an issue would be where your preference depends on who is already elected.

say you like palin, (for city council) but only if clinton (hillary) is also up there, if not then you'd prefer ron paul... now you're not voting for hillary at all, cause you don't like here, but you think palin is too extreme....

whereas if ron paul and hillary get elected then you're not happy cause ron paul can't tackle womens issues with hillary actually being a women, and he's soft on...

You can see how this would actually complicate things....

@ora - See my last ohne. I finally got what you were saying. So yeah, it makes sense. Of course, unless the of votes you cast includes every possible candidate, you could technically still be disenfranchised, but it would be very very hard to do. As long as it is a "put these candidate sin order of preference" then the only disenfranchisement would be what someone did to themselves by not including a candidate (sor tof a none-of-the-remaining kind of vote).

@Alex - I must apologize. You are actually correct in that if no single candidate has the requisite majority EC votes, the House then decides who gets the position from the top 3 vote getters.

@Draugnar, living in Oregon, I'm disenfranchised right out of the gate. The presidency is usually already decided before the Oregon votes are counted. That and the Oregon votes always going to the Democrats.

I like what I'm hearing about this Irish voting system. Deals well with third parties taking votes from the real contenders while also giving them a chance to grow. People might not be afraid to vote Libertarian if they knew it wasn't increasing the chance of a Democrat win or such.

Oregon is more likely to go Republican then either California or Washington, and it could matter this year. I suggest you get every person you can to the polls, Alderian.

I'm trying to convert my nephew in Corvalis to see the light. His dad is a businessman and he is a civil engineer, but unfortunately, UW Madison got their claws into him and turned him into a hyper-tree hugger who thinks evry bone in every Republican is against the environment.

yes but we all know that successful Governor must simply be a tool of the Powers That Be since he reached a position as powerful as governor. And do you think the powers that be would allow someone to enter and influence the race for the most important position in the world (nay Universe) without their go ahead. Tolstoy the sheep.

It would honestly depend on the charisma and popularity outside the political ring. If it were a Jesse Ventura or an Arnold Schwarzenegger, TPB wouldn't have a lot of say. But then if it were one of them, they'd be on the main ticket somewhere most likely. Of course, we all know the Governator can't run as he is an immigrant, but I believe Jesse Ventura could. But he (like Huckabee) makes way too much in his TV career to want to jump back into politics as a candidate.

See the disenfranchisement there is that you only get a local vote...

But for a presidential election you could hold a natioanl vote...
It is interestig in ireland, our general election usually consist of 3-5 seat constituencies (the constitution require one seat per 20-30 thousand people) and so your vote may not get anyone you like elected, the local party candidate may be a nobody and so your local vote has no impact eventual performance of the party you support.

Even when you do get a chance to influence who your local representative will be... But if your party is the second biggest it is likely that they will not be in power, so will hae no influence, while a smaller party might be able to form a coalition with the biggest party and actually govern. (the previous to current government had the green party as junior coalition partners and their leader was appointed the minister for the environment... )

This is the drawback of electing a local rep who you are more likely to know and trust as opposed to voting for a party which has a national list of representatives who they will fill any seats they get... At the advantage of hopefully having some accountability.

On the other hand, the green party lost loads of support in the last election because supporters of other parties didn't like the coalition government they formed - so with the exact same number of 1st preference votes, they lost every single seat they had held. Devastating the party.

Tolstoy: Are you thinking of Buddy Roemer? The answer seems to be no.

Any one thinking of voting for Gary Johnson should knock it off right away. I can't imagine a worse outcome for the country than Obama being reelected without a popular vote majority. Same with Romney if, say, a big amount of California Republicans go Johnson and he comes in second in New Mexico (the New Mexico part strikes me as much more likely). 2008, when a Democrat win was near certain, was the time for Libertarians and libertarians to make a serious go for becoming a relevant party, and they decided to nominate Bob Barr. A ridiculous choice. In 2012 voting Libertarian means helping the Democrats, and an Obama win in 2012 would discredit small-L libertarian thinking for decades.

I like the way Ora explained the system. I wonder how we could sell that product to Americans....

Third parties are pointless. You need a plurality in a large number of EV rich states to win. No "third party" has the organization to compete in any but a handful of states. The only way a 3rd party does well is if one of the two major parties fragments into sectional parties.

"A ridiculous choice. In 2012 voting Libertarian means helping the Democrats, and an Obama win in 2012 would discredit small-L libertarian thinking for decades."

Sort of like how Bush's win in 2000 (I use the term loosely) completely destroyed Nader's credibility.

If you're voting for Democrat or Republican, then you can't tell me I'm wasting my vote. You're voting for, in practice, two identical candidates, and the victory of either will have almost no meaningful impact on any of the significant issues facing America.

Maybe you think country and western are both kinds of music, but it's ridiculous to blame someone who wants an actual choice for being the problem. If libertarian voters cost Romney, or Green voters cost Obama, maybe it's because they're awful candidates who don't meaningfully represent the beliefs of those voters.

"You're voting for, in practice, two identical candidates, and the victory of either will have almost no meaningful impact on any of the significant issues facing America. "

They're only identical candidates if you have no idea what you're talking about. If the two parties are so similar why do we have gridlock and such intense hatred by the GOP of Obama? Why do they disagree on healthcare reform, and every single major initiative that Obama has had? You're full of it if you think the two parties are identical. You just want people to agree with you 100% of the time and are too immature to accept that you can't always get what you want.

Anyway, it makes me happy that you libertarians are so extreme and whiny that you don't even bother participating in the political process. Please continue voting for fringe third party candidates. Your irrelevance makes our country a better place.

Even if the third partiers win local elections they still have to learn the lesson that politics is a team sport which requires large numbers of people to get things done. You're still going to have to compromise your silly purist politics if you want to have any influence in a coalition.

@draug

"a hyper-tree hugger who thinks evry bone in every Republican is against the environment."

Well, to be fair, that's a pretty easy interpretation, given the Republican party platform and the speeches of every Republican candidate for a job more powerful than Yoknapatawpha County coroner.

"They're only identical candidates if you have no idea what you're talking about. If the two parties are so similar why do we have gridlock and such intense hatred by the GOP of Obama? Why do they disagree on healthcare reform, and every single major initiative that Obama has had? You're full of it if you think the two parties are identical."

It's particularly absurd to use the health care mandate as proof of the difference between Romney and Obama; you're aware, I'm sure, that Romney favored a similar law while governor. The Republicans are only against the ACA because Obama proposed it; they loved the same idea when it was Romney's a few years ago. The Republicans don't oppose every single initiative that Obama has had because they've basically been the same policies; look at the practically identical course that Obama's had on foreign policy, civil liberties crack downs, and such. What separates the candidates? There's a handful of culture war stuff that the president can't really do much about and maybe the kind of judges (especially SCOTUS justices) they'd appoint, but that's all I can think of.

Anyway, shouldn't a Trotskyite like yourself agree that Romney and Obama are practically identical? If I see them as simply two different wings of the plutocracy, both entirely beholden to corporate cash and established elite interests, it seems like you should as well.

ck, I'm going to guess that Putin's grammar changed subjects and objects like a South African trying to do a 180 parking job shifts gears (which is very quickly, if you've ever had the pleasure of riding with a South African trying to do a 180 parking job).

"Why do they disagree on healthcare reform" should probably be "Why do [Dems and Repubs] disagree on healthcare reform," based off of "If the two parties are so similar." So, for shits and giggles, I'm going to go phrase by phrase identifying who/ what the subject/DO/IO is.

"They're only identical candidates" Romney and Obama, or as one poster affectionately called them, Rombama and Oney.
"if you have no idea what you're talking about." ckroberts!
"If the two parties are so similar" Dems, Repubs
"why do we have gridlock and such intense hatred" us!
"by the GOP of Obama?" Repubs, Obama
"Why do they disagree on healthcare reform," Dems, Repubs
"and every single major initiative that Obama has had?" Repubs, Obama
"You're full of it if you think the two parties are identical." ckroberts!

So there you have it. The quickshift of Putin33.

Also I liked your analogy of Rombama and Oney to country and western.

Also naysayers who think a third party vote is a waste is what prevents a third party from rising. If enough people voted their mind and not their fears, we'd probably have a viable four or five party system. (Admittedly, D/R would probably still represent the largest two parties.)

Oh man you're totally right, it's conflating the parties and the candidates. I think my statements still mostly hold, though, but not as much as you go down the political ladder.

"Also naysayers who think a third party vote is a waste is what prevents a third party from rising. If enough people voted their mind and not their fears, we'd probably have a viable four or five party system. (Admittedly, D/R would probably still represent the largest two parties.)"

I want to endorse this as strongly as possible. At this point I'd rather people vote for the 3rd party I disagree with, if that 3rd party best represents their political beliefs, just on principle. Don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Vote for the candidate you most want to see become president.

"t's particularly absurd to use the health care mandate as proof of the difference between Romney and Obama"

Yes, right, it's so absurd that 1) Romney didn't say one word about his record as governor of MA in this campaign; 2) the Republicans sued to get the thing struck down as unconstitutional. Furthermore it took over a year just to get that moderate reform passed because of Republican opposition, and most of the Democrats (who are supposedly identical to the GOP) either want a Medicare-for-all plan or at least a public option.

Which brings me to another point - while Obama wants to expand health insurance and, the Republicans want to gut medicare and handover seniors to the parasitical, bloodthirsty clutches of HMOs.

"The Republicans don't oppose every single initiative that Obama has had because they've basically been the same policies"

You're ridiculous. The Republicans and Democrats are so identical that the Republicans threatened to force our country to default in order to get their way on budget cuts. The Republicans have blocked more Obama appointments than any President in history.
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/analysis-republicans-sett_0_n_480801.html
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers
One of those links show the paltry number of Republicans who voted for the main Obama initiatives.


You're the only person on the planet who claims that Washington gridlock is a big lie and that actually the two parties get along swimmingly and approve of everything the other one is doing. The only issue you bring up as being 'identical' is national security/foreign policy, which is not really identical at all. Unlike previous American administrations, we're not taking the lead on the imperialist adventures in the Middle East. While the UK and France are actively training Al Qaeda loving Syrian terrorists to kill Syrians, the United States is acting with restraint and curbing the number of weapons that go into Syria. The UK & France also took the lead to calling for the destruction of Libya. It wasn't Obama. Canada and Europe took the lead in demonizing Iran after their last Presidential election. Obama called it an internal affair. I think the global polls reflect quite well the fact that Obama is no Bush.

I don't often agree with Putin, but on this I do: if you think the two major parties are the same then you are really not paying attention.

@Bob - So generalizations and stereotyping of someone just because they are Republican is fair?

You, sir, are an idiot. I said he thinks *all* Republicans are that way. Not all Republicans running for office. *All* Republicans which would include me, the tree planting fool who recycles and only buys sustainable growth wood for his workshop even though it costs more.

Yes, the parties are very, very different. Elections have consequences.

Who cares if individual republicans recycle, you support a psrty whose policies are to turn the country into a wasteland, so you must not care abour the environment enough to help it.

I know you have a reputation for reading selectively, Putin, and maybe I'm not as clear as I should be, so: I didn't say that the parties are identical (although they're very similar), or that there's no conflict or gridlock in DC (although most of it is meaningless). I'm saying that the two major candidates are not significantly different. If Obama or Romney wins, that will probably have no major impact on the direction of important policy. This fact is self-evidently obvious. You're making my argument for me, in fact: Romney is now running against policies he once favored. I suppose it's possible he had a change of heart or learned a lesson or whatever he's saying, but we know the real reason.

Why do you think that political fighting and gridlock are identical to meaningful political differences? The health care debate, for example, is a fake; it's a fight between two slightly different conceptions of government-corporate alliance in the healthcare market. One slightly, slightly favors big business, and one slightly, slightly favors big government. That's not a meaningful choice. Neither are the two candidates. Romney and Obama represent slightly different versions of the corporate-friendly politics and warfare/welfare state we've had for years. Why do you think both parties continue to reap huge Wall Street donations?