2008 Presidental Election

If you are on 12 states ballots, you are gonna get 5% of the vote.

I don't know what they are teaching you down there in Florida.

 

How does 12 states translate into 5% of the vote?

You could be on the ballot in 50 states and get 0 votes. They don't go by vote percentages. They go by petitions (which get you on the ballot in different states).

Also, dark, if you're not going to vote for anyone (or was it someone else said they weren't going to vote?) please at least choose a candidate. I mean, vote for Ralph Nader or someone. But don't let your vote go to waste. At least find a platform you like and show the parties what they need to incorporate to get your vote.

 

WTF, I said I was probably gonna vote.

 

Re-read my post and get back to me. LOL

 

My point was that the other parties don't even have a chance to get their foot in the door when it comes to politics. They don't have the funding for these massive campaigns the major parties have and thus not many have heard of them. Besides the money issues the other major problem we have are the people who vote strictly Republican or strictly Democrat regardless of the candidate and their platform.

There's other parties yes. Do you know who thy are and what the names of their candidates are? Problem 1
Also, Last time around when Nader was running he was only on the ballot of 44 states, most third parties are only on half of the state ballots so once again they have no chance of being elected. Problem 2

Basically the way politics are run very few people are told of their alternatives and for those who do, it doesn't make much of a difference since the alternatives don't stand a chance of getting elected.


think if anything is going to change we need to have all parties regardless of size be put on all ballots (or better yet have a national ballet) if they get enough support; that way it's possible to win, and everyone on the ballot should be entitled to EXACTLY the same amount of time for campaign commercials and rallies, they should all get a small amount of federal funding and not be allowed to use anything else to campaign with.
Not only would that let all parties gain exposure, it might also prevent the Republicans and Democrats from spending millions on smear campaigns and dipping their grubby hands into everything trying to get the vote.

 

A) If I could vote, I would vote for Nader.
B) What with current technology, it is extremely easy for a simple website hosted by the government to be created that has a page/a few pages for each candidate of each party, some information, where the next debates will be (which you overlooked... debates should not only include Democrats and Republicans...), where rallies will occur, etc.

 

I vote for Changese. even if I'm not a US citizen

 

Course, it's past the point where any of our opinions actually MATTER or anything.

Pity.

 

Our opinions used to matter?

When was this?

 

When we lived in societies of less than 100 people.....Durrr

A system where you have a choice of 2 leaders every 4 years is hardly democracy but its the best system we've come up with. Though its even sillier when you aren't forced to vote so that the more fanatical sides can control with a smaller amount of people.

Politicians don't even have to follow what they say. The "situation" can always be said to be changing in some way or another giving them leverage to go back on promises. By the time the next election comes along we've forgotten whats happened or the other party did something like it when they were in, so both sides agree to not bring it up.

A 4 year system also means the democrats or republicans don't need to look at the long term situation since after 4-12 years they know they will have no power and if you want to argue this is not the case then really we're just being ruled by one group of people. Though this is also an arguement against a spattering of 10+ parties since they would have even less reason to look beyond their term in office.

In effect every system of democracy to varying levels are very good social representations of capitalism. The largest firms continue to grow and drown out all "infant" firms through money and sheer numbers. They basically have a monopoly on all issues. Its actually kind of funny how the last "party" who seriously challenged the democrats and republicans was a Texan billionaire in 1992 called Ross Perot (68th richest man in the US in 2008). Its exactly like business ...it takes a billionaire to even have a hope of succeeding...

Political parties see themselves as businesses and not political platforms. Capitalocracy is a good word to describe it.

But complain about it and you'll have Demublicans on your back.

Though Obama still represents a good change in what alot of Americans want in their rulers.

 

You, sir, through the way you worded your question, are undoubtedly depriving me of my rights to be and do both in the same time.

 

@marinefreak
1. Other republics have more than 2 parties, why can't we?
2. Politicians aren't supposed to be rulers. They are supposed to be our representatives, the foundation of our government was that it existed to serve the people, not the other way around.

 

By the people, For the people, Of the people.

 

lolwut?

 

Because the US always aimed to be an empire?

 

Was that what to me Ursa?

Thats a quote from one of our most famous presidents.

 

did you see palin fail?

she gave the wrong answer to a question about what the vice-president does, she thought she would be the boss of the senate....

 

That's not entireley wrong.
The vice president acts as the president of the Senate, though those duties aren't much more than making sure everything gets done properly.

Still, I would not want her in charge of anything, though I don't really want any of them to be in charge because from what I have seen, none of them are willing to compromise.

 

Dem

Democratic ftw.

 

Actually, BoP, the Vice President can vote in the Senate if there is a tie... so it's possible for the position to be very powerful.