Printable View
YouTube - Third Party Presidential Debate (Full Video)
I apologize if this has been posted. I had not seen it. It is really refreshing. I like what is said regarding ideas being brought to the attention of the public through third party candidates.
I VOTED YESTERDAY! I am in the middle of a move, so i voted by mail, and loved taking my time with it.
Get out there and WRITE IN a LEADER! :thumbsup:
We need to leave this 2 party only system behind. until then, all these 3rd parties will do is to interrupt the election statistics at best if at all anything
Not that Im against them or anythin, I just feel they are not there for what a party is supposed to be there for, in the current mainframe of our political system.
it will be fun to have more than the 2 main parties compete for power and it will be more fun to have the 2 main parties form coalition government with each other or smaller parties. i can only see this in dreamland though
I've said it before in here, ALL parties should be given a certain amount of cash for their entire campaign from the fed and the t.v. stations should donate equal time to them also. Maybe that'll keep a portion of the "special interest groups" in check.
I just find it hard to believe that McCain and Obama are the best that we have to choose from.:mad:
Have a good one!:s4:
Couldn't agree with you more! I only watched a little bit of the video, but if they gave that Baldwin guy half as much media coverage as obama/mccain, i think he could have a very good shot at being the next prez.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
I'd love to see smaller parties have a chance, but unless the Constitution is rewritten to have a more parliamentary form of government, it is never going to happen. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the American government MUST have a 2-party system. It is not a law, and obviously we do have other parties. But because of the way our President is elected, a 2-party system naturally dominates. It is part of the game-theory that comes out of the election rules. In order to have any chance of winning, a party needs to corner at least close to half of the voters, which is very difficult with more than 2 parties. A third party generally ends up losing and also ends up drawing away support form the other party that is closest in philosphy to its own philosophy --- for example, the Green party pulls support away from Democrats, and Ross Perot drew support away from Bush Senior.Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingimam
If we had a more parliamentary system, maybe some more focused parties could emerge, and you wouldn't have to buy the whole "package" that comes with each party.
If we want third party voices and third party ideas to get exposure then we need to open up the system. And there's one simple way of doing it - it's called preferential voting, AKA instant runoff election.
The short version of the cliff's notes is this:
Rather than presenting voters with a list of candidates, (a) (b) (c) (d) and allowing the voter to cast a single vote for their favorite candidate on the list - preferential voting allows voters to RANK the selections - I.E. select their first, second, third, etc. choice.
What this means is that rather than being unable to vote for a third party - because their vote would be "thrown away" and feeling trapped into voting for the "lesser evil", voters get to vote for their actual preferred candidate. If that candidate didn't get enough votes to actually win, then their second choice is automatically counted instead.
Here's a much longer explanation courtesy of Wikipedia: Preferential voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After just a few election cycles, the two main parties would have to adapt and debate ideas from third party groups or risk being left by the side of the road.