but I'm not sure. Anyway since there are only two main political parties you are all but guaranteed to have one of them win a majority. Plus in America you dont vote for parties you vote for individual candidates.

Seekster:
Plus in America you don't vote for parties you vote for individual candidates.

Unless you hit the 'Vote for X party', at which point you effectively do.

Honestly "First Passed the Goal Post" voting systems and the Electoral College system are dinosaurs and have to go.

A 2 party system is actually beneficial to our system because our system is so crappy that a third, viable party means that there's good odds that nobody gets what it wants. Our system actively encourages something that nobody wants (2 parties).

Even if we had a viable third party, it wouldn't go how we wanted it, with our system.

Damien Granz:

Seekster:
Plus in America you don't vote for parties you vote for individual candidates.

Unless you hit the 'Vote for X party', at which point you effectively do.

Honestly "First Passed the Goal Post" voting systems and the Electoral College system are dinosaurs and have to go.

A 2 party system is actually beneficial to our system because our system is so crappy that a third, viable party means that there's good odds that nobody gets what it wants. Our system actively encourages something that nobody wants (2 parties).

Even if we had a viable third party, it wouldn't go how we wanted it, with our system.

Well yeah thats called voting a straight ticket but thats just an option for convenience. The ballot still lists individual candidates.

The system isnt perfect but it works. Can it be improved? Sure absolutely it can, but it does work.

Seekster:
Well yeah that's called voting a straight ticket but that's just an option for convenience. The ballot still lists individual candidates.

The system isn't perfect but it works. Can it be improved? Sure absolutely it can, but it does work.

No, it doesn't. That's the problem. I mean, for some definitions of work, in the same way that walking from Washington state to Washington DC 'works', but is much less effective than a plane or bus.

The single biggest complaint I hear out of about everybody of our election systems, yourself included, is how it encourages 2 monolithic parties with no real way simple way this side of 50 years of work, to break into that.

Nobody is getting what they want in a system designed for us to tell it what we want. That's a sign of it 'not working'.

Worse yet, because of how we vote, the system works best when it only has 2 parties, which is the opposite of what we want.

Again, election systems should be designed to put the representatives the populous wants in office, and the way ours is designed is so that absolutely nobody gets what they want, and even if what we wanted was on the menu, the system's design would bungle our order up so that the majority got the thing we least wanted anyways. That's a catastrophic failure of a system.

I'm not sure how more broken a system can be before it's taken to a mechanic's office.

If this was a car, it'd only be able to take turns to one side[1], and the gas would start up only if you slammed it 6 or 7 times, and it'd stall out every few hundred feet.. and then people being like "Well, this works!" because it does occasionally move, and moves faster than nothing.

Why are we settling for that?

[1] And honest to goodness, this isn't mean to be some smart ass metaphor to 'it always goes to the right/left'.

Damien Granz:
Why are we settling for that?

Because the only people with legal authority to change the system are the ones who've currently successfully exploited the system. It's a bit of a problem.

The best solution I've been able to think of, short of a New Constitutional Convention (Which I fear would by hijacked by the Teabaggers, Greedheads, Christocrats, and other wingnuts to turn this country into Gilead,) is to get the voting rules changed on a state-by-state basis. Which will NOT be easy, but it might be possible.

Bymidew:

Damien Granz:
Why are we settling for that?

Because the only people with legal authority to change the system are the ones who've currently successfully exploited the system. It's a bit of a problem.

The best solution I've been able to think of, short of a New Constitutional Convention (Which I fear would by hijacked by the Teabaggers, Greedheads, Christocrats, and other wingnuts to turn this country into Gilead,) is to get the voting rules changed on a state-by-state basis. Which will NOT be easy, but it might be possible.

OK. It might or might not be possible. But by settling and going "Well, that's how it is!" then.. it's not possible right there. That's a self-defeating, self-fulfilling prophecy, and I guess I don't like it.

theonewhois3:
Yeah i could see your point. That system is weird to me. In aus, we have deferred voting. So say you voted for the socialist party, which i'm sure we have somewhere, When they get say only 0.002% of the vote or something, they'll give those votes to a pre-declared party who in turn may also do so. Thus i can vote for the Sex party, and in the end i'm voting for the Greens who's votes end up going to the ALP. Also, rent is too damn high.

Er...what state are you in?

I dunno about you, but for me, voting above the line for an upper house (state or federal) basically means your vote goes below the line identically to the way the group you choose has decided. It doesn't matter what the other candidates/parties choose as their preferences, if your second choice doesn't get the vote, your third, not their second does.

I don't know if they still are around, but back in the table cloth days when suddenly lots of new parties came into existence, there was a "make billionaires pay more tax" party.

I think there are Socialist Labour and Liberal Socialist parties or somesuch, but I think they are trying to disguise themselves as Labor and Liberal respectively more than anything.

...

I've worked at several elections, and they seem to be less competently run every time, in that they find new and exciting ways to make things hard for us polling officials. On the other hand, they don't enforce the rules about not walking off with stationery and stuff afterwards very well.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked