Third parties already exist in the US. They exist to syphon votes from the major parties to help the other side win. Republicans love funding the green party to try and knee-cap democrats for example.
They do exist indeed but no-one hears of them because of the focus on the two main ones and the outrageous extravagance in their promotion, yes and you can also blame the majority of media over there. One of the reasons why I never intend to visit America, though imagine a Republican/Green coalition.
You realize coalition government isn't a thing under the US system, right?
It technically is, independents in congress often align with a major party for organizational purposes, and can theoretically determine which major party gets the majority and minority positions.
If there were ever more than 3-5 of them in both houses combined it might even come into play.
caucusing with independents is different than an actual coalition government, where members of multiple parties have a formal agreement to constitute the leadership of the executive
Third and fourth parties will do absolutely nothing positive about our political problems as long as we use a first past the post, winner takes all voting system.
In the UK the Liberal Democrats got into Government under FPTP, Labour got into power under FTPT. All a PR system would do is help the more extreme parties and make decisive governance damn near impossible as those who are supposed to be ruling are instead bogged down by other factions when the inevitable coalition takes hold. If you look at Belgium you will see an example of how under the Democracy Index why it is rated as a 'flawed democracy'.
That 'got into' is carrying a massive amount of weight to pretend that the Lib-Dems had anything approaching the whip hand in the coalition government. Which, coalitions aren't even a possiblity for a single occupancy office like the Presidency. A broader coalition in the Congress already exists within each Party, they just made their decisions beforehand rather than after the election. Any voters that wanted Nick Clegg to be Deputy PM to Brown instead of Cameron got swindled.
America totally needs a third/fourth party, even if its just so you can make fun of them like we do in the UK.
Lets hope Biden doesn't screw things up.
Third and fourth parties will do absolutely nothing positive about our political problems as long as we use a first past the post, winner takes all voting system.
They don't help even if you don't. If you have more than two parties, you still need to make a coalition for governing (the electorate doesn't change). Two parties just does the coalition building up front. If you vote for the left wing party and they collaborate in a government with the center left party who has the numbers to make a government, then you still end up compromising. You just do it later, instead of earlier.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
+2
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
The republicans would never let a fetus be granted citizenship.
While it would indeed bring in more tax revenue in the future, they hate taxes. And also jus soli.
America totally needs a third/fourth party, even if its just so you can make fun of them like we do in the UK.
Lets hope Biden doesn't screw things up.
Third and fourth parties will do absolutely nothing positive about our political problems as long as we use a first past the post, winner takes all voting system.
They don't help even if you don't. If you have more than two parties, you still need to make a coalition for governing (the electorate doesn't change). Two parties just does the coalition building up front. If you vote for the left wing party and they collaborate in a government with the center left party who has the numbers to make a government, then you still end up compromising. You just do it later, instead of earlier.
It’s why I mentioned that winner takes all is the other part of FPTP which makes it a horrible system; even in ranked choice, the winner gets 100% of power even with only 50% + 1 votes from the electorate.
Ranked choice with coalitions might be better, but I’m not educated enough on that and we’re starting to go afield.
To bring us back on topic, the Senate is trying to send a $500 billion “stimulus” deal to the House, which is less than a quarter of what they asked for and no mention of direct payments to the populace.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Third and fourth parties will do absolutely nothing positive about our political problems as long as we use a first past the post, winner takes all voting system.
In the UK the Liberal Democrats got into Government under FPTP, Labour got into power under FTPT. All a PR system would do is help the more extreme parties and make decisive governance damn near impossible as those who are supposed to be ruling are instead bogged down by other factions when the inevitable coalition takes hold. If you look at Belgium you will see an example of how under the Democracy Index why it is rated as a 'flawed democracy'.
Belgium has its own problems not linked to its proportional system. The issues stem from a complicated power sharing between the different ethno-linguistic groups (chiefly Wallonia (Dutch-speaking) and Flandern (French-speaking)).
The bigger issue there and that we are seeing rear it's head right now in the US and elsewhere is really that stable multi-ethnic democracies where no group is the majority aren't really a thing we've seen happen yet.
America totally needs a third/fourth party, even if its just so you can make fun of them like we do in the UK.
Lets hope Biden doesn't screw things up.
Third and fourth parties will do absolutely nothing positive about our political problems as long as we use a first past the post, winner takes all voting system.
They don't help even if you don't. If you have more than two parties, you still need to make a coalition for governing (the electorate doesn't change). Two parties just does the coalition building up front. If you vote for the left wing party and they collaborate in a government with the center left party who has the numbers to make a government, then you still end up compromising. You just do it later, instead of earlier.
It’s why I mentioned that winner takes all is the other part of FPTP which makes it a horrible system; even in ranked choice, the winner gets 100% of power even with only 50% + 1 votes from the electorate.
Ranked choice with coalitions might be better, but I’m not educated enough on that and we’re starting to go afield.
To bring us back on topic, the Senate is trying to send a $500 billion “stimulus” deal to the House, which is less than a quarter of what they asked for and no mention of direct payments to the populace.
And Pelosi has set a 48-hour deadline to come to any pre-election deal.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Third parties already exist in the US. They exist to syphon votes from the major parties to help the other side win. Republicans love funding the green party to try and knee-cap democrats for example.
They do exist indeed but no-one hears of them because of the focus on the two main ones and the outrageous extravagance in their promotion, yes and you can also blame the majority of media over there. One of the reasons why I never intend to visit America, though imagine a Republican/Green coalition.
You realize coalition government isn't a thing under the US system, right?
It technically is, independents in congress often align with a major party for organizational purposes, and can theoretically determine which major party gets the majority and minority positions.
If there were ever more than 3-5 of them in both houses combined it might even come into play.
caucusing with independents is different than an actual coalition government, where members of multiple parties have a formal agreement to constitute the leadership of the executive
No. It’s not. The difference is only that the coalitions form before voting rather than after. The left wing of the Democratic Party has more power than the
And if you think that minority parties really form a substantive part of the government during a coalition govt just ask how that worked out for the Lib Dems
While it heartens me to see that biden is leading pretty handily in the polls, it's saddening to see that 40% of the country would vote for the anti christ just to piss of democrats.
I received a mailer that depicted an unflattering image of the person I already voted for with a a speach balloon that sounds at ' I support the squad(aoc and omar)! And I was.like good?
Then I turned it over and it was the whitest white bread family of the incumbent asking if I was sick of opposition to trump and I laughed out loud.
Tossed it in the recycling hoping in it's next life it becomes toilet paper.
While it heartens me to see that biden is leading pretty handily in the polls, it's saddening to see that 40% of the country would vote for the anti christ just to piss of democrats.
Ever consider that they might just be voting Republican? The Donald is not the only Republican in the world.
While it heartens me to see that biden is leading pretty handily in the polls, it's saddening to see that 40% of the country would vote for the anti christ just to piss of democrats.
Ever consider that they might just be voting Republican? The Donald is not the only Republican in the world.
He is the apotheosis of the Republican Party.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
While it heartens me to see that biden is leading pretty handily in the polls, it's saddening to see that 40% of the country would vote for the anti christ just to piss of democrats.
Ever consider that they might just be voting Republican? The Donald is not the only Republican in the world.
They wouldn't say they were voting Trump then, would they?
While it heartens me to see that biden is leading pretty handily in the polls, it's saddening to see that 40% of the country would vote for the anti christ just to piss of democrats.
Ever consider that they might just be voting Republican? The Donald is not the only Republican in the world.
The man is by far the worst president we've ever had. He's done nothing except over turn good policy and turn our country into a joke. He may end up setting this country back decades with what he's done and his scotus pick.
But 40% of people say, yup, that's my guy. Being a republican is no excuse. A vote for him makes you an asshole. I'm an ex republican, even though I've been voting democrat since obama I just now changed my registration status. Because even though I'm kind of moderate, fuck this asshole.
And this whole country should be that way. But 40% of them are either deranged or just assholes as well.
While it heartens me to see that biden is leading pretty handily in the polls, it's saddening to see that 40% of the country would vote for the anti christ just to piss of democrats.
That's kind of universal, though. The highest vote share in the modern era (so, not George Washington's unanimous vote) you have FDR, LBJ, and Nixon topping out at ~61% in 1936, 1964, and 1972. That 20% are really the only ones up for grabs and a 60/40 landslide is the most you'll ever see.
While it heartens me to see that biden is leading pretty handily in the polls, it's saddening to see that 40% of the country would vote for the anti christ just to piss of democrats.
Ever consider that they might just be voting Republican? The Donald is not the only Republican in the world.
They wouldn't say they were voting Trump then, would they?
I can't find the clip of the vox pop but it was of a women in Florida who said she was voting for the Republican presidential candidate. The interviewer said "so you are voting for Donald Trump?" and the woman replied she was voting for the Republican nominee for President. She refused to say she was voting for Trump. But she was defenitely voting Republican for President.
While it heartens me to see that biden is leading pretty handily in the polls, it's saddening to see that 40% of the country would vote for the anti christ just to piss of democrats.
Ever consider that they might just be voting Republican? The Donald is not the only Republican in the world.
They wouldn't say they were voting Trump then, would they?
I can't find the clip of the vox pop but it was of a women in Florida who said she was voting for the Republican presidential candidate. The interviewer said "so you are voting for Donald Trump?" and the woman replied she was voting for the Republican nominee for President. She refused to say she was voting for Trump. But she was defenitely voting Republican for President.
Then she was voting for Trump.
Republicans who are leaving the top of the ticket blank and voting Republican for everything else would say so.
I'm sure there is an element of "I just vote straight Republican every cycle" to it, but I don't see how that's an excuse, outside of extreme edge cases like you're in your 90s and your mind is half-gone and as a society we've decided to still let you vote.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
While it heartens me to see that biden is leading pretty handily in the polls, it's saddening to see that 40% of the country would vote for the anti christ just to piss of democrats.
Ever consider that they might just be voting Republican? The Donald is not the only Republican in the world.
They wouldn't say they were voting Trump then, would they?
I can't find the clip of the vox pop but it was of a women in Florida who said she was voting for the Republican presidential candidate. The interviewer said "so you are voting for Donald Trump?" and the woman replied she was voting for the Republican nominee for President. She refused to say she was voting for Trump. But she was defenitely voting Republican for President.
Then she was voting for Trump.
Republicans who are leaving the top of the ticket blank and voting Republican for everything else would say so.
One would think that in the case that you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to find a meta narrative to justify that you're not voting for Trump but also voting for Trump, that it might be time to think about why you're still a republican.
If Donald Trump had decided to run as a Democrat (Which is quite possible) and all about him was the same but he was running on standard Democrat policies, I would not vote for him. He disturbs me.
America totally needs a third/fourth party, even if its just so you can make fun of them like we do in the UK.
Lets hope Biden doesn't screw things up.
The problem with third party candidates in America is that we keep discussing the merits of an imaginary figure, rather than the actual people running. They always debate in terms of "this is why people should be able to vote third party!" rather than debating the actual candidate.
For instance, did you know that libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen put Alan Dershowitz on her short list for who she would nominate for supreme court? If you know anyone who's thinking of voting for her, don't fall into the trap of debating the concept of third party candidates in general. Ask them if they think that Dershowitz would be a good pick for SCOTUS.
I'm sure there is an element of "I just vote straight Republican every cycle" to it, but I don't see how that's an excuse, outside of extreme edge cases like you're in your 90s and your mind is half-gone and as a society we've decided to still let you vote.
Tribalism is a big part of it. People identify with a party, and the media encourages that. It's treated with the same level of criticism as who you support in football.
Third party candidates are utterly pointless in the US electoral system, as coalitions are impossible under election law. If, by some ill chance, Jorgensen won, she would have to basically become a Republican instantly to have enough people to fill her cabinet.
Third party candidates are utterly pointless in the US electoral system, as coalitions are impossible under election law. If, by some ill chance, Jorgensen won, she would have to basically become a Republican instantly to have enough people to fill her cabinet.
Nothing requires cabinet posts to be the same party as the president. I suppose if somehow a minor candidate won, which who the fuck knows how that happens, then the main parties could refuse to confirm anybody to anything. Which would just be more norms shattered into pieces so just about par for our current system.
While it heartens me to see that biden is leading pretty handily in the polls, it's saddening to see that 40% of the country would vote for the anti christ just to piss of democrats.
That's not fair!
A lot of them are just super racist.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
In a regular year, that would put paid to Ms. Fonrouge’s journalism career permanently. This year? Expect her to show up on Fox News or One America by the end of the week. It’s obvious they needed a real reporter to give the story legitimacy, and Fonrouge sold hers away for the front page.
In a regular year, that would put paid to Ms. Fonrouge’s journalism career permanently. This year? Expect her to show up on Fox News or One America by the end of the week. It’s obvious they needed a real reporter to give the story legitimacy, and Fonrouge sold hers away for the front page.
...what? Says right there she barely had anything to do with it and was made the "writer's without consent
+33
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
In a regular year, that would put paid to Ms. Fonrouge’s journalism career permanently. This year? Expect her to show up on Fox News or One America by the end of the week. It’s obvious they needed a real reporter to give the story legitimacy, and Fonrouge sold hers away for the front page.
Uh, it sounds like they didn't ask for her byline, they just put her name on the article without permission.
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Also in that article, Giuliani admits he brought it to the Post because everyone else would "spend too much time trying to contradict it" and the one who actually mostly wrote the article was a never-before-bylined April hire, former associate producer on Sean Hannity's show, and had instagram pics of herself with Bannon, Huckabee Sanders, and Roger Stone.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Mr. Giuliani said he chose The Post because “either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”
oh no, can't do due diligence and properly vet a potentially libelous story before publication, gotta get it out there right away
Mr. Giuliani said he chose The Post because “either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”
oh no, can't do due diligence and properly vet a potentially libelous story before publication, gotta get it out there right away
In a regular year, that would put paid to Ms. Fonrouge’s journalism career permanently. This year? Expect her to show up on Fox News or One America by the end of the week. It’s obvious they needed a real reporter to give the story legitimacy, and Fonrouge sold hers away for the front page.
It sounds like they used her name without telling her.
Posts
caucusing with independents is different than an actual coalition government, where members of multiple parties have a formal agreement to constitute the leadership of the executive
That 'got into' is carrying a massive amount of weight to pretend that the Lib-Dems had anything approaching the whip hand in the coalition government. Which, coalitions aren't even a possiblity for a single occupancy office like the Presidency. A broader coalition in the Congress already exists within each Party, they just made their decisions beforehand rather than after the election. Any voters that wanted Nick Clegg to be Deputy PM to Brown instead of Cameron got swindled.
They don't help even if you don't. If you have more than two parties, you still need to make a coalition for governing (the electorate doesn't change). Two parties just does the coalition building up front. If you vote for the left wing party and they collaborate in a government with the center left party who has the numbers to make a government, then you still end up compromising. You just do it later, instead of earlier.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
While it would indeed bring in more tax revenue in the future, they hate taxes. And also jus soli.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
It’s why I mentioned that winner takes all is the other part of FPTP which makes it a horrible system; even in ranked choice, the winner gets 100% of power even with only 50% + 1 votes from the electorate.
Ranked choice with coalitions might be better, but I’m not educated enough on that and we’re starting to go afield.
To bring us back on topic, the Senate is trying to send a $500 billion “stimulus” deal to the House, which is less than a quarter of what they asked for and no mention of direct payments to the populace.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
The bigger issue there and that we are seeing rear it's head right now in the US and elsewhere is really that stable multi-ethnic democracies where no group is the majority aren't really a thing we've seen happen yet.
And Pelosi has set a 48-hour deadline to come to any pre-election deal.
No. It’s not. The difference is only that the coalitions form before voting rather than after. The left wing of the Democratic Party has more power than the
And if you think that minority parties really form a substantive part of the government during a coalition govt just ask how that worked out for the Lib Dems
To correct, Flanders is Dutch and Wallonia is French.
Stupid Dutchy Flanders.
What a load of
Then I turned it over and it was the whitest white bread family of the incumbent asking if I was sick of opposition to trump and I laughed out loud.
Tossed it in the recycling hoping in it's next life it becomes toilet paper.
Ever consider that they might just be voting Republican? The Donald is not the only Republican in the world.
He is the apotheosis of the Republican Party.
They wouldn't say they were voting Trump then, would they?
The man is by far the worst president we've ever had. He's done nothing except over turn good policy and turn our country into a joke. He may end up setting this country back decades with what he's done and his scotus pick.
But 40% of people say, yup, that's my guy. Being a republican is no excuse. A vote for him makes you an asshole. I'm an ex republican, even though I've been voting democrat since obama I just now changed my registration status. Because even though I'm kind of moderate, fuck this asshole.
And this whole country should be that way. But 40% of them are either deranged or just assholes as well.
That's kind of universal, though. The highest vote share in the modern era (so, not George Washington's unanimous vote) you have FDR, LBJ, and Nixon topping out at ~61% in 1936, 1964, and 1972. That 20% are really the only ones up for grabs and a 60/40 landslide is the most you'll ever see.
I can't find the clip of the vox pop but it was of a women in Florida who said she was voting for the Republican presidential candidate. The interviewer said "so you are voting for Donald Trump?" and the woman replied she was voting for the Republican nominee for President. She refused to say she was voting for Trump. But she was defenitely voting Republican for President.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Then she was voting for Trump.
Republicans who are leaving the top of the ticket blank and voting Republican for everything else would say so.
One would think that in the case that you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to find a meta narrative to justify that you're not voting for Trump but also voting for Trump, that it might be time to think about why you're still a republican.
The problem with third party candidates in America is that we keep discussing the merits of an imaginary figure, rather than the actual people running. They always debate in terms of "this is why people should be able to vote third party!" rather than debating the actual candidate.
For instance, did you know that libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen put Alan Dershowitz on her short list for who she would nominate for supreme court? If you know anyone who's thinking of voting for her, don't fall into the trap of debating the concept of third party candidates in general. Ask them if they think that Dershowitz would be a good pick for SCOTUS.
https://boingboing.net/2020/09/25/libertarian-party-supreme-court-shortlist-includes-alan-dershowitz.html
Tribalism is a big part of it. People identify with a party, and the media encourages that. It's treated with the same level of criticism as who you support in football.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Nothing requires cabinet posts to be the same party as the president. I suppose if somehow a minor candidate won, which who the fuck knows how that happens, then the main parties could refuse to confirm anybody to anything. Which would just be more norms shattered into pieces so just about par for our current system.
That's not fair!
A lot of them are just super racist.
In a regular year, that would put paid to Ms. Fonrouge’s journalism career permanently. This year? Expect her to show up on Fox News or One America by the end of the week. It’s obvious they needed a real reporter to give the story legitimacy, and Fonrouge sold hers away for the front page.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
...what? Says right there she barely had anything to do with it and was made the "writer's without consent
Uh, it sounds like they didn't ask for her byline, they just put her name on the article without permission.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
oh no, can't do due diligence and properly vet a potentially libelous story before publication, gotta get it out there right away
Well yeah, it's no use on 4th of November
It sounds like they used her name without telling her.