Teach me something.
Teach me something.
If Nader was younger I might get ...on his train, but he bores me.
Bob Barr is kinda odd too.
Why can't these parties pick charismatic (ie young people) to represent them?
they end up being throw away votes.
The fact that ANY vote placed for any candidate thoughtfully, and with good conscience, can be considered a "throw away" vote is, to me, an indication of how horrifically damaged and fundamentally flawed our political system is.
jg
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/4F02.html
Tree house of horrors FTW!
simpsons said:Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them] [audience gasps in terror] Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us. [murmurs] Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system. Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate. Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away. [Kang and Kodos laugh out loud] [Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
pete240z wrote: they end up being throw away votes.
With all due respect, berkeley you.
I'm not voting for someone who is going to drive this country into a brick wall, and the two big party candidates are only arguing about how hard to press the accelerator. When the nation goes bankrupt and the hunger riots start, at least I'll know I did what I could.
For reasons not to vote for third party candidates, see the most recent election in Canada.
Yes unfortunately once a country gets locked into a two-party system there's no way out.
Two Party system? Someone PLEASE define the difference.???
Ok, if we are two party, then we're only one party away from true communism.
Throw my vote away?
I know I will be able to sleep easy Nov 4th. Knowing I did not vote for any of the others .
AND when one of then Does &#% up. I will laugh and point at you who voted him ( or her ) in!
And they WILL *%^% up. And I will laugh at you.
If America would only WAKE UP and at least give a third party 5% of the vote. Then this corrupt government will give them election funds. and maybe the media would allow them to debate .. for real.
Really folks, can you with a clear head vote for either one of the main stream candidates?
Talk about Grassroots... what is more Grassroots than middle America making a real statement next week.
OK, off my soap box. your turn
JG Pasterjak wrote: The fact that ANY vote placed for any candidate thoughtfully, and with good conscience, can be considered a "throw away" vote is, to me, an indication of how horrifically damaged and fundamentally flawed our political system is. jg
[golfclap] Thank you. [/golfclap] I've voted with my conscience and rational logic in every election since 1984. It's never been for a Republican or Democrat (at least not for president) and I don't consider a single one of those votes as wasted.
There's been much yakity-yak about "change" this election, but I have yet to see one iota of change in any Republican or Democrat platform. As long as people see a 3rd-party vote as thrown away, we never will see any change.
SoloSonett wrote: If America would only WAKE UP and at least give a third party 5% of the vote. Then this corrupt government will give them election funds. and maybe the media would allow them to debate .. for real.
The 2 party system is the illusion of choice - it is an elegant way to let people have an outlet that doesn't involve rioting. It is a means of control. People are trained to think that the right way to change the government is to use the government rather than lynch and replace them. Its brilliant.
Tell all your peasant friends to rebel and vote Bob Barr - you aren't voting for him - you are voting to get a 3rd party on the stage so that you can maybe have a real choice someday. If that "almost" happens... $50 says that Libertarians are imprisoned and crushed just as the Socialists and IWW were in the early part of the 20th century.
This country needs involuntary term limits to get rid of the entrenched ruling class. Until then, voting third party really is a waste, exactly as it is if voting for the two entrenched parties.
We've had 2 potentially good 3rd party candidates and both times the 3rd party voter got a bozo elected.
Present day 3rd party candidates are worse than throw away votes as there is no hope of them being elected so don't brag about being able to sleep afterward. You actively helped elect the wrong person by not voting for the right person.
You have to band together against the evil.
Jensenman wrote: This country needs involuntary term limits to get rid of the entrenched ruling class. Until then, voting third party really is a waste, exactly as it is if voting for the two entrenched parties.
You realize that is in no way serving their own interest and unlikely to happen excepting on the end of a pike right?
The FBI is sooooo watching this board. Bunch of dissidents in here!
walterj wrote: Tell all your peasant friends to rebel and vote Bob Barr - you aren't voting for him - you are voting to get a 3rd party on the stage so that you can maybe have a real choice someday.
+1
I just want a "None of the above" voting option. 
MGAMGB wrote: I am voting for McCain simply because he won't help himself to 20 or 25% of my annual income.
I hope you have more reason than that...I'm not neccessarily trying to argue against your decision but I just hope you have more reason for it.
I wouldn't rule out voting for a party that would jack up my taxes. It would be a strike against them but not a deal-breaker. My decision would be very shallow and possibly hypocritical if it hinged on that.
A must read for any American:
"Revolution, a manifesto "
By Ron Paul
We would be headed to Washington in person! With pitch forks and torches!
really, it's a small book. Easy read, I'll lend you my copy if you promise to pass it on.
SoloSonett wrote: Two Party system? Someone PLEASE define the difference.??? Ok, if we are two party, then we're only one party away from true communism.
If the democrats win the presidency, they will have a super majority. If Obama wins the democrats are already talking about nationalizing 401k's within 2 years. It is possible this could be looked upon in years to come as 'Red November'.
On the bright side I foresee a conservative 3rd party emerging from this election. Since democrats have turned into socialists and republicans into moderates, I think we could pick up a fair percentage of the population.
Someone needs to cut spending in Washington, and it's not gonna be either presidential candidate. I think a large percentage of the voting population have lost their ability to think/reason, which is how we ended up in this mess...
SoloSonett wrote: A must read for any American: "Revolution, a manifesto " By Ron Paul We would be headed to Washington in person! With pitch forks and torches! really, it's a small book. Easy read, I'll lend you my copy if you promise to pass it on.
I would add "A People's History Of The United States", Howard Zinn. It helps to offer a little perspective on how we got here sans the patriotic drivel we all got in school.
I firmly believe that there should be a revolution every generation. then we are not forced to survive under the regime voted in by our parents! I believe one of the founding fathers believed the same way.
Personally, I will be voting Libertarian. A vote from the heart is never a throw away vote.
carguy123 wrote: You have to band together against the evil.
And when the top 2 candidates are varying degrees of evil?
walterj wrote:Jensenman wrote: This country needs involuntary term limits to get rid of the entrenched ruling class. Until then, voting third party really is a waste, exactly as it is if voting for the two entrenched parties.You realize that is in no way serving their own interest and unlikely to happen excepting on the end of a pike right? The FBI is sooooo watching this board. Bunch of dissidents in here!
Oh yes, I most definitely realize that. I think one of the biggest mistakes the Founding Fathers made was in not writing in term limits way back at the beginning.
What will it take to force a Constitutional amendment? From http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used) Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used) Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once) Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times) It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
Will this happen? Hell, no.
DILYSI Dave wrote:carguy123 wrote: You have to band together against the evil.And when the top 2 candidates are varying degrees of evil?
I believe Mae West put it well when she said, "When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before."
pete240z wrote: they end up being throw away votes.
McCain or Obama is not going to make a difference, so voting third party is the only vote that can, in the future, possibly make a difference. My vote will not change things. But, Maybe, if I vote third party. My vote will count. Though no vote that is cast is ever "thrown away" (a term that people who don't really want to make a difference often use) I think that a third party vote is much less "thrown away" than a dem/republican vote.
Although I wont be voting for him, If I had to pick, I'm pulling more for Obama. I just cant get behind Palin and, uh, the other guy shes running with.
Joey
You'll need to log in to post.
