Gary Johnson

[poweRob]

Well for Gary Johnson to get into the debates he has to garner 15% in at least 5 nationwide polls... Here's the rub... the nationwide polling companies won't put him in their polls.

Here is Rasmussen making excuses as to why they won't put him on their polls:

(Rasmussen) Our View of the Third Party Option in Presidential Polling​

Here is PPP making tweets mocking the Johnson campaign trying to get on the PPP polling:

(PPP) Polling organization’s cheeky tweet angers Gary Johnson supporters​

Getting really tired of the obvious two party oppression of third party candidates. Before the election they constantly carp about how third parties aren't relevant enough to be included in the debates then after the election, blame the entire outcome of the election on how relevant they were in being a spoiler.

 

[justabubba]

Perhaps the reason that they are starting to lean right is because they really are not happy?

i have offered the cite to the most current happiness index saying they are
you are welcome to offer information which refutes those findings

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

i have offered the cite to the most current happiness index saying they are
you are welcome to offer information which refutes those findings

Conclusion
To measure well-being and progress adequately in our rapidly changing societies requires new approaches.
Subjective well-being measurement is one of these approaches, but there is also a need to supplement these
measures with already existing objective measures. Despite the significant step forward that has been made,
ONS does not believe that subjective well-being estimates alone provide the whole answer. They will need to
be considered against other more traditional socio-economic indicators appropriate for measuring National
Well-being. The interaction between more objective indicators and subjective well-being ratings is important,
not least because people’s experiences do not necessarily tie up with the objective measures. Although they
may correlate in ways we may expect on the whole, the divergence between objective and subjective measures
illustrates the importance of this kind of information as a complement to the objective approach for making
a full assessment of the well-being of the nation." http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Sachs Writing/2012/World Happiness Report.pdf

In other words their little happiness index is worthless subjective bull.

 

[Zyphlin]

Well for Gary Johnson to get into the debates he has to garner 15% in at least 5 nationwide polls... Here's the rub... the nationwide polling companies won't put him in their polls.

Here is Rasmussen making excuses as to why they won't put him on their polls:

(Rasmussen) Our View of the Third Party Option in Presidential Polling​

Here is PPP making tweets mocking the Johnson campaign trying to get on the PPP polling:

(PPP) Polling organization’s cheeky tweet angers Gary Johnson supporters​

Getting really tired of the obvious two party oppression of third party candidates. Before the election they constantly carp about how third parties aren't relevant enough to be included in the debates then after the election, blame the entire outcome of the election on how relevant they were in being a spoiler.

PPP's tweet is dumb but...then again, TWITTER is generally filled with dumb people saying dumb things. Not an excuse, just my annoyance with twitter in general.

What needs to happen is a concerted effort of people picking the 3rd generic option over the other two. If you get enough people doing that then it begins to stand to reason to start including polls to see if its largely due to support of a specific individual.

While I absolutely like Johnson, it'd be a waste of resources to involve ever 3rd party candidate on such polls and if you don't involve every one then it becomes a "how do you do it".

That said....I think the standard for those polling companies should be to list every candidate whose name is on all 50 states ballots. If you make it on every states ballot then you should be included in the polls. I don't know if Johnson qualifies under such a thing, but that's my general thinking of some kind of clear standard to be added to the polls. Heck, actually, I'd say if you get on the ballot of every state that may be a better method of deciding if you should get to attend the debates or not.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I am for all of those things. how do you expect to get any of them in a second obama term?

We're about as likely to get them in a second Obama term as we are in a first Romney term.

Voting Libertarian is voting for ideals. It is registering a protest vote for a platform that neither party endorses. It is a vote to support certain principles in the future.

 

[poweRob]

PPP's tweet is dumb but...then again, TWITTER is generally filled with dumb people saying dumb things. Not an excuse, just my annoyance with twitter in general.

What needs to happen is a concerted effort of people picking the 3rd generic option over the other two. If you get enough people doing that then it begins to stand to reason to start including polls to see if its largely due to support of a specific individual.

While I absolutely like Johnson, it'd be a waste of resources to involve ever 3rd party candidate on such polls and if you don't involve every one then it becomes a "how do you do it".

That said....I think the standard for those polling companies should be to list every candidate whose name is on all 50 states ballots. If you make it on every states ballot then you should be included in the polls. I don't know if Johnson qualifies under such a thing, but that's my general thinking of some kind of clear standard to be added to the polls. Heck, actually, I'd say if you get on the ballot of every state that may be a better method of deciding if you should get to attend the debates or not.

Well one of the standards for getting into the debates would be a fair standard for getting on the polls which is if you qualify for ballot access in enough states to mathmatically be able to win the electoral vote... then I think you should be in the polls. Not only for fairness in acheiving the other debate standard which is 15% in national polls, but also because these folks will be on the ballot and draw percentages in the general election which, it would seem, that polls without those who will be there in the general, pretty much means nothing at all because they are innacurate garbage.

 

[Ikari]

While I absolutely like Johnson, it'd be a waste of resources to involve ever 3rd party candidate on such polls and if you don't involve every one then it becomes a "how do you do it".

Top 5 parties compete. You can make up tie breaking rules which can eventually come down to flipping a coin if necessary.

Wasn't that hard to include more, now was it?

 

[Zyphlin]

Top 5 parties compete. You can make up tie breaking rules which can eventually come down to flipping a coin if necessary.

Wasn't that hard to include more, now was it?

Sure it is. Because party 6 is going to complain just like many libertarians do now. Why would their complaints of not being included, being "black balled by the big 5 parties" and on and on be any less legitimate, serious, and problematic then what libertarians are doing now.

Ultimately whatever the cut off is is going to be an arbitrary one where the last one on the outside looking in is going to have a legitimate gripe and bitch about why THEY are not included when others are. The only difference is that since the people griping now would be included they no longer see it as an issue.

 

[Blue_State]

Sure it is. Because party 6 is going to complain just like many libertarians do now. Why would their complaints of not being included, being "black balled by the big 5 parties" and on and on be any less legitimate, serious, and problematic then what libertarians are doing now.

Ultimately whatever the cut off is is going to be an arbitrary one where the last one on the outside looking in is going to have a legitimate gripe and bitch about why THEY are not included when others are. The only difference is that since the people griping now would be included they no longer see it as an issue.

I am a fan of the 5 party ruling as well. I think the overall political picture for Americans would be better. The vast majority of Americans would have a party they associate with. Currently, 69% of the population identifies themselves as democrat or republican. Partisan Trends - Rasmussen Reports™. That means almost 1/3 of Americans are not represented by a party. Adding additional parties will increase the amount of representation of the American public.

 

[Ikari]

Sure it is. Because party 6 is going to complain just like many libertarians do now. Why would their complaints of not being included, being "black balled by the big 5 parties" and on and on be any less legitimate, serious, and problematic then what libertarians are doing now.

Ultimately whatever the cut off is is going to be an arbitrary one where the last one on the outside looking in is going to have a legitimate gripe and bitch about why THEY are not included when others are. The only difference is that since the people griping now would be included they no longer see it as an issue.

Yes, but obviously those complaints don't have to be heard as they aren't now, and 5 is better than 2. There will never be the "big 5 parties", the system is stable at 2, the rest will be smaller. But no reason to not have them compete. Sure it cannot be infinite, but it doesn't have to be 2 either. 5 maintains a reasonable level of candidates for functional debate while not preventing political competition.

 

[Tucker Case]

...and 5 is better than 2.

rof Not always. Especially when discussing testicles.

 

[Ikari]

rof Not always. Especially when discussing testicles.

Less it were a discussion of fertility.

 

[Tucker Case]

Less it were a discussion of fertility.

An odd number of testicles is always a bad thing.

 

[Ikari]

An odd number of testicles is always a bad thing.

touché


1234

 

[Zyphlin]

Yes, but obviously those complaints don't have to be heard as they aren't now, and 5 is better than 2. There will never be the "big 5 parties", the system is stable at 2, the rest will be smaller. But no reason to not have them compete. Sure it cannot be infinite, but it doesn't have to be 2 either. 5 maintains a reasonable level of candidates for functional debate while not preventing political competition.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see the 5 party notion...though I'd probably prefer 4 (I think debates can get really bogged down when you start adding a lot of people). It wasn't about what I'd prefer though. Could I see benefits for 4 or 5? Absolutely, and I'd likely prefer that option. But I can see the benefits suggested with 2 as well and while I may not agree I can understand feeling those are worth keeping it at primarily 2. I guess my point is that there's no perfect system that everyone is going to be happy with to get people into debates, and I simply don't think the complaints of the Libertarians are any more/less valid than any other complaints nor do I suggest that most of their solutions to it is any more/less valid than the notion we have in today. It would be different, and bettter in the eyes of some people and worse in the eyes of others...the primary difference being it'd be etter in the eyes of Libertarians so they'd like it more.

 

[Ikari]

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see the 5 party notion...though I'd probably prefer 4 (I think debates can get really bogged down when you start adding a lot of people). It wasn't about what I'd prefer though. Could I see benefits for 4 or 5? Absolutely, and I'd likely prefer that option. But I can see the benefits suggested with 2 as well and while I may not agree I can understand feeling those are worth keeping it at primarily 2. I guess my point is that there's no perfect system that everyone is going to be happy with to get people into debates, and I simply don't think the complaints of the Libertarians are any more/less valid than any other complaints nor do I suggest that most of their solutions to it is any more/less valid than the notion we have in today. It would be different, and bettter in the eyes of some people and worse in the eyes of others...the primary difference being it'd be etter in the eyes of Libertarians so they'd like it more.

I do not see a benefit of only allowing 2. In fact, for the continuation of the Republic I see it as a detriment and danger.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see the 5 party notion...though I'd probably prefer 4 (I think debates can get really bogged down when you start adding a lot of people). It wasn't about what I'd prefer though. Could I see benefits for 4 or 5? Absolutely, and I'd likely prefer that option. But I can see the benefits suggested with 2 as well and while I may not agree I can understand feeling those are worth keeping it at primarily 2. I guess my point is that there's no perfect system that everyone is going to be happy with to get people into debates, and I simply don't think the complaints of the Libertarians are any more/less valid than any other complaints nor do I suggest that most of their solutions to it is any more/less valid than the notion we have in today. It would be different, and bettter in the eyes of some people and worse in the eyes of others...the primary difference being it'd be etter in the eyes of Libertarians so they'd like it more.

If the Libertarian position were to be heard by more people, more would say, "Hey, that's what I thought all along!"

Then, if fewer people would base their votes on campaign commercials and party loyalty, we just might wind up with more than two parties sharing power.

 

[Zyphlin]

I do not see a benefit of only allowing 2. In fact, for the continuation of the Republic I see it as a detriment and danger.

Less choices makes it simpler and easier for the average voter to learn and digest information about the candidates in the race to make an educated and informed decision regarding the primary individuals in the field. Having only two individuals in a debate streamlines the debate, allows for longer discussion or more varied questions. Having primarily two major parties helps to assure that any winning candidate is likely to hold a majority, or near a majority, of the American publics votes assuring the appearance of a clear mandate to lead where as with multiple strong parties the chances of having someone win who the vast majority of American's didn't vote for increases.

You may think all those benefits are not as important or impactful as the negatives of the two party system...negatives that may even coincide with some of those positives...but I don't think your dislike of them invalidates them as potential benefits of the system anymore than peoples potential dislike of your reasoning behind a 5 party system invalidates yours. Ultimately it comes down to which benefits an individual finds more useful and worth while compared to the negatives.

To be honest, with your intelligence, the notion that you couldn't possibly think of any potential advantage of a 2 party system tells me you're in no way attempting to be honest or objective in your thinking. It's not hard to figure out some benefits of it, even if you feel those benefits ultimatley are outweighed by the cons.

 

[Ikari]

Less choices makes it simpler and easier for the average voter to learn and digest information about the candidates in the race to make an educated and informed decision regarding the primary individuals in the field. Having only two individuals in a debate streamlines the debate, allows for longer discussion or more varied questions. Having primarily two major parties helps to assure that any winning candidate is likely to hold a majority, or near a majority, of the American publics votes assuring the appearance of a clear mandate to lead where as with multiple strong parties the chances of having someone win who the vast majority of American's didn't vote for increases.

You may think all those benefits are not as important or impactful as the negatives of the two party system...negatives that may even coincide with some of those positives...but I don't think your dislike of them invalidates them as potential benefits of the system anymore than peoples potential dislike of your reasoning behind a 5 party system invalidates yours. Ultimately it comes down to which benefits an individual finds more useful and worth while compared to the negatives.

Those aren't benefits, those are restrictions on data, choice, and political competition. How is that a good thing? Particularly if you look at what has become of the "debates". You want to talk about how it's easier to ask questions and get answers, but without political competition, the Republocrats have been able to rig the system rather well. Not only keeping out those who could challenge, but also turning the entirety of the debates into nothing more than a puppet show, political kabuki theater. Which makes it even harder to ask "varied questions" when all the questions are chosen ahead of time, when they are screened so pre-formulated answers could be spouted off. So that's one of your "benefits" gone.

As for voting, well not even half of the eligible voters vote in our elections. If we say half do not vote, then the other half are split nearly 50/50 on Republican/Democrat then the "leader" is being chosen by 1/4 of the voting population anyway, so there's another benefit of yours gone. Perchance if the people had more choices, if they felt that they could affect the system, that there was a candidate for them, we could encourage greater numbers of people voting.

 

[AdamT]

I do not see a benefit of only allowing 2. In fact, for the continuation of the Republic I see it as a detriment and danger.

Sounds like you would prefer a parliamentary system, where multi-party rule is more of the norm.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Those aren't benefits, those are restrictions on data, choice, and political competition. How is that a good thing? Particularly if you look at what has become of the "debates". You want to talk about how it's easier to ask questions and get answers, but without political competition, the Republocrats have been able to rig the system rather well. Not only keeping out those who could challenge, but also turning the entirety of the debates into nothing more than a puppet show, political kabuki theater. Which makes it even harder to ask "varied questions" when all the questions are chosen ahead of time, when they are screened so pre-formulated answers could be spouted off. So that's one of your "benefits" gone.

As for voting, well not even half of the eligible voters vote in our elections. If we say half do not vote, then the other half are split nearly 50/50 on Republican/Democrat then the "leader" is being chosen by 1/4 of the voting population anyway, so there's another benefit of yours gone. Perchance if the people had more choices, if they felt that they could affect the system, that there was a candidate for them, we could encourage greater numbers of people voting.

Correct, and moreover, a substantial number of voters live in blue states or red states where the electoral votes are already understood to belong to one party or the other. Residents of such states are able to cast a protest vote, but their votes really don't count toward who is going to be the next president. That narrows down the number of voters whose votes count in a presidential election to a small percentage of the overall electorate.

And, in the Congressional elections, the incumbents have gerrymandered their districts to make sure that there is a high percentage of voters who belong to their party in their district, making it even more difficult for anyone else to run successfully.

The whole system needs to be overhauled, starting with the two party system.

 

[Tucker Case]

The main problem with democracy, even a representative democracy, is that it is decided on the whims of short-sighted idiots devoid of any cognitive complexity whatsoever.

The main benefit of a two-party democracy is that it narrows down the choices for those idiots. More than two choices would cause their already addled brains to explode altogether.

The sad fact is that the majority of people are ****ing idiots. Once you realize this, you'll understand that it doesn't matter if we have 2 parties or 200, it's always going to be the idiots who decide things. Every party will end up pandering to idiots.

/cynical dick mode

 

[Ikari]

Sounds like you would prefer a parliamentary system, where multi-party rule is more of the norm.

There are some things that are preferential for a parliamentary system. I don't know if I would go full out. I do understand that we are stable at 2 main parties, I just don't think that necessarily means we must accept the same 2 all the time.

Though I would like to see the President stand before Congress and defend his actions against aggressive questioning.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Though I would like to see the President stand before Congress and defend his actions against aggressive questioning.

That would be a good idea.

I'd also like to see congressmen stand before someone and defend their actions against aggressive questioning.

Perhaps by a coalition of reporters from MSNBC, FOX, AND CNN, in order to get a balance of philosophies.

 

[Kreton]

I know that Gary Johnson has no real chance of winning because most people, myself included, believe a 3rd party candidate has no chance. However, if Johnson can get 10%-15% of the vote then it is a win for the American political process. If Americans see that a political candidate other than D and R had a chance then that thought that only a D or R could diminish and really give a 3rd party a chance in the future.