• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Americans Want Less Spending, More Independents in Congress in 2014

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
lessspending.jpg

Three-quarters of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing and 57 percent say the country is headed in the wrong direction. With so much dissatisfaction, the new Reason-Rupe poll finds 38 percent of Americans would like to see more independent and third-party candidates win congressional seats in the 2014 midterms, 31 percent prefer more Democrats and 23 percent of Americans would like more Republicans elected next year.

No matter who is elected to Congress, Reason-Rupe finds 54 percent of Americans want the federal government to spend less money next year, 23 percent favor spending the same amount as this year and 16 percent would like to increase federal spending next year.

Emily Ekins|Jun. 11, 2013 2:54 pm

Americans Want Less Spending, More Independents in Congress in 2014 - Hit & Run : Reason.com
 
My goodness! Reason.com found a poll to support the exact platform that they endorse! Say it ain't so!

Seriously, what are we supposed to debate here? Most everyone wants less partisanship and less wasteful spending. How about we stop electing people whose sole platform is "stop the other side", and stop electing people who want to give big tax breaks and subsidies to big corporations and support war? That will accomplish a lot of those goals. How about we put federal money into better preventative care, rather than curative, and save a lot of money on medicare, since we'll all actually be healthier? It's easy to support slogans, but when it comes to actually doing the things necessary, Americans tend to fold pretty quickly.
 
My goodness! Reason.com found a poll to support the exact platform that they endorse! Say it ain't so!

Seriously, what are we supposed to debate here? Most everyone wants less partisanship and less wasteful spending. How about we stop electing people whose sole platform is "stop the other side", and stop electing people who want to give big tax breaks and subsidies to big corporations and support war? That will accomplish a lot of those goals. How about we put federal money into better preventative care, rather than curative, and save a lot of money on medicare, since we'll all actually be healthier? It's easy to support slogans, but when it comes to actually doing the things necessary, Americans tend to fold pretty quickly.

Exactly!! An anonymous poll is one thing, stick that person in a voting booth, staring at names they don't really know, and they are going to vote down party lines, just as they always do. Polls have been saying American's want more independent candidates for years, and yet traction for them rarely gets any further then your poll.
 
I think the key point here is that Americans are starting to realize that voting for the two party one agenda system no longer works.
 
I think the key point here is that Americans are starting to realize that voting for the two party one agenda system no longer works.

Good. If only they realized that a century ago. How about we try to adopt instant runoff voting so that it's much easier to support third parties?
 
Good. If only they realized that a century ago. How about we try to adopt instant runoff voting so that it's much easier to support third parties?

The best way to give third parties a chance would be to stop the media from posting election polls. All elections should be done blind.

That and give all candidates equal time.
 
The best way to give third parties a chance would be to stop the media from posting election polls. All elections should be done blind.

That and give all candidates equal time.

So, crippling the press is the best way? You think people would stop primarily voting for first party candidates merely because they don't know that everyone else plans to? And you think that people will just forget each new election that the main parties got most of the votes last time?

And all candidates? Even Vermin Supreme? How about Stephen Colbert? All candidates means equal time for every single person who declares that they are running.

How are these changes better than instant runoff voting?
 
So, crippling the press is the best way? You think people would stop primarily voting for first party candidates merely because they don't know that everyone else plans to? And you think that people will just forget each new election that the main parties got most of the votes last time?

And all candidates? Even Vermin Supreme? How about Stephen Colbert? All candidates means equal time for every single person who declares that they are running.

How are these changes better than instant runoff voting?

People vote for who ever is winning not who is best for the country and the media putting out results like it does is the reason why voting for anyone other than the two candidates they have vetted is just throwing your vote away. As long as it is done this way there will never be a break from the two party, one agenda system.

Yes all candidates, they all got the signatures needed to run did they not? If the pool is too large up the signature requirements.
 
People vote for who ever is winning not who is best for the country and the media putting out results like it does is the reason why voting for anyone other than the two candidates they have vetted is just throwing your vote away. As long as it is done this way there will never be a break from the two party, one agenda system.

Yes all candidates, they all got the signatures needed to run did they not? If the pool is too large up the signature requirements.

Okay, so all candidates that can appear on the ballot. That might be doable.

I think you are grossly mistaken with the notion that "people just vote for whoever is winning." If people think that an election is a done deal, they tend to either stay home or vote third party in protest. It is the ability to vote for other candidates without the fear of harming the major candidate that is closer to your position that will serve to get people to vote third party. In a race between a centrist Democrat that only kinda supports things I want and a hardline Tea Partier, even if there is a perfect socialist candidate, I risk the Tea Partier winning if I don't support the Democrat. No part of that decision has anything to do with who I think is winning, but rather if it seems close. Now, why should I be denied that information? I would be making a less informed decision and hurting my own political interests. The result of this blindness is that those who are more willing to deviate from the main candidates will be punished and the hardline partisans who wouldn't ever consider deviating will get their way even more. Having to blindly guess whether or not voting for your preferred third party will help the other first party candidate only harms those who would want to vote third party.
 
Okay, so all candidates that can appear on the ballot. That might be doable.

I think you are grossly mistaken with the notion that "people just vote for whoever is winning." If people think that an election is a done deal, they tend to either stay home or vote third party in protest. It is the ability to vote for other candidates without the fear of harming the major candidate that is closer to your position that will serve to get people to vote third party. In a race between a centrist Democrat that only kinda supports things I want and a hardline Tea Partier, even if there is a perfect socialist candidate, I risk the Tea Partier winning if I don't support the Democrat. No part of that decision has anything to do with who I think is winning, but rather if it seems close. Now, why should I be denied that information? I would be making a less informed decision and hurting my own political interests. The result of this blindness is that those who are more willing to deviate from the main candidates will be punished and the hardline partisans who wouldn't ever consider deviating will get their way even more. Having to blindly guess whether or not voting for your preferred third party will help the other first party candidate only harms those who would want to vote third party.

I get what your saying, what I am trying to do is get people to vote for who they believe is the best person for the job rather than using their vote to ensure the lesser of two evils gets elected and a blind vote is the only real way to do that.
 
I get what your saying, what I am trying to do is get people to vote for who they believe is the best person for the job rather than using their vote to ensure the lesser of two evils gets elected and a blind vote is the only real way to do that.

No, it's not. It's just further empowering the blind partisans who don't care about anything other than party lines. What would actually help is a ballot where you rank candidates and have instant runoff voting. That way a person really can vote for a third party without risking empowering the other side.
 
View attachment 67148796

Three-quarters of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing and 57 percent say the country is headed in the wrong direction. With so much dissatisfaction, the new Reason-Rupe poll finds 38 percent of Americans would like to see more independent and third-party candidates win congressional seats in the 2014 midterms, 31 percent prefer more Democrats and 23 percent of Americans would like more Republicans elected next year.

No matter who is elected to Congress, Reason-Rupe finds 54 percent of Americans want the federal government to spend less money next year, 23 percent favor spending the same amount as this year and 16 percent would like to increase federal spending next year.

Emily Ekins|Jun. 11, 2013 2:54 pm

Americans Want Less Spending, More Independents in Congress in 2014 - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Of course Americans want less spending by the federal government.

But good luck trying to get a consensus on what Americans will be willing to spend less money on.
 
No, it's not. It's just further empowering the blind partisans who don't care about anything other than party lines. What would actually help is a ballot where you rank candidates and have instant runoff voting. That way a person really can vote for a third party without risking empowering the other side.

How about "None of the above" as an option?
 
The best way to give third parties a chance would be to stop the media from posting election polls. All elections should be done blind.

That and give all candidates equal time.

Nope.

The best way is to institute a voting system which allows multiple parties to be viable. Instant run-off voting being one of them. Another is a two-round ballot system.

If we have a plurality voting system - in which the candidate who gets a plurality of votes but not necessarily a majority - inherently causes a two-party system to emerge. This is because such a system avoids spoiler candidates. And is a principle in political science known as Duverger's Law.

Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Nope.

The best way is to institute a voting system which allows multiple parties to be viable.

How exactly would that work? We have multiple parties now but the MSM only supports two parties and in effect forces the voters to either "throw their vote away" or vote to prevent the lesser of two evils. I am not following how that would be any different given the MSM's influence over the election. Ron Paul was black listed to the point that if he won second in any election they would only cover first and third. For example.
 
How exactly would that work? We have multiple parties now but the MSM only supports two parties and in effect forces the voters to either "throw their vote away" or vote to prevent the lesser of two evils. I am not following how that would be any different given the MSM's influence over the election. Ron Paul was black listed to the point that if he won second in any election they would only cover first and third. For example.

And yet lots of people were still talking about him, even if cable news didn't want to. You are grossly overestimating the influence of cable news' ability to make or break a third party candidate. Besides, the examples you're giving are for primaries, which have nothing to do with actual elections. The DNC and RNC are private organizations (with way too much power) and can vote any way they like. An instant runoff system would have allowed Ron Paul to run as an independent and make a reasonable show. His supporters would not have had to make the decision to "hold their nose and vote for Romney" as so many on this board said they would do. In the current system, you either get your first choice or nothing. Instant runoff allows a voter's second choice to make a difference.
 
How exactly would that work? We have multiple parties now but the MSM only supports two parties and in effect forces the voters to either "throw their vote away" or vote to prevent the lesser of two evils. I am not following how that would be any different given the MSM's influence over the election. Ron Paul was black listed to the point that if he won second in any election they would only cover first and third. For example.

It would work because it would allow third-party members a chance within the political process to get elected to office.

Right now, the way that plurality voting works is that whoever gets the most votes - but not necessarily the majority of votes - wins the election.

But let's say that you have an area where 35% of the people are Democrats, 25% of the people are Republicans, 30% of the people are Libertarians, and 10% of the people are Greens.

Under a plurality election system a Democratic politician will represent those people despite the Democrats being in the clear minority.

But with an instant run-off voting system or a two-round voting system there are more options.

In an IRV system, candidates can be ranked. Which means that those ballots which don't have a clear majority would then go to the next ranked person.

Which means that those 25% of Republicans would likely rank the Libertarian candidate as second and so they would be added to the 30% of the Libertarian votes and form a clear majority of 55%. Which means that the elected official would be more representative of the people than if the plurality of 35% which are Democrats represented them.

Same for the two-round method. The Democratic candidate and the Libertarian candidate, having the two largest pluralities, would go on to the final round and all the constituents would then vote for which they prefer.

This reform in process will do far, far more to allow multiple parties to be viable than any regulation of the mainstream media ever could.
 
Follow-up question: which programs would you prefer cutting?
-Watch the divisions gather.
 
This poll could have been given at any point during the last 100 years and I suspect yyou'd have seen not completly unsimilar results.

The problem is that Americans want other peoople to elect independents and they want other peoples' representatives to stop brining home so much pork in order to bring the spending down.

By way of example, the 2012 Congressional (House) midterm elections were held on November 6th.

The previous month Congress had a 13% approval rating.

During that election 393 incumbents stood for reelection.

358 were reelected.

81% of Americans disapproved of the job Congress was doing, and then turned around and sent 91% of the scumbags back to Washington.
 
Follow-up question: which programs would you prefer cutting?
-Watch the divisions gather.

I would be for cutting any and all programs not specifically authorized by the 18 enumerated powers.
 
I want more independents in Congress for sure. However, when it comes to the budget, I mostly just want us to pay for what we spend, and for us to prioritize more effectively.
 
I would be for cutting any and all programs not specifically authorized by the 18 enumerated powers.

Oh that will be easily summarized, argued for, and executed. :roll:
 
View attachment 67148796

Three-quarters of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing and 57 percent say the country is headed in the wrong direction. With so much dissatisfaction, the new Reason-Rupe poll finds 38 percent of Americans would like to see more independent and third-party candidates win congressional seats in the 2014 midterms, 31 percent prefer more Democrats and 23 percent of Americans would like more Republicans elected next year.

No matter who is elected to Congress, Reason-Rupe finds 54 percent of Americans want the federal government to spend less money next year, 23 percent favor spending the same amount as this year and 16 percent would like to increase federal spending next year.

Emily Ekins|Jun. 11, 2013 2:54 pm

Americans Want Less Spending, More Independents in Congress in 2014 - Hit & Run : Reason.com
:yawn:

Uh huh. Sorry, but I'm skeptical. Pretty much most Americans have long thought spending is too high... except the spending they benefit from. Pretty much most Americans have long thought Congress should be switched up... except their particular representative who brings home the pork.

For all the pissing and moaning, I predict the 2014 elections will shake out like normal... 90%+ incumbent re-election.
 
Follow-up question: which programs would you prefer cutting?
-Watch the divisions gather.

Answer: The ones that don't give me stuff.



"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
 
Back
Top Bottom