2012 Elections

[CyberPaladin]

I stated this in another thread~why don't the genuine conservatives form up and solidify a third way? Duncan, Tancredo, Paul, Gingrich~can't they get along enough to lay foundation for something better? Sure it would be a rocky start, but if it is as effective as many think it shouldn't take too many years to get their legs...

Never gonna work Jim it's just the way the system is setup. Just look at how many third parties have failed.

 

[MrJim]

Never gonna work Jim it's just the way the system is setup. Just look at how many third parties have failed.

Typically the 3d parties have a "fringe" element to them~getting some more "mainstream" people moving and creating something new would have a different effect I think, ideally bringing conservative folks from both parties. If "truth" is so important then maybe creating a party to stand on the truth and losing would be preferable to the constant "selling your soul/lesser of two evils" mess it seems to be every election year?

 

[Albion]

I stated this in another thread~why don't the genuine conservatives form up and solidify a third way? Duncan, Tancredo, Paul, Gingrich~can't they get along enough to lay foundation for something better? Sure it would be a rocky start, but if it is as effective as many think it shouldn't take too many years to get their legs...

Unfortunately, it does. I'd first reply by saying that there's no reason for them to abandon the GOP to moderates in the first place, but if such people chose instead to go the third party route they know in advance that the laws in this country work very effectively against third parties as viable alternatives to either of the two major parties. I know that people are taught in school that the reason third parties come and go in history is that their ideas are picked up by one or the other of the two main parties, but the truth is more that the system doesn't abide third parties very well.

You don't get funding from the government like the two biggies do,

you are not treated equally when it comes to getting ballot access,

you have no representation on election boards like the two majors do,

and you are pretty much excluded from the presidential debates without which you don't get to reach the people nearly as well as the others do.

 

[MrJim]

Unfortunately, it does. I'd first reply by saying that there's no reason for them to abandon the GOP to moderates in the first place, but if such people chose instead to go the third party route they know in advance that the laws in this country work very effectively against third parties as viable alternatives to either of the two major parties. I know that people are taught in school that the reason third parties come and go in history is that their ideas are picked up by one or the other of the two main parties, but the truth is more that the system doesn't abide third parties very well.

You don't get funding from the government like the two biggies do,

you are not treated equally when it comes to getting ballot access,

you have no representation on election boards like the two majors do,

and you are pretty much excluded from the presidential debates without which you don't get to reach the people nearly as well as the others do.

Even still, with enough grassroots support...hey, John Anderson and Ross Perot made it into the debates and they were "fringe-ish"; if truth is worth fighting for, then the above obstacles could certainly be overcome...doesn't seem anymore insurmountable than dealing with the current mess of things..

 

[CyberPaladin]

Jim this sounds like crazy pipe dream that has no logicial chance working but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be given a try.

 

[MrJim]

Jim this sounds like crazy pipe dream that has no logicial chance working but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be given a try.

Looking back at history there have been all sorts of pipe dreams that became real...people want easy and dismiss the difficult

 

[CyberPaladin]

Looking back at history there have been all sorts of pipe dreams that became real...people want easy and dismiss the difficult

Diffcult would be great this looks more to be impossible but hey sometimes the unsinkable sink, the unbreakable break. Great just great I have start quoting country songs again.

 

[MrJim]

Diffcult would be great this looks more to be impossible but hey sometimes the unsinkable sink, the unbreakable break. Great just great I have start quoting country songs again.

...maybe you should've been a cowboy..

 

[CyberPaladin]

I should had learned to rope and ride.

 

[Albion]

Even still, with enough grassroots support...hey, John Anderson and Ross Perot made it into the debates and they were "fringe-ish"; if truth is worth fighting for, then the above obstacles could certainly be overcome...doesn't seem anymore insurmountable than dealing with the current mess of things..

Anything's possible in theory, but that doesn't mean that there's much more than a snowball's chance in summer of "overcoming" a system that is determined, by bi-partison agreement, to squelch third parties. This is why candidates and potential candidates of the calibre of those you mentioned are very much unlikely to take the third party route.

The reason, by the way, that John Anderson (who was not considered "fringe" but rather the Centrist between Reagan and Carter) made it into the debates was that Ronald Reagan insisted upon it, and Jimmy Carter (as I recall) declined to debate in one of them. Perot was invited by the other two candidates, I think at the insistence of one of the major candidates, either Clinton or Bush. Neither Anderson (who was an independent candidate, not a third party candidate) nor Perot would have been included by the Debate Commission's rules alone. Since the time of Perot, none of the major party candidates have been willing to have a three-way debate.

Put this alongside the several other factors that guarantee third parties will be of slight importance in general elections--and some factors that I didn't mention--and the truth is that the door is basically locked and has remained so after decades of court cases brought by one or another third party.

 

[MrJim]

Anything's possible in theory, but that doesn't mean that there's much more than a snowball's chance in summer of "overcoming" a system that is determined, by bi-partison agreement, to squelch third parties. This is why candidates and potential candidates of the calibre of those you mentioned are very much unlikely to take the third party route.

The reason, by the way, that John Anderson made it into the debates was that Ronald Reagan insisted upon it, and Jimmy Carter (as I recall) declined to debate in one of them. Perot was invited by the other two candidates, I think at the insistence of one of the major candidates, either Clinton or Bush. Neither Anderson (who was an independent candidate, not a third party candidate) nor Perot would have been included by the debated commission's rules alone. Since the time of Perot, none of the major party candidates have been willing to have a three-way debate.

Put this alongside the several other factors that guarantee third parties will be of slight importance in general elections--and some factors that I didn't mention--and the truth is that the door is basically locked and has remained so after decades of court cases brought by one or another third party.

Seems almost a sense of hopelessness and despair~a fixed system with little chance of change..as though the "system" enjoys it the way it is...easier for them to control and manipulate.

 

[Albion]

Seems almost a sense of hopelessness and despair~a fixed system with little chance of change..as though the "system" enjoys it the way it is...easier for them to control and manipulate.

I don't know how to respond to the despair part of that, but it is a fact that the two parties unofficially work together to prevent all third parties from being successful. The examples of how they do that are almost endless. As an aside, I was thinking about this just this morning when the TV was reporting, with satisfaction, on the many persons who ran for office in Iraq just the other day--in hundreds of different parties. We who consider ourselves the model of democracy would never allow that level of democracy to operate here at home, obviously...and that IS sad IMO.

 

[GregorytheGood]

...BUT... -Huckabee / Jendal would be about as far from Jesus Christ as you could get.
...is that how you want it?

 

[GregorytheGood]

Pro-War, Anti-Earth, Pro-Hate, Anti-Unity
....not Christian

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

...BUT... -Huckabee / Jendal would be about as far from Jesus Christ as you could get.
...is that how you want it?

The pro-life Christian minister from Arkansas (Huckabee) is far from Jesus, but the party that promotes abortion and homosexual marriage (Democrats) is close to Jesus, is that what you're saying? Well alrighty then: Everyone who agrees with that please stand on your head

 

[JustAsIam77]

The pro-life Christian minister from Arkansas (Huckabee) is far from Jesus, but the party that promotes abortion and homosexual marriage (Democrats) is close to Jesus, is that what you're saying? Well alrighty then: Everyone who agrees with that please stand on your head

Very well stated.

 

[Nadiine]

Pro-War, Anti-Earth, Pro-Hate, Anti-Unity
....not Christian

anti unity............ God is anti unity with evil /the world.

So..... be sure to define what we're to "unite" with. I assure you,
I'm not called to unite with those who promote evil & anti Christ
agendas last I checked my bible.