Silent_One
Newcomer
So...your your going to vote for Nader then!?
Nader
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
So...your your going to vote for Nader then!?
Silent_One
Newcomer
Natoma wrote:
There were more than 4 3rd party candidates that could have won it for gore if they didnt run. Although who knows how the chadsFlorin said:
might have fallen with "what if" scenarios. Dont blame nader for gore's poor campaigning.
Code:
Bush 2,912,790 49 % 29 0
Gore 2,912,253 49 % 20 0
Nader 97,488 2 % 0 0
Browne 18,856 0 % 0 0
Buchanan 17,484 0 % 0 0
Phillips 4,280 0 % 0 0
Hagelin 2,287 0 % 0 0epic
Everyone always says they want a 3rd or 4th party to mix things up. That they want a candidate who will best represent what the 'country' feels.
What they really mean, is they want a candidate with the same set of stances they do and who is electable. Of course, forgotten in the rhetoric is the simple fact that its highly doubtful such a thing even exists. Pick a group of about 1000 Americans, I challenge you to find two amongst them who won't strongly disagree on at least one current issue.
The left and the right is a nice dichotomy, and it just so happens that they tend to represent the conceptual split which the majority of Americans disagree on the most statistically.
Its not surprising really, the big historic issues that faced America and those which divided the most have usually been subsumed in the split. Federalist vs antifederalist, the role of government, race relations, religions vs the 1st amendment.. etc etc
Even in Europe, where often elections have numerous parties from which to choose, often it comes down in the final round to something where it can be logically divided into the right vs the left. Where such a relative concept even makes sense to speak off.
What they really mean, is they want a candidate with the same set of stances they do and who is electable. Of course, forgotten in the rhetoric is the simple fact that its highly doubtful such a thing even exists. Pick a group of about 1000 Americans, I challenge you to find two amongst them who won't strongly disagree on at least one current issue.
The left and the right is a nice dichotomy, and it just so happens that they tend to represent the conceptual split which the majority of Americans disagree on the most statistically.
Its not surprising really, the big historic issues that faced America and those which divided the most have usually been subsumed in the split. Federalist vs antifederalist, the role of government, race relations, religions vs the 1st amendment.. etc etc
Even in Europe, where often elections have numerous parties from which to choose, often it comes down in the final round to something where it can be logically divided into the right vs the left. Where such a relative concept even makes sense to speak off.
Fred said:
Of course you have to form coalitions to get a majority in parliament, often those coalitions that are actually formed after the election represent one side of the spectrum, but there have been a lot of exception from that rule.
However, this is not the purpose of having more parties, apart from having ore choice more parties enable the voters to strengthen a particular party thus having a actual influence on what agenda their government - wether they prefer it to be conservative or liberal - is going to represent.
E.g. in the upcoming elections you have the choice between Republicans and Democrats, however having other parties in the mix can cater neglected topics to people such as "green" values or "federalist" issue etc..
Fred said:
No, usually you end up with a coalition government or a government with backing parties that are not themselves in the government (somewhat fragile that).
In presidential elections you have multiple rounds (France), where you first decide which two candidates you want in the final round and then in the final round decides who gets to be president. The whole idea of this is to counter the Nader-effect you see in the US.
The US. voting system is broken. Plain and simple.
Cheers
Gubbi
Thats what i thought too. When I tried posting and got a database error. I came back to the thread and must have been too late, as I did not get the "X" button to delete my post.kyleb said:lol epic, i think there is a deleate option in this forum as long as no one has looked at your post.
later,
epic
Silent_One
Newcomer
In the US don't the primary races constitute "multiple rounds"? Their's alot of candidates to choise from in which one gets to represent the "party". The idea that a third candidate can enter the race as an independent does not mean the "system is broken". The system has worked fine for over 200 years without major changes and with a good deal of stability. What other country can say that?
Gubbi said:
IMHO that's even worse. You will get to choose the lesser of the evil instead of chosing the guy you actually prefer. If this would be applied in Sweden, then I would always have to chose between a socialdemocrat and a moderate. But I don't want to, I want a liberal.
The question is "who do you want as your president", not "do you want Bush as your president (yes/no)", or "who of these two guys do you want as your president".
I'd say there's no actual system error in the US system (the only improvement would be if you could weight the candidates, like voting 0.6 on Nader and 0.3 on Kerry and 0.1 on Bush), but a cultural/historical problem that has polarized the politics into a 0 or 1 scenario that's hard to get out of. This polarization is also the reason why the words "liberal" tend to mean something like socialdemocratic in the US and the misconception that liberal and conservative stand in opposition to each other.
This is problematic for a lot of people who don't have anyone that's remotely close to their own opinions. The left/right split doesn't make much sense anyway, the two extremes have more in common than they have in common with the center. If I would have to vote in the US I would have to either give up my opinion about liberal market economy, or give up my opinion about liberal social life. In the US I would at most get a 50% match, in Sweden I can find a party with maybe 90% match.
No.Silent_One said:
Which I never said. But the fact that two rivalling (but politically close) candidates effectively puts a third into power is broken.Silent_One said:
Silent_One said:
Did you pass you drugs screening?
Gore vs. Bush: Nader gets 2.3%, tips the scale so Bush wins. Broken
More Gore vs. Bush: Gore ends up with rougly ½ million more votes than Bush, still loses (due to electoral system). You can call that alot of things, like CRAZY and F*CKED UP. You cannot, however, call it democracy. Broken
1960: Kennedy vs. Nixon. Kennedy won the popular vote 49.7 percent to 49.5 percent. The electoral margin was a more comfortable 303 to 219 win, could have been another Bush/Gore mess. Broken (if inconsequential)
There are probably others.
Cheers
Gubbi
Humus said:
Scenario 1: (moderate) Right wing has 6 good candidates. (Extreme) left has one. You end up with Josef's little brother.
Scenario 2: (moderate) Left wing has 6 good candidates. (Extreme) right has one. You end up heiling whatever you get.
Sounds better or worse?
Cheers
Gubbi
Silent_One
Newcomer
*Sigh*
DId you ever hear of the Electoral System and how it works?
Did you ever read any previous posts here regarding the the Electoral vote? When did you decide that were a democracy, not a republic? Were you taking drugs then?
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Gubbi said:
(Note: statistically inconsequential out of 100+ million votes cast)
No, what would be F*CKED UP, is if Gore won the election, considering the statistical dead heat in the popular vote, while Bush carried 30 sovereign states, vs. Gore's 21.
Correction. You cannot call it a "direct" democracy, which we don't. We call it a republic.
digitalwanderer
Legend
Darth Nader.MuFu said:
Gubbi said:
The EU system isn't too different. If you live in a federation with many states which don't have a relatively equal population distribution, you will have to do something like this, otherwise small states will be ignored and their opinions never heard. It's a balance between the popular vote and a 1 state one vote system.
Think of the EU situation. If you go by population, luxembourg will be totally ignored in all situation. They essentially have no say. Countries like Sweden and Finland has a little to say, but not a whole lot. Germany get to say a whole lot. If just a couple of the largest countries go together, they could rules over all others. It just wouldn't work all that well. That's why voting power is not directly proportional to population. And with the new constitution a so called double majority has been proposed. You must collect both a qualified majority of the number of states and a qualified majority of the population they represent.
Similar threads
