| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Razakel
Ireland466 Posts
On October 27 2012 22:56 micronesia wrote: I'm half with you. I want to vote for someone who isn't one of the two main candidates, but I don't want to vote libertarian.... so I'll have to do a bit of research into who else is there :p http://www.isidewith.com/ Might help you | ||
|
Poorlilrich
Australia262 Posts
On October 27 2012 22:27 Barrin wrote: Fuck this shit I'm voting Gary Johnson. End the 2-party system! Never been more sure. Who's with me? As Kang (or is it Kodos?) of the Simpsons would say, "Go ahead, throw away your vote!" | ||
micronesia
United States24781 Posts
On October 27 2012 23:46 Poorlilrich wrote: As Kang (or is it Kodos?) of the Simpsons would say, "Go ahead, throw away your vote!" How is it throwing your vote away? If you don't support a 2 party system, or specifically the two primary candidates, you can vote third party. If the percentage of people who vote third party goes up by 0.5% of the popular vote total, that sends a message. Sure, the person you vote for isn't going to be elected this time, but that doesn't mean your vote will have been useless, long term. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On October 27 2012 23:49 micronesia wrote: How is it throwing your vote away? If you don't support a 2 party system, or specifically the two primary candidates, you can vote third party. If the percentage of people who vote third party goes up by 0.5% of the popular vote total, that sends a message. Sure, the person you vote for isn't going to be elected this time, but that doesn't mean your vote will have been useless, long term. If you are living in a state where the winner is given, I would definately encourage voting third party no matter what, just to give the analysts from the parties something to go on regarding trending opinions! If the state is a toss-up you have to think a lot more about where you place your vote. I 100 % support vote-maximization to avoid throwing them away, but as long as a main candidate has more than ~ 7 % on the other in a steady stream of polls, your vote is more or less wasted on any of the two, making it an actual thrown away vote to go for a main candidate! | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On October 27 2012 23:49 micronesia wrote: How is it throwing your vote away? If you don't support a 2 party system, or specifically the two primary candidates, you can vote third party. If the percentage of people who vote third party goes up by 0.5% of the popular vote total, that sends a message. Sure, the person you vote for isn't going to be elected this time, but that doesn't mean your vote will have been useless, long term. This has always frustrated me. Reading up on American history, the earlier congresses did function a lot more like a European, coalition-based parliament. Explicitly the US system is bicameral but not limited to two parties. The only thing that limits other parties' participation (besides the fiscal hurdles) is lack of support. If you want a third party, get out and help them get the vote. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22455 Posts
On October 28 2012 00:11 ThomasjServo wrote: This has always frustrated me. Reading up on American history, the earlier congresses did function a lot more like a European, coalition-based parliament. Explicitly the US system is bicameral but not limited to two parties. The only thing that limits other parties' participation (besides the fiscal hurdles) is lack of support. If you want a third party, get out and help them get the vote. The reason America is a 2 party system is the winner takes all model. It means that smaller party's can not grow by collecting votes and incrementally gaining influence. It doesn't matter that 30% of Americans like you cause your not winning states and therefor don't win anything at all. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On October 27 2012 23:49 micronesia wrote: How is it throwing your vote away? If you don't support a 2 party system, or specifically the two primary candidates, you can vote third party. If the percentage of people who vote third party goes up by 0.5% of the popular vote total, that sends a message. Sure, the person you vote for isn't going to be elected this time, but that doesn't mean your vote will have been useless, long term. Ask the Nader people in Florida how their vote worked out back in 2000. Their candidate did nothing and they threw a way a shot at a president that (with hindsight ofc) would have been exceptionally open to greener policy. On the other hand, if you don't live in a swing state your vote is thrown away anyhow. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On October 28 2012 00:11 ThomasjServo wrote: This has always frustrated me. Reading up on American history, the earlier congresses did function a lot more like a European, coalition-based parliament. Explicitly the US system is bicameral but not limited to two parties. The only thing that limits other parties' participation (besides the fiscal hurdles) is lack of support. If you want a third party, get out and help them get the vote. The coalition-based parliament will likely never return to USA unless radio, TV and internet gets banned or the election process is reformed. Winner takes it all and the internal party-elections in the two parties is by nature forcing a 2-party system. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On October 28 2012 00:20 Gorsameth wrote: The reason America is a 2 party system is the winner takes all model. It means that smaller party's can not grow by collecting votes and incrementally gaining influence. It doesn't matter that 30% of Americans like you cause your not winning states and therefor don't win anything at all. You definitely have a point, I would love to see the congressional elections shift away from the current model to have the 435 house and 100 Senate seats assigned by percentage of votes for each party in the national, popular vote. | ||
|
Doppelganger
488 Posts
On October 28 2012 00:25 ThomasjServo wrote: You definitely have a point, I would love to see the congressional elections shift away from the current model to have the 435 house and 100 Senate seats assigned by percentage of votes for each party in the national, popular vote. I always favored a split model: one Chamber popular vote and one Chamber personal vote (winner takes all). This results in a direct representative that you can hold accountable in elections and an opportunity to choose a party as an ideological construct that expresses your view. Additionally, when you have a popular vote with two chambers you might as well only have one. But the federal structure of the US is a little bit in conflict with my thinking. You would need to decide which chamber should represent the states... the one elected by popular vote or the one elected by winner takes all? Well I doubt there will be any change like this in the US. What the US citizens could accomplish more easily would be tougher regulations on lobbying and campaign financing ('citizens united' is just nightmarish for any democracy) so that your positions are more strongly represented than the interests of firms/wall street/banks etc. If you achieve that you don't need to get rid of the two party system imho. | ||
|
GhandiEAGLE
United States20754 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24781 Posts
On October 28 2012 00:23 Derez wrote: Ask the Nader people in Florida how their vote worked out back in 2000. Their candidate did nothing and they threw a way a shot at a president that (with hindsight ofc) would have been exceptionally open to greener policy. On the other hand, if you don't live in a swing state your vote is thrown away anyhow. If you consider voting for the wrong person throwing away your vote, then many people in Florida in that election threw away their vote. However, the problem wasn't that they voted third party; it was that they voted for the wrong person. Often, there is overlap between the two when a person's best interest is taken into account (as was the case then), but this does not mean that voting for a third part is inherently throwing away your vote. | ||
|
DamnCats
United States1472 Posts
On October 28 2012 00:50 GhandiEAGLE wrote: I am probably not the most politically inclined person, but the fact that reasonable, intelligent Americans can vote for Romney scares me x.x For me it's less scary and more just depressing as fuck. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On October 28 2012 00:46 Doppelganger wrote: I always favored a split model: one Chamber popular vote and one Chamber personal vote (winner takes all). This results in a direct representative that you can hold accountable in elections and an opportunity to choose a party as an ideological construct that expresses your view. Additionally, when you have a popular vote with two chambers you might as well only have one. But the federal structure of the US is a little bit in conflict with my thinking. You would need to decide which chamber should represent the states... the one elected by popular vote or the one elected by winner takes all? Well I doubt there will be any change like this in the US. What the US citizens could accomplish more easily would be tougher regulations on lobbying and campaign financing ('citizens united' is just nightmarish for any democracy) so that your positions are more strongly represented than the interests of firms/wall street/banks etc. If you achieve that you don't need to get rid of the two party system imho. Financing is crazy at the moment. I want that unlimited anonymous donations to PACs taken off the books. I also want to see a federally imposed limit on the campaign season like the have in England. I believe for Parliament you have 3 months to campaign; that is it. So no more 2 year long campaigns. I think that would go a long way into lessening the importance of money in the US system. Not to mention I wouldn't have to suffer chiding FB statuses for months and months. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
92% Stein 84% Obama 15% Romney I guess I'll vote for Stein, its not like my vote for pres matters anyways (in GA). Third party is just a pipe dream.. but if I'm throwing my vote away by not being in a swing state might as well throw it in a funny direction. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
Since this election is going to be incredibly close, I really think voting pragmatically for the candidate you prefer between Obama and Romney is the wisest choice, even if you still prefer a third-party candidate over the two of them. And not even only in swing states. You can bet that if Obama wins the electoral college but loses the overall vote, Republicans are going to be arguing it gives them legitimacy in their blocking efforts in Congress. They really, really need to be sent a message. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On October 28 2012 00:58 DamnCats wrote: For me it's less scary and more just depressing as fuck. I am not sure if you (Americans, not you personally) care, but if Romney is elected it will make people in most of the world outside the USA think less of the USA and it's citizens. The US is already far to the right of most countries, so when you vote for the right wing candidate it seems that Americans are different people to the rest of us. | ||
|
Darknat
United States122 Posts
| ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 28 2012 01:46 ShadeR wrote: what is it exactly that caused the republican party to become what it is today. so completely anti-intellectual? Eh? What are you talking about? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Solar vs Rogue
Maru vs NightMare
Sparkling Tuna Cup
IPSL
Bonyth vs Hawk
GSL
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
