Jan. 6 sentencing...

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Dec 16, 2019
374
135
93
33
Stillwater
Yeah, I have never seen OAN or even know where to find it nor have I read the Epoch Times. I am a normal American. That's the problem, what for 200 years was a normal American who believed in the Constitution and Rule of Law is now a Right Wing Fanatic. Suddenly Leftist whack jobs are now the new "Normal".....

I can tell there are a lot of fairly recent newly "indoctrinated" graduates on this World News and Politics forum. I'll bet mommy and daddy are wishing they had a refund about now.
Let's be honest the news stations are only covering the extremes of both parties, no of which is healthy for the country as a whole. All that does is make both sides point fingers at each other claiming how terrible the other is now.
 

gogetumpoke

Banned
Banned
Sep 3, 2010
634
163
1,593
My choice didnt affect you personally, so why the hostility?
Nothing hostile about it . It's just a fact that until we have a viable 3rd party candidate with a legitimate chance to win a vote that direction is wasted. That's how we end up with people like Biden in office. It's a cop out that gives cover to those that don't want to take a stand.
 
Nov 6, 2010
2,634
932
1,743
Nothing hostile about it . It's just a fact that until we have a viable 3rd party candidate with a legitimate chance to win a vote that direction is wasted. That's how we end up with people like Biden in office. It's a cop out that gives cover to those that don't want to take a stand.
How would you suggest a third party become "viable"? It's not just going to miracle itself into happening. The best way I can think of it to happen is for people to vote for those candidates.
 
Dec 16, 2019
374
135
93
33
Stillwater
Nothing hostile about it . It's just a fact that until we have a viable 3rd party candidate with a legitimate chance to win a vote that direction is wasted. That's how we end up with people like Biden in office. It's a cop out that gives cover to those that don't want to take a stand.
Well claiming I dont have 'guts' and that I wasted my vote because of the fact is definetly not a constructive conversation piece, but to each their own friend.
 

gogetumpoke

Banned
Banned
Sep 3, 2010
634
163
1,593
How would you suggest a third party become "viable"? It's not just going to miracle itself into happening. The best way I can think of it to happen is for people to vote for those candidates.
That's a great question that I don't have the answer to. Believe me, nobody wants a viable 3rd party more than I do. My problem with voting that way is that it is unrealistic, at this point, to expect that vote to do anything. We were going to end up with an R or a D and that's just a fact. It seems odd to me that most of the folks that voted 3rd party are the ones that defend Biden at every turn. Did anyone actually think Gary Johnson was going to win? I vote for the platform and have for the last 20 years or so but I will not waste my vote on someone that doesn't have a chance to win. To each his own I guess.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
That's a great question that I don't have the answer to. Believe me, nobody wants a viable 3rd party more than I do. My problem with voting that way is that it is unrealistic, at this point, to expect that vote to do anything. We were going to end up with an R or a D and that's just a fact. It seems odd to me that most of the folks that voted 3rd party are the ones that defend Biden at every turn. Did anyone actually think Gary Johnson was going to win? I vote for the platform and have for the last 20 years or so but I will not waste my vote on someone that doesn't have a chance to win. To each his own I guess.
You forgot all those folks that voted 3rd party, but defend Trump at every turn.
 
Dec 16, 2019
374
135
93
33
Stillwater
That's a great question that I don't have the answer to. Believe me, nobody wants a viable 3rd party more than I do. My problem with voting that way is that it is unrealistic, at this point, to expect that vote to do anything. We were going to end up with an R or a D and that's just a fact. It seems odd to me that most of the folks that voted 3rd party are the ones that defend Biden at every turn. Did anyone actually think Gary Johnson was going to win? I vote for the platform and have for the last 20 years or so but I will not waste my vote on someone that doesn't have a chance to win. To each his own I guess.
I didn't like either candidates in 2016 or 2020, hence why i voted 3rd party. If you bring more attention to something does that not in turn show that there is interest there? Continued interest can only grow that certain area right? Of course that is all wishful thinking, I would like a new system entirely, an either/or choice really never seems to bring up the best options.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
How would you suggest a third party become "viable"? It's not just going to miracle itself into happening. The best way I can think of it to happen is for people to vote for those candidates.
1. Free and open ballots with much fewer restrictions on qualifying as a candidate and getting on the ballot. The present system makes it nearly impossible for independents and third party candidates to even be on the ballot for the electorate to consider. The present system with mandated primaries and restricted access for independents is designed to reinforce and enforce a two party system. It is ALL about ballot access for candidates. That is the first step.

2. Another step in the right direction would be something that could be done by state statutes. That is elimination of the all or nothing nature of how electoral votes are certified for President. You could split the state into electoral college precincts based upon population or you could assign electoral college votes based upon the percentage of popular votes within the state. All that would take is a change of the law within the states.

3. Personally, I'd like to see elimination of the primary system as a whole in favor of a ranked voting single primary with all candidates that meet the minimal qualifications and a run-off if no one ends up with a majority of the votes. The run off could be with the two greatest vote-getters or with any candidate that obtained votes within a certain percentage of the top vote-getter that is pre-established. That is a long term objective that I probably won't see in my lifetime though.

Right now...unless you live in a "purple" or "swing" state, the biggest waste of a vote is to vote for one of the two party candidates. If for instance, as is the case in Oklahoma, the Republican Presidential candidate is essentially guaranteed all of Oklahoma's electoral college votes....it's an exercise in futility voting either R or D. At least voting third party is a vote for continued ballot access for that party in the future (certainly in Oklahoma).

I volunteered and worked in the petition drive to get the Libertarian Party recognized and accepted on the ballot in Oklahoma. The Libertarian Party's for governor or president in a general election must have received at least 2.5 percent of the vote in either of the last two general elections or they lose that recognition and right to have their candidate on the ballot. If nothing else, when I vote third party, I'm voting for and getting value from continued ballot access in the future.
 
Nov 6, 2010
2,634
932
1,743
1. Free and open ballots with much fewer restrictions on qualifying as a candidate and getting on the ballot. The present system makes it nearly impossible for independents and third party candidates to even be on the ballot for the electorate to consider. The present system with mandated primaries and restricted access for independents is designed to reinforce and enforce a two party system. It is ALL about ballot access for candidates. That is the first step.

2. Another step in the right direction would be something that could be done by state statutes. That is elimination of the all or nothing nature of how electoral votes are certified for President. You could split the state into electoral college precincts based upon population or you could assign electoral college votes based upon the percentage of popular votes within the state. All that would take is a change of the law within the states.

3. Personally, I'd like to see elimination of the primary system as a whole in favor of a ranked voting single primary with all candidates that meet the minimal qualifications and a run-off if no one ends up with a majority of the votes. The run off could be with the two greatest vote-getters or with any candidate that obtained votes within a certain percentage of the top vote-getter that is pre-established. That is a long term objective that I probably won't see in my lifetime though.

Right now...unless you live in a "purple" or "swing" state, the biggest waste of a vote is to vote for one of the two party candidates. If for instance, as is the case in Oklahoma, the Republican Presidential candidate is essentially guaranteed all of Oklahoma's electoral college votes....it's an exercise in futility voting either R or D. At least voting third party is a vote for continued ballot access for that party in the future (certainly in Oklahoma).

I volunteered and worked in the petition drive to get the Libertarian Party recognized and accepted on the ballot in Oklahoma. The Libertarian Party's for governor or president in a general election must have received at least 2.5 percent of the vote in either of the last two general elections or they lose that recognition and right to have their candidate on the ballot. If nothing else, when I vote third party, I'm voting for and getting value from continued ballot access in the future.
If point number 2 ever happens, I'm not sure we need a third party. It is this all or nothing nature of our system that pulls the parties to the extremes, and causes them to ignore entire states. Which in turn causes the extreme division we have now. Here in Nebraska, we do split the delegates for president, but only Omaha vs the rest, which still perpetuates the whole urban vs rural divide.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,043
2,288
1,743
1. Free and open ballots with much fewer restrictions on qualifying as a candidate and getting on the ballot. The present system makes it nearly impossible for independents and third party candidates to even be on the ballot for the electorate to consider. The present system with mandated primaries and restricted access for independents is designed to reinforce and enforce a two party system. It is ALL about ballot access for candidates. That is the first step.

2. Another step in the right direction would be something that could be done by state statutes. That is elimination of the all or nothing nature of how electoral votes are certified for President. You could split the state into electoral college precincts based upon population or you could assign electoral college votes based upon the percentage of popular votes within the state. All that would take is a change of the law within the states.

3. Personally, I'd like to see elimination of the primary system as a whole in favor of a ranked voting single primary with all candidates that meet the minimal qualifications and a run-off if no one ends up with a majority of the votes. The run off could be with the two greatest vote-getters or with any candidate that obtained votes within a certain percentage of the top vote-getter that is pre-established. That is a long term objective that I probably won't see in my lifetime though.

Right now...unless you live in a "purple" or "swing" state, the biggest waste of a vote is to vote for one of the two party candidates. If for instance, as is the case in Oklahoma, the Republican Presidential candidate is essentially guaranteed all of Oklahoma's electoral college votes....it's an exercise in futility voting either R or D. At least voting third party is a vote for continued ballot access for that party in the future (certainly in Oklahoma).

I volunteered and worked in the petition drive to get the Libertarian Party recognized and accepted on the ballot in Oklahoma. The Libertarian Party's for governor or president in a general election must have received at least 2.5 percent of the vote in either of the last two general elections or they lose that recognition and right to have their candidate on the ballot. If nothing else, when I vote third party, I'm voting for and getting value from continued ballot access in the future.
Item #2 is something that should be considered. I believe Nebraska does this as well as a couple of other states. It certainly diminishes the power of the political majority in the state (depending upon views that could be a positive or a negative).

Item #3: In theory I like the idea, but I don't like it in current practice for general elections. There have been several elections with ranked-choice voting had the eventual winner be listed less as the top choice than someone else.
What I find telling and understandable is listing that you are Libertarian. I consider myself Libertarian --- yet I think we would agree that we are very different in our political thoughts, at least as expressed on this board. This highlights that there is a wide ideological gulf between most Republican and most Democratic candidates -- (ie a big-space for Independents, Libertarians, etc.). Most candidates of major political parties play to the base, which continues to lean more extreme (left or right) and in primaries that extreme has more power.
I think that shows the value for your item #3 (ranked-choice voting) in primaries, but not necessarily general elections.