Gore would kick ass if he threw his hat in

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

Well, it's hard to argue with any of this, so I won't try to. It just seems hopeless to get an effective and competitive third party going. If we had a Parliamentary system, it would be easier to gain a voice in our legislature.

But, everything you wrote in this post, I do agree with.

That hopelessness is in your mind. Not voting is also a strong signal. Voter turnout is how they measure the strength of their brainwash machine. If they believe you believe ONE SET OF ELITES HAS THE ANSWER, they're comfortable that you've been brainwashed enough to not cause trouble.

 

[Cypress]

blackascoal is correct. Staying with one of the two parties simply because you think voting for a third party is a "waste of a vote" is exactly the type of attitude the two parties want you to possess. For if enough people think as you do, then the two parties maintain control and can continue to bankrupt this country. 1960... the last fiscal year either party lowered this nations debt. THAT is what your two parties are giving you. But by all means continue to act as though your support of one over the other makes any bit of difference. Because both are going to continue screwing us.

Ummm, you or anyone else has a direct and influential way to move either the Democratic or Republican parties one way or another - more progressive or more conservative.

It's called primaries, and local politics.

If you look at the Democratic Primary, one has a broad range of choices: from progressive (kucinich) to libertarian (gravel) to DLC moderate (clinton). Please don't pretend that americans are suckered into voting for a John Kerry or a George Bush. Those are the people elected in primaries. Don't like the choices? Get involved more in the primaries.

Second, most people ignore local and state politics. These are the minor leagues and training camps of future national leaders. Don't like current national leaders? Get involved in local and state politics. Promote candidates you like. How many people on this board have ever been to a city council meeting, a county supervisors meeting, or attended a county Party meeting. Close to zero would be my guess. Don't bitch. Don't wring your hands and proclaim the system is broken. Get involved where you can effect some change

 

[Damocles]

Ummm, you or anyone else has a direct and influential way to move either the Democratic or Republican parties one way or another - more progressive or more conservative.

It's called primaries, and local politics.

If you look at the Democratic Primary, one has a broad range of choices: from progressive (kucinich) to libertarian (gravel) to DLC moderate (clinton). Please don't pretend that americans are suckered into voting for a John Kerry or a George Bush. Those are the people elected in primaries. Don't like the choices? Get involved more in the primaries.

Second, most people ignore local and state politics. These are the minor leagues and training camps of future national leaders. Don't like current national leaders? Get involved in local and state politics. Promote candidates you like. How many people on this board have ever been to a city council meeting, a county supervisors meeting, or attended a county Party meeting. Close to zero would be my guess. Don't bitch. Don't wring your hands and proclaime the system is broken. Get involved where you can effect some change

Constantly.

 

[Onceler]

"That hopelessness is in your mind."

No, it isn't. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that there is true hope for a consistently viable 3rd party in America. If anything, as the costs to run a campaign have skyrocketed, 3rd parties have become more marginalized & utopian. I don't see how anyone could argue that their prospects have increased, or that expectations for their success are more realistic now.

I'd love to support a viable 3rd party, but none exists. The idealistic vision of those who think we have to remove ourselves from the 2 party system to make it so requires a leap of logic that is inconsistent with reality.

 

[Cypress]

I know you have damo. And that's commendable. I bet 99.9% of people have never particiated in local or state politics. And local and state politics is very organic. Very easy to get involved in and make a difference.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"If you look at the Democratic Primary, one has a broad range of choices: from progressive (kucinich) to libertarian (gravel) to DLC moderate (clinton). Please don't pretend that americans are suckered into voting for a John Kerry or a George Bush. Those are the people elected in primaries. Don't like the choices? Get involved more in the primaries. "

ok... fair point. But when the money talks and we end up with a Bush vs. Gore/Kerry... then we can do one of two things... Vote for whom we believe is the lesser of two evils. OR we can vote for the best candidate on the final ticket. If that happens to be a third party like Nader or Perot or Bloomberg... so be it. The only times your vote doesn't count is if you don't vote for the candidate you think will be best for the country or if you don't vote.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

"That hopelessness is in your mind."

No, it isn't. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that there is true hope for a consistently viable 3rd party in America. If anything, as the costs to run a campaign have skyrocketed, 3rd parties have become more marginalized & utopian. I don't see how anyone could argue that their prospects have increased, or that expectations for their success are more realistic now.

I'd love to support a viable 3rd party, but none exists. The idealistic vision of those who think we have to remove ourselves from the 2 party system to make it so requires a leap of logic that is inconsistent with reality.

There is true hope, especially after the elites and anti-american globalists across both parties revealed their true desire to destroy america with this assinine amnesty bill.

Why do you hate hope?

 

[Damocles]

I know you have damo. And that's commendable. I bet 99.9% of people have never particiated in local or state politics. And local and state politics is very organic. Very easy to get involved in and make a difference.

And you get to meet some of the movers and shakers even early on.

 

[Onceler]

"If you look at the Democratic Primary, one has a broad range of choices: from progressive (kucinich) to libertarian (gravel) to DLC moderate (clinton). Please don't pretend that americans are suckered into voting for a John Kerry or a George Bush. Those are the people elected in primaries. Don't like the choices? Get involved more in the primaries. "

ok... fair point. But when the money talks and we end up with a Bush vs. Gore/Kerry... then we can do one of two things... Vote for whom we believe is the lesser of two evils. OR we can vote for the best candidate on the final ticket. If that happens to be a third party like Nader or Perot or Bloomberg... so be it. The only times your vote doesn't count is if you don't vote for the candidate you think will be best for the country or if you don't vote.

If none of the 3rd party candidates have even a snowball's chance in hell of winning, what is the difference between pulling the lever for them, or just writing in someone who you think would make a good President?

 

[Damocles]

If none of the 3rd party candidates have even a snowball's chance in hell of winning, what is the difference between pulling the lever for them, or just writing in someone who you think would make a good President?

If you vote the platform you are sending a message to the party you usually vote for which direction you would rather their platform move.

Just writing somebody in is even worse, they are almost never counted as officially they were never a candidate. You must register to become a write-in candidate to have those even counted at all.

 

[blackascoal]

blackascoal is correct. Staying with one of the two parties simply because you think voting for a third party is a "waste of a vote" is exactly the type of attitude the two parties want you to possess. For if enough people think as you do, then the two parties maintain control and can continue to bankrupt this country. 1960... the last fiscal year either party lowered this nations debt. THAT is what your two parties are giving you. But by all means continue to act as though your support of one over the other makes any bit of difference. Because both are going to continue screwing us.

The place to start is by demanding and arguing for open ballot access. Both major parties work together to keep other parties off state ballots by forcing them to adhere to ever-morphing rules and qualifications that are designed to force citizens to choose between twiddly-dee and twiddly-dum.

That's not democracy.

At one point in our history democrats and republicans were the same party. Jefferson belonged to the Democrat/Republican Party. They've simply come full circl to be essentially the same party again but without the upside of Jefferson's party.

Open ballot access is the place to start along with campaign finance reform and you'll see more viable political parties and candidates for America. Both major parties know that which is why they work hand-in-hand to prevent it.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

If none of the 3rd party candidates have even a snowball's chance in hell of winning, what is the difference between pulling the lever for them, or just writing in someone who you think would make a good President?

One or the other of the major two may take up the issues that the third party ran on, if they get enough of the vote.

It's all fucked up though. We allow cities to defy federal law when it suits them. This essentially makes congress and our elected leaders irrelevant.

 

[Cypress]

The place to start is by demanding and arguing for open ballot access. Both major parties work together to keep other parties off state ballots by forcing them to adhere to ever-morphing rules and qualifications that are designed to force citizens to choose between twiddly-dee and twiddly-dum.

That's not democracy.

At one point in our history democrats and republicans were the same party. Jefferson belonged to the Democrat/Republican Party. They've simply come full circl to be essentially the same party again but without the upside of Jefferson's party.

Open ballot access is the place to start along with campaign finance reform and you'll see more viable political parties and candidates for America. Both major parties know that which is why they work hand-in-hand to prevent it.

The place to start is by demanding and arguing for open ballot access. Both major parties work together to keep other parties off state ballots by forcing them to adhere to ever-morphing rules and qualifications


I keep hearing people say this, but I simply can't relate. Maybe california has different laws. Every election cycle I have a choice of like, 6 or seven parties for Governor, and some other offices to.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"If none of the 3rd party candidates have even a snowball's chance in hell of winning, what is the difference between pulling the lever for them, or just writing in someone who you think would make a good President?"

By that same logic, why would you ever vote for someone in a primary (like a kucinich) that has no chance of winning. Why not just vote for one of the top two primary candidates with the most money that is the closer of the two. I mean, otherwise you would just be wasting your primary vote.

That type of "logic" is what keeps the two parties in power. THAT is part of what prevents third parties from becoming viable. The other part is the vast amounts of money required to run for office now. Which is why we need to quit acting like money=free speach. (which I believe you also pointed out)

 

[blackascoal]

"If you look at the Democratic Primary, one has a broad range of choices: from progressive (kucinich) to libertarian (gravel) to DLC moderate (clinton). Please don't pretend that americans are suckered into voting for a John Kerry or a George Bush. Those are the people elected in primaries. Don't like the choices? Get involved more in the primaries. "

ok... fair point. But when the money talks and we end up with a Bush vs. Gore/Kerry... then we can do one of two things... Vote for whom we believe is the lesser of two evils. OR we can vote for the best candidate on the final ticket. If that happens to be a third party like Nader or Perot or Bloomberg... so be it. The only times your vote doesn't count is if you don't vote for the candidate you think will be best for the country or if you don't vote.

Quite true and of the choices he presents, only one of them has the money, thus only one of them will prevail.

We live in an illusion of democracy, not real democracy. We morphed into a plutocracy years ago .. and you cannot defeat a plutocracy by sticking within the playbook of a democracy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"I keep hearing people say this, but I simply can't relate. Maybe california has different laws. Every election cycle I have a choice of like, 6 or seven parties for Governor, and some other offices to."

That is for a state election. Meaning the extra parties only have to adhere to ONE states requirements to get on the ballot. I would also be curious to see if the same requirements existed to put a third party on the ballot for President as they do for Governor.

 

[blackascoal]

The place to start is by demanding and arguing for open ballot access. Both major parties work together to keep other parties off state ballots by forcing them to adhere to ever-morphing rules and qualifications


I keep hearing people say this, but I simply can't relate. Maybe california has different laws. Every election cycle I have a choice of like, 6 or seven parties for Governor, and some other offices to.

Do a bit of research on this brother and you'll see what I mean.

 

[blackascoal]

Ballot access rules regulate the conditions under which a candidate or political party is entitled to appear on voters' ballots. Laws restricting which names may appear on the ballot have an obvious impact on the rights of candidates and political parties, but such laws also affect the rights of voters. The U.S. Supreme Court has observed that the rights of candidates and voters are closely intertwined. Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972).

North Carolina: third most difficult ballot access in the nation!

- With no third parties certified in North Carolina, more than half of all state legislative races will have only one candidate on the ballot in November, 2006. This may be one of the reasons why less than half of eligible adults in North Carolina vote.

- Fair and equal access to the ballot allows ordinary citizens to participate in the electoral process. More choice on the ballot increases citizen interest and voter turnout.

- North Carolina has the third most restrictive signature requirements for political parties in the nation (69,734 verified signatures) and, until the state's individual requirement was overturned in federal court, the second most restrictive for independent candidates.

- More than two-thirds of U.S. states require 10,000 or fewer signatures for independent ballot access. Twenty-one states, including South Carolina and Maryland, require 10,000 or fewer signatures for political parties. Nine states require 5,000 or fewer signatures for both parties and independents.

- Because roughly one-third of all signatures cannot be validated, a political party in North Carolina must raise more than 104,601 signatures to be sure of getting ballot access. That's one signature for every 73 people in the state.

- Our tax money pays county board-of-elections officials to verify every one of those petition signatures.

- The only third party to regularly achieve ballot access in North Carolina, the Libertarians, often spent nine months and $100,000 on that effort. No third party has ever met the signature requirement without the use of professional petitioners.

- After each four-year election cycle, if a third party does not receive ten percent of the vote for governor or president, the party is de-certified and has to start all over again. The Libertarian Party has been certified and de-certified eight times.

- The Electoral Fairness Act of 2005 would have reduced North Carolina's signature requirement by three-fourths and the vote threshold by four-fifths, easing the ballot access burden while still leaving North Carolina in the top twenty most restrictive states.

- The Electoral Fairness Act passed out of two committees intact but was amended on the floor of the House to leave the state's signature requirement unchanged (69,734 verified signatures) and to shorten the signature deadline by four months, changes that would make ballot access even more difficult in North Carolina.

 

[Onceler]

"If none of the 3rd party candidates have even a snowball's chance in hell of winning, what is the difference between pulling the lever for them, or just writing in someone who you think would make a good President?"

By that same logic, why would you ever vote for someone in a primary (like a kucinich) that has no chance of winning. Why not just vote for one of the top two primary candidates with the most money that is the closer of the two. I mean, otherwise you would just be wasting your primary vote.

That type of "logic" is what keeps the two parties in power. THAT is part of what prevents third parties from becoming viable. The other part is the vast amounts of money required to run for office now. Which is why we need to quit acting like money=free speach. (which I believe you also pointed out)

That's a fair point. To isolate just one example, I would argue that whatever message Greens sent to the Democrats in 2000 (and I do think that it was heard by some Dems, at least for 1 election cycle), was far outweighed by the election of George W. Bush, which represented a much longer-term setback to many Green goals & ideals than anything they could hope to forward by the rather small, temporary influence on the Dem platform.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Also a fair point... to an extent. When you look at the investments by the fed into alt energy sources, Bush is actually far above any other previous President. Now a large part of this is the public is finally awakening to the need for alt energy (once their pocketbooks were affected by the higher gas and energy prices of the past couple of years) and are thus demanding more action from the government.

Just out of curiosity, are there other things besides the scaling back of the clean air act that Bush has done that has gone against the green ideals?