What's new
By:
Filters

2020 Presidential election

Ron Mexico said:
Honestly I don't know if I'll even to vote from overseas. But if I do and it's Trump and Biden. I think I'll vote 3rd party.

Long term getting a viable 3rd or more party is better for America than who is president for 4 years. Trump sucks and is easily the worst president of my life but America will be fine.

Let's stop being forced into choosing between 2 people that most of us don't like. We can do better than that. Stop letting the parties convince you it's only 2 options. A third option didn't need to win to make a big difference.
Click to expand...

You'll be voting for Trump then.
 
The Thriller said:
Maybe they shouldn’t have talked for weeks about how electable Bernie was and how he was enlarging the tent? I’m sorry that their arguments were wrong. But it’s better for bernie to get his *** kicked now than to have his *** kicked by trump later.
Click to expand...
Ok but I assume you want Trump to lose. So you would want Bernie fans to vote for Biden. So being an ******* about Bernie might not help eliminate trump ya see.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
The Thriller said:
LOL. they’re not going to fight to defeat trump because of something I say? Then they’re probably not committed to beating trump.
Click to expand...
You aren't the only one acting this way. And ya, people are stupid. I would still even want the stupid people to vote against Trump cause I want Trump to lose.
Maybe you just aren't that committed to beating trump though.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
The Thriller said:
our system of government isn’t set up to support multiple parties like a parliamentary system. We’ll never have a viable 3rd party option until significant changes are made to the constitution.

That’s why even by our second and third president, we were already limited to two main parties.
Click to expand...

rigged by the parties not the constitution
 
silesian said:
rigged by the parties not the constitution
Click to expand...

no. The constitution actually encourages parties. Institutions like the Electoral College and House/Senate encourage the two party system. The Electoral College with its delegates and winner take call stakes force voters into voting for one of the two major parties. It states would base the delegates distributed equally to how voters voted, then you’d see more 3rd party candidates. Since the EC decides the president, this reinforces the need to elect someone who is part of one of the two political parties.

Want to break the two party system? Get rid of the EC. Go straight up with the popular vote and determine the makeup of at least one of the chambers of Congress by proportional voting. If you state votes something like 50 percent D 30 percent R and 20 percent 3rd, then distribute the representatives to reflect that. Thus, encouraging 3rd party candidates.

in utah right now, 49 percent of the population could literally vote D and they’d maybe capture 1/4 representatives and 0 senate seats. Thus discouraging even Democrats from running let alone 3rd party candidates.
 
Last edited:
Ron Mexico said:
Then I wouldn't vote for them and likely no one else would. We choose not to vote for bad 3rd parties candidates and force ourselves to vote for bad main party candidates.
Click to expand...
Not me usually. Trump changes things though.

Normally if I don't like anybody then I don't vote for anybody.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Ron Mexico said:
Then I wouldn't vote for them and likely no one else would. We choose not to vote for bad 3rd parties candidates and force ourselves to vote for bad main party candidates.
Click to expand...
We need someone to step up and sponsor things like televised 3rd party only debates. Do a lot of groundwork to make it clear that "this time" a 3rd party has a legit shot, has major support and has a chance to win.

Too late for that this time. But if some super rich ******* was all about getting a 3rd party in the mix they could start working right after this election to get some stuff going.
 
The Thriller said:
no. The constitution actually encourages parties. Institutions like the Electoral College and House/Senate encourage the two party system. The Electoral College with its delegates and winner take call stakes force voters into voting for one of the two major parties. It states would base the delegates distributed equally to how voters voted, then you’d see more 3rd party candidates. Since the EC decides the president, this reinforces the need to elect someone who is part of one of the two political parties.

Want to break the two party system? Get rid of the EC. Go straight up with the popular vote and determine the makeup of at least one of the chambers of Congress by proportional voting. If you state votes something like 50 percent D 30 percent R and 20 percent 3rd, then distribute the representatives to reflect that. Thus, encouraging 3rd party candidates.

in utah right now, 49 percent of the population could literally vote D and they’d maybe capture 1/4 representatives and 0 senate seats. Thus discouraging even Democrats from running let alone 3rd party candidates.
Click to expand...

I’m calling BS.

You are ignoring the entire 19th century of US history.

We had the constitution then.

We had the EC then.

And we had presidents from the Whig party and the Democratic- Republican Party. Parties emerged. Parties disappeared.

The constitution and EC did not stop this.

What stops the third party is the power of the two parties.

Parties in power have brainwashed Americans to believe that an emergent third party is impossible. They would love your arguments. But what your argument totally misses the obvious fact that if a candidate has enough popular support, the EC and constitution does absolutely nothing to stop that person from winning the presidency.

Human beings have limited imaginations and our biases make us believe that history always repeats. We need people with the imagination to reject the illusion that the status quo is inevitable.
 
silesian said:
I’m calling BS.

You are ignoring the entire 19th century of US history.

We had the constitution then.

We had the EC then.

And we had presidents from the Whig party and the Democratic- Republican Party. Parties emerged. Parties disappeared.

The constitution and EC did not stop this.

What stops the third party is the power of the two parties.

Parties in power have brainwashed Americans to believe that an emergent third party is impossible. They would love your arguments. But what your argument totally misses the obvious fact that if a candidate has enough popular support, the EC and constitution does absolutely nothing to stop that person from winning the presidency.

Human beings have limited imaginations and our biases make us believe that history always repeats. We need people with the imagination to reject the illusion that the status quo is inevitable.
Click to expand...

And where’s the Whig party today? :)

The Whig party was only around for a relatively short amount of time. Then the (abolitionist) Republican Party swallowed the old Whig party (and any abolitionist Democrats). Was it because old whigs became brainwashed republicans then? Or was it because the structure of our government only supports two major parties?

If you look at 19th century, America was dominated by two major parties. Which continues today because of the “win all” structure of our constitution. It’s not a parliamentary system like you see in Europe.

For that during most of our country’s history we’ve been dominated by two parties. They’ve changed in name and on issues. Republicans today are the whites supremacist party while Democrats are the ones fighting for civil rights (which clearly wasn’t the case in the 1860s). But the main consistency has been two major political parties dominating the political landscape.
 
Last edited:
The Thriller said:
And where’s the Whig party today? :)

The Whig party was only around for a relatively short amount of time. Then the (abolitionist) Republican Party swallowed the old Whig party (and any abolitionist Democrats). Was it because old whigs became brainwashed republicans then? Or was it because the structure of our government only supports two major parties?

If you look at 19th century, America was dominated by two major parties. Which continues today because of the “win all” structure of our constitution. It’s not a parliamentary system like you see in Europe.

For that during most of our country’s history we’ve been dominated by two parties. They’ve changed in name and on issues. Republicans today are the whites supremacist party while Democrats are the ones fighting for civil rights (which clearly wasn’t the case in the 1860s). But the main consistency has been two major political parties dominating the political landscape.
Click to expand...

We are not debating whether we have usually had two parties, but rather why. The argument that "it is the EC/ Constitution's fault" lacks causal connection. The fact that parties have been born while others have died, within our constituational framework, is direct evidence that we are not constitutionally stuck where we are. That notion is defeatist / nihilistic

Trivia Q: In which election did we have four candidates from the same party receiving electoral votes?
 
Here's is the online letter published by 80 former national security and homeland security professionals, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, endorsing Biden, and describing their reasoning:

https://thesteadystate.org/
 
silesian said:
We are not debating whether we have usually had two parties, but rather why. The argument that "it is the EC/ Constitution's fault" lacks causal connection. The fact that parties have been born while others have died, within our constituational framework, is direct evidence that we are not constitutionally stuck where we are. That notion is defeatist / nihilistic

Trivia Q: In which election did we have four candidates from the same party receiving electoral votes?
Click to expand...

What we're arguing about are two different things. You're arguing whether parties can change or evolve. I'm arguing that no more than two parties can exist in our political system because of the way our Constitution was written.

'm saying is that our Constitution actually prevents more than two political parties from existing. What you seem to argue is that political parties can't evolve or that new political parties can't form. They have and will. Federalists, Your Whig argument actually supports mine, you just didn't recognize it. The Whig party was swallowed up by the Republican party. But our country's history shows that no more than two political parties can exist for a sustained amount of time because of the structure set forth by our Constitution.

Or do you think having more than just 2 parties is just a mental block that we need to "get over?" How do you suppose we "get over" this mental block seeing how we're over 200 years into this thing and never has there been a sustained 3rd party success?
 
Well Tulsi Gabbard has dropped out and endorsed Biden. So much for @The Thriller ’s insistence on a third party run to help Russia. Unless the Russians want Biden to win. Or maybe they are doing this to provide cover for Tulsi so she can continue to operate from the inside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top