Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

"Majority Of Americans want a third party"Follow

#52 Oct 15 2013 at 11:55 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
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.


Obviously it's targeted. Putting this program in place in most US cities would ensure a democratic president in perpetuity unless the other side wised up and started "expanding" it to the rest of the country, and it would still be incredibly painful due to increased logistical burdens.

If you make voting part of someone's routine, that's what it will become.

EDIT: In case it was unclear "Major employers and institutions" means cities.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 1:59pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#53 Oct 15 2013 at 11:58 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,531 posts
Jophiel wrote:
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.
It may just be that she's senior senator now..and running for re-election next year, but she seems to be putting herself in front of the cameras much more recently.

EMILY's Madam President List doesn't have her. There are some interesting names on this list.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#54 Oct 15 2013 at 11:59 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,166 posts
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....


If you make voting part of someone's routine, that's what it will become.


More efficient for Democrats to just work on organizing unions. Then you get contributions to fund the other stuff. Voting is quaint and all, but money is, well, money.
____________________________
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.

#55 Oct 15 2013 at 12:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,253 posts
Lifetime limit of 4 years as a congress critter. Once your time is up you are no longer allowed to run for office. No longer an emphasis on re-election. Could be a double edged sword though as there'd also be no reason to keep your promises.

All presidential candidates must not have been affiliated with a political party in the previous X years?

Remove the carrot, kill the entrenchment, you'll attract people that want the right (or at least less wrong) things. Not that it will ever be allowed to happen, ever.
#56 Oct 15 2013 at 12:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,436 posts
It still seems silly all you people have to go to voting booths and what not. You know if you do it right they mail you your ballot. You lay on the couch in your underwear, maybe wrapped in a nice warm blanket, with a bottle of wine, googling people and issues on your iPad before filling in the little boxes.

So much more enjoyable than standing in line for 4 hours in the rain next to a tea party supporter with a giant Sarah Palin t-shirt and attitude to match.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#57 Oct 15 2013 at 12:03 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,166 posts
Lifetime limit of 4 years as a congress critter. Once your time is up you are no longer allowed to run for office. No longer an emphasis on re-election. Could be a double edged sword though as there'd also be no reason to keep your promises.

All presidential candidates must not have been affiliated with a political party in the previous X years?

Remove the carrot, kill the entrenchment, you'll attract people that want the right (or at least less wrong) things. Not that it will ever be allowed to happen, ever.


This would be utterly useless and gamable in about 11 seconds by both parties. If anything, shorter term limits leads to more special interest legislation by reducing the ability of a politician to make a seat safe through charisma instead of exclusively through fund raising. Bernie Sanders becomes a bored bystander for 4 years under this scheme instead of a bored bystander for 30.
____________________________
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.

#58 Oct 15 2013 at 12:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,876 posts
Smasharoo 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....


If you make voting part of someone's routine, that's what it will become.


More efficient for Democrats to just work on organizing unions. Then you get contributions to fund the other stuff. Voting is quaint and all, but money is, well, money.


Votes are money. People love a winner. Union organization is already profitable, so it's not in direct competition.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#59 Oct 15 2013 at 12:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,253 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
This would be utterly useless and gamable in about 11 seconds by both parties. If anything, shorter term limits leads to more special interest legislation by reducing the ability of a politician to make a seat safe through charisma instead of exclusively through fund raising. Bernie Sanders becomes a bored bystander for 4 years under this scheme instead of a bored bystander for 30.


Oh I don't disagree, you'd have to change other things to make this workable and it'll never happen. Corporate fundraising should be banned, private citizen donations should be limited to small figures per person (privacy issue? You'd have to track it.)
#60 Oct 15 2013 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,876 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
This would be utterly useless and gamable in about 11 seconds by both parties. If anything, shorter term limits leads to more special interest legislation by reducing the ability of a politician to make a seat safe through charisma instead of exclusively through fund raising. Bernie Sanders becomes a bored bystander for 4 years under this scheme instead of a bored bystander for 30.


Oh I don't disagree, you'd have to change other things to make this workable and it'll never happen. Corporate fundraising should be banned, private citizen donations should be limited to small figures per person (privacy issue? You'd have to track it.)


Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Try again with something more than zero people in the apparatus would benefit from.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#61 Oct 15 2013 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,253 posts
Timelordwho wrote:

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Try again with something more than zero people in the apparatus would benefit from.


Yep, laughably improbable. The people in the apparatus are the root of the problems that need to be fixed.
#62 Oct 15 2013 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,876 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Try again with something more than zero people in the apparatus would benefit from.


Yep, laughably improbable. The people in the apparatus are the root of the problems that need to be fixed.


Then use them as a tool rather than trying to fight them. You don't have their resources, so don't fight on their turf.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#63 Oct 15 2013 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,436 posts
Change the house seats to be apportioned by percentage of national vote by party. It would allow for minor parties to emerge and have a little voice, while at the same time hopefully keeping opinion more centered; hopefully lessening deadlock. At the same time, leave the senate rules unchanged, keeping regional voices intact somewhat and leaving a strong power core for the existing 2 parties.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#64 Oct 15 2013 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Mandatory voting!
____________________________
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
#65 Oct 15 2013 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,436 posts
90% of elections won by party listed first. Anarchists of America ecstatic with new mandate. Plan to use new found power to block calls to change the ballot setup. Claim alphabetical listing is perfectly fair. AAA considers expanding from a simple automobile club.

Smiley: nod

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 1:54pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#66 Oct 15 2013 at 4:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
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.


You're only politically irrelevant if you choose not to do anything politically. Under your theory, there is no damage or support that a person can do for another outside of voting. Education is the biggest weapon here. People tend to vote with a large percentage of ignorance. Sitting in your room and not voting would indeed make you irrelevant, but not any more irrelevant than voting blue in a red state or vice-versa. However, ACTIVELY engaging in politics and educating others will make you far from irrelevant.


Jophiel wrote:
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


You're confusing "not voting for someone you disagree with" with "not voting at all". There are a lot of politicians that people like, but don't support because they wont win against another opponent. So, instead of risking losing that position to the opposing party, they vote for the more popular person. If people stop voting for the "cool kids" and start voting for the people they actually support, then 3rd parties can actually run. Would you run in a city where most people automatically support the opposing party, no matter how bat crazy the politician is?

Jophiel wrote:
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.

I didn't say anything about removing yourself from any party, but not voting for people that you don't support, which ought to be common sense anyway.

Jophiel wrote:
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.


No. read above.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#67 Oct 15 2013 at 4:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're too late. We already discussed this and got bored with it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Oct 15 2013 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
Just so everyone's clear, Alma isn't on my side.
#69 Oct 15 2013 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, you're on Alma's side.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 6:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Oct 15 2013 at 5:08 PM Rating: Default
**
524 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
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."


I chuckled; mostly because I would typically classify those who vote only along party lines as morons. I would further classify those who do not care about how morons vote as functional retards. I have further classifications, but I do not have enough time to go over them in detail.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#71 Oct 15 2013 at 5:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,175 posts
angrymnk wrote:
I have further classifications, but I do not have enough time to go over them in detail.
That was a wonderful misrepresentation of what was said to make yourself feel smarter, but you're far too young for it to work on people far more experienced at it than you. Maybe one day you'll grow into figuring it out, but today you've run into a truly insurmountable wall. Them's the breaks, as they say. As homework, reread what was said ten times and come up with alternative theories. Maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to work it out on your own.

Give a fish, teach to fish and all that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#72 Oct 15 2013 at 8:14 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,531 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
I have further classifications, but I do not have enough time to go over them in detail.
That was a wonderful misrepresentation of what was said to make yourself feel smarter, but you're far too young for it to work on people far more experienced at it than you. Maybe one day you'll grow into figuring it out, but today you've run into a truly insurmountable wall. Them's the breaks, as they say. As homework, reread what was said ten times and come up with alternative theories. Maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to work it out on your own.

Give a fish, teach to fish and all that.

Huzzah, flavorings of Totem.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#73 Oct 15 2013 at 9:22 PM Rating: Default
**
524 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
I have further classifications, but I do not have enough time to go over them in detail.
That was a wonderful misrepresentation of what was said to make yourself feel smarter, but you're far too young for it to work on people far more experienced at it than you. Maybe one day you'll grow into figuring it out, but today you've run into a truly insurmountable wall. Them's the breaks, as they say. As homework, reread what was said ten times and come up with alternative theories. Maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to work it out on your own.

Give a fish, teach to fish and all that.


Misreprewha? I actually did not that much time to post:P Don't read too much into it. Oh, I am sorry, you already did.

Well, you rive, you rearn, as some Asian folk say.

In my defense, in my training as a good little drone of corporate America, I was taught to skim through bs to read the things that are somewhat relevant. It has gotten so bad lately, that I even read pre-post-Ballmer jitters ( good times.

So, Gaxe, if you fail to communicate your point, don't blame me for misreading, misrepresenting, misquoting, or otherwise missing the point. It is kinda what I do:P

I had a nice disclaimer put in my email for just such an occasion, but ...well, I am tired. Even I have to sleep.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#74 Oct 15 2013 at 9:23 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Brown Duck wrote:
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.


For clarification, I say "3rd party" in a very generic way. I don't necessarily support a 3 party system, but I do support the ability for an Independent or faction of a party to win a general election. Of course there is no law preventing that from happening now; however, voting for people whom you don't support will never allow it to happen.

Jophiel wrote:
You're too late. We already discussed this and got bored with it.

Yet that doesn't change the inaccuracy of your words.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#75 Oct 15 2013 at 11:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Modern politics




Future Politics (should be)



____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 64 All times are in CDT
Bijou, LockeColeMA, Nadenu, Anonymous Guests (61)