Compulsory voting is a good thing.

i do not think third party candidates are a good thing, even with establishment candidates government is inefficient.

if you put a radical socialist like sanders in government, the government will not move an inch as both parties rebel and that would be bad for the people.

only a tyrant can put an end to tyranny, and the way government is set up it would serve their interest for the time being until the people settle down

 

Why would it really make a difference. Let's look at the last let's select a new puppet event. The Green Party proposed a candidate that was almost as socialist as Bernie. So what would have changed, worse then King Donald with more socialist programs on forced medical and adding free education. Stealing from one to give to another is morally wrong, so why does this solve the problem.

And then their was reformed Red team player, the blathering idiot Gary Johnson that had an election strategy of he would be elected because so many people hated King Donald and Hitlerly. And people would be ok with this guy being chief magistrate?

I not longer blame the sick psychopaths that want to rule the world as much as the sick slaves that want them to rule.

Seriously, please explain to me the difference between the red team or blue team. First the red team is in power, then the blue team but nothing really changes except a new chief divider. They both belong to the same owners with unlimited supplies of money. So why do they care that some splinter group takes off some minute part of the vote, they still win. Trump is the closest any will ever get to having a third party as chief magistrate. But truthfully, still all you have got is a psychopath equally hated by both teams.

And how would any of those be any different?

How about just not voting and being free?

 

There is a lot of interesting stuff in this thread, which I have only scanned. For the moment, I will just answer this question with a promise to speak to broader issues later. Work calls me. And the answer is....... Martin 'O Malley from Maryland. I ended up stuck voting for Sanders in the Oregon Primary as Hillary's only opponent, and hoping Hillary beat Trump while I cast the vote for a man I knew could never win either the primary or the general as a way to protest the fact I had no realistic choice in this process at all. Practically speaking, there was no Democratic party nomination process at all past Iowa because there was only one real Democrat on the ballot for the other 49 contests.

 

The question is, how does one give third parties a fair shot without violating the constitution or adding an amendment? I would love to see it made that if one can’t or couldn’t vote for an office, one couldn’t donate to those running for that office. There was 50 million dollars spent on Georgia’s congressional 6 special election, 47 million came from out of state. Talk about election interference. People in California trying to buy a house seat in Georgia.


I’ve always thought for a third party to become viable it has to start at the grass roots level. Not top down as was the case with Perot whom I worked for. One needs to start with city councils and mayors, county commissions, state legislatures. After all it is the state legislatures that write the election laws for that state. Once successful at the local level, move on to the statewide level. Governors, Secretary of State, U.S. Senators and House members etc. Finally, the presidency. If a party can’t win at the local and state level, what makes them think they can win the presidency? Ranked voting might help a bit, I don’t know. But without money, I really don’t see it making a huge difference. Although I would be willing to give it a try. The fact is we live in a two party monopoly and those who control the monopoly also write our election laws and have all the money or organization.


One thing at the presidential level I would like to see is an adjustment in how electoral votes are awarded. Nebraska and Maine gave me the idea. I have no problem with winner take all in the electoral college if a candidate receives 50% plus one vote. But if no candidate receives the required 50% plus one, award the electoral votes of a state via the winner of the congressional districts with the plurality winner of the state getting the 2 electoral votes for senators.


Holding their nose voters. They had a chance to vote for Gary Johnson last year, he was on all 50 state ballots. Jill Stein was on 30 I think. I voted for Johnson last year. No holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. According to Gallup 25% of all Americans disliked both Clinton and Trump. Yet third parties received just 6% of the total vote. That 25% had the opportunity to vote their convictions or their likes or against the ones they disliked, yet the vast majority didn’t.


I have another idea, any presidential candidate on enough state ballots to reach 270 electoral votes, the number needed to win ought to be included in the first presidential debate. Then for the second debate, any candidate on enough state ballots to obtain 400 electoral votes and the final debate, on all 50 state ballots.


No one knew who Gary Johnson was outside of us political junkies. Being in the first debate along with Jill Stein would have given both needed national exposure and that could have been a game changer.

For me voting for Johnson was a meaningful vote. It registered by dislikes of both Trump and Clinton. If the presidential election was like the Louisiana jungle primaries I would have ranked the candidates thusly.


1. Jim Webb

2. John Kasich

3. Marco Rubio

4. Gary Johnson

5. Bobby Jindal

6. Rick Perry

7. Bernie Sanders

8. Martin O’Malley

9. Bill Weld

10. Darrel Castle


I have no use for any others. Trump and Clinton wouldn’t be ranked or on my ballot. That is for sure.

 

I haven't voted lately. I find it a waste of time, anxiety inducing, and one vote is pretty insignificant even in local elections. It really makes no difference and I can deal with whoever people elect. There is no perfect candidate and it's often choosing between the lesser of two evils. I saw Trump and Hillary as equally bad choices and equally likely to estrange myself from half the family with either choice. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy discussing the issues though.

 

Didn't read the whole thing, sorry I'm a bit drunk, haven't been here for a bit. I would, and did, cast my vote for Gary Johnson. I'd never unilaterally appoint the next president and would use such power to get a public vote going (or just appoint myself, I mean who knows my politics better than me, though I feel such a move would be immoral, as would giving me full choice of candidate to run the US). He's not everything I want, no one is, but he's better than Trump or Hilldog which was the unfortunate choice the DNC left us. That's a whole other issue though...

EDIT: Same time as I say it would be immoral, moral people rarely get **** done unfortunately. Ghandi, Mother Therisa, and plenty more I can misspell are examples. Know who the nicest man who ever lived was? Exactly, no one does.

 

Explain why more people voted for Clinton than the Orange Fuhrer

 

My apologies to you, I wasn't trying to disagree per se, but to point out that there is a vast amount of information about us out there, and that such contact can come from any of it.

 

We already have compulsory voting of sorts. If you want to maintain your entitlements (at least 1/3 of government spending) you must vote Democratic.

 

Corporations, the Oil industry and Agribusiness do just fine keeping theirs and they don't vote. Republicans do it for them though so your point is taken after all.

 

Explain why democrat governor will not provide voter list to the republicans if all of the "voters" were entitled to vote and only voted once. Since only the democrats profit from with holding this information, it makes it rather curious.

 

I've stated this opinion before and don't see it changing anytime soon. I don't believe many people will vote for a third party candidate because they feel they can't win. I believe most people have a psychological desire to be able to say "I picked the winner". Even if all of the "realistic" candidates (people like the vermin guy don't count) that ran would have been known to all I still don't think Johnson/Weld or Stein would have won simply because people would have believed they didn't have a chance and not voted for them.

Before I provide my list I want to point out that if ever given this power I would refuse and deffer to the current Constitutional framework we have. I believe it is the best system to represent all of the people in the United States. Best system I know of that gives as best as possible equal representation between the rural and metropolitan areas of the country. If given the option I would change the election and campaign finance rules though.

As to the list, I truthfully know little about anyone not on the ballot or part of the two major parties. I'm in the middle, but I lean right, so the only Democrat I would have voted for would have been Webb, based on the little I know about him. I would not have voted for Hillary and I didn't vote for Trump.

1. Rand Paul (He's still showing what I think it takes to be a good President)
2. Even McMullin (I don't truly know that much about him and much of that info is gone now, but at the time I was hearing things I liked)
3. Gary Johnson (Goofy, but to be honest I was voting for Weld more than Johnson)
4. Marco Rubio
5. Carly Fiorina (I thought she had some good ideas, and I felt like her tenure at HP showed she had thick skin)

 

And throw out the ones they don't want.

 

Actually, 44 states refused to provide that information and most states have a Republican governor.

 

BZZZT Wrong!

Voting is a right that pertains to citizens of the USA.

Like ALL rights, including 2A, it can be REGULATED accordingly and includes denying inmates their right to vote. However without a valid reason no state can deny a citizen their right to vote.

 

(((((((((Sigh)))))))))))

This is why you need preferrential voting. With today's computers there is no reason why not

 

But. But but D!!!!

You think too much like an Aussie mate!! One of the differences I have noticed between American politics and Australian is we view ANY incumbent in parliament as being a possible TWONK whom we will happily vote out if they do not perform as WE want them to

 

The extreme polarization has been gradually happening over the last couple of decades. It began with the Religious Right and went downhill from there. Plenty of politicians on both sides took advantage of the "politics of personal destruction" so it wasn't only one side to blame. The rhetoric escalated and you probably know all too well how easy it is for that to happen even in a forum like PF. On the national scale there simply weren't any "moderators" to maintain "civil discourse". The voices of sanity were "primaried" out of the GOP and the Dems were left with no one across the aisle willing to compromise.

That said there is still hope for our nation. The failed dogma of Libertarianism was imposed on the state of Kansas turning the economy into a basket case. It was plunging ever further downwards when women in the KS state legislature reached out to each other across the aisle. They reached a consensus that the only way to save their state was to come up with an inclusive compromise that gathered together moderates from both parties, male and female. They drew up short lists of priorities and ultimately succeeded in overturning the odious and failed Libertarian agenda and setting the state back on track.

Would compulsory voting have made a difference? I don't know to be brutally frank.

But a middle of the road third party they held the balance of power in the legislature could well have avoided what the good citizens of Kansas were forced to endure. The same would apply at the federal level IMO. Voters do need a "safe haven" when the noise levels from either side reach bedlam levels. That should be viable third parties who have seats in Congress.

Right now I see our nation dragging itself through the political sewers stirring up all of the bottom feeders. We the People deserve better but in order to do so we must take our fate into our own hands in the same way that it happened in Kansas. While it is receiving little media attention there are citizens who are dissatisfied enough with the current status quo that they are preparing themselves to run for office and many others who are working behind the scenes to make that a reality.

While it is true that 80% of incumbents are reelected to Congress it takes far fewer than 20% to flip it over. Even the "landslide" of the GOP in 2014 was a mere 14.5% and the Dems would only need to win 5.5% to retake control which is just 24 seats. With the Senate just 3% is needed.

2018 and 2020 are going to be interesting to watch because We the People are not sitting back and allowing the polarization to continue without taking actions. Granted it might be late in the game but it is happening and that is a good thing IMO.

 

I disagree as an Australian. I see this as a violation of my right to vote.

I wish to object to the process entirely by abstaining from voting. I should be able to. Forcing me to vote for one of many options I detest is authoritarian and an abuse of state power.

The state is not entitled to my opinion. Kindly **** off. I just want to be left alone.

 

We are forced to do many things in the "first" world. Swings and roundabouts.

 

I HATE ROUNDABOUTS!

They're popping up like mushrooms in my area.

 

Making you dizzy?