"So, most popular should win."

What does "most popular" mean. Say there are four parties. Their votes shares break down as 26%, 25%, 25%, and 24%. The guy who won 26% is the most popular. But 74% of the people didn't want him. See the problems now?

"I'm saying we need a different voting system, which might inspire higher voter turn out"

Now you are...

Who said anything about 4,5 or 7 parties. We are talking 3

OK, so there are three parties. Because arbitrarily their number will be limited to three...

Their shares are 33%, 34%, and 33%. The guy with 34% is the most popular. But two thirds don't want him. See the problems?

Sorry I was thinking of bloomberg who was mayor of nyc not gov... If someone like bloomberg or rubio ran as an independent they could conceivablely win their home state and 1 or 2 more... which would be enough to ensure no one won the 270 votes

But the voters in that state still are subject to the same incentives. They know, and if they don't they will be told, that a vote for that third party guy means the candidate they really don't like has a better shot of getting in.

Two thirds would prefer someone else, that doesn't necessarily mean they can't live with the winner.
1.left wing
2. Right wing
3. Centrist party, combo of right and left

No matter who wins, one of the other parties will have a demographic in there, that would be fine with the result.

You would need to form a coalition government. .. One party would say we'll put your guy over the top for president if you make ours vp or sec state

"Another example of you caricaturing an opponent. The originalist view is that the Constitution means what the Framers understood it to mean when it was written, and that any change must come from actual amendments rather than the Supreme Court simply making a decision in a case.

That's not a "dead" constitution. One may say it's exactly the point of having a constitution; rules can't be altered just by the whims of people currently in power. If you want to change the Constitution, the AMEND it. Don't just give five Harvard or Yale law school graduates control over the nation's destiny. You may disagree (and many people far smarter than you do), but don't misrepresent the other side so egregiously."

Well, that's far "deader" or, to put it another way, far more rigid and not nearly as adaptable a Constitutional position as I think befits a 21st century leader.

And taking a look at our Presidents, and where they went to school...Harvard and Yale grads already "control this nation's destiny" to a great extent, and have for quite some time, in that regard at least. ;)

What is your point on sentencing guidelines.

"Ron Paul and Rand Paul are very different politicians. And why should we expect less? Do you share all of your father's political views? Again, your ignorance is showing."

My father's a Reagan/Bush (Both of them) Republican, all the way.

I'm a Left-of-Center registered Democrat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Ron and Rand are both libertarians?

They're close than my father than I, close enough for comparison...By "Paul-ite," I don't mean to say that they're identical, but rather that there are enough similarities that you could track one's views into another's to a certain extent on many issues, that they're close enough to be considered together, and not as disparate as, say, a Bush Republican and Obama Democrat.

Though I do like me some CPG Grey..........

"Obi, your political opinions, which don't seem quite grounded in reality, are so terrible that I don't even know what to say. Hillary embodies almost everything that's wrong with how American politics works today."

Which specific political opinions don't you like?

On the Hillary point...forgive me for not taking you totally seriously there, but that seems pretty damn slanted and biased...I would argue that there are a slew of Republicans and Democrats alike (Anthony Wiener, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, John Edwards, I've said here before I take issue with Nancy Pelosi in terms of her demeanor in the House, Jan Brewer, etc.) that are worse indicators of what's wrong with politics today across the nation than Hillary.

We can argue about parties, how many , how few. We a an argue about voting and how votes should be recorded.......but if you want to solve the stalemate problem that is our govt, than the first thing that needs to be done is get rid of the idea that politics I a career choice. There should be no financial gain for anyone in politics...anywhere.

ssorenn, all you're doing is constructing a three-party utopia in your own mind. Things simply do not work that way.


obiwanobiwan, that's one of the least comprehensible posts I've read from you. What are you saying?

How is three parties a utopia, you be wrong

"What is your point on sentencing guidelines."

You said you don't agree with Rand Paul on a single issue. He is pushing for reform of federal sentencing guidelines, an unambigiously good idea. It's kind of the big story he's been connected to for some time now. So, either you don't know about it and are therefore wildly underinformed about what Rand Paul actually stands for, or you agree with the broken system we have now. Only an idiot could (and, for all your flaws, you're not THAT stupid), so you must just not know about it. And if you can miss knowing about this huge policy plank of his then you don't really know anything about him beyond the caricature you've built up in your mind.

@Putin- So who would you suggest? some politician with no foreign policy experience (Hawaii is a state, so visiting there doesn't count)? Oh maybe he should be a business man because that is the only requirement to be the CIC of the United States Armed Forces. People often forget the presidents main role is to command our military; you need someone who has already worked hand in hand with the military or in one of the executive departments to fulfill that role. Hell to be technical the president should be a military officer, since they are the only one's who understand the military to it's fullest extent. Unless you present me with a foreign policy candidate who has REAL experience besides ordering from their local Chinese restaurant; I'm going Clinton. I offer that challenge to anyone, present me with candidates from whatever party that have sufficient foreign policy experience. I want to know so I can educate myself on them.

"Hell to be technical the president should be a military officer, since they are the only one's who understand the military to it's fullest extent."

Hell, why even have elections? Just let the military run the country. 'Bout time we had a Sulla.

/sarcasm

Byron, many members of Congress have sufficient foreign policy experience being on the intelligence committees or the armed services committee, foreign affairs, homeland security, etc. Any member of any of those committees has MUCH more foreign policy experience than being the former First Lady (yes Clinton has foreign policy experience because she was the Sec St, this isn't a knock on Hillary).

the knock on Hillary, is the cover up in Benghazi

It would be fiarly easy to create a 3rd party in the US. If 15-20 moderate senators (I'm thinking Blue Dog Democrats and RINO Republicans) came out together and said we aren't democrats or republicans anymore, we are the new Progressive Party or the Centrist Party and here's what we stand for. Christie, Bloomberg, and a few other moderates in state and local politics are joining our party too and next year we will have a couple candidates for president and we will have our own primaries and convention.

To have an actual 3rd party, you need a party... not just a candidate for president.

The Benghazi "cover-up" is one of the weakest political attacks I've ever seen (and I'm not a Hillary fan).

"To have an actual 3rd party, you need a party... not just a candidate for president."

Ross Perot created a third party because he was rich enough and willing to spend his own money to pay for a campaign and get supporters to run for other offices. Then Buchanan grabbed the party 4 years later for financial support to run to the right of the Republicans. That destroyed the last major 3rd party.

There hasn't been a serious 3rd party that could get a significant vote since then because of money. Nader and the others are so far down that they barely get news coverage.

"@Putin- So who would you suggest? some politician with no foreign policy experience"

'Foreign policy experience' usually means 'experience' bombing people for no reason. I'll take a pass on that 'experience'. To Obama's credit, he's not reflexively a militarist like the last several Presidents. Unfortunately he's still been far too influenced by the responsibility to protect crowd (Rice/Powers), though.

I mean a lot of people like John Kerry as Sec of State would be a breath of fresh air. He was a Vietnam war opponent and has plenty of 'foreign policy experience'. Unfortunately nobody could possibly sink lower than Kerry has.

Honestly and I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Biden would be an improvement over Clinton. Not only has he been surprisingly restrained when it comes to interventionism (if reports are to believed), but he also knows how to negotiate with the Republicans. And the guy has plenty of foreign policy experience in the Senate as head of Foreign Relations.

@ Putin see i can see Biden as viable. I think a major part I fear is either side of the spectrum. Leaders like Obama who refuse to use our military at all cost me not only a job, but our nation security. while leaders on the other end put my life unnecessarily at risk, for every single issue in the world.

How many more wars did you want Obama to fight?

As it was he bombed Libya and drone-bombed Pakistan and Yemen to death, that wasn't enough?

"It would be fiarly easy to create a 3rd party in the US."

Have I just been muted? Am I doing that bad of a job explaining how first-past-the-post voting means there will be a two party system? Is this really so hard a concept to grasp? Putin33, back me up bro.

Foreign policy experience' usually means 'experience' bombing people for no reason.

Where do you come up with this shit, Mr irrelevant.?

@ Putin - I think he fights where it is easy and unnecessary and doesn't stand his ground where it is. Sure he bombed three easy to bomb and unnecessary places. But he withdrew from Iraq before the mission was accomplished (as many of his told him not to) I may also add I do not support the reasons for invading Iraq but do believe in completing the job. I feel that is my major complaint. I personally know several officers and soldiers who spent their time fighting in Iraq for a people they didn't even know. I know these peoples stories and I have sat with them and heard them choke up when watching broadcasts of ISIS dismantling the bridges our soldiers built, or watching ISIS retake cities they liberated. I am an Army cadet, I don't look for war; but I also don't like watching the work of my army desecrated and dismantled because some politician found it to HIS agenda to retreat from a war we were winning. (I wonder if this sounds similar to Vietnam?) Meanwhile the people will cheer him on as the peace maker and war ender; while the over 3000 american soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen who gave their lives to Iraq go wasted because the streets they died on fighting for, and the buildings they saw last before never seeing again, are simply given back to the extremists. So no I don't WANT obama to fight a bunch of wars; I wanted him to fight the 2 wars we were already committed too and to make sure the American's who died there didn't die in vain.

@ Putin- Books and articles only can teach you so much.

"It would be fiarly easy to create a 3rd party in the US. If 15-20 moderate senators (I'm thinking Blue Dog Democrats and RINO Republicans) came out together and said we aren't democrats or republicans anymore, we are the new Progressive Party or the Centrist Party and here's what we stand for. "

First of all, there aren't that many moderate Senators left. Second of all, the two parties are such loose conglomerations that you effectively already have this going on in states where the politics slants one way or the other, so there's no need for a centrist 3rd party. Democrats in Alabama probably make Republicans in Massachusetts look like socialists. If third parties run in districts where there are already two strong parties, all they do is siphon off votes from one side or the other, and the establishment wins. The only way a third party gets off the ground is if it is able to compete in districts where there is effectively only one party-government. This is how the Liberal Democrats (who also operate in a first-past-the-post) are able to win seats in England. They typically poach seats where there is no Labour Party so all the Labour voters back them as a palatable alternative. But that works in England because there is much less regional variation in ideology within parties as compared to the United States. Because of how funding is structured, candidates in the USA have much more autonomy in how far left, center, or right they run as candidates than do English MPs.

"So no I don't WANT obama to fight a bunch of wars; I wanted him to fight the 2 wars we were already committed too and to make sure the American's who died there didn't die in vain."

So what does that mean? Never-ending occupation? When would the USA have withdrawn then? The Iraqi government lost Iraq by being ultra-sectarian and having unreliable people in the security services. The Iraqi government would simply outsource security the USA so long as we were there. They had to at some point be able to defend their own country.

As for Afghanistan, all we have been doing is obstructing peaceful reconciliation between the the Taliban and non-Taliban forces. The government there has tried in earnest to negotiate and we haven't allowed that to happen. We could have had peace there ages ago if we'd stop excluding certain political forces from government.