A or B: What's Killing Us In Poltiics

[DragonStryk72]

As a third party voter, I take a fair amount of crap for voting for third-party candidates. There's the "A vote for a third-party is a vote for (X)", X being whichever candidate the person in question doesn't like, whether they're Democrat or Republican. This is, of course, really just part of the problem.

The two big political parties have basically made our whole lives about making a series of A or B choices. For example:

Would you rather:
A. Be punched in the throat?
B. Be punched in the kidney?

My answer is, of course, C. To not get punched. Now, plugging that into the earlier quotation, it would go like this, "A vote for not getting punched is a vote for getting punched in the throat!"

In point of fact, the very nature of the A or B choices works against us, the voters. No, seriously, because this way, we can be divided up, with no other viable option being offered, and they can come up with a couple of hot button issues to just keep throwing out there to mine us for votes. I can give three examples of such subjects: Abortion, Illegal Immigration and Gay Marriage.

No one, at the federal level, will do anything about Gay Marriage. Why would they? The states are already handling it, so there's no need for them to do anything. So why bother bringing it up? Well, simple really: Because if you're a Dem, you need to be pro-gay marriage in order to pick up the votes in NY and CA, both electoral vote-rich states. As a Republican, you want to be anti-Gay Marriage so you can swing the bible belt, and get bigger red states, like TX. There's no other reason to bring it up, and you're not actually expected to do anything about it.

It's the same with abortion, really. I mean, think about it: When was the last time that Congress really did anything with abortion? Not in a while, right? So again, it's an issue that gets brought up purely to divide the base, and drive votes.

Illegal Immigration hasn't been handled in a decade of yelling about it. Yeah, they talked about building a 700-mile wall along a 2100-mile border, and the Dems kept calling for a path to citizenship. But really, has anyone actually accomplished anything? Yeah, sure, some cities have gone as "sanctuaries", but that's not the federal government, that's the city/state level. So again, we're sitting at the same basic point, that we're being mined for votes on subjects that the candidates are never actually expected to do anything about.

Yeah, every so often, this candidate or that will try to push through a bill they know is going to die before it ever gains traction, but that's just spinning their wheels.

Really, it's like trying to hire a pitcher based on how well he throws a football.

[jimnyc]

You're 100% spot on, but I don't know how it will ever get fixed. Some, like yourself, want others, but the masses don't follow because they're afraid if they vote away from (R)(D) that the person they don't like will get voted in. For example, I'm fully willing to vote for the distant guy (Fred Thompson), but at the end of the day, will it make a difference? I think it will eventually. The funny thing is, people get sick and tired of the indecision, and it's voting this way that is continuing the process.

[fj1200]

As a third party voter, I take a fair amount of crap for voting for third-party candidates.

And deservedly so. :poke:

Actually I think that our system is set up to discourage third parties, intentionally or not is up for debate, because most seats can be won with less than a plurality. You essentially only need to win more than 50% of the votes that actually matter. I think they could easily encourage third party ideas by mandating that all elections, Federal especially and including POTUS electors, must be won with 50%+1 and require a run off if that threshold is not met. Third parties would still probably not win but you'd get an honest gauge of their support and the voters would get the opportunity to throw their support to their next choice in a run off.

[defectiverepresentative]

I believe this problem runs into our very way of solving problems. We participate in eristic debate. Taking cheap jabs at our opponents while hoping voters think your confident enough to vote you in. We should turn debates into dialectics. Taking action on the facts we currently have and dealing with consequences that arise later without holding regret or anger at past decisions.

[fj1200]

I believe this problem runs into our very way of solving problems.

You presume that is the end goal. Advancement of agenda is the end goal; See ACA as example.

[defectiverepresentative]

That is not my presumption. It is my premise that how we solve problems as a nation is where we hit brick walls. The battle of agendas has been happening since the beginning of man. It's government shutdowns we're trying to avoid not debate about whether government should decrease regulations.

[fj1200]

That is not my presumption. It is my premise that how we solve problems as a nation is where we hit brick walls. The battle of agendas has been happening since the beginning of man. It's government shutdowns we're trying to avoid not debate about whether government should decrease regulations.

There's that false premise again. If a government shutdown leads to solving a problem then it is a wise course.

[defectiverepresentative]

Solving problems is an intermediate goal of furthering an agenda. The way we solve problems through eristic debate is the issue.

[fj1200]

Solving problems is an intermediate goal of furthering an agenda. The way we solve problems through eristic debate is the issue.

Problems are not being solved. Take ACA; my opinion is the agenda was to get as close to socialized HC while still managing to get it passed. Any problems being solved was dumb luck and not the most efficient manner of solving any actual problems.

[gabosaurus]

Politicians are experts in telling you what you want to hear. That is why there is so much mud slinging and so little actual rhetoric.
Immigration reform has been botched for so many years, you might as well give up on it. Texas governor Rick Perry was a master of this. He would go fire and brimstone anti-immigration in his strongholds, then soft peddle everything down in the Valley.
The best way to win state and national elections is to promise everything and do nothing.

[DragonStryk72]

You're 100% spot on, but I don't know how it will ever get fixed. Some, like yourself, want others, but the masses don't follow because they're afraid if they vote away from (R)(D) that the person they don't like will get voted in. For example, I'm fully willing to vote for the distant guy (Fred Thompson), but at the end of the day, will it make a difference? I think it will eventually. The funny thing is, people get sick and tired of the indecision, and it's voting this way that is continuing the process.

The answer is for more people to switch off to third party, with the understanding that we're building for tomorrow. In reality, we don't need a third party to even win, when you think about it. They just have to get enough of the vote to be a serious contender, and it changes the game.

Dems and Reps are completely dependent at this point on us continuing to vote for people we don't believe in because we're too afraid to vote for anyone else, or just don't realize the option. I mean, think about it, if a serious 3rd party candidate pulled even 20% of the vote, that means both sides are losing significant voters to an adversary they're not prepared for. It's sort of like with a pair of playground bullies: You don't actually need to beat them, you just need to make it too much effort to take you down.

[DragonStryk72]

And deservedly so. :poke:

Actually I think that our system is set up to discourage third parties, intentionally or not is up for debate, because most seats can be won with less than a plurality. You essentially only need to win more than 50% of the votes that actually matter. I think they could easily encourage third party ideas by mandating that all elections, Federal especially and including POTUS electors, must be won with 50%+1 and require a run off if that threshold is not met. Third parties would still probably not win but you'd get an honest gauge of their support and the voters would get the opportunity to throw their support to their next choice in a run off.

It wasn't intentional before, but I think after Perot nearly took it back in the nineties, the two parties made it intentional.

[Gaffer]

The answer is for more people to switch off to third party, with the understanding that we're building for tomorrow. In reality, we don't need a third party to even win, when you think about it. They just have to get enough of the vote to be a serious contender, and it changes the game.

Dems and Reps are completely dependent at this point on us continuing to vote for people we don't believe in because we're too afraid to vote for anyone else, or just don't realize the option. I mean, think about it, if a serious 3rd party candidate pulled even 20% of the vote, that means both sides are losing significant voters to an adversary they're not prepared for. It's sort of like with a pair of playground bullies: You don't actually need to beat them, you just need to make it too much effort to take you down.

One of the problems I see here is should a particular one of the two parties get into power and decide they don't want the third party to participate they could easily use say, the IRS, to go after that third party and discourage voters. They could even go after the other party at the same time. Just a kinda what if situation ya know.

[fj1200]

It wasn't intentional before, but I think after Perot nearly took it back in the nineties, the two parties made it intentional.

I'm not aware of any legislative changes post-Perot which made it more difficult for third parties to gain traction.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What's killing us is a completely sold out media ! And its been that way for a few decades now!
Its not just the lies they print to aid the dem party but also the damn many cover ups they do to aid dems too(what they hold back to aid dems). In money terms that adds up to at least a billion dollars a year is my guess.

Media no longer a watch dog--instead its a damn vicious attack dog , at my opinion is it should be put down soon to save this nation! At least the very corrupted and sold out parts should be!!

We once had a damn free press! Now we have the third arm of the fing dem party!
That hides it's true corrupt agenda from the masses !!
Pretending it's still a watchdog.. Nothing could be further from the truth.. Fact! -Tyr

[Gaffer]

I'm with tyr on this. The media is the biggest threat to our society and govt. The people get only what they present and it's never the truth any more.

[aboutime]

What's killing us is a completely sold out media ! And its been that way for a few decades now!
Its not just the lies they print to aid the dem party but also the damn many cover ups they do to aid dems too(what they hold back to aid dems). In money terms that adds up to at least a billion dollars a year is my guess.

Media no longer a watch dog--instead its a damn vicious attack dog , at my opinion is it should be put down soon to save this nation! At least the very corrupted and sold out parts should be!!

We once had a damn free press! Now we have the third arm of the fing dem party!
That hides it's true corrupt agenda from the masses !!
Pretending it's still a watchdog.. Nothing could be further from the truth.. Fact! -Tyr


Tyr. I half-way agree with you about the sold-out media. But the other half is, and should be. Our LACKING Educational system that permits the SOLD OUT Media to operate, unimpeded, without any restrictions in their PRESENT DAY support of Obama, and Democrats.

IF the American people were Honestly, and Completely educated about our American society that includes History, and Common Sense, Personal Responsibility, and Being Human by following the Rules of Man. More Americans would CARE, or KNOW, what is taking place today...actually threatens them...other than how MUCH it will cost them, or how they can enjoy the FREE stuff, the MORE Educated among us pay for...the problems might not be a severe.

I know You feel the same way, and probably. Most all of us here do as well.
But arguing, bickering, and throwing KNOWN LIES around by those who aren't intelligent enough to know the difference between THEIR Lies, and the Actual TRUTH...is staggering.

[DragonStryk72]

I'm not aware of any legislative changes post-Perot which made it more difficult for third parties to gain traction.

It doesn't have to be legislative, though, now does it? When you come down to it, you can simply gerrymander the districts, and run a game of fear, going back to my OP item on the whole "A Vote for Z, is a vote for X/Y" idea. Any direct legislative move would likely have a backlash coming as it's discovered, but then, you also have to look at how the States rule viable candidates, as well.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm with tyr on this. The media is the biggest threat to our society and govt. The people get only what they present and it's never the truth any more.

I fail to see how anybody can ignore that the real problem in our political process is a multi billion dollar organization that acts as a propaganda arm of primarily just ONE party.
And that is just the gravy, the other part of that is it prevents any major entity replacing its old role as the "watchdog"!
Then it cleverly serve as an attack dog to destroy not only Republican candidates but also ideals!
The sell out of the media was not an overnight action it took a couple decades just like a cancer growing larger until it finally weakens the host to the point of dying.
Our media is without a doubt the largest problem in our political system now.
Ignoring this fact is like ignoring a hungry tiger in the room when YOU are the only source of food in THAT room. --Tyr

[fj1200]

It doesn't have to be legislative, though, now does it? When you come down to it, you can simply gerrymander the districts, and run a game of fear, going back to my OP item on the whole "A Vote for Z, is a vote for X/Y" idea. Any direct legislative move would likely have a backlash coming as it's discovered, but then, you also have to look at how the States rule viable candidates, as well.

I believe it would typically need to be legislative which explains a mere plurality in some states and not others and also Constitutional in just how the system is established. Nevertheless there doesn't need to be a backlash against things which could be blatantly in opposition to third party traction but are popular for other reasons. I haven't thought too much about it but I suppose campaign finance reform could be blatantly anti-third party but is desired, even demanded, by enough people that no one pays attention to the down stream effects.

[DragonStryk72]

I believe it would typically need to be legislative which explains a mere plurality in some states and not others and also Constitutional in just how the system is established. Nevertheless there doesn't need to be a backlash against things which could be blatantly in opposition to third party traction but are popular for other reasons. I haven't thought too much about it but I suppose campaign finance reform could be blatantly anti-third party but is desired, even demanded, by enough people that no one pays attention to the down stream effects.

Yeah, pretty much. While finance reforms are needed because of how the parties are interacting, the current model for reforms is really anti-third party. As opposed to limiting the size of war chests (Pretty much every presidential run is costing around $200 million now, if you want to be taken seriously.), they're going after contributions themselves, and limiting individual donations. While that is technically good, in reality the two major parties benefit from the reforms, because it is much harder for third parties to raise that much capital.

[fj1200]

Yeah, pretty much. While finance reforms are needed because of how the parties are interacting, the current model for reforms is really anti-third party. As opposed to limiting the size of war chests (Pretty much every presidential run is costing around $200 million now, if you want to be taken seriously.), they're going after contributions themselves, and limiting individual donations. While that is technically good, in reality the two major parties benefit from the reforms, because it is much harder for third parties to raise that much capital.

Well, reforms always benefit incumbency which de facto benefits the current two parties. We'll never see third-party traction on a state-by-state level IMO and a national third party movement would require a Perot-like individual to invest their own money which isn't subject to campaign limits.