|
|
Post by Captj on May 13, 2024 11:54:33 GMT -5
Why is it that the majority of voters in this country think there's only two choices for president? The parties are so diverse ranging from right wing radicals to leftist radicals that it may be time for a centrist party to be established with a real choice for president. Elsewhere there are often multiple political parties offering up a more diverse choice of candidates. Why not here?
|
|
|
|
Post by OhMy on May 13, 2024 12:00:34 GMT -5
Everyone's definition of radical is different.
There are the obvious ones, but some folks think that not supporting foreign wars is a radical thing and I don't and I know I am not a radical on either side of the voting block.
Who do you consider the radicals on this forum (both left and right)?
|
|
|
|
Post by bswiv on May 13, 2024 17:33:06 GMT -5
Why is it that the majority of voters in this country think there's only two choices for president? The parties are so diverse ranging from right wing radicals to leftist radicals that it may be time for a centrist party to be established with a real choice for president. Elsewhere there are often multiple political parties offering up a more diverse choice of candidates. Why not here? It has to do with the structure of our system...... In a parliamentary system a multiplicity of "parties" will often form a coalition with the Prime Minister and the various cabinet positions being apportioned out to the members of the coalition. Though.....in truth.......our system accomplishes much the same thing, the difference being that what might be a "minor party" under a parliamentary system is here stuck with folding itself in with either Team D or Team R. Which.....in a way.....explains why we generally see basically middle of the road policies from the leadership of Team D & Team R. Not that there aren't some truly boneheaded and idiotic actions perpetrated by both Teams at times.....but not as much as you'd expect based on the rhetoric of the "minor parties" imbedded in each. And......in a way....it speaks to the need, the desirability, sanity of reining in the power of the chief executive. |
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on May 13, 2024 20:07:03 GMT -5
We need Rank Choice Voting. Many places ities and some states use. You rank your top 4 choices and all your votes count.
|
|
|
|
Post by bswiv on May 13, 2024 20:22:28 GMT -5
We need Rank Choice Voting. Many places ities and some states use. You rank your top 4 choices and all your votes count. Open primaries is another option with some merit. But......maybe of more value is that the states cease to run the primaries for the parties. Consider that for a moment before rejecting it. Why is it that we use tax dollars to run elections for what are in fact private political organizations? Compare the means by which Team D & Team R select their presidential candidates. Note that they are not the same....... And then consider how many of our fellow citizens are no longer registered with either party. Now why should they be paying to run the selection process of a private organization? We could go down this a ways...... But....remember that both Team D and Team R agitated against the open primary amendment here in Florida. Do we really think that messaging was about better government? Or maybe, just maybe, they were agitating against the breaking of a monopoly? Voting, "democracy" if that's how one wants to paint it, that part of the process is of not much value to "we the people" if the private political parties control things as they do. |
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on May 13, 2024 20:47:04 GMT -5
We need Rank Choice Voting. Many places ities and some states use. You rank your top 4 choices and all your votes count. I also like the idea rank choice voting but i dont think it works the way describe. Your second or third vote only counts if your first choice doesnt win. It would encourage more third party voting without feeling like its a wasted vote. |
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on May 13, 2024 20:49:41 GMT -5
We need Rank Choice Voting. Many places ities and some states use. You rank your top 4 choices and all your votes count. Open primaries is another option with some merit. But......maybe of more value is that the states cease to run the primaries for the parties. Consider that for a moment before rejecting it. Why is it that we use tax dollars to run elections for what are in fact private political organizations? Compare the means by which Team D & Team R select their presidential candidates. Note that they are not the same....... And then consider how many of our fellow citizens are no longer registered with either party. Now why should they be paying to run the selection process of a private organization? We could go down this a ways...... But....remember that both Team D and Team R agitated against the open primary amendment here in Florida. Do we really think that messaging was about better government? Or maybe, just maybe, they were agitating against the breaking of a monopoly? Voting, "democracy" if that's how one wants to paint it, that part of the process is of not much value to "we the people" if the private political parties control things as they do. Open primaries only contribute to more game playing as voters of the encumbant will switch in the primary and vote for a weaker competitor. It can backfire as shown in 2016 when the dems thought trump an easy win for hillary and voted for him in the primaries. |
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on May 13, 2024 20:52:57 GMT -5
We need Rank Choice Voting. Many places ities and some states use. You rank your top 4 choices and all your votes count. I also like the idea rank choice voting but i dont think it works the way describe. Your second or third vote only counts if your first choice doesnt win. It would encourage more third party voting without feeling like its a wasted vote. Correct, it allows you to vote third party without throwing your vote away. |
|
|
|
Post by meateater on May 14, 2024 9:44:51 GMT -5
Everyone's definition of radical is different. There are the obvious ones, but some folks think that not supporting foreign wars is a radical thing and I don't and I know I am not a radical on either side of the voting block. Who do you consider the radicals on this forum (both left and right)? bennetts hit was clean, no goalie interference. yes im a radical. |
|
|
|
Post by gandy on May 14, 2024 9:49:06 GMT -5
I'd like to encourage you to write in gandy.
|
|
