[onimaru55]

Some good points there denmason.
With misinformation in abundance one can only assume there are vested interests from all sides.
It is a fact that politicians sometimes lie and that conspiracy theories are just theories. It pays to keep an open mind & trust your gut. Hopefully western democracy will continue without a Big Brotherly interference but I'm sceptical.

[Chimensch]

Originally Posted by onimaru55

Hopefully western democracy will continue without a Big Brotherly interference but I'm sceptical.

What democracy? When was the last time you had an opportunity to vote for a candidate that actually represented your views? In the Unites States, we have an opportunity to vote for a right-wing candidate and one that appears to be a little less right-wing. But, funny thing, no matter who gets elected, the policies don't change.

[onimaru55]

Much the same in Australia. In spite of several parties running, the preferences always go to 2 main parties.
Both pretty much tarred with the same brush.

[Chimensch]

Originally Posted by onimaru55

Much the same in Australia. In spite of several parties running, the preferences always go to 2 main parties.
Both pretty much tarred with the same brush.

The fact that the political system always seems to narrow down the election to a choice between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum and that politicians come and go but the policies remain the same is part of what makes me think that someone else is in control.

[Bruno]

That's partly your own fault. If you don't agree with either of the major 2, then vote 3d party.
But if you stay at home and don't vote, you're part of the problem.

If 3 party candidates would get enough votes to be noticed, the major parties will need to shape up or risk the election of a 3d party candidate.

The major problem to minor players I see is the fact that the electoral college is 'winner takes all' instead of a representation of the voting outcome.
This makes it prety much pointless to vote democrat in some of the southern states like TX.
I know in some states they changed it. And if they change it throughout the US, then a 3d party vote actually has a chance of meaning something.

EDIT: I will split off this side track into a new thread.

[Chimensch]

Originally Posted by Bruno

That's partly your own fault. If you don't agree with either of the major 2, then vote 3d party.

Bruno, you know a lot more about the US election system than most Europeans but I don't think you realize the extent to which the two-party system is established by law. No third party will ever have a level playing field.

As far as the electoral college is concerned, it only affects the election of the president while the lack of a real choice permeates the entire system.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Bruno, you know a lot more about the US election system than most Europeans but I don't think you realize the extent to which the two-party system is established by law.

Yes, I know.
But could you elaborate a bit? Because I'd like to know how your system is established by law?

I know that a 3d party candidate is essentially held hostage by congress, and that it is very hard to get senators, governors and congressmen which are not either dem or rep.
But is this a result of law, or just because that's how it is and always was, like the 'no 3 terms' guideline?

[Chimensch]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Yes, I know.
But could you elaborate a bit? Because I'd like to know how your system is established by law?

It starts with getting on the ballot. The Republican and Democratic parties hold a primary (a caucus in some states) and their candidates are automatically on the ballot, while a third-party candidate has to meet a whole lot of burdensome and expensive qualification tests, such as signed petitions, etc.

Then, third-party candidates have a hard time getting included in media-sponsored debates. Look at what Ron Paul went through and he had a ground swell of popular support.

I hope that someone with more knowledge of the details of getting on the ballot in various states will chime in.

[denmason]

It's a long hard road to get on the ballot. It's also very expensive and there are 50 different ballots, one for each state.Each state has its own requirements for a candidate to make it onto its ballot since the Constitution does not specify the nomination process. Some states allow voters to write in a candidate's name on the ballot. To make this a bit easier to follow, and since I'm just waking up... here's a link with the requirment of each state: US Presidential Write-in Candidate Requirements for each State
I'll go finish my cup of tea now.

[davisbonanza]

Originally Posted by Chimensch

The fact that the political system always seems to narrow down the election to a choice between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum and that politicians come and go but the policies remain the same is part of what makes me think that someone else is in control.

Ideally, I want to live in a free market, anarchist society. Realistically, I suppose I am for an extremely limited federal government. I firmly believe, however, that someone other that the overt political parties are in control. As long as this is the case, I will not see either of the two scenarios I proposed.

Originally Posted by Bruno

That's partly your own fault. If you don't agree with either of the major 2, then vote 3d party.
But if you stay at home and don't vote, you're part of the problem.

I also believe that elections are the ruse of the elite in control, to make the sheepole feel they can make a difference. If you throw in election fraud the power of the vote is utterly destroyed. If I decide to cast a vote on the black box in November or any other time for that matter, I scroll around the screen, push some buttons, and send my little vote down the memory hole. State and county election boards have millions of dollars invested in these electronic voting machines, scores of which have been proven ineffective and easily hackable. The software is private and the votes are counted under a cloak of secrecy, not under the watchful eye of the people as it should be. The corporations who manufacture the machines and count the votes often have vested interests in parties and or candidates as well. Greg Palast and Bev Harris are two people who have done extensive research into the election fraud that is going on here in America, check out their work.

I agree with chimenshc that it is extremely hard for third party candidates to even get on the ballot. On top of that, this time around, I'm not really excited about the Libertarian or the Constitutional party candidates.

OK, I'm done for now.

[JohnP]

While I disagree with Chimensch about the leanings of the candidates paraded in front of us (I do not think they lean to the right at all, but rather pay it lip service until they are elected) I generally agree there is far too little choice.
I also agree with Bruno wrt voting for third party candidates. The biggest difficulty for them being not just law so much as the huge media machine behind the two party system. It is often suggested that, assuming one of the main-stream candidates is more apealling than the other, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote "thrown away". Third party voters are often accused of helping the main stream candidate that was "even worse" get elected.
I believe Ross Perot has been blamed for "taking votes away from Republicans" and Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, and others have also been accused of "taking away votes that would have went to...[candidate X]".
I think we as Americans need to get out of this mentality because it is keeping us from getting candidates that TRULY give us what we want, but instead are the production of two seperate enormous political/media machines engineered to give us what THEY want, and make us think the candidate is what we wanted all along.
I do not care that Barak Obama is black. What does he stand for, specifically? the man is only a little left of Lenin in his voting record, although his well-written speeches make him sound much more to the right, and
McCain? He did do well 40 years ago in an NVA prison. Unfortunately, he is also much to the left, probably where Democrats used to be in the Kennedy days. I also know we are still paying for the actions of at least one president who graduated the Naval Academy (Carter) who should have stuck to building homes for people instead of banning Americans from using their own fuel, enraging the formerly pro-US Iranians, setting us up for economic slavery to the Chinese, and giving away strategic possessions built by the blood and toil of Americans (the Panama Canal, for instance), only to have the Panamanians, unable to support it themselves apparently, hand control of it over to a front company for the People's Liberation Army.
I somehow think none of the people who voted for him knew these were all part of the deal. Nor did Republicans all know a vote for Bush Sr. was a vote for NAFTA, or Bush Jr. was a vote for the open border fiasco we face at the moment which is destroying the economies of various US cities one by one.
Whoever is pulling the strings is making sure regardless of who the parties put forward, he toes the line or faces political/character assasination in the media. If they DO toe the line, they are later (after people start to forget the hardships) paraded again as advisors and wisened old former Presidents. Again, look at Pres. Carter.

I'd love to have a President again that put what Americans needed first, and in turn treated the rest of the world honestly and fairly. To do so, however, the people will have to see through the brainwashing on their TV's, actually do research on who they are or are not voting for (not all Democrats nor Republicans nor Third Party politicians are what they are made out to be) and then, at least, we will BEGIN to get the country back from the machine that is producing our "leaders" today, instead of the "four legs bad, two legs good" crap they've been parading in front of us the last decade or so.

Guess I agree with you guys, in my own way.


John P.

[xman]

Multiple parties won't change the appalling state of our early democracies. What is needed is a Proportional Representation system where seats are assigned not only to local representatives, but by the percentage of the popular vote too. Such democracies have greater voter turn out and greater voter satisfaction. By limiting our choices with First Past the Post electoral systems it is ensured that the only options we have are the ones that the rich corporate lobbyists will allow.

Canada is at least on the verge of potentially making some progress with our democracy. America? I think America is hooped!

X