What's new

Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?

I'd love to do away with the two party system. There are two many issue and to many stances to take on those issues for just two parties to truly represent the American people. However a third party right now is just not feasible. They won't have the financial backing or grass roots support.
 
Ron Paul kills his own chances with his foreign policy. I could actually see him running 3rd party and getting Obama re-elected. Dr. Paul is an intelligent man, but I don't think anyone can claim he is eloquent in the debates or in his own speeches. The election for the POTUS has turned into a popularity contest. Hate to say it, but it is true.

I've heard he wants to return to the gold standard, so he can eliminate the Fed. That's a disastrous domestic policy.
 
Ron Paul has some fantastic ideas. He also has some absolutely, freaking crazy ideas. Remember when Clinton beat Bush? Why did Clinton beat Bush? Ross Perot. Don't put Obama back in the White House because you wasted your vote on Ron Paul.

If you assume that most os the votes for Perot would have gone to Bush, maybe. There's no good reason to think that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

In June, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).

When Perot lost support, the votes primarily when to Clinton.
 
Our Constitution was not framed to support a "Party System of Governance". In fact it was written as a "States System of Governance", and some of the more foresighted framers even warned against the formation of "parties" as a corruption of the system that would be dangerous to the republic.

The idea of representative republics really only works when representatives are directly accountable to the people themselves, or the states themselves in the case of Senators, and depends on those "statesmen" being independent thinkers actually concerned for the welfare of the states, and the citizens of those states, and voting to protect the interests of those states and people.

The electoral college idea was a further essential, as it gave the electors, as supposedly intelligent statesmen, the right to cast their votes as their conscience would direct in seating the new President, with accountability only to the States that selected them. States, mind you, where the people did have local elections and could replace malfeasant state officeholders. The amendment requiring popular election of senators was a huge change in the American system. . . the senators before then were selected according to State constitutional provisions to represent the State interests, and thus preserved the importance of the States as members of the Union. Still ultimately they were accountable to their state voters, just not directly. If you're going to go popular on the Senate, I guess we could argue they should have created "Half State" districts so they would be even more directly elected by the people in their districts, and more accountable to their interests.

One approach to returning power to the people, as opposed to the "Parties", would be state legislation allowing/requiring political parties to have internal elections for registered party members to elect their party leaders. The current bylaws of the parties are designed to avert that "catastrophe" and allow some inside "elites" to manage their parties as private organizations.

Another thing we can do is just depopulate that party system and refuse to vote for their candidates, putting up independents on the ballots.
 
Ron Paul is not going to be a third party. While he once affiliated with the Libertarian party, it looks to me like he realized that third parties are a dead end, and has taken his stand in the republican party. In the 2008 cycle he even told his convention delegates to just stick with the party program, even though he was not being given fair treatment with the RINO RNP officials running the show. He knows where the center of mass for his support comes from, and he knows there simply is not a place in the Dem tent for his ideas at all. It's a showdown between the progressive agenda and the Constitution, and most republicans come down on the side of the Constitution. Just not the RINO party elites.


The real question here is whether those RINO elites are willing to blow up their own party and lose credibility entirely. If they do that with further manipulations against the beliefs of their supporters, there will not be a Republican party anymore. There will be one created by the the people to represent their beliefs. The Bush, Romney, Huntsman, and other CFR affiliates of the "Republican" party do not believe in the Republic or the Constitution at all, what they are is a complete sham. They are running with the Reids and Obamas for the Plantation concept of world governance.
 
...trying to find -- with little luck so far -- the poll that was taken Nov '92 which asked which candidate you'd LEAST like to see in office, where Clinton was the highest percentage...an interesting way to look at what I consider to be a mathematical flaw in the voting process when more than 2 candidates are involved.

I know I'm not making this up. Will keep looking.
 
Last edited:
...trying to find -- with little luck so far -- the poll that was taken Nov '92 which asked which candidate you'd LEAST like to see in office, where Clinton was the highest percentage...an interesting way to look at what I consider to be a mathematical flaw in the voting process when more than 2 candidates are involved.

I know I'm not making this up. Will keep looking.

I considered this at the time and wondered if having 1 yes vote and 1 no vote in a multi-party system would be a good solution. I was in 9th grade then.
 
I considered this at the time and wondered if having 1 yes vote and 1 no vote in a multi-party system would be a good solution. I was in 9th grade then.

Heh, I was in 10th. My thought was to have some sort of unrelated mini-competition where the winner gains immunity for one round. Then a vote occurs with only the lowest vote-getter being eliminated. Repeat process until only two remain.
 
The hardest part is determining a fair immunity challenge. I'm always up for a good pie eating contest, though.
 
Caucus + IRV is my preferred combo.

Regardless of whether or not Perot ended up influencing the '92 election, it's pretty easy to see how a third party candidate could result in the least desirable candidate winning under the current system.

Ross Perot DID influence the elcetion. Simply by running. He took votes from somewhere. Having said that I am not saying he changed the outcome but he affects it by simply running.
 
I don't dispute the importance of a significant third-party candidate. It's actually one of the 13 keys of Lichtman's. However, the presence is always interpreted as being bad for the incumbent party.
 
Who was the official Democratic nominee in January 1992?

Exactly.

Clinton was busy fighting against his own. Meanwhile, Perot was attacking the only other official candidate, Bush, and siphoning votes from him. In the Jan polls, Bush had a fairly significant polling lead over any of the Dem candidates.

Clearly, a lot happened in the following 10 months, but it's not unrealistic to conclude that Perot unintentionally helped to swing votes from Bush to Clinton.
 
I think Americans put too much stock into who is President and not enough stock into who's really running this country. When we allow lobbyists to buy off err I mean, contribute to campaigns of the senate, why would anyone think that one person in the white house will make any difference against a Congress that has their own agendas?

If only we held congress half as accountable as we held the President....

As we've seen under Bush, when Congress wants to do something, they can get it done. Whether it be massive spending or tax cuts.

As we've seen under Obama, if Congress doesn't want to do something, they will throw America, its credit rating, and everything else, under the bus to promote their own agendas. Obama has been a lame duck President for 4 years now since Congress has said NO to everything he's proposed.
 
EClearly, a lot happened in the following 10 months, but it's not unrealistic to conclude that Perot unintentionally helped to swing votes from Bush to Clinton.

Unlike the rampant stability of poll numbers between January and November in other Presidential election years.
 
Back
Top