Is Bush Fucked?

[Uraniun235]

Question: Do you think Clinton would have won in 1992 if Ross Perot hadn't run for President and taken over 10% of the popular vote?

[Illuminatus Primus]

What is with this "A vote for [insert meaningless candidate] is a vote for Bush nonsense. If someone isn't voting for Kerry or Bush, they're not voting for Kerry or Bush.

If Nader hadn't run in 2000 Gore would have gotten most of his votes and Bush would not be president right now.

Again, HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS INDICATE THAT ANY VOTE NOT FOR KERRY IS A VOTE FOR BUSH?

It's a two party system. Either a Democrat or Republican is going to win. Pretty much the incumbent usually wins unless the middle sides with the challenger, which is unlikely in event of it being split by a third party candidate, drawing votes away that could've tipped the balance for the challenger, allow the incumbent to win on his comfort zone of no-matter-what-he-does hardliner votes.

[Darth Wong]

You can bitch about the media derailing Dean all you want, but the fact of the matter is things only started to turn bad for Governor Freakshow once actual Democratic voters got their say. Apparently they didn't think he represented "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party" after all.

Either that or they thought they'd pick the horse they figured had the best chance to win at the time, using similar methods to those used by bank managers to approve loans to Enron.

[JME2]

If Nader hadn't run in 2000 Gore would have gotten most of his votes and Bush would not be president right now.

Again, HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS INDICATE THAT ANY VOTE NOT FOR KERRY IS A VOTE FOR BUSH?

It's a two party system. Either a Democrat or Republican is going to win. Pretty much the incumbent usually wins unless the middle sides with the challenger, which is unlikely in event of it being split by a third party candidate, drawing votes away that could've tipped the balance for the challenger, allow the incumbent to win on his comfort zone of no-matter-what-he-does hardliner votes.

In other words...

Fuck Nader

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well, I have to say, back then, I would've voted for Bush, at least how I felt then.

I didn't feel his fundie influences as much, and I was unaware of the true state of the economy or the so-called "surplus." I did feel that the American people were overdue for some tax relief, and I did feel Social Security needed work.

Oh, and that was the W who said "no more nation-building," too.

[Stormbringer]

It's a two party system. Either a Democrat or Republican is going to win. Pretty much the incumbent usually wins unless the middle sides with the challenger, which is unlikely in event of it being split by a third party candidate, drawing votes away that could've tipped the balance for the challenger, allow the incumbent to win on his comfort zone of no-matter-what-he-does hardliner votes.

All I hear is the same "It's a two party system droning." You know why it's right now a two party game, because people like you won't actually go ahead and vote third party. I don't know why people have the notion that some one should always vote for one of the two parties. And the simple fact that Guy A might win because Guy B couldn't garner the necessary support doesn't mean Guy C stole the votes from B. He's not entitled to them. Only the fact that most people don't bother to vote for anything but one or the other, makes it a two party system.

I have never seen a good explanation for why one of the two parties is entitled to my vote. And I don't see why the hell it is that I'm really voting for Bush by not voting for Kerry. Because frankly, my ballot's not going have either punched.

[Darth Wong]

In Canada we have an entirely different problem: a 4-party system in which a minority government would give the 3rd party the potential ability to leverage its position into real power and influence over government decisions (think about it: their vote can push one of the two "main" parties over the top in parliament, thus allowing it to override the other "main" party on a key decision). Unfortunately, our third and fourth parties are fuckheads: the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois. And to a certain extent, that kind of moronic behaviour is to be expected from a party which has never held real power, yet they would actually possess the equivalent of real power (by acting as the tie-breaker in parliamentary votes) without ever having been given a mandate. So be careful what you wish for: a >2 party system isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[Stormbringer]

Yeah, but unless I'm mistaken the American system has more of a check on that then a Parlimentary system.

I don't imagine it would be perfect but the difference between them would tend to hinder that kind of thing, from happening. If nothing else Congress can't really call the shots with out the President, unless they have a huge majority. A tiny third (or fourth party) would have a tough enough time overcoming a presidential veto, and if they did it would be by a supermajority which is pretty damn rare to begin with. Sure you could get a rare situation like what happened with Senator Jeffords (Sp?) but that's a fluke and half.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, but unless I'm mistaken the American system has more of a check on that then a Parlimentary system.

I don't imagine it would be perfect but the difference between them would tend to hinder that kind of thing, from happening. If nothing else Congress can't really call the shots with out the President, unless they have a huge majority. A tiny third (or fourth party) would have a tough enough time overcoming a presidential veto, and if they did it would be by a supermajority which is pretty damn rare to begin with. Sure you could get a rare situation like what happened with Senator Jeffords (Sp?) but that's a fluke and half.

But that's the whole point; a viable third party would not be tiny. Even in the parliamentary system, a tiny third party would be a mere annoyance as you say. But a large third party with 30 or 40 seats could easily upset the balance of power in favour of one "main" party or another, depending on how the issue of contention fits into their agenda.

The US system does have more checks and balances, but unless I miss my guess, Congress can still block things, can't they? This means that in a situation where one party has 45% of congress, the other party has 40% of congress, and a third party has 15% of congress, the third party basically gets to decide whether a bill will pass unless the two main parties are getting along swimmingly and agreeing on everything (cough cough). This means that bills would have to be crafted to appeal to the sensibilities of the third party. So unless I'm seriously misinterpreting the way the system works, it would give effective veto power in most situations to a party with no mandate.

[Master of Ossus]

The point of voting for a third party, in the United States, is not necessarily to propel that party into a position in which they will wield genuine power. Instead, the purpose is to get the primary parties to more carefully examine their own positions in relation to the third party's, and then to shift their positions to more closely align with that party so as to pick up additional voters. There is a history of success, in this regard, in the American political system, although the significance of these successes is debatable.

[Sebastin]

It´s not that easy. A sizeable third party will indeed have influence somewhat disproportionate to its size, but the difference isn´t huge at all.

Say you have a notional election result of Party A:45% B:45% C:10% with C being ideologically somewhat between A and B (Which would be a typical situation for parlamentary systems.)

Now either A or B can form a coalition with C and have to take C´s position into account. A and B are both motivated by the strife to power, however that motivation is not as strong as it seems. Politics is always easier for the opposition, which can score points by simply pointing out where the leader fails. They can also propose courses of action and simply claim they would work; When the governing party proposes anything they have to deliver. Thats why the governing party usually gets punished during elections. Combine this with the fact that enacting policies is increasingly difficult the more demanding the smaller coalition partner is and it is quite attractive for either A or B to hand their opposite the government if C gets too demanding. Let them run themselfes into the ground because they get nothing done and come back all the stronger.
All the more so since it doesn´t have to be a full election circle. For example B can sit by and let A form a coalition with a very demanding C. In such a coalition there would be a lot of tension between the partners and a high likehood that A eventualy decides to cut it´s losses and let the coalition break down, thus giving B the opportunity to form a coalition with a much weakened C. C definitly loses the most in this. First they get the entire blame for ruining the first coalition, then they have to massively compromise their stance for the rest of the election period to enter a coalition with B. They can´t afford to refuse and cause new elections either because those would go under the headline of "C brought down government and forced reelection by acting like total assholes." A also loses but can regain a bit by taking the lucrative opposition spot for the rest of the period. Maneuvers like that happen(ed) a lot in germany and i assume in other parlamentary systems.

Another thing is that the smaller party is always in an interesting catch-22.

If they take part in government they lose, the smaller partner in a coalition always loses, even if the coalition is succesfull as a whole. The larger partner can take credit for everything that gets done and for the state of the nation as a whole since, in the public eye, they are the ones who call the shots. The smaller partner however can only get publicity by blockading projects of the larger partner, and thus get the blame for everything that goes wrong. They also can´t gain profile by criticising the government anymore since they´re it now. (The governing vs opposition disadvantage outlined above).

However if thy simply refuse to take part in government they lose as well. Their voters won´t have much patience for a party that flat out refuses to do anything with the votes given to them and start to work on their issues. Why vote for them?

A small third party can´t really garner much more influence than it´s size deserves.

[SirNitram]

The point of voting for a third party, in the United States, is not necessarily to propel that party into a position in which they will wield genuine power. Instead, the purpose is to get the primary parties to more carefully examine their own positions in relation to the third party's, and then to shift their positions to more closely align with that party so as to pick up additional voters. There is a history of success, in this regard, in the American political system, although the significance of these successes is debatable.

Then why does the Third Party Leader or Leaders not come before the other two and say 'We'll tell our folks to vote for you if you do this'? You know, actually promote the cause?

[Yuri Prime]

Sure, the reason a third party will never win is because of the voters, but I'm not going to be the guy to give bush another term by voting for a third party candidate. I'm going to vote for the guy who actually has a chance of defeating him. Idealism is nothing if you can't ever win.

[Drooling Iguana]

What is with this "A vote for [insert meaningless candidate] is a vote for Bush nonsense. If someone isn't voting for Kerry or Bush, they're not voting for Kerry or Bush.

If Nader hadn't run in 2000 Gore would have gotten most of his votes and Bush would not be president right now.

Again, HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS INDICATE THAT ANY VOTE NOT FOR KERRY IS A VOTE FOR BUSH?

Perhaps the the phrase should be ammended to say that a vote for a left-leaning candidate other than Kerry is a vote for Bush (or, at least, equivalent to not voting at all) but that just wouldn't have the same ring to it.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I dont see why they even allow third parties, it's so useless and wastes time and money. We dont NEED a third party, we have two--Democrats and Republicans, and there are more than enough subtle shades and subgroups within each party to satisfy all.

If you dont vote for an established party it's like throwing a vote away. It isnt giving to one part or the other. It's just wasting it futily. There is no need to martyr your vote when you could just clinch your teeth and make a choice between the two established primary parties.

Thrid parties can never win, because of the vicious circle of human repitition we're in. No one ever votes for them in numbers, so they never win, and no one ever votes for them in numbers because they never win, and etc and etc.

So please, if you dont like either candidate that much, i would advice just not voting, because you would waste your time and effeort voting for a third party that has literally zero chance of ever winning the presidency. Or, heres a crazy though, just pick one of the two REAL candidates and vote for one or the other.

[Col. Crackpot]

Question: Do you think Clinton would have won in 1992 if Ross Perot hadn't run for President and taken over 10% of the popular vote?

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c ... ough call.

1992 Election

Clinton 42.93% (Popular) 370 (Electoral College)
Bush I 37.38% (Popular) 168 (Electoral College)
Perot 18.87% (Popular) 0 (Electoral College)
Other Crazy People <1%

Granted Perot was a business oriented guy and likely drew away fiscal conservatives from Bush but he also stirred up moderates that could have gone either way. Id suppose the majority of Perot voters would have gone to Bush , but enough to have won the election? The answer to that is who fucking knows? The sad thing is that we haven't had a President who carried 50% or more of the popular vote since the 1988 election.

[Admiral Valdemar]

So in other words, as has just gone on in the UK with the loss of seats in Europe for Labour and the Tories to the UKIP, a vote for a third party is really just a protest vote to get the main two parties to buck up their ideas. That's what it sounds like in the US. I'd certainly like to see three parties present in a real amount in congress if only to have a more balanced outlook on bills instead of just for and against all the time with one side clearly overruling the other.

[Stormbringer]

But that's the whole point; a viable third party would not be tiny. Even in the parliamentary system, a tiny third party would be a mere annoyance as you say. But a large third party with 30 or 40 seats could easily upset the balance of power in favour of one "main" party or another, depending on how the issue of contention fits into their agenda.

The US system does have more checks and balances, but unless I miss my guess, Congress can still block things, can't they? This means that in a situation where one party has 45% of congress, the other party has 40% of congress, and a third party has 15% of congress, the third party basically gets to decide whether a bill will pass unless the two main parties are getting along swimmingly and agreeing on everything (cough cough). This means that bills would have to be crafted to appeal to the sensibilities of the third party. So unless I'm seriously misinterpreting the way the system works, it would give effective veto power in most situations to a party with no mandate.

Which really is not a lot different than Congress is now, in general parties have to take care not to alienate either side of their party and even in some cases to sway minority party memebers as well. The two main party would be much more likely simply to compromise with each other than bend over for a fringe party. The fact is that sort of compromise is far more likely than kissing up to the radical agenda of a third party. Only the fluke of the Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress and the White at the moment has allowed this sort of heavily partisan agenda to go through. Things have been far more moderated in previous Congresses.

And for mandate, the fact that their represenatives won those seats would give them mandate. After all, we don't say the Democrats have no mandate since they're the minority party in both the Executive and Legislative branches at the moment.

[CrimsonRaine]

Without going into deep detail, I think Bush has raped his own ass for a while now. However, it's true to say, I believe, that Kerry is the lesser of two evils.

Hence, I'm voting for Nader. I guess that's the only way to show my opinion.

'Raine

I voted for him last time. He didn't win. It's really quite a lot like banging your head on a brick wall. I understand the principle of it, but it just won't work. Nader's not a bad choice, but it's not worth letting Shrubby have another term to screw over our image and diplomatic relations.

The point is not to want Nader to win. The point is to not add to either Kerry's or Bush's vote total. It might be pointless to some, but I will not just "follow the crowd." Fuck them.

'Raine

[Master of Ossus]

Then why does the Third Party Leader or Leaders not come before the other two and say 'We'll tell our folks to vote for you if you do this'?

Sometimes they do just that. However, the more common response with third parties is, following an election in which they earn more than 5% or so of the vote, to seek assimilation into one of the major parties through political lobbying. It's usually more beneficial if you can say, "Well, 6% of American voters voted for me over Jack T. Democrat and Bill C. Republican, last year. Don't you think you ought to take a look at our platform and see why that happened?

You know, actually promote the cause?

They do that, also.

[Col. Crackpot]

Sometimes they do just that. However, the more common response with third parties is, following an election in which they earn more than 5% or so of the vote, to seek assimilation into one of the major parties through political lobbying. It's usually more beneficial if you can say, "Well, 6% of American voters voted for me over Jack T. Democrat and Bill C. Republican, last year. Don't you think you ought to take a look at our platform and see why that happened?

Just like Ross Perot didn't.

[Master of Ossus]

Just like Ross Perot didn't.

Yeah, but look what happened with Ross Perot. Following their 1992 defeat, the Republicans assimilated a number of his most important policies into their platform, and their congressmen began following his ideals more closely. He was a virtual non-factor for precisely that reason in 1996. Now, the Republicans didn't take ALL of his policies, but they promoted a significant number of the critical ones. They never went into this "blame the third party" mode that the Democrats seem to be following now (although, I'm not sure that'll really hurt them--it may even help them), and instead they did something about it to solve the problem. Ross Perot still wasn't satisfied with their reforms, since some of the most important ideas were left out, but a huge portion of his supporters were satisfied by the new Republican position and began to swing their votes back the other way.

[Joe]

Then why does the Third Party Leader or Leaders not come before the other two and say 'We'll tell our folks to vote for you if you do this'? You know, actually promote the cause?

Because actual lost votes on account of a third party are more likely to get one of the major political parties to listen and actually change their policies to try and attract third party voters in the next campaign.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip. Or, heres a crazy though, just pick one of the two REAL candidates and vote for one or the other.

So much for the democratic process

[Captain Cyran]

Thank the Democrats for once again nominating someone who will actually have a challenge in facing Bush. If this sniveling weasel is the best the Democrats can put forth, then I blame them if we get four more fucked up years of Bush.

I completely agree. I haven't seen hide or hair of Kerry since he was nominated as the democratic runner, who's his V-P anyway?

Kerry has done fucking nothing as far as I know, and he's letting Bush trounce him. If it keeps up Wonder Chimp is in office for another 4 years. And what pisses me off most is that I'm gonna vote for somebody that I don't think I've ever seen been, you know... enthusiastic. About anything.