View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 20th, 2018, 12:46 pm



Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Election Day 2014 

Who wins control of the Senate?
Poll ended at November 5th, 2014, 11:09 am
GOP, by a large margin 50%  50%  [ 3 ]
GOP, by a slim majority 50%  50%  [ 3 ]
Dem, by a large margin 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Dem, by a slim majority 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Neither, the Ind show up 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 6

 Election Day 2014 
Author Message
Def. Coordinator – Teryl Austin
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 4214
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Election Day 2014
Blueskies wrote:
We've had a two party system since the Constitution was ratified. It isn't a coincidence: Our system inherently encourages two dominant parties. Most European countries, in contrast, are multi-party, because of their system of proportional representation.

If you want to create viable third parties, you literally have to alter the system itself. Obviously, the Democrats/Republicans would never vote for the necessary constitutional amendments.


But history also shows that when things get pout of control a 3rd party pops up and corrects the ship. ultimatly that 3rd party abosrbs one of the 2 primaries and we end up with two again, but it HAS happned several times in US history and needs to happen again.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


November 5th, 2014, 4:06 pm
Profile
Megatron
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12534
Post Re: Election Day 2014
Blueskies wrote:
We've had a two party system since the Constitution was ratified. It isn't a coincidence: Our system inherently encourages two dominant parties. Most European countries, in contrast, are multi-party, because of their system of proportional representation.

If you want to create viable third parties, you literally have to alter the system itself. Obviously, the Democrats/Republicans would never vote for the necessary constitutional amendments.

The 'party' system is no where in the Constitution.
The parties didn't start until after George Washington
The winner of the election was POTUS, the 2nd place person was Vice Pres...me thinks they should go back to this

The quotes I posted above by George and John Adams describe the current party system and its effects on the US rather well IMO.

_________________
Quote:
Detroit vs. Everybody
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


November 5th, 2014, 4:51 pm
Profile
QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 3121
Post Re: Election Day 2014
Yes, the constitution doesn't explicitly mention two dominant parties, but that is the inevitable outcome of the rules that have been put in place. It's called Duverger's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

NBA rules say nothing about particular positions (center, guard, etc) only that each team puts five players on the court at one time. Yet the rules of the game forces the creation of particular positions -- it flows naturally.

If you want three+ viable parties in the US, you must change the rules surrounding voting, elections, etc.


November 5th, 2014, 6:58 pm
Profile
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3273
Post Re: Election Day 2014
Yeah, a third party will inevitably just steal votes from the other two parties. The Congress is designed for dual parties to create a compromise. Two houses, divided themselves, set against the POTUS and the executive branch. And then the Judicial to rein them all in.

And we haven't had just two parties since this country started. We've had multiple and the two most dominant arise because of the way the system is setup. First you had the federalists vs the democratic-republican party (anti-federalist). Then you had the democratic-republican party becoming the Jackson Democrats which became the modern democrat party we have today vs the Whigs. And then the Republican party developed from the whigs. And even though in name we've had the same two parties since the late 1800's, they've changed their positions many times caused by third or fourth parties ideas that got implemented into the main parties.

So while voting for 3rd party candidates might seem useless in the voting cycle, the ideas you throw your support yourself behind if you are loud enough can and does make a difference.


November 5th, 2014, 10:49 pm
Profile
QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 3121
Post Re: Election Day 2014
Yes, the parties change over time, and the issues they debate change, but there will always be two dominant ones. A third party may rise up and displace one of the other two, or its platform may be stolen/absorbed by the existing parties.


November 6th, 2014, 3:00 pm
Profile
Megatron
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12534
Post Re: Election Day 2014
Blueskies wrote:
Yes, the parties change over time, and the issues they debate change, but there will always be two dominant ones. A third party may rise up and displace one of the other two, or its platform may be stolen/absorbed by the existing parties.
The Ds & Rs won't allow a 3rd party to become viable. As I posted above, the Pres Debates are run by both parties (shouldn't they be public and unbiased???) and they have a history of changing the rules to disallow 3rd party candidates into them. Unless and until this happens, the likelyhood of any 3rd party gaining enough traction to displace either one is somewhere between slim and none (and slim left town). This also make is much more difficult for any opposing viewpoints on the issues to be heard, or if they are actually heard, to be discussed seriously (see cannabis legalization).

_________________
Quote:
Detroit vs. Everybody
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


November 7th, 2014, 9:07 am
Profile
Def. Coordinator – Teryl Austin
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 4214
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Election Day 2014
TheRealWags wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
Yes, the parties change over time, and the issues they debate change, but there will always be two dominant ones. A third party may rise up and displace one of the other two, or its platform may be stolen/absorbed by the existing parties.
The Ds & Rs won't allow a 3rd party to become viable. As I posted above, the Pres Debates are run by both parties (shouldn't they be public and unbiased???) and they have a history of changing the rules to disallow 3rd party candidates into them. Unless and until this happens, the likelyhood of any 3rd party gaining enough traction to displace either one is somewhere between slim and none (and slim left town). This also make is much more difficult for any opposing viewpoints on the issues to be heard, or if they are actually heard, to be discussed seriously (see cannabis legalization).



BUT.....it CAN be done. First things first a 3rd partyhas to get enough votes this election to be part of the shared funding that goes on, then in the next election they have a much better attempt at trying.

also H Ross Perot came DAMN close to winning without any outside help. too bad he went silly and quit...

So once again...It CAN be done!

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


November 7th, 2014, 12:38 pm
Profile
Megatron
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12534
Post Re: Election Day 2014
regularjoe12 wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
Yes, the parties change over time, and the issues they debate change, but there will always be two dominant ones. A third party may rise up and displace one of the other two, or its platform may be stolen/absorbed by the existing parties.
The Ds & Rs won't allow a 3rd party to become viable. As I posted above, the Pres Debates are run by both parties (shouldn't they be public and unbiased???) and they have a history of changing the rules to disallow 3rd party candidates into them. Unless and until this happens, the likelyhood of any 3rd party gaining enough traction to displace either one is somewhere between slim and none (and slim left town). This also make is much more difficult for any opposing viewpoints on the issues to be heard, or if they are actually heard, to be discussed seriously (see cannabis legalization).
BUT.....it CAN be done. First things first a 3rd partyhas to get enough votes this election to be part of the shared funding that goes on, then in the next election they have a much better attempt at trying.

also H Ross Perot came DAMN close to winning without any outside help. too bad he went silly and quit...

So once again...It CAN be done!
The point is that ALL political parties should be on the SAME level. The current system is skewed heavily toward Rs & Ds.

Not sure if you remember last POTUS election cycle, but Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson has tons of support, but was never allowed into any POTUS debate; his name was also missing from many of the polls. The RNC took his campaign to court to block him. If he's not an option, he can't poll well.

Yes, Perot did come close, but no 3rd party candidate since has; have you ever asked yourself why? The RNC & DNC changed the rules and took over the debates (again, see above).

_________________
Quote:
Detroit vs. Everybody
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


November 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm
Profile
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3273
Post Re: Election Day 2014
TheRealWags wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
Yes, the parties change over time, and the issues they debate change, but there will always be two dominant ones. A third party may rise up and displace one of the other two, or its platform may be stolen/absorbed by the existing parties.
The Ds & Rs won't allow a 3rd party to become viable. As I posted above, the Pres Debates are run by both parties (shouldn't they be public and unbiased???) and they have a history of changing the rules to disallow 3rd party candidates into them. Unless and until this happens, the likelyhood of any 3rd party gaining enough traction to displace either one is somewhere between slim and none (and slim left town). This also make is much more difficult for any opposing viewpoints on the issues to be heard, or if they are actually heard, to be discussed seriously (see cannabis legalization).
BUT.....it CAN be done. First things first a 3rd partyhas to get enough votes this election to be part of the shared funding that goes on, then in the next election they have a much better attempt at trying.

also H Ross Perot came DAMN close to winning without any outside help. too bad he went silly and quit...

So once again...It CAN be done!
The point is that ALL political parties should be on the SAME level. The current system is skewed heavily toward Rs & Ds.

Not sure if you remember last POTUS election cycle, but Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson has tons of support, but was never allowed into any POTUS debate; his name was also missing from many of the polls. The RNC took his campaign to court to block him. If he's not an option, he can't poll well.

Yes, Perot did come close, but no 3rd party candidate since has; have you ever asked yourself why? The RNC & DNC changed the rules and took over the debates (again, see above).


8% is not tons of support. Perot had 19%. And the way you describe it was the way it was PRIOR to 2000. In 2000, the rules were changed and they put in a stipulation that any candidate would need at least 15% support across all 5 major polls. At the point that it comes to debates, if you have less than 15% of the vote the national viewers need to hear from the candidates that actually have a chance. Johnson only got up to his 8% after Ron Paul dropped out and told his followers to go with Johnson. Most didn't. If they had, he would have garnered that 15%.


November 7th, 2014, 5:16 pm
Profile
Megatron
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12534
Post Re: Election Day 2014
njroar wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
Yes, the parties change over time, and the issues they debate change, but there will always be two dominant ones. A third party may rise up and displace one of the other two, or its platform may be stolen/absorbed by the existing parties.
The Ds & Rs won't allow a 3rd party to become viable. As I posted above, the Pres Debates are run by both parties (shouldn't they be public and unbiased???) and they have a history of changing the rules to disallow 3rd party candidates into them. Unless and until this happens, the likelyhood of any 3rd party gaining enough traction to displace either one is somewhere between slim and none (and slim left town). This also make is much more difficult for any opposing viewpoints on the issues to be heard, or if they are actually heard, to be discussed seriously (see cannabis legalization).
BUT.....it CAN be done. First things first a 3rd partyhas to get enough votes this election to be part of the shared funding that goes on, then in the next election they have a much better attempt at trying.

also H Ross Perot came DAMN close to winning without any outside help. too bad he went silly and quit...

So once again...It CAN be done!
The point is that ALL political parties should be on the SAME level. The current system is skewed heavily toward Rs & Ds.

Not sure if you remember last POTUS election cycle, but Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson has tons of support, but was never allowed into any POTUS debate; his name was also missing from many of the polls. The RNC took his campaign to court to block him. If he's not an option, he can't poll well.

Yes, Perot did come close, but no 3rd party candidate since has; have you ever asked yourself why? The RNC & DNC changed the rules and took over the debates (again, see above).


8% is not tons of support. Perot had 19%. And the way you describe it was the way it was PRIOR to 2000. In 2000, the rules were changed and they put in a stipulation that any candidate would need at least 15% support across all 5 major polls. At the point that it comes to debates, if you have less than 15% of the vote the national viewers need to hear from the candidates that actually have a chance. Johnson only got up to his 8% after Ron Paul dropped out and told his followers to go with Johnson. Most didn't. If they had, he would have garnered that 15%.
Doesn't change the fact that the 3rd party candidate usually isn't listed as an option on these polls. If they're not listed, how are they supposed to get 15%????

_________________
Quote:
Detroit vs. Everybody
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


November 8th, 2014, 10:35 am
Profile
Martha Firestone Ford
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 9041
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Election Day 2014
Are you guys watching the news tonight? Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are doing the very best race baiting lately so that Obama will be able to use this as an excuse to declare martial law before all those newly elected Republicans can ever be seated in congress.


November 25th, 2014, 9:51 pm
Profile
QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 3121
Post Re: Election Day 2014
I remember when the far left wackos at another forum used to claim that GWB was going to declare martial law to stop the 08 election.


November 26th, 2014, 8:49 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.