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.

gogetumpoke

Banned
Banned
Sep 3, 2010
721
173
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
2,844
1,047
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
464
166
93
33
Tulsa
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
721
173
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
19,212
20,827
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
464
166
93
33
Tulsa
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
19,212
20,827
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
2,844
1,047
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
4,214
2,355
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.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,212
20,827
1,743
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.
Might take a look at the National Popular Vote Interstate compact. There about halfway of getting where they need to be for that to happen.

I still think they'd be divided the two primary parties based upon popular vote without opening up candidate ballot access as well. IMO, the greatest impediment to the rise of a third party are laws that make it so damn hard for a third party to even get on and then stay on the ballot.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,212
20,827
1,743
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.
I don't consider myself a Libertarian Party member at this point. I was involved in getting them recognized as a party for ballot purposes purely because of my desire to see candidate ballot access opened up. I am presently registered as an independent, but at different times I've been a registered Republican (Reagan and GB 1 era), registered Democrat (Democratic Leadership Council era...Clinton), then an independent, then a registered Libertarian, and now back as registered unaffiliated in Oklahoma.

I am an issues oriented voter and not driven by party affiliation or personality (whether I like the guy/gal or not).

If I had to consider myself a member of any party that is out there, the stated values and positions of the Modern Whig Party is the one that most closely aligns with my political values and positions.

I agree that ranked-choice voting IS largely meaningless in a two candidate general election. And that is what we see in most general elections.

That's why my complete statement about ranked-choice voting was "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."

I did start off with I'd like to see elimination of the entire primary system. I was referring to the party primary system there. I may have been less than clear by again using the same word in the above-quoted statement. What I meant (albeit didn't clearly express) is I want a single election (what you're referring to as a general election) with all the candidates that meet the minimal qualifications....irrespective of party affiliation and a run-off if there is no majority single candidate based upon ranked voting.