For class, I've been researching the function of third party candidates in elections. As you can probably guess, they are completely forgotten by the media. When was the last time you heard the Reform Party or Libertarian Party mentioned in the news? Do you think voting for a third party is throwing your vote away? Look out our candidates. If only the democrats could figure out who they're going to sanction...but hell, McCain doesn't look that good either. We have all these candidates and yet America on a whole instead of running to the polls stagnates on their couch and watches the news.

So, what's your excuse? Why are you registered Democrat, Republican, or Independent? Why don't you register with other third parties? Is it because you can't find the information, or because you're too lazy to search the internet? America's apathy is exactly what political analysts have forecasted for democratic systems: people are spoiled by the ability to complain about their representatives, yet have no drive to choose them themselves. What's the solution to this? Is it to make voting compulsory? Forfeit democracy and set ourselves up as Communists?

We had a thread about choosing another person: Kucinich.

People are mostly attracted and know most about those who are covered by the media. Go to CNN's political ticker, and you see that most of the articles are about Obama or Hillary, with a McCain here or there. There are dozens of more presidential hopefuls out there, but this particular election, at least, the media swooped in on Obama, the first hopeful black president, and Hillary, the first hopeful woman. McCain's just there because he's pretty much the only republican who stands a chance at winning.

Since so many of the people would vote for the ones covered by the media, it stands to reason that even those who know about more would vote for one of the ones covered by the media to not be wasting their votes. For example, there would have been a tiny chance that Kucinich had won, so most votes on him would've been wasted - however, under different circumstances where Obama and Hillary were evenly tied (and thus, each had a 50% chance of winning), your vote would be spent much better. In my opinion.

How the hell is that a solution? Stay a democracy and bend to the media - not hard, and it works better. Plus, communism is a far cry away from democracy - you don't go to the antithesis of what doesn't work, just one step toward what might.

They're probably not even watching the news. More likely to be some retarded reality show. Don't give the population too much credit.

I have some questions for you Kame:

I'm a registered Republican because I happen to like McCain a lot. I agree with a lot of the platforms they hold (and of course not all. But, if you agreed with everything anyone says you should get your head checked.) I found the information, I've investigated quite a few third parties, and while I do not agree with core values of many (such as the New Black Panther Party) I do think that petitions to get them on the ballots should be available to registered democrats and republicans. Besides, more competition will weed out the nonsense in my party.

The remedy to apathy is an outside threat. People band together when they collectively face destruction. The current administration tried to prove to us that Al-Qaeda is the next big external threat, but as it turns out, they're nothing compared to the Nazis.

We're a rich, fat, spoiled country thanks largely to our victory in WW2. While we obsess over our iPods, another nation could be intensely preparing itself to take the lead. The spoils of victory ensure that the winners won't stay on top forever.

P.S. In case you're curious, I am registered independent. However, I would say that I lean slightly to the left, but I'm willing to jump on a right-bandwagon when convenient (or left, for that matter).

This just in: Third parties fail in America due to a lack of voter confidence.

Seem fair?
Communist Party sanctioned Kerry: why not their own candidate?
Ridiculous Third Parties like "Meatloaf on Tuesdays"
Political Analysts habitually consider independents as perks: Nader 'stole' democrats for example.
Bombardment of information on two major parties.

I never really liked associating myself with anything, whether it be parties, ideology, etc. Because whenever I place myself on one side, I start disagreeing with many of the things many people on "my side" believe in. Like, I disagree with many things liberals believe in; likewise I also disagree with things conservatives believe in. Same goes with parties. I am a strong disbeliever in the saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Well, when you get older and your choices have a greater affect on your own (and possibly your family's) survival, then you'll learn to live with the contradictions.

Yea, I am trying though. In the past, I would've considered myself liberal, but because of many things occuring over the years I am starting to shift more to the right. However, i dislike both of America's two biggest parties equally; I always look at the candidates and their views and beliefs, never the party itself.

Why are you shifting right or left? None of todays issues are black and white. They all go out in radically different directions...stem cell research is okay for solving medical problems, yet is not for cloning, some would argue. Abortions are okay for rape victims, but not for prostitutes. Same sex marriages should be allowed legally but not religiously...so many varying side and each one with another branch of choices.

some would call me anarcho-socialist, The reason I have not registered to vote as a third party is pretty simple, primary elections. The democratic primaries here are open, and the republican primaries are closed. If i register republican I can vote in both. I despise the party system, and If I had it my way, every issue would stand or fall on it's own merit, not by association with an individual or party.

Stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage are all distraction issues, issues that have widespread implications, like foreign policy, tax policy, communication, and civil rights, get far too little attention.

Aren't both abortion and gay marriage civil rights...?

Felt that this image (of the independant's day speeches in Cincinnati) was needed.
Personally I have such low opinions of the entire federal system that all I really apply myself to is the local elections. (Which in my opinion are far more important to me.)

I'm a Democrat and will vote Democrat in the general. I am a huge supporter of Barrack Obama and agree with the most of his views; the only major thing I disagree with is his stance on opposition to same-sex marriage. He was against the wasteful war in Iraq, and wants to take the steps toward Universal Health Care.

not really, marriage is first and foremost an institution of the church, I see no reason for the government to be involved in it, regardless of gender, and the implication of warrantless domestic surveillance is far more grave. It would take some convincing for me to consider a fetus a person, cognition and self awareness are requisite, features which emerge gradually in infancy and childhood, and which are virtually absent at birth, these only become civil rights issues if you are looking at the interaction of government and religion.

Stem cell research being an issue is even more absurd, it was only made an issue to pander to a fundamentalist base.

If you look at the electoral system outlined in the Constitution, 51% of the vote is required to win an election, or it goes to the House of Representatives. I am concerned as to why you have such a negative tone in regards to our electoral system. For example, those people "stagnating on couches" do we really want them to vote if they are uneducated in the matter? Also, you've completely overlooked the electoral college, but if you're merely simplifying the issue I can see why. In comparison to voting rates in other countries, America is miserably low, however, we do not measure ourselves in the same fashion. Rather, political participation, not voting, is the measure by which we compare ourselves. Compulsory voting is in existance in a few countries (I think australia and Italy are two examples).

"Though almost all adult Swedes vote in national elections, few participate in politics in any other way. They defer to the descisions of experts and specialist who work for the government, rarely challenge governmental decisions in court, believe leaders and legislators ought to decide issues on the basis of "what is best" more than on "what the people want," and value equality as much as (or more than) liberty. Whereas Americans are contentious, Swedes value harmony; while Americans tend to assert their rights, Swedes tend to observe their obligations" (James Q. WIlson, John J DiIulio Jr, American Government ed. 9 copyright 2004).

The popular vote in the election of the president is not the only measure of activity. If the majority of people are "stagnating" on their couches as you say, then perhaps it is best that they leave the voting to those who have the drive to vote, effectively weeding out uneducated votes.

Also, if you look at the political spectrum

xxxxxxxxxxx Libertarian xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Democrat --------|----------Republican
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx Populist xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Many 3rd parties fall somewhere in Libertarian or Populist, which both share views with both our parties. It is inefficient to have more than two parties because of the winner-take-all style election. Parliamentary systems like in Britian have multiple parties because if you win 40% of the vote, you get 40% of the seats. Also, if a 3rd party has an issue, both the Republicans and/or Democrats can assimilate it into their platform. The Green party may want to save the environment, but so can a Democrat if popular support for that is high.

As for your crack about Communism, I'm reporting you to the Committe on Un-American Affairs, lead by Joe McCarthy.

The 2 axis spectrum is just as pointless as the title republican or democrat. EVERY ISSUE has it's own consequences and contingencies, and any single placement on a spectrum can be extremely misleading, I personally have been placed as anarchic libertarian, as well as socialist, when in fact I want to create a self regulating economy as close to meritocracy as is possible. Politicians and the media like to pick sides, us or them, and a 2 axis spectrum just makes the 'us' group more exclusive. You need to do away with benchmarks and partisan politics, and look at each issue on it's own merit.

How do you evaluate merit without benchmarks... lol

The 2 axis thing is completely valid, since it's a general reflection of the views on every issue...
The "consequences and contingencies" affect people's viewpoint, and the 2-axis thingy is just a representation of all possible viewpoints, and these "pointless titles" are just useful classifications so we don't have to enumerate our stance on every issue. It's much easier for one to say "I'm republican but I'm also pro-choice" than to list your view on everything, assuming the majority of one's views fall in line with the republican party. It's just easier for conversation to say the generality and note the differences than say every specific view when you're not talking about everything.



I agree. You shouldn't base your standing off of one test or view, but we're not talking about a specific test here, we're talking generalities. Or at least I was. The spectrum was just used to show that these 3rd parties can be assimilated by the Democrats or Republicans, even if their views don't fall on the horizontal axis, they're still usually on one side or the other.

When you have a solution for getting away with partisan politics, please tell the world (or tell me so I can rule the world). That would require everybody to agree on every issue, so unless you're a Protoss Dark Archon, I'll go out on a limb here, and say that partisan politics will never go away.

And I sure hope the 2 axis spectrum isn't pointless if that's what they're teaching in schools and publishing in books.



They are not civil rights (right to bear arms, right to an attourney, ect are rights) they are civil liberties.
Marriage is not necessarily an institution of the church, I believe you can get married by the state. My parents did.
And the argument against abortion is that the fetus will become a human being. Roe v. Wade (huge abortion case, ruling in favor of abortion) was not supported on terms of legality, but rather was upheld on the due process clause of the 14th amendment because of privacy infringement. They are certainly civil rights issues, even without the involvement of religion. I'm sure some religious institutions wrote some amicus curaei breifs, but the issue of abortion is a womans right to choose vs. "murder" of what will become a human being, when you boil all the religion out.