Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yup, 300M and we get such a small handful of candidates to weed through, then its boiled down to just 2 essentially. You have infinitely more options for even just buying a car...sad.
Would you be more or less happy having several candidates running for president, yet the winner not getting more than 30% of the vote?
Well since we don't elect a president based on popular vote, I don't see how your question is relevant.
True, but if we had multiple candidates, we probably would elect by popular vote over electoral college. Which I am sure most agree that the electoral college isn't a good system because it doesn't represent the states properly. Just because a state goes to one party or the other doesn't mean the state is fully for that candidate.
Of course if we didn't have the electoral college, you would have candidates only campaigning in the most populated areas, thus leaving the people in rural areas to feel left out of the elections....but then on the other hand, people are left out being in states that are solidly for a candidate.
But my original question still stands, if we had multiple parties running for office, would it bother you that the winner would only be getting 30% of the vote?
True, but if we had multiple candidates, we probably would elect by popular vote over electoral college. Which I am sure most agree that the electoral college isn't a good system because it doesn't represent the states properly. Just because a state goes to one party or the other doesn't mean the state is fully for that candidate.
Of course if we didn't have the electoral college, you would have candidates only campaigning in the most populated areas, thus leaving the people in rural areas to feel left out of the elections....but then on the other hand, people are left out being in states that are solidly for a candidate.
But my original question still stands, if we had multiple parties running for office, would it bother you that the winner would only be getting 30% of the vote?
So by your logic, if tomorrow the Libertarian party suddenly mustered enough support to be included in the debates or pose a serious challenge, you think we would immediately have an amendment to the Constitution ratified to remove the electoral college system? That is an incredibly unlikely scenario you propose just to try and get me to answer a question in a way that you want to hear it answered.
So by your logic, if tomorrow the Libertarian party suddenly mustered enough support to be included in the debates or pose a serious challenge, you think we would immediately have an amendment to the Constitution ratified to remove the electoral college system? That is an incredibly unlikely scenario you propose just to try and get me to answer a question in a way that you want to hear it answered.
But just for sh!ts and giggles, yea sure.
No, I don't think we would get rid of the electoral system, much like I don't see a third party ever becoming a viable candidate for president.
Here's a fundamental philosophical question I have about this election. How did a Republican candidate who basically agrees with everything Obama said in this last debate get to be nominated to be the Republican nominee in the first place?
Easy. Two-facedness. He basically disagreed with everything Obama has said when he was talking to the Republican base during the primaries. Now he halfway likes some of the president's words, halfway likes some of the president's ideas, halfway likes some of Obamacare, etc. now that he is talking to the whole nation and not just the Republican base.
That's why we see a Mitt Romney behind closed doors who says 47% of people consider themselves victims and don't take personal responsibility and care for their lives- so his job isn't to worry about them- but THEN out in public says he actually cares about 100% of the people. Or a Mitt who, during the primaries, was for the Republican budget which cut the HECK out of Pell Grants but thankfully didn't get passed, but now is all in favor of expanding Pell Grants in front of a town hall of undecided voters. Or a Mitt who, during the primaries, was boasting of his tax cut because he's all FOR tax cuts, but who then, AFTER he's got the nomination, turns around and says "by the way, if you're expecting a tax cut, don't because I'm closing loopholes and eliminating deductions so you really won't be getting a tax cut, (never mind what I said during the primaries)." Mitt says one thing at one time to one group of people and then says a different thing at a different time to a different group of people.
He's a two-faced flip flopper on issue after issue after issue. He'll say whatever he thinks will get him the votes, and if he has to change his stance to get the votes, no problem, stance changed. He got to be the nominee by talking out of both sides of his mouth. There's no telling what that sort of phony would ACTUALLY do once he got into office.
Well, we need to find a way to get a viable third party candidate...or more because the current system is turning into a huge failure.
Well then what would that party look like? Should it be far right, far left? center? And why can't one of the two parties simply migrate to those positions, it isn't impossible for our two parties change their positions because it has happened before.
We already have a list of extra parties that just aren't able to compete at the presidential level, which one of those parties should be a third party option? Should our country set up a system that makes a candidate campaign only on public money that would allow for a level playing field and make it easier for another party to answer the race?
Right now, if you want a third party, it will have to come from either the Democrats or Republicans that have chosen to break away from their own party to create a new fraction.
Well then what would that party look like? Should it be far right, far left? center? And why can't one of the two parties simply migrate to those positions, it isn't impossible for our two parties change their positions because it has happened before.
One IS. The Democratic Party is now supportive of both leftist candidates as well as moderates/centrists. Look up centrist in the dictionary and you might see a picture of Bill Clinton- and Dems LOVE him, even the far lefties.
The Republican Party, on the other hand, HATES dissent and more moderation on issues like abortion or immigration. And they will actively SKEWER any Republican who says that we need to significantly reduce our overseas military engagements. When VP candidate Paul Ryan (famous for his Ryan budget) began talking about cutting the deficit and how we can cut a lot of waste at the Pentagon, his Republican colleagues FLIPPED OUT, and they scolded him such that he was quickly retracting that statement. Such talk is not permitted in the Republican ranks, such talk must be scolded and/or punished. Whenever Ron Paul would get on a debate stage and talk about reducing overseas military entanglements, Republicans would scoff and some would go to the point of being unprofessional towards him with their name-calling, etc. When John McCain was behind but catching up and then pulling ahead in the 2008 Republican Primaries, the base of the party BASHED the man. It wasn't uncommon to hear right wingers say they aren't going to vote because they won't vote for McCain. The Republican party is so fragmented and vicious right now that WELL KNOWN MODERATE and popular Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, of Maine, who is famous for reaching across the aisle and working in a bipartisan way with Democrats to enact centrist legislation, is now quitting her job and cited the contentiousness of Congress as the big reason.
These days independent party-types tend to look Fiscally Conservative, Socially Moderate to Liberal, and big on reducing overseas miliary entanglements and defense spending. Such a person would tend to be rejected by the Republican Party outright, and not rejected by the Democratic Party, but also not preferred over a Democratic candidate.
These days independent party-types tend to look Fiscally Conservative, Socially Moderate to Liberal, and big on reducing overseas miliary entanglements and defense spending. Such a person would tend to be rejected by the Republican Party outright, and not rejected by the Democratic Party, but also not preferred over a Democratic candidate.
I agree with you on the R side...not so much from the D side. Any fiscal conservative would never have a chance with the current Democratic party. Both are way too involved in foreign entanglements and in proping up big business, rather it's banks or the auto industry. Romney and Obama (and Bush for that matter) are only a tiny bit apart on most issues, which I find very depressing.
A true fiscal conservative would never have voted for the bank bailouts/TARP, nor for giving 30 billion taxpayer dollars to General Motors. A fiscal conservative would support eliminating all foreign aid and an immediate removal of all troops in Afganistan. A fiscal conservative (or social liberal for that matter) would not have engaged in a war with Libya nor sent money to support mobs in Syria. A fiscal conservative would not be spending a billion dollars a year more than we bring in. A fiscal conservative would demand that taxpayer support for Fannie and Freddie end immediately.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
