Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

"Majority Of Americans want a third party"Follow

#1 Oct 15 2013 at 5:40 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,252 posts
Link

Quote:
A majority of Americans want a third major party, a new Gallup poll found.

Marking the highest point in the Gallup poll’s ten-year history, 60% of Americans said they think Democrats and Republicans aren’t doing “an adequate job of representing the American people” and do “such a poor job that a third major party is needed.”

The poll surveyed 1,028 adults from Oct. 3-6, just days into a federal government shutdown that has lasted a full two weeks.

Just 26% of Americans said the country’s two major parties were representing Americans.

Self-identified Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to see the need for a third party—49% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans said they saw the need for a third party—but a full 71% of Independents supported the idea of a third party.


Given the way things have been going for the US, I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't become a real possibility if things keep moving in the direction they've been going. It's not a though there's not any historical precedent(Whigs for example). The question is where a third party would stand in the American political system. Would it be further to the left? Somewhere in the center? Or further to the right?
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#2 Oct 15 2013 at 6:08 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,814 posts
I've been arguing for this for years, but as long as people vote for the sake of voting and selecting a lesser of two evils, it will never happen. As long as you are politically informed, you have the right NOT to vote for someone that you don't support. Doing so creates a greater chance for a 3rd party to win. However, society has twisted the message to get people to vote by saying that you don't have a voice if you don't vote.

To address your question, it would most definitely have to be in the center. We already have extremists on both sides, but people are afraid to run the center because they become shunned from their party. Ask Gov. Christie, the only Republican that a Democrat would vote for.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#3 Oct 15 2013 at 6:16 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
I'm not clear a 'third' party is the best answer. Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?

Maybe something more than three.

____________________________
LOOK here.
#4 Oct 15 2013 at 6:26 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,814 posts
Elinda wrote:
I'm not clear a 'third' party is the best answer. Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?

Maybe something more than three.



If the people that are running are distinct, then yes. I don't see the issue with someone winning with 37%. If you subtract all of the people who vote "for the sake of voting", for political affiliations or the lesser of two evils, I'm sure each candidate would be under 50%. The only difference is, you would be able to vote for someone that more closely represents your values. There would be some overlap, so it's not like it would be an entirely new platform.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 2:27pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#5 Oct 15 2013 at 6:34 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
The issue is that the third party that the Dems are envisioning would be the Progressive party, further to the left than the current Dem center-left. The party that the Republicans are envisioning would be the Tea Party put into their own little box to get them out of the way. (Or, to Tea partiers, shedding the RINOs and being the True Conservative Party (tm).)

So really, between the two group, they want four parties.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#6 Oct 15 2013 at 6:48 AM Rating: Good
******
41,292 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
but a full 71% of Independents supported the idea of a third party.
I'm not sure if I want to say "duh" or "they're generally morons so who cares."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#7 Oct 15 2013 at 6:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I've been arguing for this for years, but as long as people vote for the sake of voting and selecting a lesser of two evils, it will never happen. As long as you are politically informed, you have the right NOT to vote for someone that you don't support.

Of course you do. But you make yourself politically irrelevant by doing so. Politicians don't need to care about people who aren't going to vote.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Oct 15 2013 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,709 posts
Duplicate.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 9:14am by Timelordwho
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#9 Oct 15 2013 at 7:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,709 posts
Elinda wrote:
I'm not clear a 'third' party is the best answer. Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?

Maybe something more than three.




It would take substantial changes in the way we conduct politics in the US. FPTP would have to go, coalition gov's and semi-allied parties would be a thing, legislation would be much easier to pass unless the percentile to pass wasn't increased.

What would likely happen is you'd get multiparty candidates, multiple affirmative votes per ballot, and a victory percentage of ~60% or so.

All this is fairly irrelevant due to entrenchment.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#10 Oct 15 2013 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Catwho wrote:
The issue is that the third party that the Dems are envisioning would be the Progressive party, further to the left than the current Dem center-left. The party that the Republicans are envisioning would be the Tea Party put into their own little box to get them out of the way. (Or, to Tea partiers, shedding the RINOs and being the True Conservative Party (tm).)

So really, between the two group, they want four parties.

Historically speaking - at least as far back as my 7th grade American History class, these groups were defined within the two party system along a spectrum of thought/action.

Radical -> Liberal -> Moderate ->Conservative - > Reactionary

The Tea Partiers have effectively become a single issue party for health care reform reform.

I'd think through the greens and/or libertarians would be the best avenues to push for additional party status.

____________________________
LOOK here.
#11 Oct 15 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Esquire has a new article out with lots of pretty graphs and charts about the "New American Center". Take it with a grain of salt but, hey, pretty graphs.

Edit: Link would be nice.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 8:30am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Oct 15 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
Quote:
Of course you do. But you make yourself politically irrelevant by doing so. Politicians don't need to care about people who aren't going to vote.


Stupid but persistent argument, of course they do. If your base doesn't vote because you've alienated them, that's a problem for you. Politicians take steps to avoid this, and to win back disaffected voters, all the time.

The idea of people not voting makes liberals pretty uncomfortable, doesn't it? You guys should pass a law against it, like Australia.

@#%^ everyone who posted between Jophiel and me, especially Timelord.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 9:31am by Kavekkk
#13 Oct 15 2013 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Won't happen. The idea of people voting makes conservatives too uncomfortable for it to pass.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Oct 15 2013 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
Well, you can get out of it by paying a fine. Maybe you can persuade them it'd be another way to impoverish the working class.
#15 Oct 15 2013 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekkk wrote:
Stupid but persistent argument, of course they do. If your base doesn't vote because you've alienated them, that's a problem for you. Politicians take steps to avoid this, and to win back disaffected voters, all the time.

A party's "base" doesn't consist of people who refuse to vote. That's sort of going against the stock definition of "base". People who huff and say "They're all jerks and liars and Republicrats and Demolicans so I'm just not going to vote" aren't anyone's base.

Elections are won by motivating your real base in greater numbers than the other guy's base and then picking off enough on the fringe to make up the deficit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Oct 15 2013 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Esquire has a new article out with lots of pretty graphs and charts about the "New American Center". Take it with a grain of salt but, hey, pretty graphs.

Edit: Link would be nice.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 8:30am by Jophiel
I like the red/blue tinted heads of Obama and Romney.

____________________________
LOOK here.
#17 Oct 15 2013 at 7:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Their quiz at the bottom told me I was on the Bleeding Left and not part of the New American Center. I felt so left out Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Oct 15 2013 at 7:47 AM Rating: Decent
*
66 posts
Quote:
Elections are won by motivating your... base in greater numbers than the other guy's base


Yes, I know I'm correct.

Quote:
People who huff and say "They're all jerks and liars and Republicrats and Demolicans so I'm just not going to vote" aren't anyone's base.


Sure they are*. That's what a member of your base sounds like when they're disaffected because they feel your party isn't serving their interests/is too homogenised.

*Specifically, they're probably Democrats.
#19 Oct 15 2013 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekkk wrote:
Sure they are

No, they're not. But I suppose this won't move forward with you insisting that they are so... sure. Have fun not voting and "making a difference".

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 8:52am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Oct 15 2013 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,063 posts
Elinda wrote:
Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?
As long as he's the guy I wanted. Smiley: wink


She could be the gal I wanted instead, but I can't say I've seen a serious female contender for presidential candidacy that I've liked.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#21 Oct 15 2013 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
I'm not clear a 'third' party is the best answer. Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?

Governor LePage endorses the 37% threshold.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Oct 15 2013 at 8:21 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,245 posts
So 71% of US citizens want Canadian politics.

For what it's worth it works quite well for the most part. Especially when you have a minority government. No party has the votes to pass a bill on their own so they have to team up with one of the other parties, makes for easy compromise and more tempered solutions. I expect your rules would have to change pretty dramatically to accommodate it though.

We actually have more than three parties but the big three are the only really relevant ones.
#23 Oct 15 2013 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
You already admitted you were wrong when you conceded that a base needs to be motivated to vote. I don't mean that in some technical 'gotcha' sense, if you can't see it I sincerely pity you. What happens if they aren't motivated? They don't vote. Not voting and the threat of not voting changes the way politicians behave and is central to winning elections.

Quote:
Have fun not voting and "making a difference".


Have fun being a retard too @#%^ed in the head to accept any political reality that differs from a bullsh*t line you got fed.

There are things you can do to make a difference politically. Voting isn't one of them, obviously, and neither is not voting. You're incorrect in assuming I don't vote, though. Don't mistake my disdain for a tired, senseless argument for some kind of personal stake. Again, I mean. Don't do it again.
#24 Oct 15 2013 at 8:22 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?
As long as he's the guy I wanted. Smiley: wink


She could be the gal I wanted instead, but I can't say I've seen a serious female contender for presidential candidacy that I've liked.

The granola girls (environmental policy wonks) in my office are wanting Elizabeth Warren to run. They like her better'n Hilary.

I'm thinking Sue Collins is trying to put her name out there as a serious female Republican contender for higher political office .
____________________________
LOOK here.
#25 Oct 15 2013 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I'm not clear a 'third' party is the best answer. Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?

Governor LePage endorses the 37% threshold.

Dont' sell him short. He got 39%.

Third-party spoilage does leave a bitter lingering after taste though.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#26 Oct 15 2013 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,709 posts
I'm in the same bracket as you Jophiel, but I'm much further to the left, not as much as Roo, though.

Seems that category has a long tail.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#27 Oct 15 2013 at 8:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekkk wrote:
You already admitted you were wrong when you conceded that a base needs to be motivated to vote.

You and I have different definitions of "base" in a political sense particularly when discussing a third party. For instance, I'm using it correctly and you're not.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Oct 15 2013 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
I'm thinking Sue Collins is trying to put her name out there as a serious female Republican contender for higher political office .

Really? I don't follow what Collins is up to unless she's making national news but I find that hard to believe. She seems to have found her niche but I don't see her expanding beyond it. At least not electorally -- maybe she could get a cabinet post.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Oct 15 2013 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,709 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
You already admitted you were wrong when you conceded that a base needs to be motivated to vote.

You and I have different definitions of "base" in a political sense particularly when discussing a third party. For instance, I'm using it correctly and you're not.


I assume you are using base to reference the 18-23% of people who subscribe to the part ideology rather than the ~40% who get wrapped in via proximity. Regardless of whether or not they vote.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#30 Oct 15 2013 at 8:54 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
I don't know about the majority of the American voting public, but I don't necessarily want a third party. I want the existing parties to be less partisan and more cooperative. I want more compromise and less political hostage taking. A third party will only make the current situation worse in some cases, I think.

What I really want is for our elected government representatives to act like representatives and vote in line with their constituents. Eliminate lobbyists and the idea of partisan loyalty some how. That's the real solution.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#31 Oct 15 2013 at 8:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
I assume you are using base to reference the 18-23% of people who subscribe to the part ideology rather than the ~40% who get wrapped in via proximity. Regardless of whether or not they vote.

Nah, a party's base is really more like 45% or so in a national election*. Romney was somewhat accurate in his infamous 47% remark in that both parties start fairly close to around that number and you lose a few percent due to various factors keeping them from the polls. Of course his delivery of it and his reasoning for why people select one base over the other was disastrous but the math was probably fairly accurate. McCain got blown out during a period of deep resentment towards GOP policies and still scratched out over 45%. Friggin' Michael Dukakis who only won a single state still got over 45%.

So you start with your 45% and you bust ass to try to get that of 2% or so to actually vote. That 2% isn't disaffected voters or voters who hate you, it's just people who are lazy or it's raining/snowing or they had a long day or they support you but support sitting on their couch even more. They aren't saying "I hate everyone!", they're just not voting.

The final 3% is voters who are interested in voting but, for whatever reason, haven't decided on a candidate. THOSE are the people you target. You don't waste your time on people huffing about "Republicrats" and how they're "voting by not voting" when there's actual interested voters out there to target. Swaying an interested voter is better than trying to convince an uninterested voter that they really should be interested and interested in you.

This is also why third parties don't work. They never take evenly from both bases. They just break one base along some sub-ideological line and let the other guy win.

*Geographically, the size of a base can be all over the map (that's a pun, get it?) when discussing state and local elections.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Oct 15 2013 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
You already admitted you were wrong when you conceded that a base needs to be motivated to vote.

You and I have different definitions of "base" in a political sense particularly when discussing a third party. For instance, I'm using it correctly and you're not.


That's so way off mark we might as well start calling you Columbus.

You know, if that wasn't a really stupid thing to do.
#33 Oct 15 2013 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm in the same bracket as you Jophiel, but I'm much further to the left, not as much as Roo, though.

Seems that category has a long tail.

Sometime when I feel like my heart has hardened and not bleeding enough, i go into the bathroom and cut it a little bit. If I'd not have fallen into the bleeding heart category, I'd have been pretty disappointed.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#34 Oct 15 2013 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
The final 3% is voters who are interested in voting but, for whatever reason, haven't decided on a candidate. THOSE are the people you target. You don't waste your time on people huffing about "Republicrats" and how they're "voting by not voting" when there's actual interested voters out there to target. Swaying an interested voter is better than trying to convince an uninterested voter that they really should be interested and interested in you.
During primaries you really care about the 45%
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#35 Oct 15 2013 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Their quiz at the bottom told me I was on the Bleeding Left and not part of the New American Center. I felt so left out Smiley: frown
They told me I'm not very engaged and torn over the role of government in everyday life.

Meanies. Smiley: bah

And I'd love to see something that made the government act in a more moderate fashion, whether that's a 3rd party or not doesn't really matter to me. This choosing between and left-of-center and right-of-center government is just silliness. I don't see how things change easily though. Neither of those groups seem like they'd want to give up power very easily.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 8:39am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#36 Oct 15 2013 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
I'm on the MBA Middle, a part of the new American Center. Live and let live.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#37 Oct 15 2013 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,709 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I assume you are using base to reference the 18-23% of people who subscribe to the part ideology rather than the ~40% who get wrapped in via proximity. Regardless of whether or not they vote.

Nah, a party's base is really more like 45% or so in a national election*. Romney was somewhat accurate in his infamous 47% remark in that both parties start fairly close to around that number and you lose a few percent due to various factors keeping them from the polls. Of course his delivery of it and his reasoning for why people select one base over the other was disastrous but the math was probably fairly accurate. McCain got blown out during a period of deep resentment towards GOP policies and still scratched out over 45%. Friggin' Michael Dukakis who only won a single state still got over 45%.

So you start with your 45% and you bust ass to try to get that of 2% or so to actually vote. That 2% isn't disaffected voters or voters who hate you, it's just people who are lazy or it's raining/snowing or they had a long day or they support you but support sitting on their couch even more. They aren't saying "I hate everyone!", they're just not voting.

The final 3% is voters who are interested in voting but, for whatever reason, haven't decided on a candidate. THOSE are the people you target. You don't waste your time on people huffing about "Republicrats" and how they're "voting by not voting" when there's actual interested voters out there to target. Swaying an interested voter is better than trying to convince an uninterested voter that they really should be interested and interested in you.

This is also why third parties don't work. They never take evenly from both bases. They just break one base along some sub-ideological line and let the other guy win.

*Geographically, the size of a base can be all over the map (that's a pun, get it?) when discussing state and local elections.

That's a long way of saying the latter.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#38 Oct 15 2013 at 10:30 AM Rating: Excellent
There really isn't room for more parties unless there is some voting reform, which would disadvantage the current parties, who care more about getting elected than what is good for the country so good luck.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#39 Oct 15 2013 at 10:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
That's a long way of saying the latter.

Well, the focus is on "regardless of whether or not they vote". If you don't vote, you're not a relevant part of any base. You can be a dyed in the wool ideologist through and through but you don't matter unless you're casting a ballot. One "hold my nose and vote Democrat every cycle" voter is worth an infinite number of people spending election day on their couch masturbating to Rachel Maddow.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Oct 15 2013 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Personally, I think we should do away with the current representative government. Not completely, but to some extent. It would diffuse some of the parties and their advocates/lobbyists sway power.

We the people have the capability now to be able to vote, from the comfort of our homes, in representative numbers and in a timely secure fashion, on lots of stuff.

____________________________
LOOK here.
#41 Oct 15 2013 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,709 posts
Elinda wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm in the same bracket as you Jophiel, but I'm much further to the left, not as much as Roo, though.

Seems that category has a long tail.

Sometime when I feel like my heart has hardened and not bleeding enough, i go into the bathroom and cut it a little bit. If I'd not have fallen into the bleeding heart category, I'd have been pretty disappointed.


My "bleeding heart" positions aren't driven by selfless respect for my common man. The're driven by cold efficiency, and economic reality. I support poorly implemented social programs because the lack of such generates greater maladies. The GOP leadership is built on idiots, lunatics, and opportunists and is unwilling to create a credible plan to move the country forward. Their best plans are akin to a turtle waiting on its back for someone to flip them. They could be the party of industrious technocrats like the Chinese strain, but they choose to rot. They're federal branch has already made the decision to centralize. The US political system is diseased, structurally, and it would take a huge amount of private wealth and time to restructure it in a more coherent manner.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#42 Oct 15 2013 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,709 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
That's a long way of saying the latter.

Well, the focus is on "regardless of whether or not they vote". If you don't vote, you're not a relevant part of any base. You can be a dyed in the wool ideologist through and through but you don't matter unless you're casting a ballot. One "hold my nose and vote Democrat every cycle" voter is worth an infinite number of people spending election day on their couch masturbating to Rachel Maddow.


You're concentrating too much on the individual voter. They don't matter. What matters is the probabilities of those subfactions voting. Bases on posture, hose numbers are define able. Largely, this is why ground game is important in an election, as it tends to inflate the rates of certain demographics. They are still in your base or the periphery, you just haven't sufficiently motivated them. Especially the big tent definition of base.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#43 Oct 15 2013 at 11:23 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Really? I don't follow what Collins is up to unless she's making national news but I find that hard to believe. She seems to have found her niche but I don't see her expanding beyond it. At least not electorally -- maybe she could get a cabinet post.

Nexa and I know the likely nominee for the Democratic side of that race a little bit. She cried when she wasn't able to offer Nexa enough money to work for the Maine ACLU. Great woman, she'd be a fantastic senator. She's going to lose by a LOT assuming she does win the nomination. Unless someone has photos of Collins eating rock lobster and orange hot dogs hidden somewhere.

As to the three party thing, as probably already stated somewhere I didn't read, basically structurally impossible in the US with elections as currently construed. Were it more structurally possible, basically politically impossible given the existing networks of money and influence.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#44 Oct 15 2013 at 11:25 AM Rating: Decent
*
66 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
That's a long way of saying the latter.

Well, the focus is on "regardless of whether or not they vote". If you don't vote, you're not a relevant part of any base. You can be a dyed in the wool ideologist through and through but you don't matter unless you're casting a ballot. One "hold my nose and vote Democrat every cycle" voter is worth an infinite number of people spending election day on their couch masturbating to Rachel Maddow.


You're concentrating too much on the individual voter. They don't matter. What matters is the probabilities of those subfactions voting. Bases on posture, hose numbers are define able. Largely, this is why ground game is important in an election, as it tends to inflate the rates of certain demographics. They are still in your base or the periphery, you just haven't sufficiently motivated them. Especially the big tent definition of base.


Don't challenge his delusions, he'll have another 'episode'.
#45 Oct 15 2013 at 11:28 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

Don't challenge his delusions, he'll have another 'episode'.


He's right. I don't think Joph disagrees, though, they're sort of talking past one another. I'd assume TLW is slightly out of phase with out universe. His waveform should collapse back to us shortly.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#46 Oct 15 2013 at 11:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Largely, this is why ground game is important in an election, as it tends to inflate the rates of certain demographics. They are still in your base or the periphery, you just haven't sufficiently motivated them.

That's the couple percent between 45% and 47%. People who would, if placed in front of a ballot box, certainly vote for you. You just need to convince them to get in front of a ballot box. Hence the GOTV efforts and busing people to polls and all that.

Those people are a lot different than those who refuse to vote as a protest movement. Those "protest" non-voters aren't worth wasting energy on. This whole jaunt was spurred by Alma's claim that:
Quote:
I've been arguing for this for years, but as long as people vote for the sake of voting and selecting a lesser of two evils, it will never happen. As long as you are politically informed, you have the right NOT to vote for someone that you don't support.

Which is true. But if you remove yourself from voting in the two party system, you've pretty much made yourself politically irrelevant at best. Or you can vote for a third party and help the guy you oppose more win the election.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 12:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Oct 15 2013 at 11:34 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Those people are a lot different than those who refuse to vote as a protest movement. Those "protest" non-voters aren't worth wasting energy on

Depends how likely they are to vote if you chase them a little. Targeting those voters is something the Obama presidential team did fairly well in 12. You are correct that it's better ROI to give bags of money to preachers with buses to get poors to the polls, but there's really only so much of that you can do.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#48 Oct 15 2013 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Depends how likely they are to vote if you chase them a little.

True. Based on Alma's description though, I'm envisioning the person who thinks "I'm voting by not voting" is a mantra and that they're sticking it to the man. They don't want to vote, they just want to feel unique by being counter to the system.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 12:42pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Oct 15 2013 at 11:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,709 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Don't challenge his delusions, he'll have another 'episode'.


He's right. I don't think Joph disagrees, though, they're sort of talking past one another. I'd assume TLW is slightly out of phase with out universe. His waveform should collapse back to us shortly.


Before I wink out of existence, I'll prove my point. You could get better increased voter participation rates than the lauded Obama GOTV machine by dropping of early voter cards along with cofee and donuts at major employers and institutions.

That points to a lack of sufficient motivation, rather than "they aren't part of my base".
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#50 Oct 15 2013 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
Hey look there's two threads... Smiley: lol

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 10:46am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#51 Oct 15 2013 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
You could get better increased voter participation rates than the lauded Obama GOTV machine by dropping of early voter cards along with cofee and donuts at major employers and institutions.

You don't want general better voter participation. You want increased participation from people who are sure to vote for you.

The lauded Obama GOTV machine could have gotten better general participation rates by taking some of their billion dollars and expanding into red districts. They didn't because they were trying to win, not increase general participation. On the other hand, they did focus on institutions like colleges because those people vote Democratic.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 45 All times are in CDT
ElneClare, lolgaxe, Anonymous Guests (43)