Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

Nader and Paul appeal to about 5 percent of the electorate. Dirty tricks have nothing to do with that.

[Mike]

Nader did manage to screw Gore, however.

[Rocky Bleier]

Nader and Paul appeal to about 5 percent of the electorate. Dirty tricks have nothing to do with that.

You're missing the point, which is that the duopoly will do anything to maintain the system as it is. Choice is an illusion in the American political system.

[Rocky Bleier]

Nader did manage to screw Gore, however.

You're assuming all Nader supporters would vote to Gore. There really should be more than two choices for Chief Executive of the most powerful nation in the world, but the two parties have an established monopoly. And the "don't waste your vote" meme plays into that monopoly.

[Hannibal]

I don't know if I agree with that. Trump has a 50+% chance at the nomination now, and it is because of grass roots support.

[entropy]

You're missing the point, which is that the duopoly will do anything to maintain the system as it is. Choice is an illusion in the American political system.

this.. think of all the restrictions some states put on your vote. If you're not registered in a party, you can't vote for another in the primaries. Why are third parties excluded?

[froot loops]

I am fully aware of the duopoly. The way the system was set up way back when worked for the two party system even though that wasn't necessarily for that. It's not a parliamentary system, it makes multiple parties highly unlikely.

Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul have nothing to do with it. In a parliamentary system they may be a leader of a minor party. But no dirty tricks are keeping then from getting 50 percent, they are/were candidates that appeal to a small percentage.

[iam416]

this.. think of all the restrictions some states put on your vote. If you're not registered in a party, you can't vote for another in the primaries. Why are third parties excluded?

Third-parties aren't excluded from having their own primaries. But some states seem to think it makes sense that only Rs ought to pick the R candidate. That makes sense to me.

[Wild Hoss]

this.. think of all the restrictions some states put on your vote. If you're not registered in a party, you can't vote for another in the primaries. Why are third parties excluded?

Setting aside 3rd parties...why can I not vote in both primaries? If you want to help reign in the extremism in primaries....there's one way.

[Rocky Bleier]

But no dirty tricks are keeping then from getting 50 percent, they are/were candidates that appeal to a small percentage.

Dirty tricks keep them off ballots and/or make them look completely un-electable. The media helps in this regard as does a severely gullible and uninformed electorate who believe that someone of real integrity can come from the the two party system.

[froot loops]

Ralph Nader was on the ballot in 43 states. He wasn't a great candidate.

Ron Paul is unelectable on a Presidential level. Libertarians don't appeal to a large segment of the population.

[Ghengis Jon]

Setting aside 3rd parties...why can I not vote in both primaries? If you want to help reign in the extremism in primaries....there's one way.

You presume that people will vote honestly, a stretch at best. Yes, I also would like to vote for the best candidate in the two dominant parties. I'd like to see two RATIONAL candidates in the general election. But I do agree that only party adherents should get to pick their nominee.

But if you allow an individual to vote in two primaries, too much mayhem will occur. Example: I vote for candidate A in the Democratic primary because that person aligns best with my point of view. If I am also allowed to also vote in the GOP primary, I'm going to vote for the most buffoonish, unelectable, hypocritical asshole (Cruz or Trump? Trump or Cruz?) to assist my real candidate.

I like Michigan's method. Declare yourself at the polling station and get the appropriate partisan ballot.

[Wild Hoss]

You presume that people will vote honestly, a stretch at best.

I know....but look at what we have to show for the process as-is. If the process is closed off, in such a divided environment, there is no corrective action except for the General. By which time we have eliminated 99% of the options.

[CGVT]

I like Michigan's method. Declare yourself at the polling station and get the appropriate partisan ballot

That doesn't work in a state like Alabama. If you want to have a say in local, state and Congressional races, you have to take a Republican primary ballot because in 99% of the state no Democrat has a chance of being elected (a dead Republican was voted into office last cycle).

I took a Republican ballot so that I could vote against the Tea Party idiots and the Christian Taliban.

Of course, when I lived in Vermont it was the complete opposite

[Ghengis Jon]

I think 'none of the above' would be a good option combined with a two step primary process. Have all the primaries on one day, conducted twice. First primary in March, top 4 vote getters advance to the second round. Add NOTA to the list and vote again in April. If 'none of the above' gets a plurality or majority, all candidates are disqualified and a whole new slate must be produced. Repeat as necessary. Who cares about the cost. If the two parties (and their proxies) can afford nearly a billion dollars for negative ads and dirty tricks, then they can foot the primary costs. The potential for draining all their cash should be incentive enough NOT to produce slates of idiots and power junkies like we see today.